There are very few absolutes in handicapping. It's what makes it so intriguing.

For years, folks thought the final time was an absolute. 1:10 was 1:10. Though they realized 1:10 at one track was not the same as 1:10 at another track.

Then 1:10 on Wednesday at Churchill was 1:10 on Saturday at Churchill. Until it was not.

Then 1:10 at 1pm on Saturday at Churchill was still 1:10 at 5pm on Saturday at Churchill. Until it wasn't.

If they go slow early, are they really going slow early? And if they are can they really make it up late? But what if the "late part" of the track is like Churchill on Wednesday and the "early part" of the track like Churchill on Saturday? Does it really all equal out?

It comes down to compromises, but when one compromises does one risk a compromise that isn't a fair reflection of the conditions? Of course. But many times that's all one can do and then rely upon handicapping acumen.

It's getting harder. I can remember using this product and it pointing out a clear 35-1 horse in a claiming sprint @ Calder. There was no question that horse was the winner. The horse won laughing, but how many clear 35-1's are on a Card or Meet today? The reason? Everyone now uses figures with varying degrees of reliability.

A good example of all of this is the Travers won by Keen Ice. Many of the variables outlined above came into play there and that's what makes it so exciting.