Beyer increased

[Tom]

http://www.drf.com/news/unique-bella...sch-bumped-100

Unique Bella gets a 100 now.

Also, at Santa Anita, they are refurbishing the whole track right down to the cushion during the Del MAr break - times that have been sluggish might get back to normal, ie, faster come September.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tom

http://www.drf.com/news/unique-bella...sch-bumped-100

Unique Bella gets a 100 now.

Also, at Santa Anita, they are refurbishing the whole track right down to the cushion during the Del MAr break - times that have been sluggish might get back to normal, ie, faster come September.

Well the danger here is that California dirt racing surfaces got safer (down to numbers similar to what we had with synthetics) since they slowed them down.

I get the feeling there are some horsemen who don't care one bit about death rates-- they just want to see their horses run fast times.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Well the danger here is that California dirt racing surfaces got safer (down to numbers similar to what we had with synthetics) since they slowed them down.

I get the feeling there are some horsemen who don't care one bit about death rates-- they just want to see their horses run fast times.

I doubt horsemen really care about the time of the race if they are winning, I really don't. Didn't seem to phase Justify's connections this winter, just all the handicappers that use final time compared across years and decades.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

I doubt horsemen really care about the time of the race if they are winning, I really don't. Didn't seem to phase Justify's connections this winter, just all the handicappers that use final time compared across years and decades.

Well black type and Grade I's and TC races still mean everything. In those races few people care about a raw time.

But I suspect raw times mean a lot to claiming trainers at Santa Anita who have to explain to owners why their horse couldn't win a MCL20000 at 1 mile with a final time of 1:40 2/5.

[Tom]

Not if the trainers can read.
It is pretty obvious right there in the From.

I don't see how repairing the cushion, resurfacing and evening out the track will make it unsafer.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tom

Not if the trainers can read.
It is pretty obvious right there in the From.

I don't see how repairing the cushion, resurfacing and evening out the track will make it unsafer.

If it makes the track go back to its old speed, deaths will go up.

[Tom]

Why? The BASE will be better, the consistency will be better.
The track was used for 10 months. It was in terrible shape.
I would think injuries will go down with a more consistent surface.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tom

Why? The BASE will be better, the consistency will be better.
The track was used for 10 months. It was in terrible shape.
I would think injuries will go down with a more consistent surface.

There have only been 2 main track compositions in at least 25 years in California with low death rates- the current slow dirt, and synthetics. The faster dirt tracks we used to have produced carnage.

[JohnGalt1]

Originally Posted by cj

I doubt horsemen really care about the time of the race if they are winning, I really don't. Didn't seem to phase Justify's connections this winter, just all the handicappers that use final time compared across years and decades.

Remember the first year Del Mar ran on Polytrack and 6 furlong races were run at 1:13? And Early horses--which are predominant is So-Cal--mostly died in the stretch?

Baffert said he might have moved all his horses out of state because he hated Del Mar's track surface so much.

[cj]

Originally Posted by JohnGalt1

Remember the first year Del Mar ran on Polytrack and 6 furlong races were run at 1:13? And Early horses--which are predominant is So-Cal--mostly died in the stretch?

Baffert said he might have moved all his horses out of state because he hated Del Mar's track surface so much.

That was a different surface all together. It wasn't just times that were changing, the racing was dramatically different. I'm not seeing that on slower dirt.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by cj

That was a different surface all together. It wasn't just times that were changing, the racing was dramatically different. I'm not seeing that on slower dirt.

Just to confirm

66 dirt races, my designations may be slightly diff than say Bris but you get the gist

F 6 wins IV 1.48
E 21 wins IV 1.35
P 15 wins IV 0.85
S 13wins IV 1.02
R 0 wins 0.00
N 11 wins IV 0.96 (N is no style, so lots of FTS)+

When IV=1.0 you are talking about average, and IV is more important than ROI since there are multiple starters per race with the same style.

So shaded to front end speed but nothing crazy, one run dead arse closers though, R, have almost no chance.

[papillon]

Originally Posted by cj

I doubt horsemen really care about the time of the race if they are winning, I really don't. Didn't seem to phase Justify's connections this winter, just all the handicappers that use final time compared across years and decades.

Seriously?

If clocking races is irrelevant, so are you and all in your profession.

Anyone can determine who crosses the line first.

I've never seen such bullshit about times until this year where you get a crop where the number 2 horse has 85, 97, 99, 96, 98, where 100 is considered the mark of a good allowance horse. Even Haskin is doing it now.

Trainers don't care about time? Baffert was pissed off at Beyer for not giving AP high enough Beyers, because he wasn't running fast according to the clock. It bothered him so much that the first thing he said after the BCC was "Is that fast enough for you Andy?" Yet he never shut up about Arrogate's raw Travers time. When the times are fast they care, when they aren't they don't.

You sneer at anyone who even dares to consider the only other objective data from a race besides order of finish, but it is not like you don't have a pecuniary motivation to do so. No oracle in the history of man has liked objective data.

You want to know Justify's place in history? FS2 keeps showing, between races, a documentary on Dr. Fager being the fastest horse that ever lived and his 68 season the greatest of all time. It states he is far superior to Secretariat. Normally, the time filler doc would be the horse that just won the TC, but he's become passe before the door can even hit him in the ass. That they are wasting ad time on a horse that even many of the sport only vaguely know, who's been dead for decades is telling.

