Chicago Barn to Wire BRIS
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


September 01, 2014, 11:40:02 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Contest: Claiming Crown  (Read 4030 times)
Horse Voice
Guest

« on: July 23, 2009, 10:01:15 AM »

Let's do the Claiming Crown races (R3 - R9) and add the local stake (R10), the Lady Canterbury (turf).

The first Claiming Crown race goes off at 2:35 pm CDT. Honor system. No one has past-posted yet, don't embarrass yourself by being the first.

$2WP format. Scratches revert to post-time favorite if you don't supply an alternate (or if your alternate ALSO scratches).
 
Winner gets bragging rights and "huzzahs" from fellow contestants.

With 8 races, you only need a little more than a $32 return to have a positive ROI. Not too tough, right?
Report to moderator   Logged
BeauNarro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2800

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.....


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: July 24, 2009, 11:57:15 AM »

OK here goes. Someone has to start this!! LOL

Race #3 - #1 Calm and Collected
        alt - #2 Bright Hall

Race #4 - #5 Mizzcan'tbewrong
        alt - #6 R Vicarious Girl

Race #5 - #2 Max Ahead
        alt - #1 Grand Traverse

Race #6 - #9 Chasing The Prize
        alt - #8 Ready's Rocket

Race #7 - #4 Miranda Diane
        alt - #1 Thunder and Belle

Race #8 - #11 Drivingmaxandmitzi
        alt - #6 Gran Estreno (ARG)

Race #9 - #2 Furthest Land
        alt - #6 Glamour Guy

Race #10 - #2 Euphony
         alt - #4 Happiness Is

GOOD LUCK Y'ALL!!!!!
Report to moderator   Logged
Lusty Tar Heel
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 863




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2009, 08:58:40 AM »

I will take a stab

R3 Mr Meso
    Roboponi

R4 Mizzancantbewrong
    Bartoks Bling

R5  Max Ahead
     Grand Traverse

R6  Readys Rocket
     Norjac

R7  Met a Miner
     Danas Bell

R8  Sipcy Dubai
      T Harry

R9   Antrim County
      Glamour Guy

R10  Lady Carlock
       Euphony


GOOD LUCK
Report to moderator   Logged
ChitownSteve75
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3392




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2009, 10:28:47 AM »

Race 3) #8 Illinois Moonshine

Race 4) #5 Mizzcan'tbewrong

Race 5) #4 Pete's Pride

Race 6) #9 Chasing the Prize

Race 7) #6 Sky N Mighty

Race 8) #10 Stormy Surge

Race 9) #6 Glamour Guy

Race 10) #7 Lady Carlock
Report to moderator   Logged

ZENYATTA THE GREAT! NOT RA!
mel4600
Guest

« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2009, 10:40:19 AM »

3.) #2 Bright Hall

4.) #6 R Vicarious Girl

5.) #1 Grand Traverse

6.) #7 Stormin Six

7.) #4 Miranda Diane

8.) #7 T Harry

9.) #6 Glamour Guy

10.) #2 Euphony
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2009, 12:14:41 PM »

I thought there would be more price shots, so this is either going to be a fairly tight contest, or I have misread the races and I'm going to put up a bad score.

R3) #1 Calm and Collected: ultra-consistent gelding.
Alt #2 Bright Hall: fresher of the two Autrey horses.

R4) #5 Mizzcan'tbewrong: expect perfect stalking trip.
Alt #1 Love to Tell: inside post is big advantage over #6.

R5) #6 All Joking Aside: has local experience & ability.
Alt #4 Pete's Pride: must stay closer to leaders.

R6) #10 Mojito Man: still circling back to best race.
Alt #9 Chasing the Prize: fires huge fresh, but no price.

R7) #7 Met a Miner: TG "number power" horse.
Alt #4 Miranda Diane: Okie monster says "get a good look at my butt, g'bye!".

R8) #11 Drivingmaxandmitzi: different jock & track every time, whatever -- just wins.
Alt #6 Gran Estreno: almost as gutsy, dead-heated with top pick two races ago.

R9) #6 Glamour Guy: blooming at age 5, hcp. division next?
Alt #5 Antrim County: won Claiming Crown Iron Horse race last year, short price.

R10) #2 Euphony: very much tried to find one that can beat her at 3/5 here; can't.
Alt: #4 Happiness Is: will try to give top pick a battle every step of the away, but simply a cut below.

I'll gladly take a zero if it means they all come home safe. Too many breakdowns lately.

Good luck to all.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2009, 03:03:33 PM »

Nice start, Mel! That was a pretty tough read on the winner.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #7 on: July 25, 2009, 06:48:03 PM »

My primary selections stunk, for a piddly return of $14.80 on $32 in wagers.

Hope someone played all my alternate selections, which did much better: $69.60, with 5 winners and a 2nd. (Nope, I didn't. Caught my 3 el chalko exactas in the 3rd, 4th, and 10th, and that was about it.)

Russell Baze supporters should be smirking, as he knocked me out of the only two races I completely whiffed on. All I know is, I want some of that Lloyd Mason special sauce, because both of those winning horses were at least 5 lengths slower than the top contenders in their races. Especially Frisco Fox winning -- that was an absolute joke.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #8 on: July 25, 2009, 08:07:28 PM »

My primary selections stunk, for a piddly return of $14.80 on $32 in wagers.

