Sorry for the delay in getting back to you Steve but I have been otherwise occupied with exam revision.
I have explained that Dosage is a stamina index that is useful in identifying stamina potential where form may be lacking or inconclusive. It is not a magic solution to all things. It confines itself to stamina aptitude. It does not attempt to determine such things as ability in an individual.
It is so useful for identifying stamina potential that you are happy to completely disregard its findings? I would have thought that, if dosage was a useful tool, you would use it to refine the field, in the process hopefully eliminating a few fancied contenders, before venturing in to alternative analysis to find the winner.
One positive is that you have admitted that it is not a useful tool for selecting winners. However, I still don't understand why you don't utilise it as a tool for identifying the horses with the correct stamina profile either. I was of the understanding that that was its purpose.
You also say that it is useful "where form may be lacking or inconclusive". Does that mean you don't pay any attention to it unless you consider the form to be "lacking or inconclusive"? If this is the case then this might help me understand why you are using dosage in such a selective manner. You are using it to fill in the gaps in the form, rather than as a useful tool of analysis in itself.
You seem to be fixated on the idea that I should stick exclusively to Dosage method in these articles. Although I do explain Dosage method within the context of word count restrictions this is not what I’m primarily attempting. In writing an article I may want to incorporate Dosage as an aid to arriving at a race prediction, but I also look at as much other evidence as is available in arriving at a conclusion. In other words I am asked to exercise my judgement in arriving at a race prediction.
I am showing both what the Dosage selects in terms of stamina suitability and looking at other variables that may have an impact in determining the result. Why this is so apparently difficult to take in a little mysterious.
Your article is being sold as the view of the 'dosage expert'. I would, therefore, expect the article to, at the very least, make room for the dosage findings in its race prediction. You completely disregard them. I find it astonishing that the author of such an article says that "I may want to incorporate dosage as an aid to arriving at a race prediction". I thought dosage was at the very heart of the article, indeed its purpose, not something that "may" be included if the author feels so fit.
If this is a true reflection on how you feel do you not think that the article should be rebranded to better reflect the content? It is very misleading if an article by the 'dosage expert' only "may want to incorporate dosage" when the suggestion is that it is an article about focussed on dosage as a means to finding the winner, or at the very least identifying horses with the correct stamina profile.
I have no problem with you using other methods to arrive at your conclusion. In fact, quite the opposite because I don't think dosage is at all useful in trying to find the winner so we are in agreement here. What I fail to understand is why you are disregarding the dosage findings in an article sold as being focussed on dosage. I also fail to understand the point of doing the dosage analysis in the first place if you fail to use the results to arrive at your selection.
