The legendary linguist was quoted in an interview Sun. as saying that "any person who is intellectually alive changes his ideas", adding that if anyone is teaching the same thing as 5yrs ago then "either the field is dead, or they haven't been thinking." That's the overall approach my comrades take, which has made for an interesting & informative couple of yrs.

1. After the BC races at Arl last yr, West Coast jocks said that despite the track's designation the turf course was yielding, not firm. The same thing happened again this yr, although this time it was a trainer who blew the whistle. If MagnaScan readings referenced by P. Eckhart had been available, then one would have had an objective measure of the actual condition of the course before the races were run, & could compare the horses previous races to the condition of the turf. The MIT Engr who helped build Tapeta invented a device which would do the same thing for dirt races. I very much doubt that either type of rating will be available in the US during my lifetime.

2. One of the things that struck me about the new trainer stats was the lack of any seeming relationship between the amount of time since a horse's last start & the percentage of new tops or pairs. This seems to me to be hard evidence that what might have been true 20 yrs ago is not necessarily true today.

3. This might not be the best example, but the new stats might be useful when you're confronted by a trainer you're not familiar with, such as in my case Dean Greenman in the last race on BC day. His overall win percentage was the lowest in the race, but he seems to get new tops & pairs at a reasonably high rate. In the right situation & at the right price, I might conclude that his overall win percentage was due to the quality of runners in his barn, & that he is able to deliver the goods when he has a horse which can run. Unfortunately for Dean, & me, he too ran into the Mandella buzzsaw.