Silver,

You are assuming/stating that Chilukki was pounded down by Ragozin bettors. Fact check: she was 3:2, not 6:5.

Your hypothesis/belief that it was Raggies behind Chilukki's short price is 1) very speculative as a general matter, since there was no public or private information indicating this; in fact, she was a classic public favorite given her record, and large margin of most of her victories 2) the result of very shaky handicapping because it suggests that, with the 6 she had run at 4 1/2f she was somehow would look to be a good value on Ragozin's sheets among large sophisticated bettors despite never having gotten near that number again, and 3) ignores the fact that Friedman was negative on this horse at the B.C. seminar (I know that because I was there).

There are reaches and there are reaches. Your Chilukki example is a reach even among reaches.

Sorry about your calendar.