Whether the view of Sunday's Happy Valley meeting from the jockeys' room was correct or not is open to some question, but there is no doubt many players believe the track plays differently for a day meeting than the more frequent night fixtures.
There are theories about the cooler temperatures at night meetings - though when Hong Kong nights in September began being any cooler than days in late October we aren't sure - and other complex algorithms involving track moisture, humidity, wind speeds and the tilt and colour of the moon. Yes there are times that it seems positively reasonable to say the day meetings are different, just as they often can be on the all-weather track. And we vaguely recall in the long ago when Sha Tin had night races on the turf, they were a little different at times.
Last season, we had a situation at the same October Happy Valley day fixture when the inside of the B course in the straight looked a no-go zone, an unusual scenario for a rail position that normally gives rail-huggers every chance.
The explanation then had been that wear and tear from a recent rain-affected Wednesday night fixture had not healed, leaving a damaged section where the rail works back towards the winning post.
Last weekend, there was certainly a section of the hands-on personnel, the jockeys and trainers, who considered the course was favouring horses up near the lead and in towards the rail. Then there were others who felt the inside of the B course was key, not forward or back.
And somewhere between the two theories lies the root cause of one or two odd-looking races populated with grotesque rides, on a track that seemed about as fair a playing field as it gets.
The key to identifying a biased track is not in identifying where the winners are coming - that's not science, it's information.
The key to a bias is in marrying the information on where the winners are coming, with the tempo considerations, with the likelihood of the same things happening if the track is pure. To be sure of a bias, you'd like to see horses in the apparently advantaged zone doing things out of the ordinary.
So the up-and-in theory for Sunday, over and above the usual Happy Valley considerations along those lines, just doesn't wash.
Only two of the 10 winners led - hardly a stacked-deck - and the distribution of the other winners and placegetters was probably as nicely laid out according to pace as you'd expect to see. From the box seat (a preferred spot at the Valley anyway), from the rear, inside, outside - it really didn't matter.
If the tempo allowed it, it happened and for the track to really be biased, some defiance of the tempo or of trip pattern has to occur.
Happy Valley might play differently at day meetings than night meetings, but it was really difficult to argue about what went on last Sunday.
