6/8 (BEL): 151st Belmont Stakes Day ~ 8 G1's

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I watched practically every race. I may have missed a few races Thursday. I don't think I missed more than a couple on Friday and Saturday combined. I think the only race I missed Saturday was the first race.

Can you explain with all of their sophisticated equipment and constant testing, how they failed to detect the supposed rail bias? You and Andy better contact Glen and inform him about the rail bias so he can fix it.

By the way, the good news is that you will make a fortune next time when these horses come back, who were negatively affected by the supposed inside bias. I hope you took good notes. Who are some of the horses that you will be betting back next time because they were compromised by the inside bias? We will see if you are right. If they all come back and run lousy, it may be time for you to reevaluate.

This is internet for “I’m wrong but can’t admit it.”

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Your inferences were clear. But feel free to clarify them, if you claim I misinterpreted them. The reason you didn't clarify them is because you are trapped. You know how moronic your original inference was. But you can't come come out now and admit that you were wrong and admit that the track superintendent is the main force who determines the speed and condition of the track. If you admit that, you will be admitting that I was right, that they wanted the track to be really fast.

So instead of clarifying your statement, you say I misinterpreted what you said, yet you refuse to clarify what you said. If I misinterpreted what you said, then feel free to clarify it.

I know talking in circles like this worked once in your attempt to troll for dates on this site. Are you trying to do it again?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

This is internet for “I’m wrong but can’t admit it.”

Why would I possibly admit or think I am wrong when you have presented zero evidence to substantiate you rail bias claim?

Look at Strike Silver. He's not even a speed horse these days and he goes out there in :44 2/5 and only gets beat by 2 lengths. If there was no speed bias he would have lost by at least triple that margin, setting those suicide fractions. In that same race, Nitrous was very wide, out in the middle of the track and only got beat by a neck. So I guess if it wasn't for the supposed rail bias, Nitrous would have won. I actually bet on both those horses and lost both bets because I bet Strike Silver to win and place (he ran 4th), but only bet Nitrous to win.

As I said before, if you think there are inside/outside biases and you think you are good at spotting them, then by all means include it in your handicapping. I personally don't think they happen often (and probably never at Belmont with their sophisticated testing equipment). But even if they do happen, I think they are very difficult to spot (unlike speed biases), at least for me. So I'm not going to look for them and I'm not going to include them in my handicapping. If it works for you, then by all means use it.

Anyway, this debate is getting old. I'll give you the last word.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I know talking in circles like this worked once in your attempt to troll for dates on this site. Are you trying to do it again?

I wasn't the one talking in circles. He was. He's the one who won't come out and clarify his position. My position is clear. My position is that the track super is the most important force when it comes to the speed and condition of the track (assuming it's not pouring rain). By all accounts, Glen is a great track superintendent. So I obviously believe that he had the track in the condition (including the speed of the track) that he wanted on Saturday.

That's not talking in circles. That's a clear position. Can you tell me Andy's position? I don't think you can because he has been talking in circles. If not, then tell me what his position is.

[Alabama Stakes]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Why would I possibly admit or think I am wrong when you have presented zero evidence to substantiate you rail bias claim?

Look at Strike Silver. He's not even a speed horse these days and he goes out there in :44 2/5 and only gets beat by 2 lengths. If there was no speed bias he would have lost by at least triple that margin, setting those suicide fractions. In that same race, Nitrous was very wide, out in the middle of the track and only got beat by a neck. So I guess if it wasn't for the supposed rail bias, Nitrous would have won. I actually bet on both those horses and lost both bets because I bet Strike Silver to win and place (he ran 4th), but only bet Nitrous to win.

As I said before, if you think there are inside/outside biases and you think you are good at spotting them, then by all means include it in your handicapping. I personally don't think they happen often (and probably never at Belmont with their sophisticated testing equipment). But even if they do happen, I think they are very difficult to spot (unlike speed biases), at least for me. So I'm not going to look for them and I'm not going to include them in my handicapping. If it works for you, then by all means use it.

Anyway, this debate is getting old. I'll give you the last word.

You must have been psyched when Silver Strike went out there to the lead quickly at 30-1 and the other Ortiz grabbed a hold of Complexity instead of continuing up the gold rail to the lead.


Derby day = gold rail
Preakness = gold rail
Belmont = gold rail

They all soup up the rail on the big days looking for headlines. Someday Belmont will get that 2:24 they’re looking to get.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Alabama Stakes

You must have been psyched when Silver Strike went out there to the lead quickly at 30-1 and the other Ortiz grabbed a hold of Complexity instead of continuing up the gold rail to the lead.


Derby day = gold rail
Preakness = gold rail
Belmont = gold rail

They all soup up the rail on the big days looking for headlines. Someday Belmont will get that 2:24 they’re looking to get.

