Evaluating only the winner is an absolutely terrible way of identifying a track bias. If closers weren't the best horses, they never figured to win a race anyway. You have to look at the entire field and who placed where and what their relative prices/ability were.

Closers did fine in races like the Chick Lang, The Very One, even the horse that won the Dixie was 3rd of 4 for most of the race. And obviously they were coming very late in the Preakness just fine too.

Just as a starting point for this argument, when the best horse wins the race, it's hard to argue any kind of bias. If giant prices were regularly placing higher than they should of based on speed-based trips, that is when a bias may be coming into play. I don't see much evidence of that in looking thru the charts.

Analysts correct, horse racing fan wrong. Shocker.