Frank ….. Yes, I remember that day …. I was at the Big A …. good description you gave it. That is actually a great example – a lot of the talk on here about track/course biases relates to finding horses for future races, but recognizing a bias is at least as important (more so really IMO) on the day of (sometimes not so conducive to forum discussion though). It also emphasized that some jockeys recognize these things faster than others. What you, and mjellish, I and others imagined, Gryder also apparently imagined, as he was whipping and driving his horse straight out of the gate to get the lead at all costs …. not all the others did when they ought to have done.
Sekrah – I'm not sure what kind of proof do you think can be provided. You said that you agreed that on a banked or pitched turf course, one area could be slower than another …. why would this not also be the case for a banked dirt track? If the track is banked toward the inside rail, and there is enough moisture about to make the inside path(s) slightly moister and better packing than the sandy, loose-on-top outer paths, why would that not favor the horses on the inside? Or vice versa. The roulette wheel is a static, mechanical thing …. the physical properties of the track are in a state of constant flux …. sun, precipitation, wind, track maintenance ….. just a matter of how much flux, and who is best suited to benefit.
In general, aren't we looking not for irrefutable statistical evidence, but for adequate statistical or other evidence relative to the odds?