Hope someone played all my alternate selections, which did much better: $69.60, with 5 winners and a 2nd. (Nope, I didn't. Caught my 3 el chalko exactas in the 3rd, 4th, and 10th, and that was about it.)

Russell Baze supporters should be smirking, as he knocked me out of the only two races I completely whiffed on. All I know is, I want some of that Lloyd Mason special sauce, because both of those winning horses were at least 5 lengths slower than the top contenders in their races. Especially Frisco Fox winning -- that was an absolute joke.

Well, it's possible that the measurements of previous races weren't entirely accurate, you know!  Wink

The Claiming Crown races are the hardest I ever handicapped, due entirely to all the horses coming from hither and yon that you really can't compare from track to track. (Including their speed numbers, of all ilk.) I didn't try at all today because we don't get Cby here and I was fishing anyhow, but congratulations to whomever won this contest. It wasn't easy!
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #9 on: July 25, 2009, 09:10:06 PM »

Well, it's possible that the measurements of previous races weren't entirely accurate, you know!  Wink

If it were one scale that might be "off", I'd have to agree, but the two Mason horses that won were consistently rated lower by TG and Beyer. I'll check the Rags tomorrow, but I suspect I'll find the same thing.

Mason, coming from a state with stringent testing and race-day meds policies to one that isn't as stringent, got these horses to "jump up" to lifetime best performances. I should have factored this in. My bad.
Report to moderator   Logged
pamwaggy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8169




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: July 25, 2009, 09:39:48 PM »

I'll have to say that we  (in California) were shocked Baze won a race there.  No one I know bet him.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2009, 10:14:10 PM »

I'll have to say that we  (in California) were shocked Baze won a race there.  No one I know bet him.

When you see those "inhale the field" type performances from horses that don't figure, race day use of clenbuterol is the most obvious suspect. (It's what Ted West used to do in SoCal before the authorities realized that testing only the urine will not show clenbuterol -- it doesn't break down that fast. You must draw blood to find it if it has been administered on race day.)

Minnesota has only the most basic testing in place at the moment, according to the RMTC. Easy to put one over there.

And before anyone asks, no, I have no proof...but the jump-up performances by Mason's horses today are definitely evidence.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2009, 10:28:19 PM »

If it were one scale that might be "off", I'd have to agree, but the two Mason horses that won were consistently rated lower by TG and Beyer. I'll check the Rags tomorrow, but I suspect I'll find the same thing.

As you well know, my personal opinion is that any speed number is an approximation at best.

Quote
Mason, coming from a state with stringent testing and race-day meds policies to one that isn't as stringent, got these horses to "jump up" to lifetime best performances. I should have factored this in. My bad.

This is curious. You're usually the first to downplay the meaningfulness of any drug positive or claim by anyone (usually clockerbob) that drugs have played a part in any specific incident, but in this thread, two posts in a row, you assert that these horses must have had chemical help to do what they did, as if that is the only possible explanation.

What are the differences between the medication/testing policies in the two states? I always thought Minnesota was pretty thorough.
Report to moderator   Logged
pamwaggy
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8169




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2009, 10:45:05 PM »

I don't care what anyone says.  Something wasn't right in those races.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2009, 12:21:12 AM »

As you well know, my personal opinion is that any speed number is an approximation at best.

Yes. We don't need to rehash this. But you have to agree, if more than one speed figure service says a horse is slower than the competition, it probably is. Sort of like, there are three major credit bureaus, and while there methodologies might differ and the end number and scales don't exactly line up -- if all three of them say you have stinky credit, you probably do.

This is curious. You're usually the first to downplay the meaningfulness of any drug positive or claim by anyone (usually clockerbob) that drugs have played a part in any specific incident, but in this thread, two posts in a row, you assert that these horses must have had chemical help to do what they did, as if that is the only possible explanation.

Vastly different situations and assertions.

A clockerbob post that video (or removal of same) is an indication of drug use in a fatal breakdown is in the category of "things that make you go, huh??", as in, how can any sort of viewing of a race (live or taped) lead to that conclusion? Does a drugged leg snap differently from a non-drugged leg?

I "assert" that it's likely that the Mason horses had chemical assistance to produce today's performances, because of the evidence.

These were not young, unpredictable, growing horses that are prone to sudden and dramatic improvement -- these were older, established claimers, who have remarkably predictable form cycles BTW, and who had already proven that they were slower than a good portion of today's competition.

They weren't changing trainers -- the argument I have applied in the past is that some trainers are fantastic at improving other trainer's horses, without necessarily doing anything shady. But these horses came in with the same trainer -- Lloyd Mason.

The only thing different is the track, and I find it had to believe that both of these horses were laboring over Tapeta but suddenly were "free" to run giant numbers over a conventional dirt track.

And when the final numbers come in -- TG, Rags, Beyer, et.al., I'm fairly sure that on each speed figure's scale, today's performances will show vast improvement, as compared to each horse's previously recorded performances and figures. If it does turn out this way -- that the three figure services all had these horses rated slower than the competition coming in, but then all award lifetime best figures for today's races -- and you want to continue to dismiss this as "approximation" or some such, I can't help you.

