Lawyer Ron's Time

[31lengths]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Ditto that! The rest is blood clot, mon.

So what was the final BSF?

....that's bumba claat, mon.

[robfla]

Originally Posted by 31lengths

So what was the final BSF?

....that's bumba claat, mon.

Whitney (Sar): Lawyer Ron (T. Pletcher/J. Velazquez) - 116
Bing Crosby (Dmr): In Summation (C. Clement/C. Nakatani) - 111
Alfred G. Vanderbilt (Sar): Diabolical (S. Klesaris/M. Pino) - 106
Diana (Sar): My Typhoon (Ire) (W. Mott/E. Castro) - 106
Washington Park (AP): Lewis Michael (W. Catalano/E. Baird) - 105
Sanford (Sar): Ready's Image (T. Pletcher/J. Velazquez) - 104
Jim Dandy (Sar): Street Sense (C. Nafzger/C. Borel) - 104

[CoronadosQuest]

Time has been verified as correct

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo..._for_todd.html

RIGHT ON TIME: Lawyer Ron's time in the Whitney - his 1:46.64 broke the existing track record by two-fifths of a second - was confirmed after repeated re-testings by NYRA officials. Stephen Foster, who electronically hand-times every race as a check against the automatic Teletimer, initially caught Lawyer Ron in a nearly identical time as the live race. He and two other independent sources clocked the race off of the replay, and every one caught Lawyer Ron under the old 1:47 record co-held by Tri Jet and Left Bank.

[Danzig]

well, that's that.

who would have thought lawyer ron would leap to the fore, and in such a big way?

[gamblin4ever]

IMO the time didnt matter as much as Lawyer Ron's visually impressive win.

But glad the time has been verified.

Congrats to Lawyer Ron and connections

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by 2Hot4TV

Time is only important where you are in jail. Lawyer Ron's win was by daylite over a very good field, now if he can just stay a mile and 1/4.

I disagree with this post completely. Time IS important for all of the reasons that King Glorious pointed out. His race was pretty nice, and as a fan of the sport....I enjoyed watching a strong performance by a good horse.
BUT, as somebody who may be betting the next race he is in, I would sort of like to know what his speed figures really were for that race. And speed figures depend on time.
I agree 100% with King Glorious........on this one.

P.S. I don't think he will ever be effective beyond 9f.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I disagree with this post completely. Time IS important for all of the reasons that King Glorious pointed out. His race was pretty nice, and as a fan of the sport....I enjoyed watching a strong performance by a good horse.
BUT, as somebody who may be betting the next race he is in, I would sort of like to know what his speed figures really were for that race. And speed figures depend on time.
I agree 100% with King Glorious........on this one.

P.S. I don't think he will ever be effective beyond 9f.

Do you think he won't be effective beyond 9fs because that's just the way you've always felt? I'm figuring that is the case because I can't imagine how someone could have watched the Whitney and afterwards said, "No way Lawyer Ron gets 10fs."

By the way, I still don't know if I'm certain 10fs is what Lawyer Ron wants.

NT

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Do you think he won't be effective beyond 9fs because that's just the way you've always felt? I'm figuring that is the case because I can't imagine how someone could have watched the Whitney and afterwards said, "No way Lawyer Ron gets 10fs."

By the way, I still don't know if I'm certain 10fs is what Lawyer Ron wants.

NT

His 2 9f races this year were superior to his 3 8f races...so I would have to say he can probably get 10f...especially at speed favoring Monmouth. I think that distance at that track is probably a match made in heaven despite his 8f loss there last month.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I think it more than likely that the track changed speeds between the Ginger Punch race and the Whitney. If someone was actually at the track, they might know if the maintenace crew added water or worked on the track prior to the Whitney like they often do before feature races.

I did not make any particular observations about what the track crew did prior to the Whitney. The track had been harrowed most of the day, but was sealed prior to the Diana, and subsequently "re-opened." Whether that may have had an impact on the glibness of the track, I can't say.

The only comment that I have on the figures is that the problem seems to stem from the comparison of the Whitney to the Go For Wand. To my eye, the Go For Wand was a pretty ugly race, and the winner still got the 9F in 1:49, the second fastest running of the race since the Maskette was transferred to Saratoga in 1994 and renamed after Go For Wand. As so often happens, horses don't set track records, but the glibness of the racing surface results in track records. The final times for the Vanderbilt (only Speightstown, Prospect Bay and Five Star Day had run faster times than Diabolical) and the modest group of NY-bred maidens in the last race suggest that the track was playing faster than par at the end of Saturday's card. Perhaps that explains why a track record was set by a very talented horse that ran a very big race.

