Since the Iroquois Stakes was moved from late October/early November to mid-September we have seen more Kentucky Derby hopefuls, than eventual starters. Although, a few select horses such as Tapiture, Ride on Curlin and Mr. Z did get their chance to run for the roses at Churchill Downs the following spring. Their bids would fall short, but their journey from the first points race all the way to the Kentucky Derby was very unique. Today the long road begins again when the scoring resumes in the 2016 Iroquois Stakes.

At 3-1, Recruiting Ready is the morning line favorite. The son of Algorithms--Need nearly scored his first graded stakes win in his debut race at Churchill Downs on July 2. He did it by attempting to wire the eight other juveniles in the field with swift fractions of 21.76, 45.07 and 56.97 on the front end. The strategy looked to be a winner until his bid to draw clear was outmatched by Classic Empire who reeled him in the final furlong to win the Bashford Manor – G3.

Next time out the Horacio DePaz trainee looked even closer to a graded stakes win in the Saratoga Special – G2 on August 14. However, what appeared to be an easy win quickly turned into another runner up finish when Gunnevera soared home to steal the race at the wire from the heavy post time favorite. And then things got even worse when Recruiting Ready was disqualified from second and placed fourth for making contact with Tip Tap Tapizar near the three-eighths pole and knocking him off his stride.

Today, Gary Stevens will be in the saddle for the first time. The assumption is that Recruiting Ready will be back in position to get things right this time out, but he will also be stretching to out to over 1 mile for the first time in his young racing career.

The second choice on the morning line isThirstforlife. At 7-2 the son of Stay Thirsty - Promenade Girl returns to the track where he broke his maiden in his second career start. In between that effort and today was a respectable third place finish in the Best Pal – G3 at Del Mar, his graded stakes debut. In that contest Thirstforlife was in the mix throughout but he failed to fire a serious bid.

Florent Geroux returns for his second mount aboard Thirstforlife and first since he was in the irons for the colt’s career debut, a third place finish in the Kentucky Juvenile Stakes at Churchill Downs on May 5. Trainer Mark Casse will be attempting to win his second career Iroquois Stakes after notching his first in 2012 with Uncaptured.

Not This Time enters the Iroquois Stakes coming off his very first win for trainer Dale Romans. The one mile maiden victory by 10 lengths on the dirt at Ellis Park last month was his second career start. The son of Giant's Causeway – Miss Macy Sue is the co-third choice on the morning line.

Accompanying Not This Time at 4-1 isBlame Will, the son of Blame – Be My Prospect, trained by D. Wayne Lukas. This will also be his debut stakes race after a maiden win. Blame Will’s first victory came in his third career start and second at Saratoga after beginning his racing career here at Churchill Downs in June.

Lookin At Lee enters the Iroquois Stakes after winning back to back races at Ellis Park this summer. His first was in a maiden special weight race and followed by a more impressive score in the Ellis Park Juvenile Stakes. Though the stakes race was not graded and only featured five starters, the Steve Asmussen trainee by Lookin At Lucky – Langara Lass should be considered a live option for a nice price if his odds remain near his morning line mark of 6-1.

Honor Thy Father for trainer Kenny McPeek follows Lookin At Lee to the Iroquois Stakes from the Ellis Park Juvenile Stakes where he finished third. Prior to that the son of  To Honor and Serve – Hottie Dancer also broke his maiden at Ellis Park after striking out in his career debut at Churchill Downs last June. Coincidentally, Honor Thy Father finished behind Lookin At Lee in that race as well. Both horses missed the top three finishing fifth and sixth.

Just Move On moves into Churchill Downs for his first career start in the Bluegrass State after opening his career at Arlington Park earlier this summer. In two races from Chicago the Patrick Byrne trainee and son of Street Boss finished in the top three both times and won his last time out. Skinflint ships into Churchill Downs and the Kentucky racing circuit for the first time after breaking his maiden at Gulfstream Park last time out. The son of Super Saver, trained by Dane Kobiskie, was listed as the long shot on the morning line with odds of 20-1.

