Okay, we reviewed the BC Sprint to look at the horses SoCalMan2 asked about.

1-- Pt's Grey Eagle got beat a head, a neck, and 3 pounds by Clockstopper. Assuming equal ground loss that would give him about 3/4 point the better figure, so the only way Clockstopper could have gotten a much better number (as Ragozin gave it) would be if he was significantly wider. But as all 3 of our guys who did the race, as well as the DRF/Equibase trackman (see the chart) found, Clockstopper got a RAIL trip-- he actually SAVED ground slightly relative to Pt's Grey Eagle (who started the turn 2 and dropped to the rail late). Ragozin has a gross error (about 1 1/2 points) in the figure for Clockstopper.

2-- A similar situation exists between Midas Eyes and My Cousin Matt. MCM beat ME by 3 1/4 lengths, so assuming equal trips he would get 2 1/2 points the better figure. But ME was wide (our guys had 456, 33456, and 3345, the chart says "raced four wide on the turn, was floated six wide leaving the turn"), while MCM got a RAIL trip according to all 4 sources. Using 4 wide for ME you get a ground loss differential of 3 lengths, slightly less than the margin, and very similar figures for the two horses. The only way Ragozin could have MCM running a much better figure is if he has ME significantly closer to the rail, or MCM well off it. In looking at the relationships within the race on Ragozin, it looks like they got ME wrong. By a lot.

3-- Champali was 3 wide according to all 3 of our guys and the Equibase chart. As seen above, the problem is that Ragozin had Clockstopper 3 wide when he was actually rail, so he ends up giving them the same number, when Champali should get a much better figure.

Look-- this is the big leagues, and you guys are paying serious money for the data, and betting serious money based on it. You have a right to a serious, professional effort. There is no way it is okay to make these kind of errors for an event the magnitude of the BC. That's why we had 3 guys look at it-- it is beyond unlikely that all 3 would blow the same horses the same way. Clearly the Ragozin operation did not place the same importance on getting it right, and there is no excuse for that.

And maybe more importantly-- it is clear that the Ragozin office reads this board. How they respond to the information that they got it wrong will tell a lot about what they think of their customers-- as it has with similar situations in the past.



TGJB