Albany, you are right-- we don't hit every race, so the theory is flawed.

Pace-- as I said late yesterday, the pace was hot. While it may very well have been a factor, it was not the overriding factor-- several who were far behind it did not run well. Some were trained by Pletcher and Zito.

If Chris and I are correct, and the drug testing brought several trainers and horses back to earth (Dutrow, Frankel, Pletcher, Zito, and not just in the Derby), then there is no point in trying to draw any other conclusions from the result-- it's apples and oranges. The big question at the moment is, under what conditions will the Preakness be run.

Miff--

1-- As we said in the seminar, of the last 125 horses that ran in the Derby, only 30% paired (within a point either way) or ran a new top. I beat the point to death-- there was only one pattern that produced even 40%, despite spring stake 3yos usually hitting at around 50%.

2-- If I am right about the drugs (and I know you agree it's going on), trying to figure out whether past figures are right based on this race is pointless.

3-- What do you want to do with the BG, add 10? If you add 2 or 3 does Bandini look more or less likely to X? It wasn't like BR, Bandini, HL, and the other Pletcher and Zitos only went back a point or two. We'll have to see what happens with an awful lot of horses down the road.

Jimbo-- the approach we have taken has held up extremely well in the Derby, as a matter of public record. There was only one approach you could have taken to get to this one, and while I didn't go that way myself, I made the point TWICE in the seminar to watch how the supertrainers were doing in the other graded stakes.



TGJB