Re: Briefly (519 Views)
Posted by:
Chuckles_the_Clown2 (IP Logged)
Date: May 10, 2005 12:14AM
OPM
Theres a significant issue with the notion that the drug screening made the Derby clean and its this:
Drugs became a serious issue on figures in 2001. Suddenly many of the big race winners were popping unheard of low figures. Assuming a substance was enabling those low figures AND that the supertest has prevented use of that substance in this years Derby we have a problem. TGraph is going to assign the winner of the Derby a Zed. The last time we suspect the killer substances were not in use was 2000. At that time Horses did not run Zeds in the Derby.
Thus,
either the drug screening is not in place and the result of the Derby is a result upon bounce, pace and bias, or
Closing Argument and Giacomo were somehow administered drugs and the others probably not, or
Closing Argument and Giacomo ran faster without drugs than horses in the past ever have and are therefore liable to run away with the Preakness or bounce to the moon, or
If the drug testing was in place for Closing Argument and Giacomo TGraph may have got their Derby number wrong since it is not in line with 2000 and earlier year races.
Now, the issue is determining which of the four outcomes is most probable.
Post Edited (05-10-05 00:18)