Classhandicapper --
1 - You said -- \"You should re-read my thoughts on the subject because you obviously misunderstood them.\"
My reply -- Why should I? You do not re-read anybody else\'s thoughts even when you obviously misunderstand them (or just do not understand them). How many times has Jerry asked you this same thing you are now asking of me? Why should I do something you are never willing to do.
2 - You said -- \"This is the gist of what I said:
All else being equal, I would rather back a horse prepped traditionally because I know 100% for sure that that method works. There isn\'t enough evidence to satisfy me 100% that 1-2 preps is equally as effective. IMO there is at least some evidence that it is not. All of that evidence was rejected here because of the strong belief in speed figures as being able to explain almost everything (the small sampled TG study). No problem with the belief in speed figures, but I like to look at things from a lot of perspectives. (less dogmatic)\"
My reply is -- I am not going to even consider whether your summary is correct or not. I assume it is wrong. However, if we assume for the sake of argument that you have accurately summarized yourself, you are skewering yourself. Why don\'t you read what you wrote? Maybe you misunderstood yourself.
You are saying you know something 100% and there is only one thing for sure. Isn\'t that what Dogma is? You are certain that one way to train a horse is better than another. We think different strokes for different folks. We think Suroor, Frankel, and Zito might know what they are doing. You know better about training horses than they do. Who is the dogmatist?
Then, you have the gall to say we rejected your \'evidence\' due to our dogmatism. People here weighed and considered your evidence. What the hell do you think all the discussions about statistical sampling, the explanations for why those statistics may have arisen, and the counter examples are? Those are people listening to what you wrote, evaluating it, and then discounting it. What kind of response have you offered? As far as I can tell, your only response is to call us dogmatic and yourself a supremely openminded and complex person who is able to consider many different perspectives unlike us dogmatists. Do you see how silly and weak (if not absent) your argument is?
Lets recap -- this whole argument started with a thread on a Beyer article about the right way and wrong way to prepare for the Kentucky Derby. Beyer was taking what we call -- \"a very dogmatic approach\" -- when he said that the fastest horse of the generation should be a toss because he was prepared improperly.
A few people, yourself included, agreed that there was a right way and a wrong way to prepare a horse for the Kentucky Derby -- although some people, yourself included, think he may have gone too far in his conclusion. However, judging by your latest emission, you still seem to think it is incontrovertible that one approach is better than another.
I pointed out that such a dogmatic approach was dangerous for the people who espouse it and would create opportunities for those of us who are less dogmatic. Ever since, you have been arguing that we are dogmatists and you are not. How can you possibly be serious? I am saying that there might be multiple successful ways to train a horse to win the Kentucky Derby and you are saying it is certain that one approach is worse than the others and any horse coming in that way needs to be discounted because it is so obvious one way is better than another.
I just wish I faced opposing counsel like you. It would actually make my job fun.
