Miff -

You could well be right. While I watched the Derby Day card, I certainly didn't make any detailed notes that would allow me to argue that the rail was or wasn't bad. I'm just throwing out the observation (based on a ridiculously small sample) that the two horses who I know to have made sustained moves along the rail in the Derby both ran much better races the next time out. Further, the fact that they were able to make those sustained moves in a large field indicates that a lot of jocks were staying off the rail.

I would also point out that TGJB has a limited number of options. He either designates the rail as dead or he doesn't. In real life, you have to expect that a continuum of possibilities exists; the rail could be slightly disfavored, but not so bad as to make the disadvantage obvious to the figuremaker.

There are also a couple of other issues that I see here. First, as I believe TGJB has previously pointed out, different observers may count paths differently. They may differ on far the inside horse has to be off the rail before he is in the "2" path. From TG's perspective, the primary consideration is getting the relationship between the horses right, not determining which path is favored.

Second, I believe TGJB has data on paths on the turns, not on the straightaways. I assume that the banking on the turns is different from that on the straightaways, so that the drainage to or from the rail also varies.