Jerry,
I ran down to OTB yesterday afternoon about 10 minutes before the 8th race when I saw Royal Affirmed scratch out of the race. I was looking at the T-Graph numbers and saw how fast Celtic Memories was compared to the even money favorite Fortune Writers. I was concerned about a speed duel though and didn\'t decide to bet until I saw the scratch. Anyway, I ran down and made a bet on the horse and then saw a $10.00 horse with 1 minute to post pay $7.20. But anyway, the purpose of this email is not to redboard. Let me get to the point. I was talking to somebody at the OTB (usually not a good thing) and explaining why I loved the 1, whom he also loved, saying the horse was fastest on his figures also. I asked him what figures he used. He mentioned he used Ragozin. After the race, we got into a discussion about figures. I explained I have been only been using the T-Graph numbers for a few months and he said he had been using Ragozin for many years. I asked him why he used Ragozin instead of T-Graph. He gave me three reasons, one of which I think is stupid, but the other two I think are worth asking you about.
First off, I should explain he mentioned he has become friendly with Len and picks up his figures often in person.
The three reasons he said he thinks Ragozin is superior were:
1. He thinks the negative numbers in Thorograph are \"confusing\" and finds it ridiculous that cheap claimers can run \"2\'s\" and \"3\'s\". This is obviously the reason I think is stupid. A scale is a scale. Personally, I wouldn\'t care if you started at 1,000 and went down from there. But to each his own.
2. He said that Len had explained to him that \"Jerry Brown makes up changing variants during the racing cards as a product differentiator, basically fudging the change in variants\".
3. He said that Len told him and he also noticed that \"T-Graph comes up with way too many pairups compared to Ragozin\" and that makes him question the accuracy of the figures.
To point #2, I had recently listened to your discussion of track variants in the archives and you convinced me that the variant changes. However, what I can\'t figure out is how you measure it? How can you tell what the moisture changed from, when the shadows showed up, exactly how much water is put on the track. To me, knowing the variant changes and trying to account for it accurately are two different things.
To point #3, I am just curious if you have ever heard this before. I found it a bit strange.
Anyway, don\'t go on the defensive here, I am not trying to attack you at all, I just found the conversation with this guy pretty interesting and thought it would be good to get your feedback.
Jim
Jimbo,
It\'s way past Jerry\'s bedtime so I\'ll get in first - though the chances of JB passing this one up are somewhat on the slim side.
The whole difference between the figure-making methodologies is that Jerry fits races to the horses\'s previous figures (as do most figure-makers worldwide) and thus can have different variants for different races whereas Ragozin believes that variants only change when there is a change in the \'physical resiliency\' of the track.
Basically the way we make figures is that we evaluate the variant by looking at the figures the horses ran previously. Ragozin assess the change in the track\'s physical resiliency, i.e. the imponderables you raise in Point 2. Methinks the question you should be posing is how they do it, not how we do it.
Point 3 rather follows on from the above. If you think either it or my previous point are wrong then you obviously believe those financial ads which say \'Past performance is no guide to future returns.\' If you do it makes handicapping a bit of a waste of time.
Finally, many years ago back in the UK, there was a woman of dubious repute called Mandy Rice-Davis who had a peripheral role in a sex scandal involving the Defence Minister John Profumo. She did, however, achieve a certain immortality during the court case by replying to a question: \'Well he would say that, wouldn\'t he?\' Any time anybody in the UK comes up with a self-serving defence then it\'s called a Mandy Rice-Davis moment. Perhaps the same applies to your Raggie friend and/or Len.
Cheers,
George
mandown wrote:
> The whole difference between the figure-making methodologies is that Jerry fits races to the horses\'s previous figures and thus can have different variants for different races
> George
That is a scary sentence if you ask me, is that to imply that say a highly reputable and normally fast horse wins and runs a subpar figure, so the theory is that there must have been some kind of split varient that needed to be used, thus elevating the figure, or the other way around? I mean why cant a race be judged for what it was, and not what a horse did last month. Please correct me if I misinterpreted the statement.
Saddlecloth,
You hit the nail on the head - the whole problem is how do you judge a race for what it is. As Jerry has documented on many occasions track speed can change from one race to another either because of natural occurrences (such as rain or tides for coastal tracks) or because of track maintenance.
