TreadHead Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's a premise that SEEMS like it should make
> sense, but would love to see someone with time to
> fully research this show a [b][u]meaningful amount of
> data[/u][/b] to see if tough Derby choices are usually
> made correctly in the past. And it may be that
> there really isn't much data to go off of.

In making your case against California Chrome, you talk about horses that raced exclusively in California not replicating their form in the Derby. I mentioned several horses that have had success, but you discounted them.

You said that California Chrome raced on the "new dirt", those horses that I mentioned ran on the "old dirt".

Fine. You know when they started racing on the "new dirt"??? December 2010. You used the enormous data base of 3 years to come to the conclusion that horses racing exclusively in California could't replicate their form in Kentucky for the Derby. Let's forget that you used a sprinter/miler as Exhibit A.

Looks like it shouldn't take too much time to research this premise. 3 years of data has proven that California horses racing exclusively in California run poorly in the Derby.

P-Dub