Where else but cyberspace can you find people who don't know someone or how he handicaps engaged in an earnest discussion regarding what handicapping materials he may or may not have used at some tournament? Such a discussion seems, to borrow a phrase, a "wee bit" pointless, particularly as no one seems prepared to put the question to Mr. Wolfson, the only person who could possibly resolve the matter. I don't know Mr. Wolfson either, but I do know something of his family's involvement in & contribution to racing. I also know that it is reasonable to assume that he is unaware of the accusations, ridiculous on their face, which have been made against him. He is owed a public apology.

If you go back & read his post, the person making the charge acknowledges that he has little or no firsthand knowledge of the underlying facts on which he is making his claim. The "facts" are said to have come from reading posts & listening to what others told him. My late grandmother, may she rest in peace, always used the same stern voice & the same two words when she summarily dismissed people who repeated such information about a person who was not being given a chance to defend himself: malicious gossip.

In this case, however, I think an examination of the accusations is warranted. It is said that Mr. Wolfson "has endorsed almost every handicapping product(TG & brisnet are the only ones I've seen)available", & that under the circumstances at least one of the endorsements is a "little bit of an ethics problem." This is poppycock, pure & simple. What Mr. Wolfson has done for a lot less consideration is no different than what Tiger,D.Jeter,D.McNabe,M.Andretti,V.Wang,
James Taylor & countless others have done for many, many yrs. To take just one example a little closer to home, there is no substantive difference between Mr. Wolfson's endorsement & Bob Baffert saying in his brisnet endorsement that he used the product when he made the decision to buy War Emblem.

The questions of whether or not this should be the norm is open for debate. I might even go so far as to say that things might be different if it were up to me. But one's personal views are of course not relevant to the claim that Mr. Wolfson is guilty of a breach of ethics. At this point in time, the only question which is relevant, whether or not Mr. Wolfson's conduct conformed to longstanding business convention, is no longer an open matter under any of the factual scenarios mentioned. As I see it, absent an apology, the ethics problem in this case rests with someone other than Mr. Wolfson.