Why JV wasn't aboard Dunkirk

[miff]

Latest is that RAGS gave a big fig but not zero even though someone swears that they heard zero from a Cali horse racing station that blurted the fig out.

Mike

[Silver Charm]

\"The Battle of Dunkirk during World War II was the defense and evacuation of British and Allied forces in Europe from May 26 to June 4, 1940.\"

69 Years and Two Days later Dunkirk will give America and Europe something to feel good about.

He don\'t need no stinkin bailout......

[richiebee]

covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whether Dunkirk bounces in the Fla Derby or the
> Kentucky Derby, he will bounce in one of those two
> races.  

Covel:

As Steven Crist pointed out, if Dunkirk \"bounces\" in the Florida Derby, he will
probably be excluded from the Derby field based on his lack of graded earnings.

If he is not 1-2 in the Fla Derby, but continues to improve, pointing him
towards the Preakness is not the worst idea.

[covelj70]

I actually didn\'t say that \"there\'s no way he wouldn\'t bounce in his next race\"  I said that even if he didn\'t bounce in his next race, then he\'s even more likely to bounce in the Derby itself.

Just to be clear, I believe he will bounce in his next but I want to clarify that I wasn\'t stating it as an absolute truth

[bobphilo]

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> Bob, I agree, nor is a good idea to ignore the
> path bias when it\'s there and to not \"adjust\" the
> figure.It\'s a kinda art anyway, why not use the
> same creative license they(fig makers) use on
> occasion?
>
> In case you are not aware there is absolute
> measurable science on how much a surface returns
> energy on different paths.It\'s not applied to
> horse racing but it\'s out there.
>
> Mike

Mike,

I agree that one should include any path bias in one\'s handicapping and have said so. I am aware of studies showing that there is a difference in energy return in different paths, but as of now there is no application to justify a quantitative change in speed rating. For now it remains a qualitative variable and should be treated as such. The first thing one learns in research methodology is to never try to quantify a qualitative property. What is certain and can be quantified is just how far a horse has run. To ignore that reality with a different variable that is for now a matter of very imprecise conjecture is just bad science and bad handicapping. There is plenty of room for the art part later for the handicapper in interpreting the speed figures.

Of course, if we\'re talking about a stand alone performance rating rather than a speed figure, then you could try to combine quantitative and qualitative varibles, but only if you\'ve got to have good reason to believe a significant path difference exists, and even so realize the increased chance for error.  

Bob

[bobphilo]

I\'m glad you cleared that up. Your statement that, \"All of this assumes that Jerry gives the race the same kind of number but if he does, how does this horse not bounce in a big way in his next race..\", implies that you can not see any way for him not to bounce big.

Bob

[smalltimer]

To add to the conversation:
Tracks that are banked more sharply flatter early speed and punish outside runners. For example, Churchill is banked sharper than Pimlico, Hollywood Park and Woodbine are both banked 6 degrees and 4 degrees on their turf courses.  By contrast, Hoosier is banked 12 degrees in the turns.  

Miff is right on the button when he says the rate of speed of a group of horses heading into the turn affects their performance. (Paraphrasing).  No doubt several horses running hard into the turn versus a leisurly pace extract different tolls on the horses.

A 1,000 pound horse will exert a lateral force of 240 pounds while heading into a turn at a typical 4 degree angle on a turn banked at 10 percent.  When the turn is more sharply banked it offsets the centrifugal force by 170 pounds on a 10 degree banking.  If you contrast that to a 2 degree banked turn, then the forces in only reduced by about 90 pounds. Without question, each path away from the rail represents more physical effort to combat the centrifugal force.  

It is difficult to sharply bank most dirt tracks because you can\'t keep the dirt in place.  However, most Tapeta tracks are banked at 10 degrees.  Obviously, the banking reduceds lateral forces on the joints by tilting the bones away from the vertical which stresses the bones and not the joints as much.  

Source:  MIT

[bobphilo]

Absolutely, that\'s why ground loss on the first turn is doubly bad. In addition to the ground loss, trying to keep up with a fast pace while several paths wide requires a lot of extra energy to be used. That makes a wide early trip an unfavorable pace scenario for the horse in addition to the ground lost. Beyer mentions this in one of his books when he describes the \"wide move into hot pace\" scenario.

This actually further weakens the argument that including ground loss overinflates the speed figures. Not only is ground loss important to include in general, it\'s even more important when it occurs early into a hot pace.

Bob

[Michael D.]

smalltimer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To add to the conversation:
> Tracks that are banked more sharply flatter early
> speed and punish outside runners. For example,
> Churchill is banked sharper than Pimlico


huh?

[smalltimer]

I threw that in because of the typical field size of the Derby versus the smaller fields for the Preakness.  Each path in the Derby field would require slightly less energy into the turns than the Preakness. Just an FYI comment.