The discussion needs to be framed in methodology, not isolated outcome, no matter how significant the race. Given that this is not an exact science, the predictive ability does not come with a money back guarantee. A number is reached through application of a methodology, and to the extent that anything can be determinative in this arena, it is through a comparison of the factors that compose that methodology. Now, even if one accepts the superiority of one methodology over the other, which I do, it is certainly possible for reasonable minds to differ about the validity of certain numbers within the methodology (see Miff, etc.) It is also possible for someone to say not all numbers are created equal within that methodology, owing to extrinsic factors such as pace (also see Miff, etc.). But, if you\'re going to do an end zone dance for your numbers, you need to do it on methodology superiority, not the results of one race, for which many variables come into play.
That\'s my story, and I\'m sticking to it, unless R. Curtis says otherwise.
