Obviously.
And Rupert is going through her past races and picking out fractions - without taking into consideration the speed of the racing surface.
Go to Zenyatta's race two starts back at Del Mar. She was 7.5 lengths behind a 50.61 half mile going 8.5fs.
One race earlier - you had an opt claiming race for fillies at a mile on the same surface go 45.59 for a half mile. The winner of that race was a filly in for a 40K claiming tag.
So, Zenyatta's race went 5.02 full seconds - or about 30 lengths - slower to the half mile than some ordinary N1X opt claiming route for females.
Here are the charts of these two races run over the same surface 30 minutes apart:
http://www1.drf.com/drfNCWeeklyHorse...00807&raceNo=8
http://www1.drf.com/drfNCWeeklyHorse...00807&raceNo=9
I don't know why it is - but A LOT of people are just hopelessly lost by stuff like this. If you're going to compare fractions with fractions at different tracks - you better be able to adjust for speed of surface.
I've seen hopeless $5,000 claimers cut fractions of 21 and change 44 flat and run 1:09 at Turf Paradise. There are days at Calder where the track is so slow that Grade 1 sprinters would be lucky to beat 23 flat and run 6fs in 1:12 and change. Obviously - Turf Paradise to Calder is an extreme example - but her So. Cal pace fractions that keep getting quoted are run on faster racing surfaces than ones at most Eastern dirt tracks.
Lookin At Lucky romped in the Haskell getting 9fs in 1:49 4/5. Blame won a Grade 1 at Churchill in the Stephen Foster in 1:49 1/5.
The day Zenyatta won the Santa Margarita earlier this year - Dance To My Tune and Floating Heart finished a nose apart and both completed 9fs in 1:48 2/5.
To use the pace fractions Zenyatta ran in the Santa Margarita and compare them with other horses in the BC Classic .. is every bit as stupid as saying Dance to My Tune and Floating Heart would have won the Haskell by 8.5 lengths because their final time was 8.5 lengths faster. Just ignore the speed of the racing surface.