kenchar, to the best of my knowledge only gave away the info on blood counts once. Now this may be bread and butter to some on here who have an in depth knowledge of racehorses, but it was an interesting read. He said if the bloodcounts were not spot on then they would not back the horse, they'd run it but wouldn't bet on it. So you can shrug your shoulders and say so what, there's nothing I can do, or you can have a good hard think about how this info affects your punting.

I could write a couple of pages on what I got out of this throw away line, but I also needed other info gleaned from this site as well to put the pieces together. Let's assume the horse loses ..... do we accept that we don't know why the horse lost, or do we "find" that it hadn't won at that weight before ?? Ah Ha !!! An incorrect assumption !!! And we use that info in the future and the effect of all this snowballs. THAT'S precisely what I get out of info like "bloodcounts weren't spot on". We cannot always / mostly know for sure what reasons there are for a horse being beaten, or running below par, but some of us sure do a lot of research and come up with incorrect assumptions time after time after time. I'm sure there's times when the stable don't know what happened, then how the heck are we supposed to know. A good read on this stuff is punter57 who blasts the scientific mindset in a game where there are so many variables that cannot be quantified.