HE'S BAAACK...
Unfair? UNFAIR??
First of all, the most important part of your post concerns insults, and probably explains both your absence and (relatively) good mood.
Where I come from, "objective" means objective, and "resilience" is a physical phenomenom. You and I and everyone informed enough to follow this conversation know that Ragozin doesn't use objective criteria any more than we do, or measure resilience(y), and that Friedman's use of the terms is marketing aimed at those who don't know better. Even in practice they don't mean "observable", they mean observed-- see my story about the two Belmont grass courses (5/2/00), for one example. Or, "observed and understood"--the rail last B.C. day, and the change of track speed that day, were examples
of events they observed but did not understand, at least within the confines of their dogma.
The first major downybrook (and Michael wasn't even involved!) on this site concerned the 00 Wood Memorial (the 5/2/00 post was a response to David Patent),and Friedman at that time said they tied that race (only 2 turn race on the card)to the rest of the card, despite rain, sealing and unsealing of the track, and having to give out numbers they never would have given had they cut the race loose. I will guarantee you they did not do that 9/15 at Belmont, so the question is, on what basis (objective criteria) did they make that decision? That is why I brought this up, and it's a fair question.
Overall, excellent dialogue between you guys, and I'm proud to say I can't imagine anywhere else it could have taken place.



TGJB