(I learned long ago to not try to argue with or even try to explain things to members of the Flat Earth Society; they believe what they believe, and that's that. Is this you with speed figures, Terry? It's more of a question you should ask yourself, rather than answer out loud.)

What are the differences between the medication/testing policies in the two states? I always thought Minnesota was pretty thorough.

California has "super-testing" in place -- urine, blood, freezing blood for later testing (not every horse, not every race), testing for CO2 levels, etc.

Minnesota has urine testing, and the option (but not the obligation) to draw blood and test.
Report to moderator   Logged
NYRA 792
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1827




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2009, 08:31:21 AM »

Having looked at the 2 Mason races on TG, nothing looks suspicious nor would I be making accusations about illegal substances.
Report to moderator   Logged
ChitownSteve75
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3392




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2009, 09:04:52 AM »

I think I had 2 winners.
Report to moderator   Logged

ZENYATTA THE GREAT! NOT RA!
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2009, 09:47:27 AM »

Having looked at the 2 Mason races on TG, nothing looks suspicious nor would I be making accusations about illegal substances.

1. Well, that's your read...both horses regularly at least 5 lengths slower than the main contenders, OK bud...

2. ...which, even if I agreed with it, is only half the picture anyway. Let's see what TG assigns for their performances yesterday -- then we'll have the expert opinion on whether they jumped up or not.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2009, 09:52:51 AM »

I think I had 2 winners.

I didn't tally anybody else's stuff, but there were no stickouts...except for my other persona, "AL T."    Grin, who did well....but his picks don't count.

No more effing alternate picks for me -- all I did was torture myself with them.  Angry
Report to moderator   Logged
NYRA 792
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1827




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2009, 10:07:26 AM »

Looking at My Boy Blue I'm trying to see where he is 5 points slower.
Looking at the other Mason winner, the horse was slower but the race had 3 horses get bad starts as noted by the chartmaker, and had a pace meltdown with fractions of 21.31 and 44.44 in a race that finished in over 1:11.
Eikleberry's horse was too slow on paper but passed some horses for 3rd with the hot pace, he must have been "juicing" too. Grin

Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2009, 11:31:54 AM »

Yes. We don't need to rehash this. But you have to agree, if more than one speed figure service says a horse is slower than the competition, it probably is.

It probably is in a purely numbers world, but it doesn't mean it has to finish that way in every single race against different groups of horses, with different post positions and jockeys and race strategies and states of health and racing luck and so on, on different tracks. If speed numbers exactly predicted the outcome of races, Beyers and Sheets numbers would run the races, not flesh-and-blood horses. There are untold non-drug variables that go into the outcome of horse races. Speed numbers measure only one aspect of a horses PAST performances.

Quote
Vastly different situations and assertions.

Only because you are the one making the assertions, based on your idea of what constitutes valid evidence, and saying that evidence can mean only one thing. People like clockerbob are probably equally convinced of the rightness of their own cause.

Quote
And when the final numbers come in -- TG, Rags, Beyer, et.al., I'm fairly sure that on each speed figure's scale, today's performances will show vast improvement, as compared to each horse's previously recorded performances and figures. If it does turn out this way -- that the three figure services all had these horses rated slower than the competition coming in, but then all award lifetime best figures for today's races -- and you want to continue to dismiss this as "approximation" or some such, I can't help you.

Yes, they're all still only approximations, an admittedly imperfect measurement of one horse's final time on one given day, and despite the claims of their makers, DO NOT necessarily translate all that well from one track to the next or one population of horses to the next. California is a tougher circuit than most. One might readily expect California horses to shine against horses from lesser circuits, and one might as well easily expect a jockey like Russell Baze to totally outshine the likes of a Derek Bell or Dean Butler. You're My Boy Blue paid only $16.20. Not a giant surprise to many bettors, apparently. Frisco Fox $25.20, still hardly a totally unfathomable surprise. Someone out there was looking at things you were not, or seeing the speed numbers in a different light.

If it's of any interest to you, on the BRIS pp's and numbers, It's My Boy Blue rated only marginally behind Grand Travers and Max Ahead in that race. He was a bettable contender at a price. Frisco Fox looked to have several horses better than her, but ahead of time to me it looks like this would probably be a race dictated by the pace and who rode smart, with all the E! type horses in the race with all the high speed points, especially Miranda Diane, Met a Miner, and Margie Marie, in addition to Frisco Fox. Well, as it turned out, six horses stumbled, bumped, or otherwise missed the break (including their customary "on the lead" position), leaving the field to Margie Marie, who, the chart says, was "used up" while clear on the lead. All Frisco Fox had to do was stay close and pick up the pieces. That, to me, looks primarily like an outcome based on "racing luck". Did the sheets predict such an awful start for six of the horses in the race?     

Quote
(I learned long ago to not try to argue with or even try to explain things to members of the Flat Earth Society; they believe what they believe, and that's that. Is this you with speed figures, Terry? It's more of a question you should ask yourself, rather than answer out loud.)