[mes5107]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

Dick Jerardi wrote "Story behind Lawyer Ron's 116 Beyer"
on Monday. To get a look on the drf.com website, you have to be a subscriber. So I can't leave the link here.
I can tell you all, this is a very typical adjustment from BSF, in this situation.
This is something I have taken advantage of, at the windows more than a half dozen occassions in the last 3 years. A big reason, I won't take their figures seriously, and haven't for more than 8 years now.

Basically, the article says that Mark Hopkins, who creates the Beyers at Saratoga, made a judgement call. If he gives Lawyer Ron a 123, which the variant for the day called for, then the next few horses behind him would have made some big improvements in Beyers as well, namely Wanderin Boy at 113 and Diamond Stripes at 111. Wanderin Boy's 113 would have matched a career high earned at the old lightning fast dirt Keeneland and Diamond Stripes would have improved from his career high of 106.

I don't understand how this was thought to be so improbable, though. Wanderin Boy ran a great race in the Whitney and I thought that Beyer Speed Figures took into account the speed of the racetrack, even if it is a speed favoring Keeneland of old. Diamond Stripes was a lightly raced 4 year old that had run 106-105-104 in his last three with not-so-great trips. It seems to be a good bet that he would improve this time out as he is still developing. Both of these horses were most likely being trained to give a top performance at the Whitney as well.

I understand that creating figures is not always black and white, but the "there's no way these horses improved" argument doesn't exactly fit here.

[King Glorious]

I do not like that judgments are being published as facts. These judgements have too much of an effect on what the wagering public does. What if his judgement would have been to stick with the 123 and they had published that? U all know that the difference between the 123 and the 116 might be the difference between whether he's 8/5 in his next race or 3/5. This stuff is too important to rely on one person's judgement, IMO. It's dangerous. While, I'm not suggesting that his own wagering interests might be furthered by issuing a specific number, I can't help but feel like by doing it this way, u leave yourself open to people wondering if that's the case. One of my favorite quotes says "flee all appearance of evil." Not all evil only but even the appearance of it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I disagree with this post completely. Time IS important for all of the reasons that King Glorious pointed out. His race was pretty nice, and as a fan of the sport....I enjoyed watching a strong performance by a good horse.
BUT, as somebody who may be betting the next race he is in, I would sort of like to know what his speed figures really were for that race. And speed figures depend on time.
I agree 100% with King Glorious........on this one.

P.S. I don't think he will ever be effective beyond 9f.

lawyer ron has run once ever past 9f, in the ky derby. hard to say based on one effort whether he can handle the distance or not. he might be better at 9 than 10, but again, one loss (and of course only one winner per race!) isn't enough to say if he can handle it.

based on his new and improved running style, and judging by his whitney effort, i wouldn't say 10f is out of his realm.

[Charismatic1]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lawyer ron has run once ever past 9f, in the ky derby. hard to say based on one effort whether he can handle the distance or not. he might be better at 9 than 10, but again, one loss (and of course only one winner per race!) isn't enough to say if he can handle it.

based on his new and improved running style, and judging by his whitney effort, i wouldn't say 10f is out of his realm.

Don't forget he ran in the Classic last year. So he's 0 for 2. But at that time, he hadn't learned how to relax yet. So as you said, he's different now. From his Whitney effort, he doesn't look like he's stopping at 9 furlongs. I don't even consider last year.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Charismatic1

Don't forget he ran in the Classic last year. So he's 0 for 2. But at that time, he hadn't learned how to relax yet. So as you said, he's different now. From his Whitney effort, he doesn't look like he's stopping at 9 furlongs. I don't even consider last year.

whoops, forgot his 'run' in there!

[2Hot4TV]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I disagree with this post completely. Time IS important for all of the reasons that King Glorious pointed out. His race was pretty nice, and as a fan of the sport....I enjoyed watching a strong performance by a good horse.
BUT, as somebody who may be betting the next race he is in, I would sort of like to know what his speed figures really were for that race. And speed figures depend on time.
I agree 100% with King Glorious........on this one.

