TGJB,

Thanks for the comment.

1. I got your message last week - no name calling (of horses - slugs, can of XXXX, etc..)

2. What I said is not in conflict with "modern sheets" tenets, just in conflict with stuff that is 20 years old. I realize I am treading in deeper waters here as you run the company and they are your customers, but "tenets" have evolved. I would agree certainly that form is a cycle and this plays well when you watch horses spend 3 or 4 months racing every 3 to 4 weeks at 6 furlongs on the dirt and you look at their numbers on a graph and make form assumptions. But when a SIGNIFICANT constant changes, like track surface, route/sprint, extreme bias, etc, then looking at the form on a graph is EXTREMELY less important to at least some of your customers, if not many. (just look at comments by Miff and Mjellish on the topic of Cathryn Sophia, as they are two of your longtime customers). You want to look at Cathryn Sophia's sheet and see the bad performance last time and call it a bounce off some fast races and just leave it there as a change in her form cycle, then you can do that. But others, having seen her breeding, having seen her physical looks, and having suspected she can't route as well, then see her back up routing, we are likely going to consider it unrelated to her form cycle and more related to her ability to get a route of ground. Shoot, the whole reason I started this thread was because I was looking for some sheets read to explain the back up so I could convince myself she was playable in the Oaks at a better price. But instead of getting that, what I got was two of your Senior members spitting back what you are calling "visual handicapping" to me. They weren't my words (although I agree with them).

Some of us don't use your product (or your competitor's) as dogmatically as we did 15 years ago. You may not call that a good thing, but it is evolution of the handicapping game.

Rob