Before I do this, let me make something clear-- this is a business. Ragozin has customers I want, and I have found that the best way to get them is to force scrutiny of the Ragozin product, and comparison with ours. Since Ragozin has a team of field agents and we don\'t, the most effective way to do this has proven to be using this space. Obviously, the time to do this is when everyone is focused on the same races-- Triple Crown, Breeder\'s Cup-- and the added bonus is that these are the only times Ragozin posts days for public view after he has done them.

    First, the good news, for Ragozin players-- unlike like last year, he basically got Breeder\'s Cup day right, in terms of variants. Despite the drying out track, there was no slide after the first race, a non-BC affair, so it was an easy day to do.

    Now, the bad news-- they have significant ground loss errors that cause corresponding errors within the figures. I don\'t have their exact ground (obviously), but I\'m going by what is printed on their sheets, which Paul explained to me as breaking paths down into less than 2, 2 to 2.9, 3 to 3.9, and 4 and up. There are lots of errors, but I will point out just a few of the more obvious ones. As opposed to the other discussions we\'ve had here about figure making, all you have to do to figure out who is right this time is watch a tape of the races. I would also add that Ragozin only prints his ground for the second turn, so the number of errors is probably twice as high as the number we caught, and keep in mind, every path on a turn is worth a length.

    Mandy\'s Gold-- Ragozin has her less than 3w. She was never less than 3w, and was 4w most of the turn.

    Composure-- They have her wider than Storm Flag Flying on the second turn. She was actually inside SFF most of the turn, only coming out late-- she saved ground relative to SFF, and this affects the figures for both fillies.

    Touch Of The Blues-- This one\'s a beauty. They have him on the rail, when he was actually 445w. That\'s roughly a 2 point swing.

    Nuclear Debate-- They have him less than 4w, he was actually at least 5w the entire turn, and ended up wider.

    Orientate-- They have him less than 3w-- he was 443.

    As I said, there were lots of smaller errors, but these should keep you busy.

Mall: 1. When you use the dead rail designation in a two turn race, what exactly does it mean? Does the horse have to be in the one path, two path or less,etc for a certain percentage of the race? For one or both turns, or something else?

2. When this subject came up last yr, I vaguely recall that you suggested some forward looking test to determine if your dead rail designation would be proved correct. If so, what was it?

3. My last question has to do with trip & ground loss in the two turf marathons. I thought the syndicate I was part of did more research & was better prepared than any previously, so we knew for example that the turf races would be run in lane 5 to accommodate the number of starters, & what that was likely to mean in terms of ground loss. What we didn\'t know, & what as far as I know no one has yet commented on, is that for these rarely run distances the starting gate appeared to be placed in such a way that the 4 inside post positions were angled in to head directly into the rail. The charts seem to confirm that these horses were at a disadvantage in the early stages, which produced more trouble lines than usual that early in a race, as the disadvantaged horses tried to straighten out to get into the race. I forgot to ask my wife to tape the races, though I doubt that the coverage included the kind of head on shot that would confirm or refute my theory. Presumably, your tapes do. What do they show?

Thks in advance.

TGJB: 1- Dead rail usually means rail on the stretch turn, but we are now starting to have trackmen at some tracks mark backstretch and stretch. On BC day it was pretty complicated, but seemed to affect those who spent significant time on the rail on at least 2 of those, with the exception of Thunderello. For whatever it\'s worth, last year\'s sprint was least effected by the dead rail as well.

2- I suggested last year following the horses in their next start to see if they went forward. The same test could certainly be applied this year. I think last year something like 23 got dead rails and all or virtually all went forward. There weren\'t as many this year, and the effect was not as severe.

3 I noticed the starting gate angle myself, but I don\'t think it had much effect, assuming the angle made it the same distance for all. I believe the only BC race involved was FM Turf, and the numbers came out really tight, so I doubt it made a difference that way.