If you read the comments Jerry has posted from the NYRA track superintendent then you\'ll appreciate that not only can track speed change from race to race but also around the track itself. That\'s the reason we split variants.
No one would disagree that if there was a mechanical way of assessing track speed for any point on the track and mapping which parts of the track each horse raced on then that would be a more reliable way of measuring the variant for each race. Possibly one day it will come (I\'m an eternal optimist) but in the meantime the only way you can determine how fast a track was for a particular race is by looking at the figures that all the horses in the race have run previously. If you have a different method then I\'m all ears.
Finally consider the following: A stakes horse runs in an allowance race and wins narrowly from two 6-y-o cheap claimers in what appears to be a fast time and there is no evidence of any change in the track\'s speed. When you make the figure you find that either the stakes horse ran 5 points off its top or one claimer ran a 6pt new top and the other a 4pt new top.
Which is more likely? That for some reason the track speed changed and the stakes horse, though winning, ran 5pts off its top or that the the track speed didn\'t change and the two 6-y-o claimers both ran big new tops?
George
JB and SADDLECLOTH,
JB, we had this discussion about tying races back to a previous effort which is blatantly ridiculous. How a horse performs today has NO relevance to what he did any other day.George is suggesting that the only reason a horse runs better or worse is because of today\'s variant.I am aware that many figure makers do this and that is why some very obvious sub- par or above par performances come up \"equal\" to previous races on the sheets/beyers as opposed to being legitimately better or worse.
Why not call a spade a spade?\"Of course get the variant correct but don\'t use it to back into a horses figure, let the performance speak for itself once the variant has been fixed.There are many, many, many reasons a horse runs faster or slower BESIDES the days variant.
IMO, you should start with the premise that unless you have a tangible reason to think the track changed speed (change of moisture, wind, work on the track etc...) the track speed \"probably\" remained the same (not certain).
Using that assumption, if a figure does not make sense based on the prior abilities of the horses, you should examine the pace very closely to see if there were one or more fractions (interior) that were very fast or very slow that could account for the strange final time.
If you do split a variant that could be related to pace (even if you are not certain), it should be noted because people that are using pace related information could potentially double count the impact if it was already baked into the figure via a separate track variant.
In fact, I think it would be a very good idea to note every single day where there was a split variant. That way a handicapper would have a better idea of the quality of the figure. NO matter how good a figure maker is, some days are easier and less prone to errors than others. I would like to know that.
Mandown,
>Finally consider the following: A stakes horse runs in an allowance race and wins narrowly from two 6-y-o cheap claimers in what appears to be a fast time and there is no evidence of any change in the track\'s speed. When you make the figure you find that either the stakes horse ran 5 points off its top or one claimer ran a 6pt new top and the other a 4pt new top.
Which is more likely? That for some reason the track speed changed and the stakes horse, though winning, ran 5pts off its top or that the the track speed didn\'t change and the two 6-y-o claimers both ran big new tops?<
It\'s a tough question.
I would guess it is more likely that the stakes horse ran slower, but absent evidence of a change of track speed I would mark that race in bold print because of the lack of certainty. Then, if the subsequent performances of the claimers indicated that they did indeed improve, I would go back and change the figure.
In the past Jerry and I have disagreed on this subject. I agree with him that going back and changing figures based on subsequent performances is a very bad idea in general, but not when you weren\'t sure what the figure should have been beforehand and subsequent performances give you further evidence.
Post Edited (09-17-04 10:57)
Did you guys/gals see the much, much, much improved performance by Favorite Sweep in the 3rd at Belmont yesterday.1ST off the claim by DUTROW,one of the horses best performances in years. Someone posted here recently about the NUTRITION PROGRAM at the barns of the super trainers.Listen carefully, please!!
IT\'S THE DRUGS, STUPID!!!
Miff--
What puzzles me is that one does not see much of these Dutrow \"magical\" performances at Saratoga. However, as soon as the gates to Belmont reopen, whoosh.
I looked skeptically last year at some of the rapid improvements (during the Belmont spring meet) of the Kiarin McLaughlin horses coming over from Dubai. They ran miserably at Saratoga only to rebound back at Belmont. Cycles? Coincdence?
Mr. Dutrow could not have found a better spot for HE LOVES ME then Philly Park. Think Saint Liam runs the same # in the Whitney at Saratoga???
