Read Dick Jerardi's column in tomorrow's (Fri) DRF. Anyone who follows this game should know who Jerardi is and what follows is not meant as an attack on him. He's knowledgeable, a good writer, and seems to be an unassuming good guy.

He compares Western Playboy's race in the PA. Derby some years ago to Summer Doldrum's Whirlaway. Since I had Western Playboy that day I remember the race well. As Jerardi says, the horse ran out of his mind that day. I think he won by ten and the time was fast. But, if you boil down what Dick says after that it amounts to this; the horse can't run that fast, therefore he didn't.

If you accept that, then you put yourself in an even tighter box because it calls into question everything you're purporting to do and indicates, loud and clear, that it's all subjective opinion and not fact. Maybe (and please remember I'm only saying maybe) on the day in question, Western Playboy would have beaten Easy Goer and Sunday Silence.

Jerardi quotes Mark Hopkins ( the guy who actually made the figures for the Whirlaway and Gotham). As Miff has noted here previously, Hopkins is also knowledgeable, a good guy etc. But he's condemned by his own statements regarding whether this is opinion or fact.

Somewhere in the column Jerardi says that this (figure making) is "science with a splash of art". I submit that handicapping is more art than science. Everybody has access to the same information, more or less. How you interpret the info determines whether you win or lose. You have to be good at anticipating what's likely to happen next and that sure isn't science.

We could say that Summer Doldrum's performance in the Wood will sort it all out. Except that there's one built-in variable already in that the race will be on the main track rather than the Inner. I'm a firm believer in horses for courses.