From my perspective, your type with the religious belief in speed figures is the Space Alien Society, seeing myriads of things that are just not there. You should try owning a few horses, and learn just how shaky some of the heads-down number-cruncher assumptions that go into making - and interpreting - some of the speed numbers really are. 

Quote
California has "super-testing" in place -- urine, blood, freezing blood for later testing (not every horse, not every race), testing for CO2 levels, etc.

I don't believe they do all that for mere claiming and starter allowance races, which is where these claiming crown horses have been laboring. That is primarily a regimen for stakes tests.

Quote
Minnesota has urine testing, and the option (but not the obligation) to draw blood and test.

Do you know if they put in place any of their optional tests for a big event like this?

I will believe your assertion of chemical assistance to these horses when a positive test of some sort is produced. Meanwhile, you're simply doing the same thing you always berate others for doing - noting something you do not understand and immediately blaming it on drugs.
 
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2009, 11:33:31 AM »

Eikleberry's horse was too slow on paper but passed some horses for 3rd with the hot pace, he must have been "juicing" too. Grin

Yup. 78.5-1 horse finishes 3rd. Clear indication of juice.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #22 on: July 26, 2009, 11:42:31 AM »

Looking at My Boy Blue I'm trying to see where he is 5 points slower.

I took another look at the race, and My Boy Blue clearly had the slowest figs coming in. He had the highest lifetime top (6) when everyone else was a 3 or 4, with the second place finished logging a zero once. His "effective" number range (what he has been running lately), was ~8, about 4-5 points slower than every other horse but one.

Looking at the other Mason winner, the horse was slower but the race had 3 horses get bad starts as noted by the chartmaker, and had a pace meltdown with fractions of 21.31 and 44.44 in a race that finished in over 1:11.

True enough, but Frisco Fox was running 10's coming in to yesterday's race, with absolutely no hints of improvement, or reason to believe one was coming...yet was somehow able to run what I believe will come back in the 4 - 5 range. That's a jump up -- I don't care who stumbled at the start.

Eikleberry's horse was too slow on paper but passed some horses for 3rd with the hot pace, he must have been "juicing" too. Grin

That horse was 5 or 6 lengths back for 3rd, so a) he ran pretty much his normal race, and b) even if he didn't, to quote Barry Meadow regarding why you have to spread out on the bottom of your trifecta tickets, "...even Living Filth can get up for 3rd".

Also, you are likely familiar with the phenomena of suck-along types in harness races routinely run eye-popping final times that are meaningless, because they can't replicate that time in a winning performance -- that probably best describes the Eikleberry horse. In any case, a 3rd place finish isn't really part of the issue here.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #23 on: July 26, 2009, 12:14:46 PM »

It probably is in a purely numbers world, but it doesn't mean it has to finish that way in every single race against different groups of horses, with different post positions and jockeys and race strategies and states of health and racing luck and so on, on different tracks. If speed numbers exactly predicted the outcome of races, Beyers and Sheets numbers would run the races, not flesh-and-blood horses. There are untold non-drug variables that go into the outcome of horse races. Speed numbers measure only one aspect of a horses PAST performances.

Thanks for the info, Teach. I had no idea.  I was certain that horses are simply machines, and that the Sheets, like the Pope, are completely infallible. Roll Eyes

Only because you are the one making the assertions, based on your idea of what constitutes valid evidence, and saying that evidence can mean only one thing.

Don't put words in my mouth. Assertions and evidence, yes. "Saying the evidence can mean only one thing"? Didn't say that. There is a huge chasm between the borders of "evidence" and "proof" (in case you were thinking of giving me another lecture).


Yes, they're all still only approximations, an admittedly imperfect measurement of one horse's final time on one given day, and despite the claims of their makers, DO NOT necessarily translate all that well from one track to the next or one population of horses to the next. California is a tougher circuit than most. One might readily expect California horses to shine against horses from lesser circuits, and one might as well easily expect a jockey like Russell Baze to totally outshine the likes of a Derek Bell or Dean Butler. You're My Boy Blue paid only $16.20. Not a giant surprise to many bettors, apparently. Frisco Fox $25.20, still hardly a totally unfathomable surprise. Someone out there was looking at things you were not, or seeing the speed numbers in a different light.

Some valid points here regarding tougher circuits and jockeys, but both of those horse paid like the outsiders they were. Payoffs were no doubt diluted by the presence of Baze, don't you think? 

From my perspective, your type with the religious belief in speed figures is the Space Alien Society, seeing myriads of things that are just not there. You should try owning a few horses, and learn just how shaky some of the heads-down number-cruncher assumptions that go into making - and interpreting - some of the speed numbers really are.

Ah, yes -- the "I-own-horses-so-I-automatically-know-more-than-you-argument".

Please, spare me. The owners of Thoro-Graph not only own horses, they are also very successful bloodstock advisors and consultants, who use the very figures they create to help their clients decide which horses to buy, with the most recent one being the private purchase of Rachel Alexandra by the folks who owned her before Jess Jackson -- the TG guys are the ones I am getting the info from on (among other things) drug testing, differences in same by circuit, and how to spot possibly chemically-enhanced performances.

"Space Alien Society?" You have no idea how way off you are. You might as well be talking out of your ass.