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Do they use the same vet when they travel?
Post Edited (09-17-04 11:38)
miff,
If there were such a thing as a day\'s variant or a way of making a variant that was independent of the horses then all figure-makers would use it. But that\'s the whole point - there isn\'t one.
If you read Jerry Porcelli\'s comments on the way a track (or parts of a track) can change speed then you\'ll realise that the only way you can get a variant for a race is to look at the horses that ran in it.
It\'s not blatantly ridiculous, it\'s the only criterion you can use.
Neither do I see how you can interpret my remarks as saying that the only reason a horse runs better or worse is because of today\'s variant.
As you say there are many reasons a horse runs faster or slower. No handicapper would disagree. That is why figure-making is as much an art as a science.
You may want to call a spade a spade but classhandicapper is more on the mark when he expresses circumspection. Nothing in this game is certain. Handicapping and figure-making are not black and white, merely shades of grey.
George
George or JB,
When Miff says there are \"many many reasons a horse runs faster or slower\", I think most of us would agree with that. What do you do with those races where matching up figures to previous races really won\'t help. A few examples of what I am talking about:
1. Trainer change to a Dutrow, Frankel, etc. I won\'t get into HOW they improve horses dramatically, but they do, usually in the first race. Comparing to Pre-Dutrow figures or Pre-Frankel figures, wouldn\'t seem to help.
2. Major change in track surface. Example, the Kentucky Derby this year. That was about the time I started looking at this board and your product. I remember thinking after the race that it would be impossible for Beyers, JB, or Len to make any accurate figures for that card. The surface changed conditions about 5 times, from muddy to good to fast to good to sloppy. And the track that the Derby was run over was ridiculously sloppy, obviously certain horses couldn\'t run over it (at least it seemed obvious to me). I was shocked on Tuesday or Wednesday of the week after the Derby when somebody here asked JB about the Derby figures and he replied something like \"Actually is was a very easy race to make figures for\". I think he keyed off of Limestone if I remember correctly. I am paraphrasing and drawing on memory, so if I am slightly off, it is unintentional, but I do remember distinctly reading that JB thought it was not difficult. I still find that shocking.
3. Equipment changes. I assume that T-Graph believes that blinkers and lasix can affect performance.
4. This last one I am wasting my time with, since I know the answer already, but abnormal pace scenarios that helped/hurt horses in the race.
jim,
That\'s why figure-making is an art as well as a science. All the factors you mention are taken into account when we make variants. Do they make figure-making difficult? Of course they do but how they\'re handled is what sets one product apart from another.
As I\'ve said before, there are no certainties in handicapping or figure-making. To a great extent both are opinions derived from a set of facts - and as much experience as you can muster.
George
...and, as is the question with a ceretain West coast trainer, what are the geographical logistics of his barn at each racetrack...
>>Did you guys/gals see the much, much, much improved performance by Favorite Sweep in the 3rd at Belmont yesterday.1ST off the claim by DUTROW,one of the horses best performances in years. Someone posted here recently about the NUTRITION PROGRAM at the barns of the super trainers.Listen carefully, please!!
IT\'S THE DRUGS, STUPID<<<<<<
Hey Miff, It\'s stupid to bet games which you think are crooked, STUPID. Asfufh
All right, I just got in and saw this string. One of the problems with dealing with this the way it is presented here is that there are a lot of issues that range from related to semi-related to unrelated that have already come up in this discussion, and they have to be sorted through so the discussion can stay focused. As many of you know this is the stuff I\'m always most eager to talk about, and I am more than willing to host a general discussion of this subject over the next few days. I\'m going to start by making a few points now, and then I\'m going to try to find some earlier posts that apply-- there are a lot, and I would be very happy if others can list some of them so the new guys can use the search engine on the site to look them up.
1-- As George (Mandown) pointed out, the only way to make figures is by using the previous figure histories of the horses. (By the way-- for those who don\'t know, let\'s establish George\'s credibility-- he co-founded the Racing Times with Steve Crist, among other things, and manages our data base. He knows what he\'s talking about, although it remains a mystery why the English can\'t speak English).
