October
AprilPerfect hindsight
Richard Callander’s article (29/3) regarding Jim Cassidy’s ride on Steps in Time in the Coolmore on March 22 is a quintessential example of how an analysis can be biased by a contingent factor.
Cassidy’s mount won, by a short half-head. Callander says that the "secret" to the narrow win was that he caught the others napping.
He reasons that if Cassidy had waited another 50 metre the others "would have been ready", clearly implying that Cassidy would have been caught.
The further implication of this argument is that if he’d lost by a short half-head then it would be the case that he hadn’t caught them napping, even that he might have gone too soon!
Callander’s analysis boils down to this: Cassidy’s ride was close to perfect, evidenced by the contingent fact that Steps in Time fell in by a whisker — oh, and buttressed by Hugh Bowman’s post-race comment that "Jimmy outrode us, again."
The truth is that Bowman rode Catkins as well as you could expect; for him to start chasing hard before he did was arguably not in his mount’s best interests with top weight. He certainly was not outridden by Cassidy.
And Cassidy? Well, he also rode Steps in Time well, but it’s a moot point whether it was a perfect or great ride. Who knows, maybe she may have won by a clear margin if he had waited another 50 metres?
It’s difficult not to conclude that Callander’s analysis is dominated by the result.
Parkville (Vic)