We gave him big enough (like about the biggest number we have ever given out), but not that big. In general, they are getting faster every year, and it's a pain in the butt-- I've been considering adding 3-4 to the whole data base for a while, but I've been hoping the testers would catch up to the drugs (no Bob, this is not directed at you or Congaree. I forgot to mention the best part of the conversation when he called up screaming at me a couple of weeks ago. Me: "You should yell at Friedman. He lists you with the drug guys all the time, talks about the BB 'Magic'". Baffert: "Who's Friedman"?)

Having given this some thought recently, I have to give Ragozin some credit. The idea of making lower numbers better was inspired (and I don't know of anyone else who does it). Aside from the sheet being less cluttered, it would be awkward to look at a 2 point move between say 86 and 88-- at the lower end of the scale the 2 points looks more significant. It might just be that I'm used to it (which is why I went that way when I opened my own shop), but I don't think so.



TGJB