When you begin creating a data base, you create figures based on large population studies (par times, class levels etc.). Once you have a rough data base, you get rid of the pars (which aside from being non specific to the small group of horses you are measuring, usually are based only on the winners of the races), and start using ALL the horses in ALL the races to make your figures. This is true of all serious figure makers-- Beyer, TG, Ragozin. It\'s what is called the \"projection\" method, I think Crist came up with the name, but I could be wrong.
Also keep in mind that the figure relationship between horses in a race that has been run are fixed, by beaten lengths, ground loss, and weight-- we can\'t give one horse a figure we \"want to\" without firmly fixing all the other figures in the race in place.
2-- Anyone who has not already done so should listen carefully to my presentation from the DRF expo, which can be found on this site, and examine the scientific evidence I presented. You will come away understanding that for a lot of reasons, track \"speed\" does not remain constant throughout the day. So the question becomes how to evaluate the speed of the track as the day goes along-- making the ASSUMPTION the track stays the same is dead wrong, and results in creating and applying an AVERAGE variant for the day, which will give some horses figures that are too fast and others figures that are too slow. If you have one foot in a fire and the other in ice, on average you are nice and warm. Much more on this can be found in other posts.
For starters, take a look at my post of 6/28, \"Friedman/Change of track speed\", a lot of which applies here. LF had posted a response to a question by Class Handicapper, and this was my critique. Also, Jim-- point me to my exact quote about making the Derby figure, so I can see the context, and what I said.
More to follow.
Asfuth---
These \"magical\" trainers are not in every race.
It certainly would be \"silly\" (better word to use than stupid) to try to guess who\'s using that day and who\'s not when handicapping a race they have a horse in.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Joe B, If I\'m not mistaken, I\'ve noticed you commenting on your bets in races with a magical trainer(s).
Asfufh
Asfuth,
For as much as you would like not to believe it, certain guys are using performance enhancing drugs, not nutrution, to move horses way up, they just haven\'t been caught. I never said the whole game was crooked, just certain trainers.
I assume from your post that you believe there are no trainers using drugs, none, zero? How long have you been playing/watching the game? Everyone associated with the game KNOWS that illegal drugs exist and represent the greatest threat to the game as we know it.What do you know that nobody else knows.Honestly, I\'d love to hear.
Joe B,
For many years I have also noticed that the juicers do not work their magic at the SPA.I don\'t know why and except for Pletcher( does he or doesn\'t he) no one seems to have horses consistantly running their eyeballs out, race after race.
>making the ASSUMPTION the track stays the same is dead wrong,<
Can you clarify this a bit please?
Absent evidence of the types of changing conditions that could/would impact track speed (moisture, track maintenance, sun, wind, etc...) do you start with the assumption that the track speed \"probably\" wouldn\'t change?
or
Do you immediately assume your analysis of the race results is correct and apply a different variant despite the lack of evidence for a track speed change?
I realize, that each set of circumstances is different and there are no hard rules. I\'m just trying to get at your general thinking.
Second, do you agree that it make sense to give greater weight to races with older more consistent and experienced horses when trying to determine the track speed because of the often surprise and excessive improvement from lightly raced and younger horses?
First of all, yes, I place far more weight on proven horses who run in tight figure ranges.
The point of the expo presentation is that any combination of factors can cause a change in track speed-- if they harrow it between races, if they don\'t (which happens at some tracks), if they water it at a pace faster than it evaporates (gets wetter), at a pace slower or not at all or intermittently (gets drier, or drier then faster when watered again-- or maybe not, depending on soil characteristics and moisture content at the start of the day).
You can use any working hypothesis at all-- that it stays the same, or that it doesn\'t. But then you test it out by looking at the figures you end up assigning using that hypothesis-- and it is wrong to ignore that step because 1) the scientific evidence says so (see the expo presentation) , 2) the basic premise of doing figures this way is in fact that past figure histories are a good guide to what they will run-- if that\'s not true not only can we scrap the entire method of making figures, but it would make no sense to use them to bet, and 3) I say so. At this point I\'m pretty sure I\'ve done more track days than Ragozin, Friedman and Andy combined ( about 10 tracks a day for 22 years), and it is absolutely clear from working with the data that the data base comes up much tighter when you do it this way. Andy, by the way, came to the same conclusion independently. -- the only one who insists upon a totally dogmatic approach based on assumptions completely unfounded in science is Ragozin. And if you don\'t want to take my word for it, you still have 1 and 2.
