JB, you posted the article, but with this qualifiation, “seems about right”. That opens more doors than it closes.
What exactly is it ‘about right’ about? That Beyer acknowledges wind as a factor in final times? But the article states there was a stronghead wind into the stretch during the warmup to the Preakness and that perhaps it also affected the final time of the fifth race. Then the article leaps to the conclusion that wind had to be a factor. What I have read so far doesn’t go any further than mere rationalization. Ok, an educated rationalization, but still just a rationalization. Having been there the latter half of that day, I am not convinced of the significant headwind theory as the reason for the slow times. That would have to have been a very very significant headwind indeed, would it not? And if it is blowing into the stretch, does it not blow as a backwind on the backstretch? I need to be shown there really was a “significant headwind into the stretch” for the Preakness that day that accounted for the slow times enough to justify the final speed figures.There was one point were there was a distinct wind blowing the opoisite directions of into the stretch shortly a race or two before the Preakness. All in all,my recollection is that it was not a windy day. From what I can find on the internet about the local weather that day, . Certainly not that windy. Being a native Marylander, I know very well of the fickle weather hereabouts. But a gust is a gust, and while their may have been a few windgusts about that day, saying a significant headwind into the stretch accounted for the slow times, is a stretch itself. I’m having a really hard time accepting that. Can I get a witness?
I do not yet accept the significant headwind theory. Do you?
I think there is another, more plausible, factor. Namely, the soil composition of the track itself in conjunction with the weather conditions at the time. (near 100% humidity but no falling precipitation. air pressuress.) Specifically, I think that there was a relatively high percentage of clay in the composition. Note the orange-ish color to the track. If that is so, the higher clay content in conjunction with the weather conditions of high humidty but no precipitation, could make for a dead slow track that favored front-runners. Which is not the same as ‘speed-favoring’. If, for all intents and purposes, you don’t distinguish between front-running bias and speed bias when constructing figs, I can readily accept that and move on and still use TG figs just as much. But in the greater picture, do you recognize a distinction between those two biases, and if so, do you think soil composition (taken in conjunction with weather conditions) can be fundamental to distinguishing one from the other, considering final times and fractions, at least in routes? And maybe they usually add more sand on Preakness Day, but did not do so this year?
I can draw my own conclusions and make my own notes from there. As a handicappers, that’s what we do, we make notes of such things lest they come back and bite us instead of feeding us. But I think it is very significant distinction, front-running bias vs speed-bias, for everyone, whether a figure maker, a racing manager of a private stable, an informed owner, or a $2 bettor.
I am not disputing final TG figures. I accept them because I accept your methodology even though I am not privy to its details. I don’t have to be, I trust your reasoning ability, your forensic instincts, and your knowledge of this sport and the business of it. My question and point is that I think there is a good chance that soil composition of the track is a more plausible theory than a significant headwind as described. I am pretty certain any headwind that day was not so significant by itself.
JB, do you have, or can you get, soil composition percentages from various tracks for comparison? Is it worth the effort? Do the compositions change significantly through a meet, or day to day even? I have read the material about this subject on your website, so I know you know I am not coming from left field on this. I did see something from 2011 where Pimilico’s soil composition was listed as 85% sand, and 15% silt and clay, but that was two years ago. Other than that, I have only seen it described as a loam soil. And of course, depth of cushion would factor in too. I understand it is pretty much impossible to get a clear read on such changebility, but reaching for rationalizations is not a substitute even for uncertainty. Please, be specific as possible on your exact take on the wind and track that day.
This is large and complex topic always in flux, I know. But so is bet structure, which is also something I need to learn more about - and the recent threads on that subject have been very helpful.
