Scientific Support of Race Results

My girlfriend, Robin, is an accomplished horsewoman and, I also believe, she was Gregor Mendel in a previous life. During our coffee break this morning (Note to our boss: It was only 15 minutes, really) we chatted about horse racing, trainers, and the fact that I had had great success at the track over the weekend. My biggest feat had been hitting the superfecta on the Rebel Stakes (gr. III). Okay, maybe it was only a ten cent superfecta, but it still paid a nice $85, not a bad return for a dime. I rambled and gloated and behaved like an annoying-handicapping-know-it-all, and subsequently made a remark that both Lawyer Ron and Red Raymond were both chestnuts. Robin said, whether it is true or she was making it up or she had knowledge from her past life, that "Chestnuts are homozygous dominant genetically, and so they should be the fastest of the thoroughbred."

Hmmm ... I pondered. Yes, I am a scientist and scientific statements draw my attention. However, I must admit that on the path to becoming a scientist, I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to my genetics professor in college. If I recall, it was an 8:00 a.m. lecture and the prof wore the same pair of polyester brown slacks with chalk on the fanny and his hair looked as if it had never seen a barber. But I digress. Robin's scientific hypothesis of the chestnuts homozygosity required me to contemplate the past weekend's races to see if there was, indeed, a scientific correlation with well-known theorems and principles. And upon review, I discovered that yes, there is clearly evidence of support.

Mulder's Conspiracy Theorem
- given an owner and a trainer have a Kentucky Derby prospect
- given an owner and a trainer agree to dissolve their partnership prior to the Kentucky Derby
- given said trainer opts to open a public barn

This theorem is demonstrated in the Gotham Stakes (gr. III). Ernie Paragallo and Jennifer Pedersen opt to go their separate ways one week before the Gotham; two days prior to the race, DRF is touting Frank Amonte, Jr. as the trainer for a potential Kentucky Derby horse. I observed this theorem on Saturday and race results clearly supported this theorem. Achilles of Troy finished fifth, was vanned off the track with an apparent sore leg. And now Junior does not appear to be in favor with Paragallo.

The Principle of Ridiculous Tote Board Action
Any 3-year-old horse prior to the Kentucky Derby does not deserve odds of 2-5 when facing a horse that was the runner-up in its previous race.

The Tampa Bay Derby (gr. III) is a prime example of this principle. Bluegrass Cat (1-9) and Deputy Glitters (8-1) in a rematch. Just simply following this principle would have been worth $18.80 as proof.

And finally, one can conclude that the following principles and rules were demonstrated in the Rebel Stakes (gr. III):

Husband's Parimutuel Wagering Strategy Rule
Wagers shall remain as near to the cost of the Sunday issue of the Dallas Morning News

which in turn can be coupled with the following principle:

John's Parimutuel Wagering Strategy Principle
If a ten cent superfecta is offered as a wagering opportunity, it is strongly recommended that it be incorporated into the horseplayer's wagering format.

Putting Red Raymond into my $2 exacta wheel as well as my dime superfecta paid off very well. I'm still amazed that Red Raymond, who had run into the trifecta as a longshot in the Southwest Stakes (against Lawyer Ron and Steppenwolfer) was once again ignored on the tote board, with odds of 23-1 at post time. The decision to wheel him into the Place slot can be supported by an extrapolation of the Principle of Ridiculous Tote Board Action.

Therefore, as one can see by the empirical evidence demonstrated by the races described above, following the simple scientific rules can prove to be profitable. However, any good scientist knows that there are exceptions to rules. I may have to dig up my old genetics text book and see if Gregor Mendel ever mentioned anything about luck.