And this brings us to the question of tightness, or \"pairing up\". There are a lot of guys who have made their own figures who post here (I\'m only aware of one guy who uses Ragozin who made his own, and he only switched because he\'s pissed at me for throwing him off the board), and every one who has made figures knows that the tighter your range-- the more horses run back to previous numbers-- the better, in terms of evaluating your accuracy. Again, the relationships within a race are frozen-- so if you have a way of doing the race that gives lots of horses figures in the range they usually run, it is far more likely to be correct than doing it in such a way that 5 horses, who were only 20% to run a number much better or much worse than usual, do so-- work out the parlay on them all doing it at the same time.
Which in turn goes to a comment that Friedman made at the expo, which I only caught when I recently watched the DVD. He said in effect that it was wrong to \"give them what you want\" because over the course of time, all random distributions are possible, and will appear. Aside from the fact that you can only give one horse per race \"what you want\" (the relationships being prescribed, see above paragraph), he\'s right-- but only BEFORE the race. After the race, when we sit down to do the figures, there is only one \"distribution\" possible, and we can only move the WHOLE thing up and down (faster/slower), looking at the various possible scenarios trying to figure out what happened. In practice, once you have a tight data base, the right one usually jumps out at you for about half the races in the card on your first pass, and the others have only two scenarios, occasionally three. Once you have done the obvious races, though, you have some idea of the \"shape\" (LF called it \'texture\") of the day, and it helps in working through the other scenarios.
I had math (among other things) forced down my throat when I was a kid, and although I skipped a couple of grades I eventually rebelled and dropped out of school, so my formal math background is limited. I have been told what we do is regression analysis, and if you want to hear a great description of something similar in a completely different context, check out the last act of Tom Stoppard\'s \"Arcadia\". When I heard it the hair on my neck stood up.
Miff, I believe there is a certain (low) amount of cheating in racing as there probably is in most human endeavors especially those that involve cash. The difference between you and me on the amount of cheating going on in racing is in degree. It appears you think it is rampant (i.e. at least 10 or 20 percent of the races at the better tracks involve cheating) while I prefer to think the percent is much lower (1 or 2%) until proven otherwise. To me, Oscar would fall in the 1 or 2% ( even though they never nailed him with anything specific).
BTW, I said that the \"magical\" trainers may be using better nutrition OR training methods (like using the TG numbers to make their claims and place horses in races). Has anybody done an objective study on these trainers to see if they are doing (legal)things uniquely different from the competition?Asfufh
>Has anybody done an objective study on these trainers to see if they are doing (legal)things uniquely different from the competition?<
IMO....
1. Some trainers spot their horses better.
2. Some trainers aren\'t as financially pressured to run horses that have physical problems hoping to get any piece of the purse. They can give a horse some extra time and run when ready. I was a hotwalker (in what seems like another life) and I can tell you for certain (100%) that there are horses running in the claiming ranks that shouldn\'t even be on the track training let alone racing.
3. Success tends to generate the type of enthusiasm that leads to harder work that then leads to greater success.
4. Success tends to attract new owners with better horses.
Call me naive if you want, but I think the drug problem is somewhat overrated. There is almost certainly some abuse, but even a drugged horse has to run at its proper level, at the right distance, when fit enough to withstand the rigors of racing without breaking down etc...
You can give me all the drugs you want, you might make me a little faster runner, but I\'m still not going to win any medals unless you put me against the right opponents, at the right distance, and when I am feeling well enough to perform. Some trainers don\'t even do that much.
Post Edited (09-17-04 22:27)
I don\'t want to get trapped into an extended discussion of this, because I want to focus attention on the other string, and this is a TG board. But winning isn\'t the test-- those who use accurate figures (and even just decent ones) and handicap a circuit regularly, can tell who is doing SOMETHING extreme (whether it\'s drugs is another story) pretty easily. And there is a lot of it going on.
And this is aside from more direct evidence, like a lot of them using the same vet, and him shooting off his mouth to everyone in sight.
Asfufh,
I believe there are many modern brilliant trainers who use the tools you have identified to improve a horse they take from an inferior horsemen/trainer.
That aside, there is no explanation for the incredible performances of horses trained by Mullins,Frankel,Dutrow,Asmussen, Oscar,Richey, Amoss, Shulman,Pletcher and a host of others, especially the claiming trainers.
