On this subject views and opinions of author-handicapper Steve Davidowitz .

May 27, 2006. . .Barbaro is doing quite well all things considered and there is not much more that can be said about what occurred at Pimlico last Saturday, but I was bothered by the essence of a note that was sent to me via E-mail that suggested that ‘Sheet’ handicappers were saying on their public forums that essentially Barbaro had bounced—severely to be sure—but as many of the adherents to ‘Sheet Theory’ had predicted.

Did Barbaro suffer a severe bounce?

Should there be changes in the Triple Crown?

I was appalled and wrote the following reply to the gentleman about many of my concerns over this line of thinking.

The sheet players can be so arrogant. Most had the Derby all wrong and now they take credit for a severe bounce I guess, suggesting that is part of what happened to Barbaro? Arrogance and somewhat distasteful.

The Sheet Gurus and their followers conveniently forget the many horses who outperform their 'bounce' expectations. Many times over.

Bounces do occur, but far less predictably than they would have you believe or can be supported by fact, circumstantial or otherwise.

I do have respect for the art of making and reading ‘form patterns’ and the Sheet Format is a wonderful way of presenting said patterns. But the Sheet Gurus and their followers are intellectually dishonest about weight, track bias and the changing nature of tracks conditions on a single card and the changing, living nature of all performance patterns.

Among other things, they never bother to explain how horses 15 years ago regularly ran more often and achieved peak performances in spite of their present notions, or how many subtle changes are occurring in the present and future sense. (I also question the way the numbers keep getting faster and faster when that seems more of a drift rather than an actual fact. I see a parallel in Baseball. For example Sandy Koufax threw in the 98-100 mph range in the 1970's and ALL starting pitchers worked on three days rest and pitched many more complete games to boot. Meanwhile Secretariat, Dr. Fager, Damascus, Buckpasser and many others in the 1970's ran faster than the usual high class stakes winner today who seems to automatically earn a minus (Sheet) number, two or three times a year in ultra short careers despite the limited numbers of well spaced starts).

Who is to say that a change of routine will not catch on and change things in another direction? Who is to say that The Sheet Gurus really have any handle on how that change will occur before other good players using other techniques see it.

Sheet pattern analysis has taken on the trappings of a religion and like all religions, the priests sometimes are corrupted by the business of preaching their version of the gospel--and they do make money off of their followers.

Moreover, sheet pattern analysis in the hands of one player means one possible outcome or set of percentages vs another completely different set of probabilities by another. The same is true with any approach to pre-race guess-timation, or handicapping theory.

Wish they were not so dogmatic while claiming to be so flexible.

Wish they would not use the word 'bounce' to explain all their right guesses and wish they would simply admit from time to time that they have no more clues why some things happen as anyone else.

Afleet Alex thrived on the short time between races and stumbled as bad as a horse can stumble and went on to win the 2005 Preakness and bury the Belmont field. Dozens and dozens of examples can be found in the recent past at all levels of racing while a like number can be found to support the dogma.

Stumbles and broken bones can occur without a precipitous reason.

The Triple Crown always has been hard on horses and has been hard to win. But in my opinion, the problem with it has nothing to do with its time frame layout.

If they really want to change the Triple Crown, they could make it mandatory for horses in the race to be on the track grounds for a minimum of six days where each horse could be observed in training by track vets and by the press and the clockers every day. I can't tell you how many horses revealed themselves 'in the old days' and still reveal themselves at Churchill Downs for Derby week, where the majority of horses do still show up to train.

If they want to properly alter the Triple Crown, they should go back 6-9 months and change what happens in the important 2 yr old races.

The Breeders' Cup Juvenile should be the first race at 1-1/16 miles in the country.

The Hopeful should be 6-1/2, the Futurity 7 and the Champagne 1-mile. The Arlington Futurity one mile, The Norfolk one mile.

The first 1-1/8 mile 3 yr old prep stakes should be the last series of 3 yr old prep stakes in Florida and California, (New York, Illinois and Arkansas have it right).

The distances of the major 2 yr old stakes is one of the key pressure points on young horses that weakens---not strengthens---the breed.

Horses need foundation races as 2 yr olds, skipping them all and starting out at 3 is an unattractive alternative for a Triple Crown horse, but running in those longer and more competitive 2 yr old races as presently constituted can be career shortening, as the pressure on all good 2 yr olds increases with the longer distances and monster purses so early in their careers.