Thanks, but I think I'll stick with the "Space Aliens", who are transacting in millions of dollars of horseflesh all over the world, over the knowledge of a guy who has owned part of a few VOP platers.
Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #24 on: July 26, 2009, 12:47:48 PM »

Ok, I'll chime in since I enjoy handicapping.  I didn't play because I haven't handicapped races for some while.  But I haven't given up handicapping. Anyway, I figure it this way, that a horse will run to it's average number, usually, and if its average ain't significanty higher or lower than that of the others, it probably isn't any faster or slower, usually, than the others.  By this, you can tell I am not a speed handicapper, but I consider speed when I look at a race just the same, but look with less emphasis.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #25 on: July 26, 2009, 12:53:15 PM »

Some valid points here regarding tougher circuits and jockeys, but both of those horse paid like the outsiders they were. Payoffs were no doubt diluted by the presence of Baze, don't you think?

Maybe that's because he figured to get more out of these horses, in relation to today's competition, than mere "numbers" might indicate? At any rate, Boy Blue was 6-1 m/l and Frisco Fox 10-1, so they went off at just about what the linemaker expected.
 
Quote
Ah, yes -- the "I-own-horses-so-I-automatically-know-more-than-you-argument".

About what happens to horses in races, anyone who actually has the experience knows more than someone who doesn't, yes.

Quote
Please, spare me. The owners of Thoro-Graph not only own horses blah blah

Please, spare me, everyone already knows this. The whole world cannot help but know, for their acolytes' constant spew about it.

Their expertise still does not translate to you and your personal read of the Sheets for a given race, nor does it validate some of the shaky assumptions that go into creating speed numbers.

Quote
"Space Alien Society?" You have no idea how way off you are. You might as well be talking out of your ass.

Anyone who believes speed numbers are anything more than a general signpost to how a race MIGHT go, or that the numbers "prove" anything after the fact other than one horse finished in front of another, is no more than a believer in space aliens. There are too many unknowns that can affect a race.

You didn't answer me as to whether or not the Sheets accurately predicted that six horse stumble. What did they say would be the outcome if that was to happen? Which horses would then "figure"?

Quote
the TG guys are the ones I am getting the info from on (among other things) drug testing, differences in same by circuit,

Uh huh. Did they say if these Mason horses had been subject to the full battery of tests in California, and whether or not Minnesota used their enhanced suite of testing for the Claiming Crown races? Or are you simply postulating from the general to the specific on your own to support your own unfounded assertions about an outcome you do not understand? I'm curious especially how you came up with the quite specific "race day clenbuterol".

Quote
Thanks, but I think I'll stick with the "Space Aliens", who are transacting in millions of dollars of horseflesh all over the world

I'm sure they appreciate your blind and unswerving confidence in them, as your continued business with them depends on it. However, no matter how extensive their experience or expertise, it still does not translate to your own ability to read the tea leaves or entrails or chicken bones or whatever, before, or after the races.

Quote
over the knowledge of a guy who has owned part of a few VOP platers.

Your "expertise" is quite uninformed about the extent of my ownership of horses over the years, but that's to be expected. However, if I had owned only one race horse ever, it's more than you, giving me a world of understanding you simply do not have. The start of that is "numbers are not the be all and end all'.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #26 on: July 26, 2009, 01:08:28 PM »

True enough, but Frisco Fox was running 10's coming in to yesterday's race, with absolutely no hints of improvement, or reason to believe one was coming...yet was somehow able to run what I believe will come back in the 4 - 5 range. That's a jump up -- I don't care who stumbled at the start.

Frisco Fox had the easiest of races, simply laying back behind the one E horse left in contention, that Compton was apparently unable to slow down, ended up running a raw finish time very comparable to her raw finish times out west, and was pretty much the slowest 6f time all day. If it comes back 4 - 5 there's something wrong with the process of projecting numbers.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #27 on: July 26, 2009, 01:38:22 PM »

the TG guys are the ones I am getting the info from on (among other things) drug testing, differences in same by circuit, and how to spot possibly chemically-enhanced performances.

Interestingly enough, when ones reads the Thorograph board, it turns out the various posters over there can't even agree in general on the effects of clenbuterol and the efficacy of various testing procedures, that there are some serious opinions from actual official equine testing personnel that contradict those of Brahmin Jerry, and there's no specific discussion of the Claiming Crown races or Minnesota at all. But you, on your own, have determined that the wins by these Mason horses are no doubt due to a chemical enhancement made possible by a loophole in the tests from California to Minnesota, and that enhancement was most likely race day clenbuterol?
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #28 on: July 26, 2009, 02:03:33 PM »

The Frisco Fox race is an interesting race to watch on replay. The stumbling at the start doesn't look all that bad, but it's obvious Margie Marie definitely got the jump on the other E! horses like Miranda Diane and Met a Miner (predictable from their early pace figs, I guess), leaving those two out of their accustomed positions, with Miranda Diane was nowhere even near the front. (Both horses show as "need the lead" types from their pp's.) Frisco Fox wasn't in the top 3 in the early going. Slight favorite Gatorize was nowhere even in the race. Margie Marie ran what the announcer said was 21.1 and pooped out, leaving horses behind to swoop by, including Frisco Fox and 2nd place finisher Thunder and Belle who looks no better on my pp's than Frisco Fox.

