Okay, to review.

This started back on Preakness day, when you (Touchgold) cherry picked one horse that won, after the fact, that looked better on Jake than TG-- point being that he was faster than his competition on what he had already done. That horse, Justin Squared, a) was 4/5, b) was a 3yo with two lifetime starts and just one this year, c) won a race where half the field was wiped out.

On the other hand, I pointed out two examples on that card where there were far more extreme differences, in our favor. The 3yo that won the grass stake and Takeover Target looked far better on TG-- where Justin was a lightly raced horse that could easily run a new top, both of those were not. The 3yo was a total toss on Jake and a strong use on TG, TT was a very strong contender on TG without any improvement. In point of fact, neither of them ran a new top, Justin ran a big new one-- on TG.

So I brought that stuff up, and said you should raise those other two with Jake. And I think you did, and he gave a quick reply that one of their guys had bet TT, and that was good enough for you. Where you have posted 15 times here, you were in and out with one over there, despite the results (especially with the grass 3yo) providing evidence (there is never proof) that their figures weren't just wrong, but egregiously so. But that wasn't serious enough issue for you to make an issue of.

Which brings us to Saturday at Belmont. Where you leaped to show Kid Cruz didn't look as good on Jake, then brought up a couple of opinions from the seminar that didn't work out so good. Well, I now have Jake for that day, so let's take a look at a few things that you, in your great intellectual honesty, neglected to mention

1-- Justin Squared, again. He ran back. We had him running a big top at Pim, I gave him to Christina Blacker as the horse to discuss on TVG to show what a bad favorite looked like, one that wasn't fast AND figured to bounce. On Jake the horse was fast in the race AND had a good pattern, a 1 point forward move. Len liked him in his comments on their board. Horse bounced to the sky, which supports my position going into Pimlico-- he wasn't that fast going in. If he was, logic indicates that last one wouldn't have hurt so much.

2-- You mentioned we didn't like Celestine and Frosted. You're right. What you neglected to mention was that on Jake they also not only weren't strong in their races, but where we had both off pairs, they had both off 2 point backward moves. They looked even worse.

3-- Grand Tito, the bomb I liked in the seminar (said to use 4 in the Manhattan, they ran 1-2-3-4). He was slow as s--t on Jake, hadn't broken 9 this year.

4-- Calculator. Now in all fairness some of Len's picks ran well, and his plays can only be as good as the data he uses. But his comments were "He has strong number power, and a solid somewhat explosive pattern". He was absolutely correct-- on Jake he was the clear play in the race.

Here's what I said-- "We think a further regression is imminent, and a layoff is impending". (I kept waiting for Miff or Rob to call me on the layoff so I could bet them). Anyway, the horse got beat 30 lengths.

The point is this. Anyone can cherry pick a result if you look for one, or call people names (which appears to be the intellectual ceiling over there). What I do is either pick things out in advance, or use examples to show why and how there are differences, not just in result but in methodology.

But that's not you.

I'm heading out to the Met game so I have to cut this short, any response will be dealt with tomorrow.