Justify's connections didn't care about his times, because it was financially in their interest to ignore them. Walden and Baffert would be screaming at the top of their longs about his times if they were even Game on Dudish. FS2 has restored the balance in the universe by restoring the importance of clock. It's very passive aggresive, but it's blatant nonetheless.

If the horses you like were dropping records left and right, you and your peanut gallery here wouldn't shut up about it. You just don't like to be questioned, and raw data will always results in questions, which is why all of the shaming. Your reputation depends on your ability to make people ashamed of respecting reality, above all. There are no coincidences in money, and as this site appears to be a Timeform site, that likely applies to the groupthink here also.

PaceAdvantage, would you have loved Holy Bull if he'd been running 1:50s and 2:04s and earning 85s, 96s, 98s?

When the competition runs 96-98 on average, the one running 100-103 on average, is going to win the TC, barring misfortune.If he'd been in Nyquist's crop, Justify would have been competing against a crop running the same 100-103 as he. No TC. And he'd have been demolished by Arrogate. And Chrome.

If the clock is bullshit, why not lobby to get rid of it?

[Tom]

If the clock is bullshit, why not lobby to get rid of it?

A lot ot tracks have already.
At lest, the times they report or fail to report would suggest that?

Do you feel better now?

You realize Beyers are not times, right?

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by papillon

Seriously?

If clocking races is irrelevant, so are you and all in your profession.

Anyone can determine who crosses the line first.

I've never seen such bullshit about times until this year where you get a crop where the number 2 horse has 85, 97, 99, 96, 98, where 100 is considered the mark of a good allowance horse. Even Haskin is doing it now.

Trainers don't care about time? Baffert was pissed off at Beyer for not giving AP high enough Beyers, because he wasn't running fast according to the clock. It bothered him so much that the first thing he said after the BCC was "Is that fast enough for you Andy?" Yet he never shut up about Arrogate's raw Travers time. When the times are fast they care, when they aren't they don't.

You sneer at anyone who even dares to consider the only other objective data from a race besides order of finish, but it is not like you don't have a pecuniary motivation to do so. No oracle in the history of man has liked objective data.

You want to know Justify's place in history? FS2 keeps showing, between races, a documentary on Dr. Fager being the fastest horse that ever lived and his 68 season the greatest of all time. It states he is far superior to Secretariat. Normally, the time filler doc would be the horse that just won the TC, but he's become passe before the door can even hit him in the ass. That they are wasting ad time on a horse that even many of the sport only vaguely know, who's been dead for decades is telling.

Justify's connections didn't care about his times, because it was financially in their interest to ignore them. Walden and Baffert would be screaming at the top of their longs about his times if they were even Game on Dudish. FS2 has restored the balance in the universe by restoring the importance of clock. It's very passive aggresive, but it's blatant nonetheless.

If the horses you like were dropping records left and right, you and your peanut gallery here wouldn't shut up about it. You just don't like to be questioned, and raw data will always results in questions, which is why all of the shaming. Your reputation depends on your ability to make people ashamed of respecting reality, above all. There are no coincidences in money, and as this site appears to be a Timeform site, that likely applies to the groupthink here also.

PaceAdvantage, would you have loved Holy Bull if he'd been running 1:50s and 2:04s and earning 85s, 96s, 98s?

When the competition runs 96-98 on average, the one running 100-103 on average, is going to win the TC, barring misfortune.If he'd been in Nyquist's crop, Justify would have been competing against a crop running the same 100-103 as he. No TC. And he'd have been demolished by Arrogate. And Chrome.

If the clock is bullshit, why not lobby to get rid of it?

I wouldn't call it complete group think. Although, there's a large group of them here. I guess you don't read my posts. I'll give Justify a 128, whatever the hell that means....because by next week they'll redact that too...…...

Plus, you can't sell objective data, especially in this day and age. If people can't bitch and debate over it......you can't sell it. Heck, selling data means you don't have to pick winners.

I actually read the PP's and the only figure I actually look at is the pace fig. I want to know whose on the engine and how the race will likely go. That final fig is not objective at all in many, many races. Plus, here, at Saratoga, there are class edges left and right if one can actually read the program. People are so desperate to win they sneak horses down in class with dirtied up form. Sometimes they want to win so badly, they don't even enter a horse like that......they just drop them in.


I don't use any of that crap and I am having a banner meet so far. But you can't say that around here. They'll hate you for it. I am very objective, that's my secret....but we are in times where being objective......is a four letter word. Even when handicapping a horse race. They argue over horses that rarely pay over 5 bucks....wow he's fast. How in the world do people make money in a game like this with horses like that? Been doing this for 40 years and a long time ago I figured out...….YOU DON'T! If you can be objective and read the form...…..you are light years ahead of this "puke of numbers."

[pandy]

I googled Santa Anita track resurfacing and all I get is old articles. Is this for certain? I just hope that Santa Anita doesn't go back to the speed bias. The track plays fairly now. And before any resurfacing is done, the breakdown stats should be carefully analyzed and compared to past meets. If breakdowns are low, the track should be maintained, not completely resurfaced.