The results of this week's Inglis Weanling Sale have been far from heartening with a decline in the average, clearance and median, and one did have to be astute enough to check the reports of a "record gross" against the numbers (97 more weanlings were catalogued this year than at the same time last year which distorted the figures) BUT the Magic Millions official scribe was a tad evasive of a similar fact when he covered the competitor sale in a report in The Virtual Formguide yesterday. When writing about the Inglis sale Greg Irvine noted that:

"The most alarming statistic was the clearance rate which plummeted from almost 90 per cent last year to not even 80 per cent this time around." [89.9% in 05 to 79.7% in 06]

Absolutely spot on ... but the same analysis did not seem to appear in the equivalent Magic Millions sales report that he penned some weeks earlier.

For the record MM also sold an additional 98 weanlings this year. Yes, they had a much (much) higher average and top price BUT the clearance at the sale was also down significantly and was in fact very similar to Inglis' (82.23% compared to 91% in 2005).

Not sure how we get around these inherent 'biases' occuring. Should journalists perhaps include a statement at the end of a post where there is a potential conflict with someone who is paying them each month stating who else it is that they write for? Might just make it easier to assess the information they present in a more objective way.