Roger Stein on Beyer on Zenyatta

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If you do the math, she ran her final 7 furlongs in about 1:23 1/5.

Math obviously isn't your strong suit.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Math obviously isn't your strong suit.

Let me see. They went the first 3 furlongs in :35. Zenyatta was 20 lengths back. She went the first 3 fulongs in about :39. She finished in 2:02 1/5. You do the math.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let me see. They went the first 3 furlongs in :35. Zenyatta was 20 lengths back. She went the first 3 fulongs in about :39. She finished in 2:02 1/5. You do the math.

Wow - you are truly weapons grade stupid. You actually think there are 5 lengths in a second? Tears, Jerry, Tears.

Mathematically speaking, a length should equal 1/5th of a second only when a horse travels a furlong in 15 seconds. Do you have a harness racing background or something?

It obviously depends on the rate of speed....but as a rule of thumb, one full second equals about six lengths.

I told you already - based on the information in the result chart - Zenyatta ran her final mile in 1:36.27 - and final six furlongs in 1:12.59 - those times come from Formulator's chart.

You - keep saying she ran her final seven furlongs in 1:23 1/5.

Which means you keep insisting that she ran the 4th furlong of the race in 10.61 seconds... after running her 3rd furlong of the race in 13.07 seconds.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Wow - you are truly weapons grade stupid. You actually think there are 5 lengths in a second? Tears, Jerry, Tears.

Mathematically speaking, a length should equal 1/5th of a second only when a horse travels a furlong in 15 seconds. Do you have a harness racing background or something?

It obviously depends on the rate of speed....but as a rule of thumb, one full second equals about six lengths.

I told you already - based on the information in the result chart - Zenyatta ran her final mile in 1:36.27 - and final six furlongs in 1:12.59 - those times come from Formulator's chart.

You - keep saying she ran her final seven furlongs in 1:23 1/5.

Which means you keep insisting that she ran the 4th furlong of the race in 10.61 seconds... after running her 3rd furlong of the race in 13.07 seconds.

I actually did used to go to the harness races occasioanlly as a teenager. And you are right that in thoroughbred racing it is approximately 6 lengths per second rather than 5. That is what I should be using. It is more accurate.

I was being conservative when I said Zenyatta was 20 lengths back after 3 furlongs. There is no official number of how far back she was, but there are plenty of people (Richard Migliore) and articles that think she was closer to 25 lengths back (between calls after about 3 furlongs). If she was 24 lengths back, that would mean she ran her final 7 furlongs in 1:23 1/5. If she was exactly 20 back, then she ran her final 7 furlongs in 1:23 4/5. If she was 22 lengths back, then it was more like 1:23 2/5 or 1:23 3/5.

How far back do you think she was after 3 furlongs?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Wow - you are truly weapons grade stupid. You actually think there are 5 lengths in a second? Tears, Jerry, Tears.

Mathematically speaking, a length should equal 1/5th of a second only when a horse travels a furlong in 15 seconds. Do you have a harness racing background or something?

It obviously depends on the rate of speed....but as a rule of thumb, one full second equals about six lengths.

I told you already - based on the information in the result chart - Zenyatta ran her final mile in 1:36.27 - and final six furlongs in 1:12.59 - those times come from Formulator's chart.

You - keep saying she ran her final seven furlongs in 1:23 1/5.

Which means you keep insisting that she ran the 4th furlong of the race in 10.61 seconds... after running her 3rd furlong of the race in 13.07 seconds.

I just watched the race a few more times. She was actually the furthest back after 2 1/2 furlongs. She was probably 22 or so lengths back after 2 1/2 furlongs. So that means she ran her final 7 1/2 furlongs in 1:29 3/5, which is more impressive than her final 7 furlongs.

I think her correct final 7 furlong time was a few ticks slower than I originally thought. I think she ran her final 7 furlongs in 1:23 4/5 (I originally had said 1:23 1/5).

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I just watched the race a few more times.

I watched it again and from the broadcast view it's impossible for me to determine how far back she was after 2 1/2 furlongs.

I think her correct final 7 furlong time was a few ticks slower than I originally thought.

Soon after the leader crossed the 7 furlong marker the camera showed a view that could more accurately estimate how far back she was and 16 lengths is my guess.

[Travis Stone]

It's a good thing she was so far behind... if she was closer, who knows how much punch she has late. The pace killed the chances of anyone close to it... the farther off, the better.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

It's a good thing she was so far behind... if she was closer, who knows how much punch she has late. The pace killed the chances of anyone close to it... the farther off, the better.

The further back the better? If Mike Smith would have known that, he could have dropped a few lengths further back. I'm sure he would have won then.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

I watched it again and from the broadcast view it's impossible for me to determine how far back she was after 2 1/2 furlongs.



Soon after the leader crossed the 7 furlong marker the camera showed a view that could more accurately estimate how far back she was and 16 lengths is my guess.

I don't know if you have an account there, but Racereplays.com has the normal pan-shot of the race. You can make a pretty good estimate from that angle.