In my expert opinion, Miranda Diane was done in by a bad start, need-the-leader Met a Miner done in by the superior early speed of Margie Marie, Margie Marie done in by her own early factions, and Gatorize done in by being too far back. That takes care of your three favorites and the longshot early leader. Pace and trouble made the race, not "speed numbers".   
Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #29 on: July 26, 2009, 02:08:06 PM »

Interestingly enough, when ones reads the Thorograph board, it turns out the various posters over there can't even agree in general on the effects of clenbuterol and the efficacy of various testing procedures, that there are some serious opinions from actual official equine testing personnel that contradict those of Brahmin Jerry, and there's no specific discussion of the Claiming Crown races or Minnesota at all. But you, on your own, have determined that the wins by these Mason horses are no doubt due to a chemical enhancement made possible by a loophole in the tests from California to Minnesota, and that enhancement was most likely race day clenbuterol?

I notice when you argue you will try to back someone into a corner by requiring him to provide a consensus of opinion the you feel  establishes their claim to some correctness or truth or validity.  In otherwords, you beg for a consensus.  Usually all it does is waste folks' time, which I suppose is what you're here to do.
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #30 on: July 26, 2009, 02:13:13 PM »

I'm sure they appreciate your blind and unswerving confidence in them, as your continued business with them depends on it.

So wrong. They make the bulk of their money in bloodstock / sales consulting. They don't "depend" on the trivial amount of money I spend, or any other horseplayer spends, on their products.

About what happens to horses in races, anyone who actually has the experience knows more than someone who doesn't, yes.

However, if I had owned only one race horse ever, it's more than you, giving me a world of understanding you simply do not have.

LOL! I seem to have struck a nerve: "Why, these scumbag bettors! How could they think they might know as much or more as us owners!"

I love it when a guy claims to have a "world of understanding" I supposedly don't have about horses...but can never make himself available for the many contests we have had here...while I -- in spite of my shaky read of the TG "chicken bones and tea leaves" -- have made several very good showings.

You can talk about your knowledge and understanding all you want. Readers here are intelligent enough to see who talks the talk, and who walks the walk.
Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2009, 02:15:36 PM »

The Frisco Fox race is an interesting race to watch on replay. The stumbling at the start doesn't look all that bad, but it's obvious Margie Marie definitely got the jump on the other E! horses like Miranda Diane and Met a Miner (predictable from their early pace figs, I guess), leaving those two out of their accustomed positions, with Miranda Diane was nowhere even near the front. (Both horses show as "need the lead" types from their pp's.) Frisco Fox wasn't in the top 3 in the early going. Slight favorite Gatorize was nowhere even in the race. Margie Marie ran what the announcer said was 21.1 and pooped out, leaving horses behind to swoop by, including Frisco Fox and 2nd place finisher Thunder and Belle who looks no better on my pp's than Frisco Fox.

In my expert opinion, Miranda Diane was done in by a bad start, need-the-leader Met a Miner done in by the superior early speed of Margie Marie, Margie Marie done in by her own early factions, and Gatorize done in by being too far back. That takes care of your three favorites and the longshot early leader. Pace and trouble made the race, not "speed numbers".   

Yep. I saw the chart for that race. Seems like a fair appraisal. I'd like to see PPs for Miranda Diane but don't have em.  Gatorize was bumped but far back. Could be her style. Most seemed far back. Frisco Fox ran a good race.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2009, 02:34:07 PM by Edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2009, 03:04:46 PM »

So wrong. They make the bulk of their money in bloodstock / sales consulting. They don't "depend" on the trivial amount of money I spend, or any other horseplayer spends, on their products.

I said they depend on your blind belief for your continued business. I made no claim as to the monetary importance of it. Religions and cults need their believers. "The Sheets", of both varieties, while decent enough handicapping tools, are primarily cults, IMHO.

Quote
LOL! I seem to have struck a nerve: "Why, these scumbag bettors! How could they think they might know as much or more as us owners!"

You are the only one who seems to have had a nerve touched and is getting all excited. What I stated was a simple fact.
 
Quote
I love it when a guy claims to have a "world of understanding" I supposedly don't have about horses...but can never make himself available for the many contests we have had here...

Logical fallacy. A has nothing to do with B. A trainer who never bets a thing or was anywhere near a contest would also have a world of understanding you do not.

Quote
while I -- in spite of my shaky read of the TG "chicken bones and tea leaves" -- have made several very good showings.

Congratulations. Little or nothing to do with clenbuterol or what happens to horses in races that leads to that day's performance, however.

Quote
You can talk about your knowledge and understanding all you want. Readers here are intelligent enough to see who talks the talk, and who walks the walk.

Indeed. Readers can also recognize the hypocrisy in constantly belittling others' talk of the effect of drugs in horse racing, and who might be doing it, for lack of concrete evidence, while unhesitatingly styling trainer Mason a cheat and ascribing these particular performances you do not understand to drugs, not to mention going as far as to name a specific drug the trainer must have used. That IS the subject here, not my horse ownership or contest participation or anything else you are scrambling your best to make an alternate subject.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #33 on: July 26, 2009, 03:50:47 PM »

Yep. I saw the chart for that race. Seems like a fair appraisal. I'd like to see PPs for Miranda Diane but don't have em.  Gatorize was bumped but far back. Could be her style. Most seemed far back. Frisco Fox ran a good race.

