I'm not quite sure what the alleged controversy is now about. Of course, as far as the time goes, that could have been a very serious issue; however, the time could have been and was verified and relatively very quickly. There might have been a time delay in getting the verification out, but the very next day on the backstretch it was a non-issue.
Regarding the Beyer #, I read the article(s) as everyone else has as well. The "human" or personal element of the Beyer # has always been present. Being that the track record time cannot be disputed -- as a "raw", recorded time -- that only leaves other "variables" at play. If the comprehensive data comes back with a 123, then it is what it is. However, we aren't talking about 123 here. We are talking about 116.
As a matter of fact, Mark Hopkins came right out and said that the horse never came close to 123. Of course he gave all the "data" to support that.
However, my question is -- why? Because Lawyer Ron never ran better than 109? I understand the 2005 Whitney and the afterthoughts of perhaps the #'s being mistaken or inaccurate, however, is there where a "wrong" is made "right" so to speak?
There is a "human" element to the Beyer #, and we all know it's not science or exclusively formulaic.
Eric
|
07-31-2007, 09:35 PM
Threaded Mode