Butch Lehr on bias controversy -- Horseplayer Daily

[Pointg5]

When a horse coming off a huge top that was good enough to win the race, but an automatic toss coming off that top, wins, there's no doubt there's a bias...

Thor's Echo

You could also see it in the first race, when PVals horse won...

Originally Posted by Pointg5

When a horse coming off a huge top that was good enough to win the race, but an automatic toss coming off that top, wins, there's no doubt there's a bias...

Thor's Echo

You could also see it in the first race, when PVals horse won...

Point, don't matter what name he uses, once a cherub always a cherub.
Of courses hes also explained to us that Gorella's lifetime top race "took nothing out of her", that Fleet Indian wouldnt go in the BC, that Bernandini would run faster when pushed, blah blah blah. Hes a font of misinformation.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

When a horse coming off a huge top that was good enough to win the race, but an automatic toss coming off that top, wins, there's no doubt there's a bias...

Thor's Echo

You could also see it in the first race, when PVals horse won...

If it were just Thor's Echo, there would be plenty of doubt. Just like there is plenty of doubt that coming off a big top creates an automatic toss. I certainly don't buy that line of thinkiing.

Thor's Echo has done nothing wrong all year. He was one of the most likely horses to win that race. The bias may have increased the margin he won by, but chances are he would still have won.

--Dunbar

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

If it were just Thor's Echo, there would be plenty of doubt. Just like there is plenty of doubt that coming off a big top creates an automatic toss. I certainly don't buy that line of thinkiing.

Thor's Echo has done nothing wrong all year. He was one of the most likely horses to win that race. The bias may have increased the margin he won by, but chances are he would still have won.

--Dunbar

Especially since it was the second race off a layoff which often leads to a big race. It is called bounce THEORY for a reason. In reality what is perceived as a bounce is really just regression to the mean after a big race.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Especially since it was the second race off a layoff which often leads to a big race. It is called bounce THEORY for a reason. In reality what is perceived as a bounce is really just regression to the mean after a big race.

Actually, I have heard and read it's 3rd off the layoff that's the best and produces the best results...

Yes, a bounce is sometimes a regression back to the mean, but his mean was not good enough to win the race, his best was, but he ran his best by a large margin in the last race and was set for a bounce...It's a theory and sometimes doesn't hold true, because these are horses not machines...

Like I said, if my laptop wasn't broken I would go back and watch the race, but I believe there was a definite rail bias, I read somewhere that they fixed the track after the Distaff(if this is incorrect someone say so), maybe that's why Invasior and Bernardini weren't effected by it...

Let's see how some of these come back and run, I think Scuds pointed out one that won already while racing wide, I think we will see many more...

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

Actually, I have heard and read it's 3rd off the layoff that's the best and produces the best results...

Yes, a bounce is sometimes a regression back to the mean, but his mean was not good enough to win the race, his best was, but he ran his best by a large margin in the last race and was set for a bounce...It's a theory and sometimes doesn't hold true, because these are horses not machines...

Like I said, if my laptop wasn't broken I would go back and watch the race, but I believe there was a definite rail bias, I read somewhere that they fixed the track after the Distaff(if this is incorrect someone say so), maybe that's why Invasior and Bernardini weren't effected by it...

Let's see how some of these come back and run, I think Scuds pointed out one that won already while racing wide, I think we will see many more...

That would mean he should be sitting on a big one in the De Francis then unless you think the last two have taken a lot out of him.

That previous form was from early in the year which was essentially the extension of a long 3yo season, it isn't like he was running a 106 all year and then suddenly pulled off a 116. He could have just badly needed a break and some time to mature into a very good 4yo.

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

That would mean he should be sitting on a big one in the De Francis then unless you think the last two have taken a lot out of him.

That previous form was from early in the year which was essentially the extension of a long 3yo season, it isn't like he was running a 106 all year and then suddenly pulled off a 116. He could have just badly needed a break and some time to mature into a very good 4yo.

I am not looking at Beyers, Thorographs go pull them up they are free...

Depending on when the DeFrancis is, it may not matter, it's 3rd start off of a layoff of 60 days or more, if the Defrancis is in February, he'll be plenty ready to roll...I believe he bounced in the BC, but his rail aided trip, he still got it done...

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I am not looking at Beyers, Thorographs go pull them up they are free...

Depending on when the DeFrancis is, it may not matter, it's 3rd start off of a layoff of 60 days or more, if the Defrancis is in February, he'll be plenty ready to roll...I believe he bounced in the BC, but his rail aided trip, he still got it done...

I'm sure the thorographs show a similar trend, was fairly consistent before the layoff and came back much improved.

The DeFrancis is this weekend.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

It is called bounce THEORY for a reason. In reality what is perceived as a bounce is really just regression to the mean after a big race.

Well put, Sniper. IMO, people would do much better to think in terms of "Regression to the mean" than "bounce". People use "bounce" as if the horse is going to come back and run worse than it did before the big fig. I've never seen anything more than isolated anecdotal evidence to support that.

When I'm faced with a horse that ran very big last time out, I'll usually start with a speed fig that is between the high one and the race or 2 before that. The younger the horse, the more I am willing to weight the recent high fig.

