I'll presume the Thorograph calculation of their formula for making figures has been a constant from their beginning (otherwise any horse's improvement couldn't be measured). The Question on this topic then, is: are "figures" (any of them, Thorograph, Beyer, etc.) really an objectively accurate way of assessing a racehorse's quality? Either the method of calculating figures is wrong or off, or the figures are rock solid and rachorses have improved leaps and bounds in the last 10 years.

For the record, I don't know how to calculate figures, nor do I know what goes into Thorograph's calculations. As a buyer of their stuff, I do have questions on "what" factors get weighted, and "how" that's decided. Here's an extrapolated example of the question I have.

The 2004 Thorograph Breeder's Cup Seminar had a single mantra repeated for scores of horses: those "shipping-in" and encountering the "warmer climate" of Texas could be significantly disadvantaged. This mantra was based on the assumption that horses from the east coast in 2003 ran poorly, or below expectations (based on their sheets going in, most probably). The heat wave at Santa Anita in 2003 was given as the central explanation for their poor efforts.

If that's true, then those most disadvantaged by any California-based Breeders Cup would be the Europeans, for no horses come farther or from cooler autumn climates than they do. And the factual evidence of their results tells otherwise: Lashkari, Last Tycoon, Miesque, Arcangues and Spinning World all won in California. If you toss in some brave narrow losses by Theatrical (in '86), Trempolino, and Ski Paradise, it weakens the reasoning further.

In 2003 that same reasoning goes on life support, since the Europeans probably had their best overall showing in a Cup ever: Six Perfections won; Islington-L'Ancresse-Yesterday went 1-2-3 in the Filly Turf; and High Chaparral-Falbrav in the Turf. All done in the stifling heat at Santa Anita.

So, if the weather and shipping were given as precautions to consider for wagering in 2004 (in spite of the evidence), isn't it fair to question Thorograph as to whether the criteria for making figures, or decisions about what to weigh is objective or accurate? I'm asking honestly, not disrespectfully. This is about whether or not figures as such are really relevant.

I worked in racing for a long time. I agree with what I presume is Thorograph's take that perfomances are being medically enhanced. But if this explains the jumps for all or most figures, then why make figures at all, since we'll never know what or how much which horse got of what "medicine"?

It happens even at the cheap tracks where I worked. I saw trainers who couldn't spell the word "horse" suddenly start ripping off wins in spades; one in particular that won more races in one meet than he'd won in the whole 13 years I worked there. Let someone try to convince me he woke up one morning and discovered how to train, or that he just got a world beating bunch of $3,500 claimers. The explanation for that kind of turnaround can only be one thing.



M3