P.S. I don't think he will ever be effective beyond 9f.

I will be more intrested in the track condition, the weight he carries and new faces in the race.

Lawyer Ron came into this race a better race horse than we saw last year and freaked on the track conditions. I think it is that simple. I like the horse and hope he backs it up in his next race.

I didn't bet him because of the post position he had to over come.

P.S. he would of won at 10f Saturday on that track against the same field.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by JJP

Let's face it; the actual time really doesn't matter. We know the gaps involved separating the horses. Lets take a look at the top 5 finishers showing their top route dirt figs, and their last race Beyers:

Lawyer Ron 109, 108 (last race)
Wanderin Boy 113, 90 (last race). His two top dirt figs, 113 and 111, were loose on lead wire jobs at the old biased Kee. Is it likely he ran superior to those numbers? Its highly doubtful.
Diamond Stripes 106 & 104---he's been in the 104-106 range for his last 4 starts.
Fairbanks-115 & 103--the 115 was a loose on the lead runaway job. The 103, accomplished in his last, would be a far more likely number he'd run.
Dry Martini- 107 & 107--This is a horse who very often runs in the 100-103 area. The 107 was accomplished on Bute, at a track that often produces Beyers that are suspiciously high.

Likely projected figures before the race:

Dry Martini--102
Fairbanks--103
Diamond Stripes---106

These are the most likely numbers that could've occurred. In reality, the differential between Fairbanks and Dry Martini should be 2 pts, not 1. Based on this, Wanderin Boy would be 2 pts higher (1 length at 9f) than Diamond Stripes, giving him a 108. He's run a 107 and 106 on non-old Keeneland surfaces, so that is plausible. Higher than a 108 would not be likely. So for Lawyer Ron, we add on 8 pts, giving him a 116, a solid new top, but very likely considering his win margin. These are my projected figures (I use the Beyer scale):

Lawyer Ron 116
Wanderin Boy 108
Diamond Stripes 106
Fairbanks 103
Dry Martini 101

Great minds think alike, and Hopkins definitely got this one right on the money.

[ELA]

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

[JJP]

Yes there definitely is. If they assigned Lawyer Ron a 123, it would not only been a huge new top for him, but for a number of horses in the field. The chances of numerous horses in a race jumping up and either running new tops or dramatically improved figures (with the exception of 2YO races and early season 3YOs) isn't very likely. Could Wanderin Boy run a 115, not only in defeat, but away from the old rail biased Keeneland? I seriously doubt it. Could Diamond Stripes run a 113? Maybe with a perfect trip in a winning effort; doubtful here in defeat. Could Fairbanks run a 110 without the aid of an easy lead? Doubtful. Could Dry Martini run a 109, only 2 pts better than his win in Iowa? Maybe but the 107 he ran was in a winning effort, on Bute and the figure maker at PrM is often on the too generous side. Not impossible, but not likely he ran a 109. Kudos to Hopkins and Beyer for nailing this one.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I had the Whitney a 115 and the Go For Wand a 91.

I used the same variant for both races.

I think the Go For Wand was a much less impressive race than people think, and doubt the track changed speeds so much in that 30 minutes of time.

If anything, the track would have changed speeds before the Grade 2 sprint stake.

However, the top 7 finishers in that race had only been seperated by four lengths, and it didn't come back eye-opening fast. The last place finisher in the race ran 1:09 and change.

Like the Go For Wand...it was another unimpressive race.

If anyone is looking to try and take away from Lawer Ron's performance, I guess you'd have to start with the fact that the ultra moderate Magna Graduate was the post time favorite in the Whitney.

[31lengths]

Originally Posted by robfla

Whitney (Sar): Lawyer Ron (T. Pletcher/J. Velazquez) - 116
Bing Crosby (Dmr): In Summation (C. Clement/C. Nakatani) - 111
Alfred G. Vanderbilt (Sar): Diabolical (S. Klesaris/M. Pino) - 106
Diana (Sar): My Typhoon (Ire) (W. Mott/E. Castro) - 106
Washington Park (AP): Lewis Michael (W. Catalano/E. Baird) - 105
Sanford (Sar): Ready's Image (T. Pletcher/J. Velazquez) - 104
Jim Dandy (Sar): Street Sense (C. Nafzger/C. Borel) - 104

Thanks.