• HorseRacingNation.com
• 

   0 fans

  

   0 favorites
• • 6

• Not This Time (9-5) leaves the field behind in the Grade 3 Iroquois.
• On Leave (3-5) runs away with the Grade 2 Sands Point.
• The Pizza Man (5-1) gets back to the winner's circle in the Grade 1 Northern Dancer.
• Rainha Da Bateria (9-2) holds off stablemate Dacita (1-1) in the Grade 2 Canadian.
• No catching Sarah Sis (10-1) in the Presque Isle Downs Masters.
• Victory to Victory  7-1) pulls clear in the Grade 1 Natalma Stakes.
• Good Samaritan (3-1) rolls to a Breeders' Cup birth with a Summer Stakes win.
• Daddys Lil Darling (7-2) runs up to take the Grade 2 Pocahontas.
• Tepin (2-5) gets her eighth consecutive win in the Grade 1 Woodbine Mile.
• Fioretti (14-1) digs in to take the Open Mind.

American Cleopatra, Full Sis to American Pharoah, Wins Del Mar Debut

» PA Derby 2016 Contenders » PA Derby Winners » Get FREE Picks!  » Get Trifecta/Superfecta Picks » $20K Contest This Saturday! » PLUS! Songbird vs Cathryn Sophia!

The 2016 Pennsylvania Derby (G2) will be run for an enhanced total purse of $1,250,000. An extra quarter million dollars will be added if Nyquist, the Kentucky Derby winner, and the Preakness first place finisher,Exaggerator, both start in the race. An unexpected full field of twelve three-year-olds was drawn to contest the nine-furlong stake at Parx Racing.

The owner and trainer of the Kentucky Derby, Preakness, Belmont Stakes, Haskell, and Travers winners are eligible for a $50,000 appearance bonus. Therefore, the connections of Nyquist receive a total of $100,000, while Exaggerator's connections receive $200,000 if they start.

With Nyquist and Exaggerator renewing their rivalry, the Pennsylvania Derby could have significant implications in this division’s year-end championship. Nyquist dominated the first five months when he continued his unbeaten career with a win in California, the Florida Derby, and then the biggest victory of all in the Kentucky Derby. Twice, in that time, he beat Exaggerator. However, Nyquist has not found the winner’s circle since then, while falling short in the Preakness and the Haskell. Exaggerator has been the division leader since then. In that time he defeated Nyquist two times in the Preakness and the Haskell.  A win for either of them would give that horse a secure spot on top of the divisional race.

The field of twelve appears to have an interesting pace scenario with a number of horses that like to run on or close to the lead. One thing seems certain is that with the quality of this PA Derby field the race will finally achieve grade one status in 2017. Carded as race 11, the scheduled post time is 5:45pm ET.

Awesome Slew [ML 12-1, Paco Lopez] This Eddie Plesa trainee proved that Parx is a track to his liking when he crushed a field of a field of fourteen by seven lengths in the Smarty Jones (G3). He will no doubt be running on the lead early with his rail draw. Rider Paco Lopez is at his best with horses on the lead, but they will not be the only ones running fast early. Major Early Pace Factor

Exaggerator [ML 7-2, Kent Desormeaux] The early weather reports for Bensalem, PA, say that rain is unlikely and thus a FAST track should be expected at Parx. At this point, it is hard to deny that Exaggerator is at his best on a wet track and that you have to go all the way back to last year to find his first two career wins that happened on a dry track. The inside draw will make it easy for Desormeaux to save ground early in the race as he often wants to do. The expected hot early pace should set up for Exaggerator’s big closing move. Perfect Set-up Expected

Summer Revolution [ML 20-1, Mike Smith] This lightly raced son of Summer Bird gets Mike Smith in the saddle after Castellano opted to ride Connect. Expect this colt to be on or near the lead and help ensure a hot early pace. Distance limitations and a lack of experience have this one up against it. Early Speed

Connect [ML 12-1, Javier Castellano] In the Travers, Connect was a well-beaten sixth place finisher, but every horse was crushed when Arrogate blitzed that field. In the Curlin at Saratoga, Connect was impressive when he outdueled Gift Box. This is another that has done his best running close to the front, and with lots of speed inside of him, Castellano may be forced to work out a stalking or closing trip. Not Out of It

Cupid [ML 9-2, Rafael Bejarano] Of all the top contenders, Cupid is in top form right now. After a bad performance in the Easy Goer, trainer Bob Baffert got Cupid right and he recorded two big wins in mid-major Derbies in Indiana and West Virginia. Bejarano was the rider in both of those wins, when he had everything his way on the front end. He will have company on the lead, but may be a lot better than the other speed horses. I hope that Bejarano sits just behind the others and gets the jump on the rest of the field. Threat to Win

