>I've got people here begging me not to continue a discussion in which every reader of this board understands the distinctions that you fail to, so I'm giving you the last word. And it's killing me, because you are one easy target.<

All I can say is that your own arrogance is quite astounding.

I said USE YOUR FIGURES for the PA DERBY and the figures you gave each of those horses coming out of that race. Then we could evaluate the evidence based on your figures which would contain the paths etc... and none of my subective analysis of pace, bias, trip, etc... We could avoid using someone else's figures etc...

I guess I must simply realize that some people are incapable of a discussion about a horse's performance that goes beyond a number on a piece of paper that was calculated by you.

It is no wonder I still find so many overlays despite the high quality of overall information you offer. There seems to be a religious devotion to your number without any consideration that you might be wrong on occasion or that your methodolgy is incomplete or flawed on occasion.

I'll tell you what, next time there's a massive dead rail bias at Belmont I'll be the first to laugh at the extra credit you are giving to horses that raced wide that day relative to rail runners. I'll cash my subjectivness at your expense all day long.