Classhandicapper,

Thank you, I guess. The only thing that worries me is that people might not believe my argument now. I do not want to be as rude as the following will sound, but do you realize how surd your response was? And yes, I mean surd not absurd.

You DO have a theory on prep races into the Derby, and a lot of us disagree with your theory. Your theory is succinctly (will wonders never cease) summarized in your reply to me where you state you have no theory (surd again).

Okay, one more try -- you believe, think, feel, know, have some sense, whatever you want to call it that makes you UTTER that there is "a method that has already been proven effective." Please do not disavow that UTTERANCE as you normally do (people are sick of you saying things and then saying you did not say them).


I dispute your utterance. You have never given proof, and we challenge you left and right. It just falls on deaf ears (that is where surd comes in).

All you do is say things (e.g on the Ragozin board recently) like your complex ideas cannot sink into our deficient brains because we are looking for mathematical certainty. While, no surprise here, it is you who is stuck in (and cannot get out of) the mathematical certainty mindset in the debate on Derby preps. Your "proven effective" statement comes from all your earlier pronouncements using numbers like '0' and '100'. It pains me too much to dig them back out now, but if you actually join me in a real debate (chances of that are slim and none and slim just left town), I would go show you yourself again.

Anyway, for the part that will fall on your deaf ears, I have seen TONS (literally) of horses lose in the Kentucky Derby off 3 or 4 preps (trust me, I have lost lots of money on them). These are horses that looked really good and had no apparent excuse (I guess a few of the trainers may have said the track was 'cuppy'). I also see lots of people on this board saying that horses often hit their top before the Derby and back off it in the Derby. All of this tells me that there is at least a modest peppercorn of evidence that MAYBE 3-4 preps before the Derby might, could possibly be, in some circumstances, actually, a bad thing. I realize how shocking that is to you, but maybe the shock is what is causing you not to hear it.

Anyway, my position (which you would know if you read anything I wrote) is that I have no idea how to train a horse. I suspect there is no one right way and multiple different approaches may work. I do not think anything is proven on this. I also do not think this is a relevant consideration anyway (but that is neither here nor there). I assume that on any horse I bet on in the Derby, there is always a chance that his prep was perfect and there is always a chance that his prep was deficient. And, I have not seen any data that would help me sort this mystery out (if it is even capable of being sorted, which is a big if).

YOU are the one who believes that it is proven that 3 or 4 preps is not a bad thing. Where is that proven? Bring it on baby!!! Don't, as you always do, try to shift the burden of proof on to me. I am telling you I cannot prove anything. YOU are the one alleging something is proven, not me.

That proven CERTAINTY is the ENTIRE premise of your 'argument' which you use to assert that you need to discount a horse coming into the Derby off one or two preps. If you lose your mathematical certainty, there goes the linchpin.

Bracing myself for the fancy footwork bit again.