Wild About Deb [ML 30-1, Tiago Pereira] This one has been stabled at Parx since a recent trainer change to Ramon Preciado. He ran second to Awesome Slew in the Smarty Jones well ahead of the next runner. He has just a maiden victory on the west coast to his credit. Long Shot

Gun Runner [ML 6-1, Florent Geroux]Except for his poor performance on the sloppy track in the Haskell, Gun Runner has yet to run a bad race. His stalking style fits perfectly considering the anticipated hot pace. He ran well in the Travers behind the Baffert duo when the ten furlongs was clearly not his forte. I expect this Steve Asmussen runner to make his usual strong effort down the stretch. Top Three Finish Expected

My Man Sam [ML 20-1, Julien Leparoux] This Chad Brown runner was a surprise addition to the field. With only a maiden win, he has been a bit of a disappointment since his big closing move to get second in the Blue Grass. I don’t know if he has the quality to win a race like this, but he certainly will have the set-up to make a late run. Pass Some Tired Horses

Nyquist [ML 5-2, Mario Guitierrez]No doubt that Nyquist is the horse to beat, but there are lots of questions that the Two-year-old Champion has to answer. Trainer Doug O’Neill has changed things up since Nyquist lost in the Preakness and Haskell taking him to train off track. O’Neill says Nyquist has grown and he has been working him over long distances. The move off track raises red flags for me, but I may be wrong. With so much speed to his inside, jockey Mario Gutierrez may have no alterative but to come from off the pace with Nyquist. That could turn out to be a good thing if the rider can remain patient. The One to Beat

Sunny Ridge [ML 15-1, Joe Bravo]Sunny Ridge is a bit of a mystery horse. His racing schedule has been spotty and he has just one slow five-furlong work since the Haskell. He has never run a bad race including his third place finish in the Haskell. This is very tough spot with the seeming laid-back training methods of Jason Servis. Top Four Possible

Discreet Lover [ML 30-1, Jose Flores] Another Parx based runner, but this one seems to be out of his league here. Eleven of his career sixteen starts have come at Parx including his two wins. Don’t Expect Much

Hit It Once More [ML 20-1, Kendrick Carmouche] This New York-bred likes to run on the lead, so the far outside draw was the worst possible scenario. He has won two straight state restricted stakes for trainer Gary Sciacca, but this grade one is a very unlikely spot for success. Out Classed

Despite the recent climate agreement in Paris (COP21), where 195 countries adopted the first legally binding treaty to curb climate change, the debate about whether climate change exists or whether it’s the fault of human beings still rages on.

Climate deniers, typically extreme libertarians and anti-government free market advocates, characterise themselves as “underfunded” advocates of “free speech” and “reason”. They characterise the views of most climate scientists and environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, as “alarmist” and “left-wing dogma”.

The libertarian sceptics and deniers do no original research, but they constantly criticise the “politicisation” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They claim that the evidence of “anthropogenic causation” is extremely weak, and that any climate warming taking place must therefore be of natural origin, or otherwise unexplained.

What can’t be disputed

In the interest of academic rigour, it would be useful to analyse the facts and how the deniers see them. First of all, CO2 levels are undeniably rising. The increase, which many sceptics don’t deny, accelerated after World War II, mainly because of industrialisation of developing countries, increased consumption of electricity, and increased use of private cars and substitution of automotive (and air) transportation for rail-based transport.

But this is the extent of the consensus between climate scientists and deniers.Despite a broad scientific consensus on the importance of CO2 as a driver of climate change, some climate sceptics, and a few outright “deniers” (including the Republican members of the U.S. Congress) still question whether carbon dioxide is actually harmful, on balance. Some argue that carbon dioxide is the “food” for all plants. Plants capture and “fix” that carbon to create the carbohydrate-based food for animals. The natural process (which produces oxygen as a byproduct) is calledphotosynthesis. Without photosynthesis we (and all the other animals) would starve (in fact, we could never have evolved in the first place). Carbon dioxide is the basis of the Earth’s food chain. It is also the source of all the carbon embodied in the fossil fuels our industrial economy depends on.

Not only that, the photosynthesis process is also the source of the oxygen in the air. We humans (and almost all animals) require oxygen to metabolise, and without oxygen we would suffocate. In fact, as the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the rate of production of carbon-fixation in organic matter also increases. This is the well-known “carbon fertilisation effect”, and it is exploited commercially in Dutch (and other) greenhouses. It is said that crop production could increase by up to 15 percent in a more carbon-intensive world.

