Well, he's actually a pretty good judge most of the time, but one thing he continually seems to get wrong is that he basically writes off any horse which hasn't won for a certain length of time as a useless animal which should be retired. Which is wrong. Horses CAN go for extended periods not winning and still be pretty good. He's been wrong several times doing that. But he was particularly scathing about Bid Spotter. I like the way in Monday's article he tried to deflect from the fact that he got it so wrong, by saying that if Bid Spotter won, well how bad must all the other horses have been.