From Friedman's post on the Ragozin board:

"It may boggle your mind that numbers can be made with 1/2 point accuracy, but that is an argument that has been made ever since the 60s when I first started using the Sheets. Saying that they are not that accurate doesn't make it so".

1-- Correct. And saying that they ARE that accurate does not make it so either ("Our speakers go to eleven"). Especially when the one testifying has a vested interest in people believing it.

Your position is, they are really accurate, trust me, I've used them for a long time. And if they weren't I would tell you. Problem is, when obvious errors are pointed out (more on that in a moment), you DON'T acknowledge them. So how is someone supposed to take that line of reasoning seriously?

2-- Let's return to planet earth. The reason that figures can't always be accurate to the 1/2 point is that the underlying data we use is not accurate to the 1/2 point. Are all your trackmen giving you ground in 1/2 paths? (That's rhetorical, I've used some of your trackmen and seen the work of others, and not only do they not, some use the fan and some don't). Trackmen give you a 2 path call-- is it always exactly 2, not 2 1/2? Not 1 3/4? They give you 2-3, and it's never 2-3-3? When horses run in the slop, and the jockeys come back covered with mud, do you account for the weight of the mud? Do you get the weights of the horses, so you know how much to adjust for 119 on a 950 pound horse and a 1200 pound horse in the same race? Do you use two trackmen, so one can do ground, while the other looks at the wind DURING the race, as opposed to before and/or after? In fact, are all your trackmen actually at the track, as opposed to watching on TV? (We both know the answer to that one).

3-- Ahem. In the last three years alone, I have pointed out SIGNIFICANT internal errors (meaning in the relationships between horses in one race) due to errors in ground loss, beaten lengths, and "off poorly", in very big races-- BC Mile, BC Sprint, Wood Memorial, Kentucky Derby. These have come only on big races, because THOSE WERE THE ONLY ONES YOU POSTED with the figures they ran, and it's a very high percentage, because you only post a few races a year-- 15, maybe? Just a couple of days ago, you posted the figures for the first two finishers in the Florida Derby-- and you had the relationship wrong by 3/4 point, due presumably to screwing up the ground for Noble Causway. You want to talk about 1/2 point condition moves with him?

These are the biggest races of the year, Len. You seem to live in an insulated world where reality does not intrude. In the real one, anybody with a brain would conclude that the very high percentage of outright errors in big races would lead to at LEAST as high a percentage of errors in the day to day races.

And the dirty little secret, which anyone who makes figures knows, is that you make the figures off the past figures-- when we get past ridiculous claims of measuring "resiliency", we know it's the only way to do it. So past errors are compounded as you make later figures. Especially if you don't want to admit an error, and therefore don't fix them. Right?

And all the above doesn't even address the illogic of your variant decisions, which I've discussed at great length before, or the circuit-to-circuit problems. I'm just talking about demonstrable outright screwups, and innaccuracy of the underlying data.

I know-- your speakers go to eleven.



TGJB