First, Len's comments:

"I've been shown your comments on the "study". Without discussing the accuracy of your statements, let me just reiterate that I think the whole thing is rather silly as you set it up for the reasons that I expressed earlier. I do not see why you would think that I would have any interest in it continuing".

The reason I would think you might want to participate is the same one that caused you to participate in the SportStat study 15 years ago, and in another a few years later that ultimately was not consummated.

More importantly, "as you set it up". I gave you SEVERAL chances to chime in with suggestions-- you did not so that you could have it both ways, depending on how things worked out.


"I would not under any circumstances I can forsee provide you with free SHEETS..."

Yeah, I'm looking for free sheets. Evidence of that being the study itself, where I'm trying to show our superiority. More likely you are concerned about me finding more of the many errors I have pointed out the two times a year (Triple Crown and BC) I actually do look at your sheets.



"...and I certainly will not spend any time on your enterprise myself nor would I ask any of our staff to do so".

And yet you have. Both you and Eric privately had a dialogue with the one who was supposed to do the scoring and set the rules for the study, a study that you continue to distance yourself from publicly. Pretty obvious why-- you wanted to be able to crow if you won, and dismiss it if you lost.



"I'm sure that there are mechanical studies that could be done that weren't set up in as ridiculous a manner as this one..."


And again, I've asked you several times to make suggestions as to how. I'm still open to them.





"...(with the scoring sytem according to your post apparently to be decided after the study is over)..."

Please. I made clear how we are scoring it. The other studies are to determine whether the study itself has any relevance, as I also made clear. Read it again.



"...but even so I don't think they would be particularly useful. The test of a product is in it's use-- you know that as well as I do"..."

Ahem. Yes, the test of a product is in its use (like, in handicapping contests such as the NTRA Nationals, which our customers have won three of the last four years. Only one of your customers has ever won it, and that one has now switched to our data). The test is NOT sales, although we are catching you rapidly in that department, if we have not caught you already. Lots of things affect sales-- like your willingness to give horsemen data for virtually nothing to be able to claim them as clients.



All-- the delay in posting scores was due to issues of who was responsible for what, and because of an effort to present things in the most understandable and CHECKABLE way for you. Results should have been posted daily so that they could be followed, that didn't happen.

Because Len won't get involved (publicly, that is), we're stopping after the races of today. I'm not going to give him a free shot, and pay for the privilege.

The results for the two weeks at two tracks will be posted tomorrow in a clear, checkable format, once we have had someone here double check the work someone outside the office has done. The results will be listed race-by-race, so anyone who got something different can check their own work, and question what we post.

The results through yesterday were very close (I think we are 2 down total), and no matter who ends up ahead the result will not be statistically significant. We'll also run some tests to see if the studies themselves are at all relevant, as I said in an earlier post-- we'll see what correlation there was between highly rated horses and high finish positions. That may or may not be up by tomorrow.









Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/07/2006 03:01PM by TGJB.