ROTW & Belmont

[shanahan]

after watching Cosmonaut\'s last few, I don\'t see it happening at this distance...showing up must be the real deal.  Relaxed Gesture looked to me like he\'s given efforts and been right there.  No English channel in here to oust Cacique.  


Any thoughts on Bushfire -off the layoff in the other race?

Lastly, in race 7 ....30:1 on May Night?  Count me in!  Saw her @ DelMar, finished nicely...30:1?  boxing w/jade queen, mag.song,take the ribbon.  Could make for a nice pik 4 pay as well...30:1?

[miff]

Shanahan,

Would caution that the Belmont turf course(listed good on fri) was more on the soft side with slow races all day on the grass.

Certain runners do not handle too much cut in the grass so I would be careful when mapping out the grass races until it firms up.

Re Bushwacker, it looks like she will have early company from Teamate. Interesting that Bushfire has not come back to match it\'s highly questionable 1 which he received as an early spring 3yr old filly.Ironic that she has \"regressed\" fig wise and still won two Gr 1\'s.

Good luck

Mike

[Ill-bred]

I loved Cosmonaut even before seeing the ROTW. He had no chance in the Million with the slow break and wide trip behind a crawling pace, but he showed excellent late speed.

Improving 4-yr-old is greatly undervalued at the morning line.

[miff]

Jerry,

How did Showing Up get a fig of 2.25(running 200.09) whereas Cacique gets 1(running 201.35) same day same weight and ground only negligibly different in Cacique\'s favor.

SU outran Cacique 6 and 1/2 lengths against the clock. Please explain.

Mike

[Michael D.]

adjusted for pace Miff.

performance figures rather than speed figures.

in these cases, there really is no other way to do it.

[miff]

Thanks Mike D,

5 other sources don\'t agree that Cacique ran faster than SU by any method of measuring. The adjustment for pace is pretty un-scientific.

Mike

[bobphilo]

Miff,

Actually, by the clock, the difference is closer to 8 1/2 lemgths. Cacique did go 1 path wider around both turns but that would only account for 2 lengths.

I know Jerry does not consider pace in his figures, so for some other reason, he split the variant between the 2 races - probably based on the horses\' times.

Looks like he made the right decision as both horses ran to their figures today as Cacique beat Showing Up by about 2 lengths and Go Deputy beating SU by a head.

Bob

[miff]

Hi Bob,

Good explanation, have not had Jerry\'s response yet but a split variant on the grass in app one hour seems highly unlikely( beyer did not split it). By way of the race, SU stumbled slightly was pulling early. No close to the pace turf runners have won a race at Belmont, a closers bias for sure, so far.Nice ride by Prado and sharp late acceleration by the winner.

Mike

[Michael D.]

we have had this dicsussion in the past.

Jerry has written:

\"Michael-- the definition of an \"S. Pace\" race is one where we didn\'t use the final time literally. In grass races the pace is often very slow relative to the final time, and the final time is therefore not indicative-- this happens extremely often in Europe, which is why TimeForm publishes two figures for the races. The one based on \"collateral form\" is the right one to use, and that\'s what we do here.\"


in the Arl Million, the final time was not indicative because the pace was so slow. TG therefore put less emphasis on the final time, and got the race faster than others. TG was essentially judging the \"performance\" of the race, as opposed to the \"speed\" of the race (although I know Jerry doesn\'t like the \"performance figure\" characterization).

[TGJB]

Michael is right (except that I was the one that came up with the term \"performance figures, on Post Time). And Beyer definitely did split the races, though not to the degree I did.

There is also an answer here somewhere that I gave to CH about doing figures for grass races that goes into this more fully.

[miff]

Mike D,

One observation, the final time was not that slow, the pace was.Jerry has confirmed on many occasions that pace has nothing to do with making the figs.Notations re pace are all you get. Lets not forget Classhandicapper often pointed this out and was villified for the suggestion.

This requires Jerrys explantion.



Mike

[TGJB]

Miff-- as I have said before (in what Michael quoted and in several responses to CH and others) I definitely adjust the figures for pace so slow it compromises the final time-- that\'s exactly what \"S. Pace\" means. That was not the bone of contention between me and CH (aside from his refusal to shut up).

[bobphilo]

Hi Miff,

Thanks for raising the issue of what appear to be strange changes in track speed. I can see that such a radical change in variant in a short time on a grass course might seem unlikely, but if the times the horses ran indicates it occured, knowing the precise reasons for it, be they change in wind or an abnormal pace scenario, are only secondary to me - as long as the figures hold up.
The exception is on the occasions when I do a pace analysis to evaluate a figure. This can be a problem since I will then be doubling the effect of the pace.
I think Showing Up ran his race today and lost by about the margin the figures predicted. As far as being handicapped by a closer\'s bias, I know that this is a very unpopular view, but I believe that most apparent speed biases are more a reflection of how horses are ridden then whether or not a true bias exists. But that\'s a hornet\'s nest I\'d rather not stir up now.

Bob

[miff]

Jerry,

Won\'t ask how the adjustment is made or what you consider a slow pace in a  grass race, which often feature slow paces.

On that score do you adjust figs for inordinately fast/wicked paces.If no, why not?

Mike

[Michael D.]

bob,

slow pace doesn\'t affect the variant. different issues.

slow pace was the main issue here.