Ed Fountaine's article from todays NY Post

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I am far from an expert on Thorograph and their whole bounce theory. But I believe they have done a ton of research and they have a ton of data to support their theory. It sounds like you are saying that their whole theory is incorrect. What do you base this on? I know you are a numbers guy and you like to rely on empirical data. Have you done any research or do you have any data that debunks their theory?

Rupert, I do not have my own data. But, I have to hope Jerry Brown was mis-quoted with the War Emblem reference. Anyone who remembers that race remembers that War Emblem barely survived the start, stumbling about as bad as you can stumble without going down. War Emblem was then used hard to make the lead that it otherwise would have had effortlessly. If War Emblem's failure to win the Belmont is the kind of data that support bounce, then forget it.

Some of my disdain for bounce is semantic. If a horse runs a fig that is far better than its past several races, do I expect it to repeat the fig? Generally, no. I will assume (if it's a Beyer-type fig that doesn't try to account for trip) that the horse had things especially easy when generating the big fig, and (for every type fig) that for some reason the horse was physically and psychologically ready to give a big performance. I will assume that the stars will probably NOT be aligned perfectly next time the horse runs.

That may sound something like "bounce" to you, but here's the difference. "bounce" usually implies that the race immediately after the big fig will be particularly poor. The horse will be "cooked", as Brown is quoted in the article that started this thread. Here's my challenge to you. (and I've made the same offer/challenge to others before). If you think Curlin will bounce in the Belmont, then pick a race further out that you think he will run better in. Maybe his race after the Belmont? The 2nd race after the Belmont? If he is so likely to "bounce" from his Derby/Preakness efforts, then you (or Brown) can afford to give me 6/5 and I'll take Curlin's Belmont Stakes BSF and you can choose (in advance) any subsequent Curlin BSF this year.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

With regard to dosage, it is far from perfect and it may or may not be a good indicator of which horses will be able to win the Derby. But dosage is still a very useful tool. There is a very high correlation between a horse's dosage and how far they want to run. The higher a horse's dosage, the shorther they want to run. Like anything else, the correlation is not perfect. It is not 1.00. But is probably .6-.7 or something in that vicinity. If you are at a sale and you are not that familiar with a horse's breeding, checking the dosage can be useful. I wouldn't rely solely on dosage, but I think it can be useful.

(emphasis added)

I don't dispute that dosage might be helpful in buying unraced horses or even helpful in betting on unraced horses. As a Kentucky Derby tool, it is useful to me only to the extent that people continue to rely on it as an "angle", creating potential value for non-dosage horses.

--Dunbar