the debate stems from Reet judging how stiff York 10 is based on ONE horse being placed in a certain way by AOB
There you go again, deliberately misquoting me - it makes it almost impossible to discuss anything seriously while all you're interested in is venting your bile. Ffs give it a rest, and just stick to discussing what is actually written, rather than pushing your jaundiced and misleading slant on it.
AO'B, like most other trainers, wouldn't generally try his horses out for distance in a full-blown contest on the gallops, and wouldn't know a horse's optimum trip without racecourse evidence. That's why RVW ran in the Derby.
He then ran RVW in the Eclipse, and apart from the evidence of his own eyes (and those of his many professional advisors) he also knew from the jockey how the horse re-acted at every stage, and how the horse had come out of the race in the next few days - much of which would not be available in any form book.
Based on that knowledge, he was then dropped back to 1m and proceeded to win a Sussex and a QE11. The rest - as they say - is history, though AO'B never revealed he thought him miler until 14 months later (in a moment of unusual candour), and some
still think him a 10f horse, even though the stiffer tests were studiously avoided.
No trainer gets it right all the time, but those at the very top of their profession are there for a reason, and - as a matter of course - have much better advice and insight into their own charges than any pro gambler could possibly muster. The real trouble is, many of the misinformed on racing fora think they know better.