Gatorize normally runs from behind, but not dead last by so many lengths. The only race she won all year is a 7500 starter allowance, and that's the only outstanding recent speed number (BRIS) she has, too. This type normally needs a pretty strong speed duel with a number of horses tiring to win their race.

Miranda Diane has been pretty much an all out need the lead speed horse, with the exception of back races with a different trainer. I'm rather surprised HV hasn't mentioned the remarkable improvement this one made after its claim on the 9th of March. Of course, those big numbers came at the prestigious Will Rogers Downs. Looks to me (in retrospect, of course) like she was just about due for a serious number regression, especially against horses with any class from a tougher circuit.  So chalk that one up as a possibility, too. 

Met a Miner's last few races weren't all that much faster than Frisco Fox's according to these pp's here, and of course those came in Delaware (where they don't test at all) and Maryland (where testing is spotty and incomplete) so - by the standards that seem to apply to this discussion - maybe she suffered from the lack of her accustomed juice by going to a venue where testing was going to be tougher.  Roll Eyes 

 
Report to moderator   Logged
NYRA 792
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1827




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: July 26, 2009, 04:39:01 PM »


Also, you are likely familiar with the phenomena of suck-along types in harness races routinely run eye-popping final times that are meaningless, because they can't replicate that time in a winning performance -- that probably best describes the Eikleberry horse. In any case, a 3rd place finish isn't really part of the issue here.

Eikleberry's horse was very slow coming in and she beat many who were faster than her going into the race, so whats to say she wasn't "juiced" to run her big race, afterall,  we know Mason gave his horse the magic oats  Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
NYRA 792
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1827




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: July 26, 2009, 04:51:37 PM »

I took another look at the race, and My Boy Blue clearly had the slowest figs coming in. He had the highest lifetime top (6) when everyone else was a 3 or 4, with the second place finished logging a zero once. His "effective" number range (what he has been running lately), was ~8, about 4-5 points slower than every other horse but one.


With My Boy Blue I see a horse who has a TG Sire index that clearly favors dirt over artificial surface.
He ran a top as a 3yo on the dirt that was a 6. He came out this year and ran a pair of 8's and then a 6 on the artificial surface.So he just paired his top while running on a surface that isn't his best and now moves to his preferred surface.For me this is a horse in peak form coming from a good barn that is winning at 22% over the last 90 days.

The chalks looks bad to me.The horse ran a 0 in the slop followed by a 3.75.They gave the horse a short breather and it responded with an even worse race a 7. Not something I want to bet.

Other horses include a horse coming off a 7 at PEN, a horse who has run 3 consecutive 4's at CBY, a horse coming off a pair of 3's at LS but for an ice cold barn, and 2 horses from PID one of which looked dangerous.

So I have a horse running one of his best races, on not his preferred surface and now moving to his preferred surface and numerically only being about 2 lengths slower than others. It had to be the juice  Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #36 on: July 26, 2009, 04:51:57 PM »

Eikleberry's horse was very slow coming in and she beat many who were faster than her going into the race, so whats to say she wasn't "juiced" to run her big race, afterall,  we know Mason gave his horse the magic oats  Wink

Now now, not magic oats, "special sauce".

IMHO, it's a race that just fell apart, didn't run the way it looked like it might on paper, and produced an unexpected result. Hey - if it hadn't been for Mason's horse, the equally puzzling Thunder and Belle would have beat all those other superior number horses.

I'm curious - What kind of a reputation does Mason have in California? I've never heard his name mentioned in the same company as the usual cast of suspected "juicers". What's his record with the CHRB on violations? (Admitting I don't follow Cal racing at all esp. not No Cal.)
Report to moderator   Logged
NYRA 792
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1827




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2009, 05:16:57 PM »

He may have some positives but I don't remember any.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2009, 05:57:56 PM »

With My Boy Blue I see a horse

What's really interesting - in retrospect - about this horse is the fact that he was claimed in March for the $16,000 tag that this race conditions required, after a 20 race career as a higher level claimer/allowance/minor stakes horse, and then was obviously intentionally trained up to this very race, with 11 evenly spaced workouts in the meantime but no actual race. Well meant horse, I would say.

As our good friend Boxcar would say, you can't measure "trainer intentions" with the Blessed Sheets.
Report to moderator   Logged
BeauNarro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2800

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.....


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2009, 06:28:04 PM »

Order of finish in the contest:

#1 BeauNarro $25.40
#2 LustyTarHeal 24.40
#3 ChiTownSteve 19.60
#4 Mel 17.80
#5 HorseVoice 14.80

we ALL stunk!! But I won...NANA NA NA NAAAAAAA!!!
Report to moderator   Logged
NYRA 792
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1827




Ignore
« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2009, 06:48:35 PM »

What's really interesting - in retrospect - about this horse is the fact that he was claimed in March for the $16,000 tag that this race conditions required, after a 20 race career as a higher level claimer/allowance/minor stakes horse, and then was obviously intentionally trained up to this very race, with 11 evenly spaced workouts in the meantime but no actual race. Well meant horse, I would say.

