"Other than discussions here concerning the circumstances surrounding the figure, did anyone hear a controversy regarding the number?"

It's possible Safdie is referring to James Quinn's timely piece in the Derby edition of Horseplayer Magazine. Quinn touts Rockport Harbor(!) as one of only four Derby contenders, and then in a sidebar makes the case that Bellamy Road's 120 is inflated, working off the variant for the two preceeding sprints Wood day.

Quinn says the "standard" sprint/route variant ratio is three-to-two, that is, a deviation of three lenghts in routes for every two lengths in sprints. He says the sprint variant was fast 10, making the Wood variant fast 15. And so he feels confident he can lop off 10 Beyer points from Survivalist's 92, causing him to run three lengths slower for his second place finish in the Wood(G1) than he did in his 2YO maiden win in October.

I made that last part up. Quinn only works off the winner and therefore delivers up this nonsense:

"Although estimating variants can be an arty process, and that was surely the situation here, it's difficult to imagine how the Beyer associates arrived at the lofty 120. The projection technique could not have sufficed to estimate the route variant, as no horse in the Wood Memorial had recorded even a Beyer Speed Figure of 103, the equivalent Beyer par for the race, and Bellamy Road had not run faster than a Beyer 96. The projection technique would have yielded an even faster track variant, thereby reducing Bellamy Road's speed figure below a Beyer 110."

Now that I think about it, Quinn's logic doesn't rise to the level of "controversy." It was your Bellamania posts Safdie was referring to, Chuckles.