So for those that don\'t go to the Rag board, someone (not even me) called some of the guys there out about some negative comments about ROTW, saying make your own public picks on that race each week in advance, and listing some results from ours (leaving out the Ark Derby exacta, but who\'s counting. There haven\'t been enough good ones recently to skip one, buddy).
So Friedman responds, using the term \"essential dishonesty\", calling him to task for mentioning we said Jazil was the key at 14-1 in the Wood, when we didn\'t like the winner.
Len:
1-- You\'re the guy who just lists all the horses, and never makes an actual play, right? The guy who every time says most of the field should be used in exotics? Have you ever told people how big that exotic play would be, by the way?
2-- You\'re the guy who, after making a list and saying to use 8 horses in exotics in the Arkansas Derby a few years ago (not the winner), posted patting yourself on the back, saying \"one of the horses we liked ran second\". Right?
3-- And then there\'s the big one. In your DRF column for the 96 Belmont you listed horses-- no play-- and commented on each. The fourth and fifth on the list were \"live longshots that must be used in exotics\". They ran out, the first 3 ran 1-2-3.
Yet in Ragozin\'s book-- which you co-wrote-- he says that you gave out a cold trifecta. Right? When you in fact didn\'t give out a trifecta play, or any other play, and certainly told people to use 2 other horses. I would point out that on two occasions in my DRF columns I gave out a specific play (3 horse box, 4 horse box) that gave out the tri in the Derby, at 2k and 1k.
4-- And since we\'re talking about doing a mechanical study, let\'s recall Ragozin\'s system-betting venture in Atlantic City, which was monitored by the DRF. In his book, Len claimed he won over the test period (and again, you are listed as co-author). As Brad Free pointed out in his book review in DRF, that was not true-- Len lost. Right?