As our good friend Boxcar would say, you can't measure "trainer intentions" with the Blessed Sheets.

I didn't look at the PPs until just now after you mentioned it but you're right, this definitely fits the bill of a well-meant/intentioned horse.  Fresh and fit plus  moving to his preferred surface.....KUDOS to the Mason clan.
Report to moderator   Logged
mel4600
Guest

« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2009, 08:47:52 PM »

Order of finish in the contest:

#1 BeauNarro $25.40
#2 LustyTarHeal 24.40
#3 ChiTownSteve 19.60
#4 Mel 17.80
#5 HorseVoice 14.80

we ALL stunk!! But I won...NANA NA NA NAAAAAAA!!!


 bowing bowing bowing bowing bowing bowing
Report to moderator   Logged
BeauNarro
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2800

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.....


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #42 on: July 26, 2009, 09:02:24 PM »

TY..TYVM
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #43 on: July 27, 2009, 12:06:48 AM »

Order of finish in the contest:

#1 BeauNarro $25.40
#2 LustyTarHeal 24.40
#3 ChiTownSteve 19.60
#4 Mel 17.80
#5 HorseVoice 14.80

we ALL stunk!! But I won...NANA NA NA NAAAAAAA!!!


Congratulations!

Sorry to help take the topic so far off what should be your triumphant moment.
Report to moderator   Logged
Lusty Tar Heel
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 863




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: July 27, 2009, 01:11:39 PM »


   Doesnt look like any of us will be winning a trip to Vegas anytime soon  Bomb
  Congrats Beau
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #45 on: July 28, 2009, 12:49:41 PM »

Well, we have one answer:

Frisco Fox received an 82 Beyer, somewhat less than her lifetime best of 86.

Still waiting on the other.
Report to moderator   Logged
brianwspencer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1700




Ignore
« Reply #46 on: July 28, 2009, 02:51:43 PM »

Well, we have one answer:

Frisco Fox received an 82 Beyer, somewhat less than her lifetime best of 86.

Still waiting on the other.

Pretty sure on an 85 for You're My Boy Blue. Make of that what you will.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #47 on: July 28, 2009, 02:57:13 PM »

Pretty sure on an 85 for You're My Boy Blue. Make of that what you will.

I don't have the lifetime DRF pp's on that one. Does 85 constitute a "lifetime best", and if so, by how many points?
Report to moderator   Logged
brianwspencer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1700




Ignore
« Reply #48 on: July 28, 2009, 03:16:24 PM »

I don't have the lifetime DRF pp's on that one. Does 85 constitute a "lifetime best", and if so, by how many points?

His 10-2-3-4 career fast dirt record includes his highest ever Beyer figure, a 95, earned last August at the Bay Meadows Fair.

His "comfort" zone for Beyer numbers on all surfaces seems to be somewhere around 80. Based on his dirt form and past runs, an 85 isn't totally out of line with what he's capable of.
Report to moderator   Logged
brianwspencer
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1700




Ignore
« Reply #49 on: July 28, 2009, 03:32:56 PM »

Well, we have one answer:

Frisco Fox received an 82 Beyer, somewhat less than her lifetime best of 86.

Still waiting on the other.

Also considerably higher than her recent tries.

But with that said, the three dirt races on her page were 74, 78, and 78 - three of the four highest numbers in her last 12 starts.

Not the biggest Beyer believer either -- but the numbers don't seem out of line, and there were obviously additional compounding circumstances in the Frisco Fox race that effectively void any speed figure-based argument about what should or should not have happened.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #50 on: July 28, 2009, 03:44:41 PM »

His 10-2-3-4 career fast dirt record includes his highest ever Beyer figure, a 95, earned last August at the Bay Meadows Fair.

His "comfort" zone for Beyer numbers on all surfaces seems to be somewhere around 80. Based on his dirt form and past runs, an 85 isn't totally out of line with what he's capable of.

Thank you.

So, at least according to the Beyers, the winning efforts of these two horses did NOT constitute lifetime bests, putting somewhat of a dagger in the heart of one key dubious claim in the brouhaha, "Mason, coming from a state with stringent testing and race-day meds policies to one that isn't as stringent, got these horses to "jump up" to lifetime best performances."
Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #51 on: July 28, 2009, 04:51:39 PM »

Thank you.

So, at least according to the Beyers, the winning efforts of these two horses did NOT constitute lifetime bests, putting somewhat of a dagger in the heart of one key dubious claim in the brouhaha, "Mason, coming from a state with stringent testing and race-day meds policies to one that isn't as stringent, got these horses to "jump up" to lifetime best performances."

Hmm.  I wouldn't go that far. What leads you to say that? 
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #52 on: July 28, 2009, 05:14:06 PM »

Hmm.  I wouldn't go that far. What leads you to say that?  

If they did not post lifetime best performances, they did not "'"jump up' to lifetime best performances".

At least, according to speed figs, which of course what the whole discussion was based on.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.198 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy