We posted this earlier, but I'm moving it up to the top again to make sure everyone sees it.




By now,I assume most of you have read Friedman's "public service announcement" on the Ragozin site concerning Rising Graph. Those of you who have not should do so before proceeding further here, or what follows won't make much sense.

First, the broad strokes: hopefully Friedman's post makes it clear once and for all that the "high road" is simply a tactical position taken by the Ragozin operation. Their field agents talk about us all the time, and the only time they "ignore" us is when we are in a position to respond. They deleted at least 7 responses to this post of Friedman's in the first hour, including one of mine saying this was going to be fun-- this too is the high road.

Second, the entire struggle between the two operations sometimes comes down to a he said/he said, which makes the question of determining credibility paramount. On a lot of issues those of you out there have had no way of knowing who has told the truth, but I want to point out two events that should give you a clue. One is this year's Breeder's Cup ground, not the mistakes Ragozin's trackman made , and which anyone with a tape of the races can verify, but the cover-up, Friedman's lies, and their willingness to let the errors stand, creating bad figures, rather than admitting the mistakes. The other is my lawyer's public letter a couple of years ago to the Ragozin office, detailing (among other transgressions) our private investigator's taping of Ragozin employees lying about us (the "high road") and providing the transcripts to Ragozin and Friedman. Despite these accusations airing in a public forum, the Ragozin office has to this day never responded, from which you should be able to draw your own conclusions.

Friedman, of course, has the right to counter with similar acts on my part that have resulted in me being shown to be a liar. I await with bated breath.

Finally, before I get to Rising Graph this: that stable represents about 2% of the number of horses bought and 2% of the money invested on horses at my advice. There is a five year study posted on this site that tells a lot about our (meaning my) record in this department, and the sampling is a whole lot bigger than Rising Graph, but briefly: I have been responsible for the purchase and most of the management of Victory Gallop, Da Hoss, Distorted Humor, and 62 other horses that have won stakes since being purchased by our clients. I would like to see the Ragozin office publish a study comparable to ours showing all the horses bought upon their recommendation over an extended period of time. There is a reason they can only charge horsemen a tiny fraction of what we do.

On the specifics of Rising Graph:

1- The results of the stable so far have been poor, which is to say much worse than my prior results, and probably about in line with average results from most partnerships and racing endeavors.

2- Most of Friedman's statements about my compensation are false. I was never supposed to get anything up front or on a monthly basis. I am entitled to a percentage of earnings and resale profit, but because the stable hasn't done well I have never sent a bill. I have received zero (0) dollars for my work with Rising Graph. I would also point out that trainers and jockeys work on a percentage of gross earnings, and that investors in Rising Graph post on this site, so if I'm lying you'll find out about it. Not true on the Ragozin site, I would add.

3- The $18,750 (not $20,000) up front payment (which came out of the total $625,000 of capital, not from each investor as Friedman implied), went to Roger Neubauer as partial reimbursment for the roughly $60,000 he laid out in legal fees as part of the deal to get the partnership up and running. He also gets $1,875 a month to handle the administrative duties, and a piece of actual profits on any Graph Racing ventures. As the investors will tell you, he is doing a great job-- any blame for results not being up to expectations can not be placed at his feet.

4- We don't own Fit Performer--we sold her a while back for the same price we paid for her ($55,000), and used the money to buy half of a two year old filly named U.K. Trick, who made her first start for Rising Graph (and another Thoro-Graph client) last Saturday, running fourth, beaten two lengths, in a $100,000 stake. Again, while the results have not been what they should have been, she is the second horse out of the five we have run who has finished fourth in a stake. She goes next in the Tropical Park Oaks.

5- Contrary to what Friedman says, the fees charged investors of Rising Graph are actually much more reasonable than those of other racing ventures, most of which charge large up front fees in the form of syndication costs and marked up prices of the horses, as well as ongoing fees based on things like the insured value of the stock (that's a nasty one). Any significant fees paid by Rising Graph to Roger or myself will be a function of earnings or resale profit-- as far as we know, management of no other multiple ownership venture is willing to work this way. I invite anyone with experience in this regard to post here on the subject.

6- Friedman's account of the Dennis Heard business is so factually inaccurate as to present a picture which is 180 degrees off.

In the 70's Ragozin used his data to run a stable with some success. Friedman then tried, and failed miserably--I know because I was one of the investors. When Dennis approached Ragozin, Len hooked him up with me, and (using Ragozin data, which I have mentioned here before) I took Dennis' stable from 2 horses to third in the country in wins in 3 years. At the beginning of 1980 Dennis and I split up (I quit), and I took my profit share in racing and (mostly) breeding stock-- we had just gotten into that end of it. At that point, Dennis had the option of continuing to race his stable using Ragozin's sheets and Friedman's expertise, but decided since I was no longer involved he didn't want to risk it, and dispersed the stable.

Once I owned all these horses Ragozin came at me hard, as I knew he would-- I took mostly breeding stock because I thought his figures were made by God, as the Raggies do now, and that I wouldn't be able to manage a racing stable without them. He figured he had me over a negotiating barrel, and tried to charge me 10% of the CAPITALIZATION of the stable per year, plus a healthy slice of profits, just for use of the data-- I was supplying the expertise myself. Compare this with the Rising Graph deal Friedman thinks is so heinous, by the way.

Anyway, I was still in my 20's, so I went out to the Hamptons to play beach volleyball, and bounce around with a crazy Harvard girl. The point being that Dennis couldn't have turned down the chance to use my figures BECAUSE THERE WERE NONE-- it was only 18 months later, when the bloodstock market crashed, and I discovered breeding stock ate, de-valued, died, and didn't generate purse money, that I realized I only had one field of expertise, and began to put together an office. You guys should be grateful for that bloodstock crash-- otherwise no Thoro-Graph.

7- On an only marginally related subject, I want to comment on Jake and Friedman's admonitions to "stay on my own board". While these are commercial sites, they do reach the public at large, and no-one has the moral right to lie or misrepresent facts in an effort to gain a competitive advantage. When I post on the Ragozin board (under whatever name), that is why, and only someone who fundamentally believes the end justifies the means could ever think there is something wrong with it. This post alone should indicate the need for discourse and rigorous examination of the facts, as well as the reason for and the problem with Friedman's deletion policy-- if his post stood unchallenged, a lot of untruth would become currency.

8- Len, as God is my witness, a couple of hours after your post went up, a guy in San Francisco sent me an e-mail saying he didn't know we had such a venture, and requesting we send him information. And I knew you "harbored" an animus towards me-- but to find out it is a "significant, personal animus"... I have to tell you, that really hurts.

TGJB



TGJB