BC #'s

>CH-- I know damn well what their methodology is. I was there for 9 years,>

I know that you know what their methdology \"was\".

However, you cannot read the mind of the person that decided to put an \"off slow\" on Clockstopper\'s sheet. It\'s there and it probably accounts for the figure difference.  

You can say it doesn\'t belong there because CS wasn\'t off slowly. He was sluggish out of the gate.

You can say it is not consistent with their \"formerly known\" methdology for dealing with sluggish gate horses.  

I also don\'t know if anyone has examined the head on shot to see if there was anything noteworthy about the way the horses to his left and right left the gate that impacted him. Then it would be appropriate even if not noticeable from the side view.

[TGJB]

CH-- the point is, if they have changed their methodology, let them say so. If they have not, they have an error, based on their own (and my) approach-- they are giving a horse numerical credit for something that happened DURING THE RUNNING of the race.

I have now watched that replay 5 times. The horse did NOT leave the gate sluggishly. He RAN sluggishly, starting about 4-5 jumps AFTER he left the gate, or was taken back by Day at that point. If he had trouble at that point he should possibly get a trouble notation-- but there is absolutely no rationale for altering the figure, unless Ragozin has departed for territory uncharted, at least for him. If that is so, let them say so, and we\'ll discuss that.

Meanwhile, the focus on this one has caused everyone to lose sight of the fact that they have other problems with that race, and with the Derby.

>Meanwhile, the focus on this one has caused everyone to lose sight of the fact that they have other problems with that race, and with the Derby.<

Yes. I think this is the much more important point because you aren\'t going to get anything out of them regarding why they gave CS an off slow.

[TGJB]

CH-- I know.

The reality is, I knew it going in. I make the points to make it clear that they have made the errors, and won\'t address them-- that\'s why I try to find examples that anyone with access to charts and replays can see and understand, even if they don\'t know anything about figure making. Touch Of The Blues, the Derby, BC Sprint-- it\'s obvious to anyone who looks at it.

There are some deluded souls over there who don\'t realize (as Brando as Terry Malloy said in \"On The Waterfront\"), \"I was rattin\' on myself all those years\". (Tom, you should have a field day with that). They somehow think that an attack on an outfit\'s incompetency is an attack on them, even though they are PAYING a BUSINESS for the data, and it is in their interest for the errors to be caught and fixed, no matter how that happens.

Which is not why I do it, of course. It is to show those that are not hopelessly invested psychologically that their interests are better served elsewhere. And those not invested are not the ones posting there, and often do switch.

By the way-- speaking of Tom, just a point in passing. While lots of others on that board model themselves after ostriches, he (Janis, Alydar etc.) does not-- he has undoubtedly looked at that replay as many times as I have, and he has a burning animosity towards me. In case you guys on the Rag board can\'t figure this stuff out for yourselves, he would be going after me bigtime if there was any chance I got it wrong.

JB,

I just visited the Rag board again after a few days and see that at least one person was busy attacking the messenger (me) instead of the message. (not that you didn\'t do that when I first came around) :-)

In any event, it\'s clear I am not going to get a response other than \"there was no beaten lengths error\".

I\'m sure I\'ve gotten you pissed off at least a few times, but at least you are willing to discuss your ideas, figures, etc... with people when they disagree.

[TGJB]

CH-- I think if you go back and find those early posts you will find that I was attacking your arguments. I have very, very seldom engaged in ad hominem attacks here, and then only when provoked to an extreme by like behavior-- never in response to an argument someone made.

JB,

I don\'t even remember. We just got off on the wrong foot.

[TGJB]

By the way, regarding Alydar\'s post on the other board-- revisionist history aside, there is no reason he can\'t ask questions himself, on their site. I do it here, about them. I might answer him, I might not, depending on whether or not it is his usual nonsense (he has been  very bad boy), and depending on whether the issues have any significance (the hilarious posts about 1/4 point rounding come to mind), but it\'s not like he doesn\'t have a forum. He\'s just not going to get to use this one.

Which of the regular posters on the Rags board are employees (or vested interest) and which are just customers?

[TGJB]

JJ is not an employee, Marc is not, Eric is, I assume the others are not and don\'t care if they are-- there arguments stand on their own legs, or don\'t.

There are all kinds of vested interests, and not all of them are financial.