I always enjoy this but I find it serves no purpose. However, I recall a race where looking at TG cost me a TON...where in race sheets had the winner the fastest...tg the slowest...and numbers were not even close...if I recall PIMLICO race 10 on may 17....i think...u guys had the 1 really slow...sheets horse was the fastest...yes, its one race, but it also implies a lot of numbers were off...I may have sheets somewhere for that race...

And if Anna runs a bad race next out, who is right? It will be easy to say she was due for a bad one considering the campaign and your numbers were right..or if sheets have her slow last race, I have no idea, are they right?

It is so subjective, but look at race I referenced and tell me you make no mistakes..

I have always contended you can make money with both....

I looked at the sheets and did not like following sea..reads are so subjective...he was off a top and going two turns first time and 3-1..yes he was faster but in my mind very few horses can run super fast numbers both long and short or turf and dirt....at big odds you could have gambled..HRC and Mand. both had great patterns routing...the dq was awful for me.

judging by the reaction I would say Baffert surprised. When in a hole, stop digging. Reading now they want to prove it came from ointment and not an injection..who cares...DQ please!!

I didnt know it was Rombauer...horse was never mentioned by name...a few others posted who they thought it was. One was right the other wasnt.

wow blue, you are also missing the point. I will take it as you havent read the string...for the last time, the point is there was a horse mentioned by tgjb, whose pattern reminded him of their great call on CC.



It was prior to the race and NOT mentioned in the analysis. Maybe you are not aware of it but you do not get sheets with the analysis. I get that TGJB didnt think the horse would win however I paid for the TG analysis of the race. And some angle as strong as CC you would think would get mentioned. And then to see how they cashed is bad form in my opinion. They gave crazy opinions on prices all weekend so why just give the 2 chalks in preakness. Maybe I am the only one who bought the analysis and has a problem with it. So be it. If it was not brought up on the board prior to the race I would have no issue. Its over with. I just hope going forward they are sensitive to the issues I brought up.

you are missing the point...I am specifically referring to pattern that was talked about as being similar to comm curve which obviously was a great call that year...it was talked about on board prior to race...as having purchased the analysis it seems I was left out on a strong pattern play. They often give out 3 horse boxes in analysis. They didnt in this race. To hear that horse was being used and cashed based on that pattern I feel slighted. What Vic and Byk had has NOTHING to do with this. I made my point. Right or wrong I have no idea.

I said none of that. Im talking about a pattern that was obvious to them. The analysis often mentions patterns. Where you got trip/pace/bias from is beyond me.

If it mentions a horse I like it is a big impact.

Fair enough. But if that is the case it feels diluted. It will be the same price as the belmont seminar I am asuuming. So why not narrow it down to 3 or 4 solid opinions as opposed to every race and give more detail. There was obviously a pattern play here with the winner and by paying I would have thought we would have been privy to that. Instead I would have had to buy the sheets, then go to the archives and try to figure it out. It seems there is an easy way to improve this product. Less is more.

So I am really confused...the analysis always says has back numbers to run back to...has a good pattern,etc. The analysis always references patterns..I do not get how romabuer was NOT mentioned considering the Com Curve reference......I wasnt aware I needed to buy both the sheets and the analysis to get what tg was thinking..in fact I would have thought the analysis was all I needed.

That is sad...I get there is record handle this weekend, but that wont last. And it surely wont be the case on average racing days.

So are you saying that if a horse bleeds, or just off lasix, there is something a trainer can do to negate that? Speaking of I read where mandaloun bled in LA derby, yet cox said he had no idea why he ran bad...are we supposed to guess who bleeds? who gets something to counter no lasix? If so this sport is toast...hot brown cost me pic 4...Concert tour bleed? Who knows.

who? Analysis fails to mention

not to mention EGO...this put him top of the list with derby wins

so you are dismissing the servis/navarro playbook where what they were giving would possibly trigger false positives for small amounts of dex,etc? It just very suspicious to have multiple minor contaminations in a short period.