After 40 years in the game, owning horses,watching 80k races,enjoying good friendships with several prominent trainers,
I have to believe there is much more than 1 or 2 % cheating, although I do not have a percentage in mind.The leading trainer in NY for many years told me to my face, 7 years ago, that the game has become a \"VET\" game and it was time to get out, he did.
It is interesting to note a study made by Mark Hopkins and Andy Beyer where they traced the rapid sudden increased win percentage of certain trainers to the early 1990\'s. Coincidence, I think not, but I respect your right to differ.
Just one recent data point - 10% of horses were using milkshakes at dmr this summer. This is the premiere CA race meet. That means just about every dmr race probably had at least one horse that had been \"shaked\" and this is just one way to try and get a \"chemical\" edge. There are many, many others and some may be even more popular. Then you can throw in all the other \"non-chemical\" ways to cheat as well (take a look at the latest British racing scandal).
Add it all up and you are fooling yourself if you think most races are run cleanly.
As a bettor, I can manage around it in various ways but as an owner or a trainer or a rider, I would be very concerned. I would like to believe that a large percentage of them want an open, level playing field and they must realize that they are not getting it today. I am surprised that there is not a stronger groundswell of support but the backstretch culture is very unique and works against any sort of reform. Despite that, I think we are starting to see signs of it from all sorts of different angles. Let\'s hope so anyway.
Chris
>especially the claiming trainers. <
IMO, this is where the majority of the \"suspect\" performances occur. When semi-crippled older horses magically improve several lengths over their lifetime best after one week in some else\'s hands, you know something freaky just happened.
If a competent trainer has a barn full of choice well bred babies and only runs those that show something in the morning, it should really be no shock if he compiles a very good record. If he is also patient, rarely spots his horses poorly, and has the benefit of taking his time with them, he should be able to compile a really outstanding record. Select trainers have been doing that for decades.
If an excellent horseman takes over the training of a talented horse from a more average horseman, it should be no shock if he improves it several lengths after he has for a couple of months. Sometimes, that means first time \"new trainer\" off a layoff.
I think it\'s a mistake to lump all the trainers with outstanding records into the drug category. Some guys get great stock - which feeds on itself - and they are also very competent at placing that stock.
Why should horse training be any different than any other sport?
Is Phil Jackson a drug trainer?
He turned the Lakers on a dime when he took over.
How about Parcells?
How about Riley?
Some guys are simply better coaches (trainers) and better coaches (trainers) tend to attract better players (horses) which creates a cycle of success.
JB,
>But winning isn\'t the test<
I agree. That\'s the point I am trying to make also. There are guys out there with outstanding records because they are getting a ton of high quality stock and they developing and spotting the horses very well.
They shouldn\'t be lumped together with guys that are moving older horses up several lengths to new peaks in a week.
I think some trainers that are being tossed into the \"suspect\" category are just terrific horsemen.
Until it gets cleaned up, everyone gets lumped together. Unfortunately , every outstanding performance (equine or human) now comes under suspicion - just or unjust. If the innocent ones they don\'t want to be falsely accused then they should be screaming for reforms and should be volunteering to be tested.
Chris
P.S. It is definitely not just the claimers...
miff said
\"The leading trainer in NY for many years told me to my face, 7 years ago, that the game has become a \"VET\" game and it was time to get out, he did.\"
I think I know who you mean, and didn\'t he also have a rep for moving them up pretty dramatically? Maybe the vet moved on, or he didn\'t want to share the wealth.
An ex harness trainer turned pro flats horseplayer that I knew 30 years ago, said pretty much the same thing. Juice. He used to watch them warmup and load into the gate with very high powered binocs, not sure what he was seeing, but there was something.
Gentlemen
Pacific Poker, Ultimate Bet, Party Poker.
Maybe Texas Hold\'Em is the answer.
Thanks
Cozzene
IMO One reason that the juicers don\'t do as well as their home tracks is that NY State Racing Board Investigators from Albany are there IN FORCE undercover walking around the barn areas looking for certain vets at certain barns...this does not go on at Aqu or Bel as it does at SAR.
And the barn access at SAR is much looser than at AQU and BEL during their 6 week summer meet. Trainers don\'t know who is watching them or their vets and it\'s more open to public eyes than the concrete stalls at AQU or the more private barns at Belmont!