TGJB wrote:

> Jimbo-- we did change it, and I mentioned it on the board when
> we did. I don't make those calls based just on the winner, by
> the way, but it ended up with him pairing up.

This is a critical inquiry for a number of reasons. Obviously, the first of which is the Met Mile. Secondly, in factoring Bellamania's return engagement(s).

Its been difficult to follow the discussion, especially with the imprecise language:

" Anyway, my question is whether you have revised that figure down in Florida or did you leave it at -2?"

Revise the figure "down"? Does that mean faster or slower?

The gist of it seems to be that Forest Danger's Feb. 14th race at Hallandale (6.5 marks in 1.14.44) was made faster from an original negative 2 or thereabouts, due to subsequent race efforts of horses involved on that card and in that Feb. 14th race.

If that is the position it is stunning to say the least. Forest Danger was coming into the Feb. 14th race off a 9 month layoff and whatever he tossed was a career top. It appears the contention is that it was a monumental career top and he paired it 7 weeks later in the Carter. Quizzical.

Its all very confusing to say the least, though if the loyal TGraph users are content, theres no reason for me not to be. Following is the thread I found in a search on the issue. Maybe I got the wrong thread:

TGJB wrote:

> Miff-- I wish I'd seen the "New York Bred Slow Rats" race in
> the book. I was looking for that condition for Northern
> Stealth.
>
> The Aqu track Sat was faster by quite a bit than the one Friday
> (good to fast), but almost exactly the same speed as the ones
> Thu and Sunday, so I guess the question becomes, compared to
> what? The times looked fast due to some really fast horses
> running, and a large number of chute races that were sped up by
> the wind. Survivalist paired, everybody behind him ran well off
> their tops, Forest Danger ran a new top (sort of, more on that
> in a minute), Jerken's horse paired, Don Six went back. Lost In
> The Fog went back, Hushion's horse ran slightly worse than his
> top.
>
> People underestimate how much effect wind can have, especially
> on fractions-- we'd have to run it through the computer, but my
> guess is you could add a second to the half for those 7f races,
> almost 2 seconds to the 6f in the miles, which wouldn't be that
> fast for the horses in question. The "rats" ran half a mile
> with the wind at their backs, and it helped them a little on
> the turn, hence the fast fraction and relatively fast final
> time.
>
> As far as the possible wind shift, I'm having Litfin check, but
> if it was the other way those horses would get BETTER numbers.
> And, as I said, I took off a point or two early in the card
> anyway, just off looking at the horses.
>
> Michael D-- as we discussed, doing that GP figure for Forest
> Danger was a bitch (track was clearly getting faster, turf race
> on either side, no more dirt races afterward), and when he ran
> faster this time I reviewed it. Given what several have come
> back to run since, I went with the other possible scenario,
> which basically gives FD a pair.
>
>

Regarding the wind on Wood Day, there was a lot of speculation upon its impact. Reviewing the raw times, wind seems less than significant and the exchange between TGJB and SJU5 tends to indicate that it was.

TGJB wrote:

> SJU5-- Litfin checked his notes and you were right about the
> wind. As I said, I had taken off a little from those races, and
> when we redid the day with the right wind I no longer had to do
> that-- they matched up with the one turn races that followed,
> then the track actually got slightly slower late in the day.
>
> This is about chapter 10,000 of get all the information you
> can, but make as few assumptions as possible. In the end, you
> do your work off the horses.



> I must have reviewed the AA sprint win at Oaklawn 5 times,
> couldn't come up with a satisfactory resolution, and now I'm
> going to have to do it again.

Apparently this means factoring it faster. Loyal customers should respect careful review.

>Haven't done the Preakness yet,
> but it's gonna be a big number-- about 4 points better than
> Zakocity if the track stayed the same.

The Preakness was big. The top two are fine race horses and are gonna prove it if they stay together.

> Incidentally, while the near disaster was absolutely amazing, I
> don't think it cost AA that much in lengths-- he appeared not
> to lose that much momentum, recovering very quickly. And man,
> was that horse running at the end.

Theres different strokes for different folks but the incident could be viewed perceiving that they both were impeded by the situation and that they both lost significant ground. The ground exploded with Alex digging in and his nose was 4 inches from the dirt. His knees appeared to touch. Scrappy proped and was straight up and going wide for far too long. Still need to see a clearer view.

> As for the Sir Ray race-- we'll give him credit for the ground
> loss, and go from there. I'm hoping to see a tape of the race,
> sounded pretty wild.

This is cute lighthearted reading...lol:

http://www.afleetalex.com/diary.html



Post Edited (05-24-05 15:27)