An informal poll of views on why Love of Money ran away with the PA Derby. Curious as to what people think. Which one (or ones) of the following makes most sense?

1. Every horse in the race "x"-ed except for Love of Money.

2. Dutrow filled the horse full of drugs that moved him way up.

3. Love of Money is a super horse and really is 10 to 20 lengths faster than the other horses in the race.

4. Love of Money caught great circumstances in that several other speed horses in the race didn't get out, he got to the rail and relaxed on an uncontested lead, breezing through a slowish 3/4 mile on a track that had an inside speed bias all day long. Thus exaggerating his margin of victory.

I vote for #4. However, that explanation relies on the existence of two handicapping principles that JB and others don't believe exist. The first being that biases don't exist, at least not in the short term. No such thing as a golden rail or outside path bias (which most would argue exists most of the time at Belmont). Second, speed horses racing alone on uncontested leads don't run faster than if pressed through quick fractions.

I would like to hear if JB thinks that Love of Money would have won by open lengths if Wimplestilskin pressed him through a 45.1 half, instead of a 46.4 half.