I think it is a great time to discuss Beyers. All the bashers hate when he breaks out races, but I'd love to hear the alternatives here from them. What would they do? There is always criticism, but never a better solution given.

The 94 is certainly debatable, but any time a race has to stand on its own that will happen. Does anyone really believe Gio Ponti ran a 100 yesterday? That one is probably off by a lot more than this one.

Oh you victim you.

So they can fudge them a little....but not a lot?

You do realize this is more inaccurate and/or more disingenuous?

Maybe you should discuss projection with Jerry Brown some time ( to take Beyer out of the equation ). Honestly, I think you would find it very enlightening.

Wow, that is as clueless a post on making Beyers as I have seen. Where has pace been mentioned? You are saying the figures were a little high for two races and a little low for one, but that is doing exactly what Beyer did. "A little" is certainly not 21 points.

I think the problem is with the clock in this case. It is doubtful track maintenance sped the track up and then it immediately reverted back to its previous speed for the next race.

If I see a time that seems "off", my first inclincation is not to go directly to the opposite end of the spectrum. Unless it points to a timing malfunction.

Enlighten us, give us your figures and most importantly, WHY.

So you don't think the stark difference in paces came into play in their calculations?

No, because there wasn't that big a difference when the pace of each race is related to its final time.

Your first inclination? Do you actually make your own figures?

Axe? With what? I have none. I just think, as Hockey laid out extremely eloquently in his post, the spirit and initial purpose of the Beyers has been lost when pace and/or trip gets incorporated into the figure.

The better solution is to just leave it alone. If it came up a 115, and cannot be explained by mechanical failure of the timing device, let the bettors decide whether they are legitimate and/or repeatable. It is extremely hard to fathom that BL and HDG ran that much better than the other two races. But it is certainly possible- she is the best 3YO filly in the country and HDG has unlimited potential, and a 115 from a 3YO filly isn't unheard of. If the rest of the field got "towed along" by the top finishers and get figures that they probably didn't earn, that means one of three things: (1) the beaten lengths adjustments need to be examined (unlikely but possible), or (2) they all actually ran their career bests (even less likely) or (3) the handicappers will make the correct determination on their own.

It isn't just the importance to future races' betting determinations- which like them or not, the Beyers drive millions in handle, but in the breeding industry, and their historical ranks, horses are also referenced and promoted by their Beyer figure accomplishments. They are the industry standard- shouldn't they be the best?

No question the turf Beyers have even more "interpretation"... but also much less importance.

Please. I got banned at PA for a similar argument. Not going to do the same here. For one, I have a LOT more respect for Steve as a person and a friend than the other guy, for two, I actually like the people here.

You went 0 for 3.....but you knew that.

If one was going to question a figure, wouldn't it be the figure given to Gio Ponti for the Man O' War? The final time was six seconds off the course record, but the sun-baked course could not be deemed "slow." I understand that the final running time was a function of the very slow pace and the figure may not be an accurate reflection of the quality of the performance, but isn't that the reason why interpreting the numbers often produced in slow-paced synthetic races has proven so vexing?

I am interested in what they give the Gold Cup yesterday as on raw times it was pretty bad.

What adjustment would have been made if you replace the name "Blind Luck" with the name "Rachel Alexandra"?

There is no way they should put a 115 in the paper. If that is done, they look like fools in the future.

Blind Luck overcame a moderate pace to win from the back. There is simply no way she ran a 115 with the pace that way, or even close. I can buy a high 90s at best. I'm not saying the 94 is dead accurate, that is not possible. But I would say the chances the 94 are correct are much higher than a 115, because the chances a 115 are correct are none.

As for PA, you know why you were banned. It had ZERO to do with Beyer figures.

100.
Triple Bend a 108.

Nope. . . I've never bothered to make my own figures because I have always respected the philosophy behind Beyers and the application of that philosophy into their calculations. I think there are much better places to find value in handicapping than speed figs, but I rely on them to put those other variables into context. I've only been handicapping for five years, and would never claim to be an expert in any area of the game, but I think I'm plenty intelligent enough to see that something here just doesn't make sense. More and more, we've been expected to "believe" in figs that are constantly re-adjusted and seem incongruous with logic. I know it's not easy to explain abberant figures/results--and maybe I'd run into the same problems that Beyer + Associates do if I made my own calculations--but how can we possibly believe that two horses turned in basically the exact same performances with extremely different final times without any semblance of an explanation for the abberation? Did the length of a second change for a half hour in Delaware yesterday? Like Phil said, I'd rather be given the crazy looking figs--a 115 and a 75 or whatever--and allowed to decide for myself, than to be forced to swallow a forced reconciliation made to make everything look neat and clean.

When is the last time you can say a figure by Rachel Alexandra was broken out from the others? I can't remember one, but maybe you didn't just make this up. Enlighten me.

Dude, I don't know what's gotten into you, but this is way too typical these days. I get that you're an opinionated person. But YOUR opinion isn't necessarily the beliefs of everyone else. Enlighten me on why or what I'm "wrong" on.

Did you go back and hand time the races?

I say that because the track seemed like it was on the average to quick time wise yet the gold cup was 203 and change.