I wish I could have gotten those 7-1 Euro odds. I was happy with the 5/2. I didn't have access to the inside information about lameness. I saw the 3 fast races in a row in a short period of time. That seemed to prove that he could run fast without bouncing on short rest. The longer rest into the BC looked to me like a way to further reduce the likelihood of a bounce this time. Many past winners of the BC Sprint have come in with 6 weeks or more of rest. And even a little regression from those prior figures looked like it might be good enough to win. Assuming he didn't lose too much ground from the outside post. I concluded that with his running style he might not lose to much. Why was this not an appropriate way to read the pattern? I know he won. That's not the point of my question. I'm trying to understand why the same logic couldn't be used effectively in the future. Is there any historical data that indicates this to be a flawed approach?