In case you missed it, The Man's response to Poppa's twisted world.....Jerry, JR.

From The Sheets BB:

If you're understandably bored with all this, please stop here. I have difficulty in figuring out why, but I'm replying toe the TGJB statement available on his site.

After the usual "attack ad" and reprise of the all-time JB purchase triumphs of the past, JB gets to the question of the Graph Stables:

1. First half looks right to me, but I can't see how JB has any more opinion than I would whether losing 50% plus in the first nine months is in line with the average results. If this is true, it's another good argument for staying away from all such ventures.

2. The fee schedule on P25 of the GSW offering gives the "Manager" (JB and Neubauer jointly) exactly what I described in my original comments: .3% per month of the $625,000 offering proceeds, 10% of the gross income (which I did state I believed JB waived for GSE) and 20% of any capital gains, with losses being ignored. If Neubauer is getting all the .3%, that's between him and JB--the investors are charged the same amount either way. JB's generous refusal to take the 10% of the gross earnings (there are no capital gains to date) is certainly warranted by the performance so far and given the amount of the earnings so far his fee would be minimal in any case. If $60,000 in legal fees were really spent to raise $625,000, then once again Shakespeare had it right and this is another reason not to contribute money to this venture as lawyers are doing well enough as it is.

3. I confess that I rounded the $18,750 organizing fee up to $20,000 to simplify the accounting addition and subtraction, but to say that this money didn't come from the investors is certainly bizarre. The whole $625,000 came from the investors--where else could the $18,750 have come from?

4. I had no way to know that Fit P had been sold since the last time she had run or that GSE had made another private purchase. I congratulate JB on being able to get rid of FP for $55,000, which is about twice what I would have valued her. I also offer my sympathy to the other owners of Mike Sedlacek who purchased her only to see her repeat, for them, the poor form of her previous race. My question is: Who is advising them? I also have difficulty understanding the repeated emphasis on 4th place finishes in stakes races--is that somehow worth something in addition to the purse money won? Has stakes placed been extended down to the fourth position so it has some impact on breeding value?

5. If the "significant fees" on top of the monthly management fees were based on NET earnings and resale profits, this would be arguable to me. As it is, the 10% and 20% charges are very much on the high end and, in the more likely than not scenarios, will result in the Graph Stable organizers profiting while the investors come up short even when, and if, the results are considerably better than GSE's. If other ventures are charging more, I would take exception to their pricing policies as well, unless their results are amazingly good.

My position is that if you want to own horses, you should actively do the work yourself. Horse ownership is not a good investment in general given the purse structure, training and vet expenses and fragile nature of the horses. Owning horses is for fun. Trying to come out ahead is par of the fun and using whatever handicapping data and supplementary advice is available (naturally I advise people to purchase our data) is just common sense, but a major part of the fun is playing the game yourself. A lot of SHEET players own horses and they (as well as many trainers) make most, if not all, the decisions themselves once they have the SHEET info. Without relying on "experts" to direct their every move, they have much more satisfaction when successes are achieved,

6. I shouldn't have brought up the subject matter discussed here since it's 25 years old, memories are vulnerable, and records (at least for me) have long been discarded--but I thought that JB's use of successes while he was using the SHEETS without mentioning us was ironic at least. I have enough ego, however, to take exception to JB's comment that I "tried, and failed miserably" during this period running a stable. As best as I can remember, Jeff L. was the only person I owned horses with in the early days and we had a lot of fun and did fair with the few inexpensive horses that we claimed. If JB owned any part of horses I managed, it could only have been a very small venture, as the first stable of any significant size I started was with a long time track companion and friend, Art Berg. Tresvant Stable, for which I selected claims and a few private purchases and shared the management and ownership with Art, was in my opinion a very successful stable during and after the years that the Heard Stable existed. JB certainly knows of the successes of Tresvant and I can only think that his "attack" mode pushed him over the line here. The rest of the "6" discussion is such old business that it should barely be o interest to the participants much less anyone else, so I'll just add that I am happy for JB's pleasant experiences in the Hamptons.

7. I try to delete all posts from the board that advertise any other products or are irrelevant to racing questions or deal with comparisons (favorable or otherwise) between our product and other products. If I left the posts up, I would feel the responsibility to respond to them when I disagreed, so that other visitors to our BB wouldn't assume that unanswered attacks were being ignored because they were true. I don't want to spend my day doing this and I think that SHEET using BB readers would rather not have the clutter of post that do not relate to handicapping. For posts on other BBs, it is easier for me to take the position of "out of sight, out of mind".

In the beginning I tried to engage in a little of the "debate" when the subject seemed interesting, but it quickly became clear that the exchanges were not meant to clarify issues but rather only to further the business and ego interests of primarily one person. The exchanges were without end and the "really concerned" poster just kept going on in endless and pointless arcane debates. The censorship argument is a lot of hooey--there are plenty of other places for anyone so inclined to get their opinions in print (and one in particular for those who want to criticize the SHEETS and/or me) with the added advantage that my musings will very rarely be added to the discussion. So as not to disappoint anyone, replies to this post (positive or negative) will also be guillotined. It's bad enough that I'm probably wasting everyone's time, but at least long suffering BB handicappers in search of useful into on reading the SHEETS can know that this digression is now absolutely over (and that definitely includes me as well).

8. I would be happy having thousands peruse the GSW offering so as to make their own decision on who's characterization of the Graph Stable's performances and fee arrangements fits the facts better and to concede that God carefully witnesses all that JB does and says, if only in return I can have the photo finish order reversed in today's feature at FG.

9. I repeat my absolute promise, no matter how provoked, that I will continue this no longer, and my future posts will be on patterns, patterns, and patterns. My apologies again to SHEET BB readers for this long digression from topics more appropiate to the BB.