Furthermore (the argument continues), the ozone layer in the stratosphere protects us (and all terrestrial species) from the harmful effects of ultra-violet (UV) radiation. Ozone is a reactive form of oxygen (O3) that is created in the stratosphere by that same UV radiation from the sun. The ozone layer exists because of the oxygen in the atmosphere, which exists because of photosynthesis. Clearly, atmospheric carbon dioxide plays an essential role in the natural world. We could not live without it.

However, most of the climate sceptics and deniers don’t argue on the basis of carbon dioxide and photosynthesis. The majority argue that the science is flawed and the true effect of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is unproven. There have been vicious attacks on individuals as well as institutions researching climate change. For instance, Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley calls it a “climate scam”, adding that the scientific endeavour and policymaking on climate change is “the biggest transfer of wealth in human history from the poor to the rich, from the little guy to the big guy, from the governed to those who profit by governing them.”

But there is no alternative non-anthropogenic theory to explain rising temperatures and therefore melting glaciers, sea level rises and ocean acidification. To invoke “natural variation” is not a theory about causes.

The “pause”

Another recent dispute has focused on the so-called “pause” in climate warming after 1998. If one cherry picks the data, then it seems that there was a slowdown in the rate of temperature increase in recent years.

Figure 1 below shows a graph that was widely circulated in the media (by nay-sayers) allegedly proving that the global temperature did not actually increase for a long period of time. The yellow-shaded area represents the range of 1990 IPCC projections, as contrasted with actual temperature measurements.

Figure 1. IPCC over-prediction from 1990 Report

Part of the discrepancy suggested by this graph turns out to have been based on an erroneous temperature database based on satellite data measurements that had not been correctly “converted” to surface temperatures.

The climate sceptics who stress the discrepancy have made several mistakes. First, they got hold of a (leaked) draft of the fourth IPCC Assessment Report (AR) that was visually misleading because of an erroneous misalignment of observations with trends in the year 1990. A number of nay-sayers published this misleading graph on the web and claimed that it proved that there was no climate warming from 1998 to 2012. The error was corrected in the final AR4, but the naysayers did not retract their claims.

Their next mistake was to confuse the average of all model projections with the actual warming trend. The model projections reflect a wide variety of assumptions about natural variability as well as human activity. But these assumptions show the range of possibilities, not the most likely temperature trajectory.

Third, the nay-sayers who prepared Figure 1 engaged in blatant “cherry-picking” of the start and end dates of the period for which they claim there was no warming. The next graph (Figure 2) shows how different choices of start and end dates for 15-year periods can distort the results. The temperature data are from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Figure 2. NASA GISS

Note that the long-term trend (1951-2012 black dotted line), shows a consistent temperature increase over the 61-year period, whereas the period 1998-2012 (blue line) shows very little increase (50 percent less than the long-term rate) because of the very warm starting year (a very strong El Nino), while the period 1992-2006 (the red line) shows a 50 percent greater increase, because of the very mild starting year (due to the eruption of the volcano Pinatubo). Note also that 2015-16 (beyond the range of the chart) is another very strong El Nino year that will make the rate of temperature increase look greater again.

Notwithstanding the points made above, it is true that the surface warming trend from 1998 through 2014 was slower than the model predictions from 1990, or even later ones. In other words, there has been a “pause” although not outside the range of recent model projections. This point has been acknowledged in the IPCC AR5 report. The key point is that the models are not (yet) capable of making accurate forecasts of short-term (10-15 year) climate changes. However, the models, tested by backcasting, appear to be reasonably accurate over longer periods.

In the interests of fairness, we can entertain the deniers to an extent on their claim that the IPCC has consistently overestimated its temperature projections. We now know that the original forecasts were considerably off. The forecasts were based on “General Circulation Models” – mathematical models measuring temperature variations in the circulation of the air, ocean and land – were fairly crude in 1990. For instance, there was little information about the temperature of the ocean so scientists relied on data from ships at sea to report on ocean temperatures at particular times in particular places. But since then, the Argo Programme has been launched, which consists of 4,000 bathythermographs (torpedo-shaped probes, floating in the ocean) measuring temperatures as far down as 2,000 meters. Placed in temperate oceans, these probes have drastically improved our coverage of ocean temperatures and therefore the quality of data in the models, improving model forecasting capability significantly.

This is particularly important to building an accurate understanding of the climate, which is a difficult job in the absence of key data. The IPCC has to take into account not just ocean temperatures but air and land temperatures as well. Cloud dynamics and the sea-land and ocean-air interfaces are especially critical.

