Okay, David pit up his post from the Ragozin board here, so I'm re-posting my response so that everyone can judge things for themselves. I think David's post and my responses illustrate my point that one does not have to be an employee to have a bias, and act on it. I'm also taking down a few other posts, and not on the basis of content-- I want to keep stuff that is important (to me) up at the top of the board right now.


There you were, behaving yourself, and then... I guess it's like the joke about the scorpion and the turtle-- you can't help it, it's your nature. Maybe it's the Preakness that brings it out in you-- that's two years in a row now where you started this crap afterward.

Normally I don't like this picking apart line-by-line stuff-- it's inherently hostile, and heats things up. But you have hostile coming, and with the way you write the only way to deconstruct it is line by line.

1-- Your attempt to appear non-partisan: "Now I have criticized Friedman in the past on his reads..."

No, you have DISAGREED with Friedman on his reads. You have CRITICIZED me often, and have been unwilling even to pose a public question to Friedman when I suggested it. You are a pure partisan.

2-- From your post on the Rag board: "For anyone tempted to believe that Brown 'gave out' winning tickets in the Preakness..."

In your later post to me you say this is a response to two posts: one that said " ... his analysis made Midway Road his key", and another that said "he singled out Midway Road as a win bet at 8-1 or more in his analysis product. And don't forget the $123 horse they gave out...at Belmont on Friday".

Do you see anyone claiming I "gave out winning tickets"? Everything they say is true, and not misleading, BECAUSE WE POST THE ANALYSIS IN THE RED BOARD ROOM for everyone to see, and encourage everyone to read it, and everything else there. The only claim of 'giving out' anything is the $123 horse at Belmont, and that is also true.

3-- "If you guys are going to take credit for the wins, you need to take responsibility for the losses... it is (Brown's) product and he needs to stand behind it".

You have absolutely got to be kidding. It is always clear that I do the Triple Crown races and BC, and we always stand not only behind the product, but in FRONT of it-- we give out definitive plays in advance that can be seen to win or lose. You might remember some-- 3 horse box in 95 Derby for a $2,000 tri, 4 horse box in 98 Derby for a $1,000 tri, win bet on Volponi in the BC Classic, and many others. You might notice I did not include the 02 Derby-- we'll be getting back to that.

But we also stand BEHIND it because of the Red Board Room. We create a situation where everyone can see for themselves, daily, what choices we make, and the underlying data behind it. Compare this to the encrypted board-- it's like the Freemasons over there.

You said, ..."be honest when you tout your tout. We can all look this stuff up".

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself-- on this board, you can look it up.

4-- Since despite your protests the nature of your position is partisan, let's talk about "listing", as opposed to what I do. If you look at my comments you will see that if I had just listed my opinions on the Preakness, as Friedman did, it would obviously have read Peace Rules on top, MR second (where he finished), FC third-- he was an underlay according to both of us, especially since we both thought he would be shorter, but obviously he could run well, and I made a point of saying he might even run a new top. I would have thrown out more horses, and we would all be arguing about who did better on the Preakness (and if MR didn't get that trip, none of us would be saying anything). I would say that to the degree it could be determined by both our COMMENTS on the horses before the race, my PLAY aside, Len did slightly better. Maybe.

Which points out how easy it is to claim victory if you just list, and how hard it is to come up with actual plays that win. If MR had run third to Senor Swinger and Kissin Saint, all his fans would have been clapping-- but should he get credit for using 7 horses in exotics? And if he should, what kind of return can you grant him when he comes in second to a horse he considers an underlay?

Last year, as you know, I put together a group which hit the $180k Derby super (for a buck), and $18k tri ($2). I also had a win bet on War Emblem at 20-1. I didn't count this with the winning PLAYS I have given out, but it should be obvious that if I had just listed horses the result would have looked damn good. And some of those who read my comments on that race did damn well.

Which, in turn, brings us to Friedman's lists, historically, and points out how badly he has done on these big races, despite not taking a stand, and despite spreading out all over the place-- the noise after this one, and lack of it heretofor, speaks volumes. And points out the dishonesty in Ragozin's book (co-written by Friedman), where he claims to have given out a cold trifecta in the 96 Belmont. As I'm sure you remember, he didn't give out a trifecta play at all, and listed two horses that "were longshots that must be included in exotics". They ran out.

How's that for being honest when touting your tout.



TGJB