JB wrote: "I just did Sunday's Belmont figures, and if Ragozin did it the way they usually do (using "objective criteria", which really means making an assumption that the track changes speed either not at all or very little, and therefore using what amounts to an average) there will be some of the most extreme differences you will ever see."

JB also wrote: "And, how does Ragozin measure "physical resilience(y)"?"

JB: This is unfair. In his book, Ragozin says that he sticks with one variant UNLESS the weather has come into play. The weather (and the work crew, I was told by a reliable source) came into play on Sunday. It also came into play on Preakness day. As for your use of "objective" and "resilience," "objective," in this case, means "observable": as in seeing rain falling on the track. And "resilience" means "realizing that the rain will change the track," which necessitates making a separate variant--which Ragozin will base on the performances of the horses, as you do. See page 37 of Ragozin's book. And see the writings of Karl Marx. When attacking capitalism, Marx didn't make models of capitalism at its worst: during recessions, depressions, etc. He made models of it at its BEST, and he ripped THOSE to hell. Think about it.