Despite the IPCC’s acknowledged model weaknesses, the long-term trend is not in doubt. The climate is heating up. The evidence suggests CO2 emissions are the cause and an evidence-based alternative theory is something deniers lack. Another line of debate involves “climate sensitivity”, i.e. by how much the temperature actually rises with CO2 levels. But I will save that for my next piece.

• 
  Antonio FatasPortuguese Council Chaired Professor of European Studies and Professor of Economics

Jean Pisani-Ferry, a professor at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, has written a very interesting postabout the need for trusted experts in a democracy. He addresses the criticisms that economic experts have received as a result of the Brexit vote. Quoting from the post:

"Representative democracy is based not only on universal suffrage, but also on reason. Ideally, deliberations and votes result in rational decisions that use the current state of knowledge to deliver policies that advance citizens’ wellbeing."

Very well said. He also mentions the lack of influence of economic experts is not that different from that of other experts (as illustrated by the debates on climate science, GMOs, etc.). I share this view and my guess is that the mistrust of economic experts is simply more visible because of their influence (or lack of) in the political debates that tend to be a lot more present in the media than the debates on scientific issues.

Opinions beat facts

How to enhance the trust in experts? It’s not obvious, according to Pisani-Ferry. What is needed is a combination of discipline among the community of experts, an education system that equips citizens with the tools to distinguish between fact and fiction and the development of better venues for dialogue and informed debate.

Good luck! Unfortunately we are very far from this ideal scenario. Education has reached more citizens than ever before, more so in advanced economies, but we see little impact on reasoned discourse. It might be that the complexity of the issues under debate is at a level which does not allow an informed discussion based on facts and not on ideology. Opinions that are expressed using either the wrong facts or no facts at all are accessible to the public and have an influence that is as large as those who present the facts. And the media does not serve as an adequate filter, maybe because controversy sells or because there is a need to present a 'balanced' view of a debate or simply out of self-interest.

Misinformed media

Here is my example of the day that illustrates this point: the Financial Timespublished two articles on the same day on the merits of quantitative easing. One argued for more QE under the logic that is working and we just need to increase the dosage. The second article presented the view that QE, as well as expansionary fiscal policy, are the wrong tools to use to generate a recovery and that they are likely to lead to a very unhappy ending.

If you read the second article you will notice the use of dubious “facts" and an economic logic that anyone who has ever taken any economics course should realise is badly flawed.

Let me pick one example. The article starts with the figure of 300 percent of GDP for global debt and then it argues that:

"If the average interest rate is 2 percent, then a 300 percent debt-to-GDP ratio means that the economy needs to grow at a nominal rate of 6 percent to cover interest."

This is just wrong on so many counts:

• The increase in debt in the world is matched by an increase in assets.
• The interest rate paid by borrowers goes to lenders. So the world (or a given country) does not need to find income to pay for this interest, this is a transfer from borrowers to lenders.
• Borrowers need to pay interest but if debt is coming from a mortgage to buy a house, rent is no longer paid. Looking at interest payments alone (or at liabilities without taking into account assets) is just wrong.
• The 300 percent number cannot be associated to a country or a government, most debt is internal. No country has an external debt that is anywhere close to that level. Same is true for governments (with the exception of Japan which is not far off, but, once again, most of this debt is internal – so the interest that the government of Japan has to pay goes to the Japanese citizens who happen to be the taxpayers).
• Even if you had a government that had 300 percent of debt, the calculation above is simply wrong. If interest rates are 2 percent, you need to grow at 2 percent (not 6 percent) to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio stays constant (as long as your additional borrowing or saving is zero, of course). This is something that is taught in a principles of economics course. The authors are confusing the value of interest payments and the required growth to make that level of debt sustainable.

The rest of the article contains many other mistakes. It is embarrassing that the Financial Times is willing to publish such a low quality article.

Will this article influence anyone's view on the debate on monetary policy? I do not know but what I know is that the pessimistic view presented in the article on the role that monetary and fiscal policy is popular enough that is still influencing both the debate around and also the outcome of current economic policies.

We are very far from having informed and factual debates about the economic (and scientific) issues that shape economic and social outcomes. As an economist, I continue to do my best by sharing my views and analysis with a wide audience through blog posts like this one but it is depressing to see how those that rely on flawed analysis often manage to reach the public through the validation of the most respected media.