Re: California Beyers (451 Views)
Date: March 04, 2005 07:47PM
TGJB,
Again, you may be right about the "relative" figures, but it is highly likely you are wrong about where the problem is. The problem is not CA (except maybe a specific race here or there). The problem is elsewhere. Believe me, I would never question your figure relationships, but I think you are not familiar enough with the Beyer scale and norm to see where his problem might be.
RHT's CA figure prior to the Preakness and his Preakness figure (where he was very wide) were very similar on Beyer's scale. Given a figure of 100+ in May, a 109 in March of the following year is sensible for a 3yo. It's quite "low" for a Grade I older horse, but it's sensible in relation to his Preakness performance and other CA figures. If it's off, it's off by a length or a touch more.
More importantly, according to Beyer, Congrats is running even slower since he came to CA!!!!!!
So if I were to subtract from his CA Beyers because they are supposedly inflated, then you are telling me he got much slower since going to CA. I just don't believe that Congrats is running much slower since he came to CA. It's virtually impossible.
Beyer may need to up his figures for certain circuits outside CA to bring them all into sync, but if he were to reduce his CA figures (other than a race here or there) it would be a disaster. He'd have Congrats running slower than most horses that run for a 35K tag. He's bad, but he's not that bad.
You have a 100% understanding of your figures and may be right about the relative problems Beyer is having with various circuits.