I never really thought he had a chance when I saw the fractions. But when he was still in front at the 1/8th pole, I had a glimmer of hope for a second. Then I had some minor hope again that they would put up Nitrous when they had the stewards' inquiry against the winner.

I agree with you that many tracks soup up the track on the big days, thinking that that it will be good publicity if they get a track record. But I don't think it's just the rail. I think it's the whole track.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Alabama Stakes

You must have been psyched when Silver Strike went out there to the lead quickly at 30-1 and the other Ortiz grabbed a hold of Complexity instead of continuing up the gold rail to the lead.


Derby day = gold rail
Preakness = gold rail
Belmont = gold rail

They all soup up the rail on the big days looking for headlines. Someday Belmont will get that 2:24 they’re looking to get.

Doesn’t a juiced track put the safety of the horses at risk? Given the press the industry has faced this year and even in the last week wouldn’t it be the absolutely dumbest move imaginable to INTENTIONALLY create the conditions that put horses on a national stage at peril? Maybe it’s just that in New York the unimaginable happened. It didn't rain for nearly a week.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Why would I possibly admit or think I am wrong when you have presented zero evidence to substantiate you rail bias claim?

Look at Strike Silver. He's not even a speed horse these days and he goes out there in :44 2/5 and only gets beat by 2 lengths. If there was no speed bias he would have lost by at least triple that margin, setting those suicide fractions. In that same race, Nitrous was very wide, out in the middle of the track and only got beat by a neck. So I guess if it wasn't for the supposed rail bias, Nitrous would have won. I actually bet on both those horses and lost both bets because I bet Strike Silver to win and place (he ran 4th), but only bet Nitrous to win.

As I said before, if you think there are inside/outside biases and you think you are good at spotting them, then by all means include it in your handicapping. I personally don't think they happen often (and probably never at Belmont with their sophisticated testing equipment). But even if they do happen, I think they are very difficult to spot (unlike speed biases), at least for me. So I'm not going to look for them and I'm not going to include them in my handicapping. If it works for you, then by all means use it.

Anyway, this debate is getting old. I'll give you the last word.

You admitted you haven’t watched every race over the three days...so why would I waste my time giving you examples of something you don’t believe in because as you admit, spotting a rail bias is too difficult for you to see?

Nitrous was on the inside for much of the first 4 furlongs. I gave you an example of a race that perfectly shows the rail bias, you ignored it. H Man on Friday. He spent the whole race on the rail and runner up (dead closer) was glued to the rail until very late when he was going by the chasers. How many more should I give you? Will you at least watch all the races first? Seems only fair to actually watch the races before declaring something, no?

A closer won the Belmont. He was glued to rail. The pacesetter who spent the entire race on the rail was 3rd.

As for suicide fractions, they went 43 and change in the longer Acorn. The Woody Stephens fractions weren’t that fast.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Alabama Stakes

You must have been psyched when Silver Strike went out there to the lead quickly at 30-1 and the other Ortiz grabbed a hold of Complexity instead of continuing up the gold rail to the lead.


Derby day = gold rail
Preakness = gold rail
Belmont = gold rail

They all soup up the rail on the big days looking for headlines. Someday Belmont will get that 2:24 they’re looking to get.

You think Jose sending would’ve made a difference in where Complexity finished? He was eased and finished last. Sending would’ve changed that somehow?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Anyway, this debate is getting old. I'll give you the last word.

Internet for “I’m out of bullshit, so I’m taking my ball and going home.”

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You admitted you haven’t watched every race over the three days...so why would I waste my time giving you examples of something you don’t believe in because as you admit, spotting a rail bias is too difficult for you to see?

Nitrous was on the inside for much of the first 4 furlongs. I gave you an example of a race that perfectly shows the rail bias, you ignored it. H Man on Friday. He spent the whole race on the rail and runner up (dead closer) was glued to the rail until very late when he was going by the chasers. How many more should I give you? Will you at least watch all the races first? Seems only fair to actually watch the races before declaring something, no?

A closer won the Belmont. He was glued to rail. The pacesetter who spent the entire race on the rail was 3rd.

As for suicide fractions, they went 43 and change in the longer Acorn. The Woody Stephens fractions weren’t that fast.

I just watched the H Man race. I actually bet that race. My horse ran up the track. I bet $100 to win on Empire Line and $50 to place on him. I was looking for a price and I thought he was an overlay. I thought that H Man was probably the horse to beat. So I saved with a little $10 exacta with him on top and Empire Line on the bottom. I lost $160 on the race. But I still ended up having a good day.

