To me at least, is the message itself & not the manner in which the message was delivered, although posts & comments I have heard from attendees raises the possibility that a combination of stress & high expectations have had the not-unheard-of effect of making it seem to the person who made the presentation that things went a lot worse than they actually did.

What interests me a great deal more than that subject is what the slides & scientific studies have to say on the subject of split variants, an issue of fundamental importance to accurate figure-making. It seems to me that the scientific evidence is now in, & that the only logical conclusion that a fair-minded person can reach is that Dr. Peterson was right when he essentially endorsed the approach of splitting the variant. In assessing the emails of Dr. Peterson & the other scientists, it is noteworthy that they originally looked at & analyzed the data to see if they could come up with a way to make things safer for the jockeys & horses. There is no reason I can think of to believe that what the scientists say in their emails represents anything other than the unvarnished scientific truth, & there simply is no debating technique or argument which has sufficient force to overcome that kind of proof.

The bottom line is that for one party in the debate, the real question is not the difference between 4f races at Tim & 4.5f races at Kee. It's how to respond to & deal with proof that a life's work was & is based on a premise that has been scientifically demonstrated to be false. Let me suggest that to a thinking person that question would be a far more important one than tallying up the number of points each party made at a round table discussion.