cigar mile

[davidrex]

  Damn mushrooms!...lets\' try this again.

Other forum had a Rule by Reason author that handicapped The Mile, and thee last 3#s he wrote down for Purge were ...11 1/4...9 1/2....4 1/4

T.G. has 1 1/2...0...-4


Somethin ain\'t square....eight points in first two and 10 for the last !...no wonder he paid $50.00.

[richiebee]

TGJB:

    Thanks for publishing the Cigar numbers. As always, a great learning tool and a great read.

    I didn\'t jump into the \"More Importantly\" pool (eliminating negative #s) because I thought it was important that you hear from customers who have been with your product for years, who have watched the \"zero barrier\" being broken, who have watched the ascent into negativity.

    Of the 11 entrants in the Cigar, 7 had visited negative territory. The number which follows each of the animals names is the number of negatives run/ the number of races for which a TG was assigned.

    Bailero (3/20), Badge of Silver (4/11), Purge (2/14), Mass Media (4/17), GYGISTAR (16/28) (wow), Silver Wagon (4/7),Value Plus (2/13). Total 35/110.

    Gygistar. Wow. 28 TG #s assigned, 16 negative efforts. And this is a gelding who will probably be best remembered for his back to back wins in the Westchester H. Not a criticism, just an observation.

    I think your voice needs to be heard in Arizona more than we need a ROTW. How strong was the \"under(card)tow\" at AQ Saturday?  

[TGJB]

Richie-- at a quick look I saw 3 negatives for Purge, only 2 for Bailero, but not sure what the relevence is. Also, what undertow?

If I go to Arizona, it won\'t be to speak. After the stress of Vegas last year, there ain\'t enough antacid on the planet.

In case it wasn\'t clear, the Cigar figures David quoted were TG vs. Ragozin, reading backwards (most recent first).

[richiebee]

TGJB:

    Undertow was a poor play on words with \"undercard\". On this board I have seen numerous references to watching how certain \"move up trainer\'s\" animals performed in the early part of the card. I guess the implication is that there is some sort of pharmaceutical bias on a particular day.

    Was there a point in my observation, or relevance? Just that horses who are good, but not great, are running negative numbers frequently. I prefaced my remark by saying that I didn\'t have the greatest perspective in that I have been using the TGs for only a little more than a year, and that others with a longer history of use might better comment on negativity.

    IMO, horses at the top levels will continue to run faster on performance figure scales because they will be relatively lightly raced compared to horses of previous years. Brilliant speed, not durability, seems to make for a desirable stallion these days.

    Hypothetical ? Lets say that the average number of starts for every runner in the US is in the range of 8 - 9 starts per year. Do you think there would be a shift on the performance scale (would horses in general get \"faster\"?) if 8-9 starts became 6-7 starts?

    In re Arizona, you don\'t have to speak at a podium for your voice to be heard-- and bring your golf clubs.

[bobphilo]

Rich,

Interesting theory, that since just a few brilliant performances are what trainers are going for, there could be a correlation between fewer starts and higher figures. My first reaction was that a more likely explanation would be the use of drugs, but I can see that the two explanations are not incompatible. Since drugs, especially analgesics, can cause a horse to run through its limitations of pain and injury, they have to spend more time on the shelf to recuperate, or retire due to injury. The harder you squeeze the lemon, the sooner you run out of juice.

Bob

[TGJB]

Guys-- why does it have to be just one thing? As I said in \"Are Racehorses Getting Faster\" (archive section), there are a lot of things going on.

Just keep in mind when you are looking at this that harness horses have gotten a WHOLE lot faster over the last 25 years. As I showed in that piece, they cut their times by over 3% from 1980 to 2003-- comparable improvement for thoroughbreds would be about 11 TG points over the same period, or about twice what I have them improving.

[NoCarolinaTony]

I would have thought it would have been an even more significant improvement than that. It used to be 2:00 mile on a half mile track and now even cheap horses run 1:58 and average ones 1:55 and Good ones 1:52 (on a half). At the Big M the track record used to be 1:54 now its at 1:47.

As an old Betting cronie used to say \"It\'s in the Blood....\"

NC Tony

[beyerguy]

I know this has been mentioned, but some of the improvement in harness horses has to do with the equipment, which I don\'t believe is possible with T-breds.  I\'m not saying all, but certainly a decent percentage.

[TGJB]

Beyerguy-- If you are talking about the modified sulky, that came in the mid to late 70s.

the standard-bred is a much newer breed. it probably has had more room for improvement due to selective breeding in recent decades.

http://www.mrmike.com/explore/hrhist.htm

[beyerguy]

Yes, the sulky, but it keeps improving.  Also, artificial insemination has to help as well.