With regards to the horse (Sicilia Mike) who finished 2nd to H Man, how could you point to him as proof or a rail bias? Watch the head on. Sicilia Mike was about 4 wide practically the whole race. He got down to the 2 path for a little over a quarter of a mile. The jockey actually did do a good job with him. That horse could have easily been much wider. The jock saved as much ground as he could (considering the post) and it made the difference of him getting second place. The good ride definitely was what got him 2nd place, but not because of a rail bias, but because he would have lost a lot of ground had he gone any wider.

And like I said before, Sicilia Mike was only on the inside of the track for maybe a quarter of a mile in a 6 1/2 furlong race. He was in about the 4 path for at least 65-70% of the race. A horse who was 4 wide for over 2/3rds of the race, does not make a good argument for a rail bias. If you don't believe me, watch the head-on and you will see that he was in the 4 path or even further out for most of the race. It was from just past the 3/8th pole to just past the 1/8th pole that he was inside.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I just watched the H Man race. I actually bet that race. My horse ran up the track. I bet $100 to win on Empire Line and $50 to place on him. I was looking for a price and I thought he was an overlay. I thought that H Man was probably the horse to beat. So I saved with a little $10 exacta with him on top and Empire Line on the bottom. I lost $160 on the race. But I still ended up having a good day.

With regards to the horse (Sicilia Mike) who finished 2nd to H Man, how could you point to him as proof or a rail bias? Watch the head on. Sicilia Mike was about 4 wide practically the whole race. He got down to the 2 path for a little over a quarter of a mile. The jockey actually did do a good job with him. That horse could have easily been much wider. The jock saved as much ground as he could (considering the post) and it made the difference of him getting second place. The good ride definitely was what got him 2nd place, but not because of a rail bias, but because he would have lost a lot of ground had he gone any wider.

And like I said before, Sicilia Mike was only on the inside of the track for maybe a quarter of a mile in a 6 1/2 furlong race. He was in about the 4 path for at least 65-70% of the race. A horse who was 4 wide for over 2/3rds of the race, does not make a good argument for a rail bias. If you don't believe me, watch the head-on and you will see that he was in the 4 path or even further out for most of the race. It was from just past the 3/8th pole to just past the 1/8th pole that he was inside.

You’re literally the only person I’ve seen who denies the inside was golden for 3 days. You also admit you’re not a good enough handicapper to detect an inside bias. Meanwhile I paid my bills for two years in 2007 and 2008 betting horses back on the Aqueduct Inner who were against the track in their prior race.

I can appreciate a good troll as much as the next person, but this isn’t amusing.

For shits and giggles...you posted an article from Watchmaker as evidence there was a speed bias. In his article he also said there was an inside bias. Do you now disagree with him....or are you just picking and choosing as it suits you?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You’re literally the only person I’ve seen who denies the inside was golden for 3 days. You also admit you’re not a good enough handicapper to detect an inside bias. Meanwhile I paid my bills for two years in 2007 and 2008 betting horses back on the Aqueduct Inner who were against the track in their prior race.

I can appreciate a good troll as much as the next person, but this isn’t amusing.

For shits and giggles...you posted an article from Watchmaker as evidence there was a speed bias. In his article he also said there was an inside bias. Do you now disagree with him....or are you just picking and choosing as it suits you?

Internet for "I was wrong about Sicilia Mike being on the rail for most of the race. But I still think I'm right."

You missed my point about Watchmaker. I'm not claiming the guy is some type of genius. You were acting like it was totally outlandish for me to claim there was a speed bias. I was simply saying that I'm not the only one. Watchmaker thought there was a speed bias. I was in no way saying that this proves that I'm right or that Watchmaker has a great opinion. I was simply saying it isn't outlandish for me to say that I think there was a speed bias.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Internet for “I’m out of bullshit, so I’m taking my ball and going home.”

You are absolutely right. Good call. The debate is over. You won. Congrats!

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Internet for "I was wrong about Sicilia Mike being on the rail for most of the race. But I still think I'm right."

You missed my point about Watchmaker. I'm not claiming the guy is some type of genius. You were acting like it was totally outlandish for me to claim there was a speed bias. I was simply saying that I'm not the only one. Watchmaker thought there was a speed bias. I was in no way saying that this proves that I'm right or that Watchmaker has a great opinion. I was simply saying it isn't outlandish for me to say that I think there was a speed bias.

I was acting like it was outlandish? I disagreed.

Look at where Sicilia Mike was when he started moving really well.

In my opinion there was a strong rail bias Thursday-Sunday. I based it on watching all of the races (unlike you) and seeing what horses did as they were on the rail and how they performed when they were not on the rail. The results seem to back up my opinion.

You disagree, yet admit you don’t think rail biases exist because you’re not a strong enough handicapper to detect one.

Is there anything else to say at this point? You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.