All my humble opinion if anyone cares.

1. The speed figure assigned to a race can be influenced to some degree by the interpretation of the result by the figure maker. So if he goes into the process thinking/not thinking there was a bias etc... there could be some small interpretative differences that would impact the figures and still allow both sets to make sense based on prior performances. One which includes bias and one that doesn't. The same is true of pace.

2. I have never met or heard of anyone that could quantify biases exactly, but everyone I know that believes they exist tends to look at the subsequent performances of the key horses of the day to see if they (as a group) confirm or negate the initial suspicion.

3. IMHO, there are speed biases.

4. IMHO, speed biases are more related to stamina than running styles. It just so happens that most horses with stamina issues are front runners.

Some tracks are more or less tiring on some days.

Personally, I doubt a speed bias would help Dr. Fager run faster at 7F. He didn't have a stamina issue. However, it might make allow him sustain his normal figure or run a little faster at 10F if he dueled with a rabbit.

A tiring track is not going to stop him at 7F, but it might get him beat at 10F without a rabbit.

(In other words if you are looking for a one size fits all formula for all horses on the same day, I haven't found it yet nor have I ever met anyone that had anything even tempting as a theory).

5. Because no one can quantify this stuff, it is impossible to prove - hence the constant differences of opinion. I think it is best to observe this stuff and form an opinion based on your results.

6. Vic's performance yesterday proved nothing one way or the other. There are a lot of reasons he might have lost.



Post Edited (04-04-05 17:45)