--Dunbar

[Pointg5]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Especially since it was the second race off a layoff which often leads to a big race. It is called bounce THEORY for a reason. In reality what is perceived as a bounce is really just regression to the mean after a big race.

I took a look last night and Thor's Echo was coming off of a 6 point top, his mean is about a 2 and he ran a negative 4 in his last race, it's not like he's a developing 2yo or 3yo, it was a 6 point top coming 3/4 of the way through his 4yo year. Not every horse bounces, but that had some sort of regression written all over it or even back to his mean which would have made him a non factor in the Sprint. He ran a negative 5 in the Sprint and from the comments looks like he rode the rail and then swung out 3 wide and won, so I believe his number was aided by an golden rail. For those that believe there was no rail bias, I don't know what to say to you and I am not going to argues with you, because it looks like a hopeless cause. I guess we'll see what happens in the next couple of races....

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

I took a look last night and Thor's Echo was coming off of a 6 point top, his mean is about a 2 and he ran a negative 4 in his last race, it's not like he's a developing 2yo or 3yo, it was a 6 point top coming 3/4 of the way through his 4yo year. Not every horse bounces, but that had some sort of regression written all over it or even back to his mean which would have made him a non factor in the Sprint. He ran a negative 5 in the Sprint and from the comments looks like he rode the rail and then swung out 3 wide and won, so I believe his number was aided by an golden rail. For those that believe there was no rail bias, I don't know what to say to you and I am not going to argues with you, because it looks like a hopeless cause. I guess we'll see what happens in the next couple of races....

As I said before he was running those figures early in the year in what was essentially the end of a long 3yo campaign. He obviously needed the time to rest and develop and has apparently done just that. Why did other horses that rode the rail run poorly but he was aided by it? Is Brother Derek that atrociously bad that he couldn't crack the top four with the magical rail trip? What about the horse that was in front of Thor's Echo that they had to swing wide to pass because Nakatani had so much horse under him? Why wasn't that horse benefiting from the same golden rail? Just doesn't make much sense to me. When Thor's Echo wins the De Francis on Saturday will that quiet people?

[Pointg5]

That's a ton of development and with no signs of doing that before, it sets up for a bounce. I believe he bounced and still won, so he has every right to win the Defrancis, wouldn't surprise me, he's obviously a talented animal. I think it might prove my point even more.

One thing I read on here multiple times and whoever writes this nonsense is a complete moron in my opinion. There seems to be a group on here that says if you are questioning the track, you are just making excuses for being wrong. That's the stupidest line of bullcrap I have ever read anywhere. If you are interested in this sport and like to predict winners, you have to be able to look at things and question them and make your own assertions. I didn't think Thor's Echo would win on a fair track, because of his bounce, but he was definetely talented enough on a gold rail to win, that was my mistake for not recognizing that fact. If you are not learning from your mistakes you are going backwards and if you chalk it up to the fact that people are looking for something to blame their losses on, you have a losers mentality...

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Pointg5

That's a ton of development and with no signs of doing that before, it sets up for a bounce. I believe he bounced and still won, so he has every right to win the Defrancis, wouldn't surprise me, he's obviously a talented animal. I think it might prove my point even more.

One thing I read on here multiple times and whoever writes this nonsense is a complete moron in my opinion. There seems to be a group on here that says if you are questioning the track, you are just making excuses for being wrong. That's the stupidest line of bullcrap I have ever read anywhere. If you are interested in this sport and like to predict winners, you have to be able to look at things and question them and make your own assertions. I didn't think Thor's Echo would win on a fair track, because of his bounce, but he was definetely talented enough on a gold rail to win, that was my mistake for not recognizing that fact. If you are not learning from your mistakes you are going backwards and if you chalk it up to the fact that people are looking for something to blame their losses on, you have a losers mentality...

Questioning a track is one thing. Saying there was without a doubt a track bias when there are plenty of people that disagree is just sour grapes. It is one thing if all the races were wire jobs but that wasn't the case at all, every race was won differently. The post position coincidence was just that, none of the winners were really that unusual.

Originally Posted by Pointg5

That's a ton of development and with no signs of doing that before, it sets up for a bounce. I believe he bounced and still won, so he has every right to win the Defrancis, wouldn't surprise me, he's obviously a talented animal. I think it might prove my point even more.

One thing I read on here multiple times and whoever writes this nonsense is a complete moron in my opinion. There seems to be a group on here that says if you are questioning the track, you are just making excuses for being wrong. That's the stupidest line of bullcrap I have ever read anywhere. If you are interested in this sport and like to predict winners, you have to be able to look at things and question them and make your own assertions. I didn't think Thor's Echo would win on a fair track, because of his bounce, but he was definetely talented enough on a gold rail to win, that was my mistake for not recognizing that fact. If you are not learning from your mistakes you are going backwards and if you chalk it up to the fact that people are looking for something to blame their losses on, you have a losers mentality...

Seriously, do you not understand the fact that Thor's Echo DID NOT WIN ON THE RAIL. The horse was anywhere from 3-5 wide almost the entire trip. I dont understand how you say he got a "golden rail" when he wasnt on the rail.