CH-- this is getting seriously annoying. First of all, aside from the highly questionable THEORIES you present about speed biases, etc., without any EVIDENCE (and I'm NOT looking for this to turn into a debate about whether those biases exist in general, and won't allow this discussion to become that), I provided absolute evidence that neither a rail or speed bias existed on that day at FG. I posted the sheets, along with an explanation making it clear that the numbers for those 3 races could not have held up better, once you factored in weight and ground. You simply never responded to those points, as you often do not, and have now brought your theory up again as if I never shot it down. There is absolutely NO chance there was a bias for those races, WHATEVER Vicarage, High Limit or anyone else does going forward. And anyone who wants to know why can hit the search engine on this site with "High Limit" and "Bias" to see the string and sheets with numbers they ran.

In the broader sense, the basis for a lot of what we do here is the use of patterns, which involves the premise (which is proved by the Thoro-Patterns, by the way) that horses do not perform at the same level every time, independent of outside influences like pace and bias possibly affecting their form (and think about that statement carefully before you take a shot at it). That being the case, the fact that a horse runs worse following a big number doesn't necessarily mean anything. If a GROUP does that could mean something, and a GOOD figure which pairs up can mean something-- but not some vague "good effort" to the untrained eye.

Finally, aside from your annoying habit of not dealing with actual evidence or arguments that contradict your position, there is the chutzpah of your overall behavior. This is a TG site, frequented to a large degree by those who use our data and want to know more about how others use it. When I put something out here it is backed up by a tremendous amount of research and by my record, and when necessary by evidence I supply, as with the FG races, or Chris did with the 2 Derby prep stuff. You have some unsupported theories, period. You spout them incessantly, without backing them up with evidence, or addressing evidence or arguments of others. And, as one of the PROFESSIONAL horseplayers who frequents this site said to me on the phone this week, you "keep dressing the same pig up in different clothes".

You seem to think that there are two positions-- yours, and everyone else's-- and that they are entitled to equal time, no matter who the other person is, or what the evidence is, or what the forum is. Which is not to say you don't sometimes have something useful to contribute-- you do. But recognize where you are, and what's going on around you.



TGJB