So they started testing for alkalizing agents in New York today. First off, very few move-up trainers ran horses, which may or may not be a coincidence. Second, what few were entered didn\'t run very well. LaBoccetta won one, but that was the second fastest horse going in, in a short field, based on a number run before he got it recently.
Stay tuned.
The testing may not have driven any of the trainers away, but it looks like Saul and Max Kupferberg have traded the early double at Aqueduct for the late double at GP!
Of course, just because their horse won the finale in Florida today doesn\'t mean that they have left NY for \"greener\" pastures...could be just a weekend break in the sun!
If you have closely followed New York Racing for the past few years, you would have noticed about 5 to 8 trainers who rarely won a race. These same trainers now win at a much higher percentage than they ever did before.Their stock is about the same.
I\'m a regular on the NY Racing scene and I would bet my money that these same trainers who now win at a much percentage didn\'t learn horsemanship all of a sudden.It is inconceivable that there isn\'t all kinds of shakes, blood doping et al going on in NY amongst a handful of these guys.
It\'s sad, but I believe that the Shake testing is well meant, but there\'s a lot more than \'SHAKING\' going on.As far as trying to factor that in, I don\'t know one of my many seriouS betiing pals who are not gun shy by all of this.Not to make light of whatever amount you bet, it\'s tough to bet large amounts of money right now with the Feds running all over the BIG A and all sorts of stories being told.
miff wrote:
it\'s tough to bet large amounts of
> money right now with the Feds running all over the BIG A and
> all sorts of stories being told.
Agreed, its careful time.
miff,
I suspect you are right. However.....
There have been consistent suspicious form reversals \"off the claim and off private purchases\" for as long as I have been handicapping.
When I was a hotwalker back in the 70s, there were trainers that hit the top of the trainers list and then went deader than dead for fairly extended periods of time (and vice versa) that I am almost certain were clean. I was in the same shed row working at the time and saw some of the legit things that can turn a barn up or down - including health of trainer, health of horses, quality of stock, good or bad training luck, pointing for specific meets etc...
I think without actually testing and catching the crooks, it\'s a bad idea to use names just because you are suspicious of a trainer\'s record and results.
I\'m not sure why handicappers are reacting any more now than they were 25 years ago. The same crap was going on back then and \"form\" handicappers like myself were struggling with those crazy wakeups and improvements back then. I know I was.
If it\'s just that some people are finally sick and tired of it and are willing to get aggressive to change things then I think that\'s great. I applaud Jerry and the people at the DRF and elsewhere.
However, from a handicapping perspective the solution is very easy. You have to do 1 of 2 things.
1. You make studying the records of trainers your passion so you understand their strengths, weaknesses, moves, etc... and can get on the horses when there\'s value and discover the latest supertrainers before the public does. Focus on mastering the types of races that these guys do most of their winning in.
2. You can avoid the types of races where they are generally very active and focus your attention elsewhere. When they show up, you can either avoid that specific race or accumulate a handful of insights that will enable you to play with confidence despite their presence.
I fall into category 2, but I have friends that specialize in category 1.
Post Edited (02-18-05 08:42)
I\'ve been a regular NYRA player for 30 years now, and bet I follow the drug trainers more closely than almost anyone. My perception is that over the past 6 months or so, the number of drug trainers have stayed the same but the length of their \"ON\" cycles has decreased. Schettino won at a ridiculous rate at SAR and now can\'t sniff the winner\'s circle. Everything Levine ran at the end of the AQU meet jumped before he cooled off heading into the INN (he\'s getting hot again). Martin (before he got busted) was winning off the claim like he did last year at this time but only for IEAH. Even Labo had a streak last year where he lost with 7 or 8 straight claims. What makes this such a bitch is thats there\'s no way to tell from the PP\'s who is on and who isn\'t. I think there\'s a general perception that if you \"use\" only sporadically they\'ll leave you alone. Or at least that\'s the way was before the feds got involved.
I miss the black and pink of OSB. No guessing at trainer intent there...
Class,
I am also aware of what you mean regarding legit barn streaks, hot or cold.I once had six horses(out of eight) who were sick, sore, bowed tendons, checked ligaments, you name it.
Since you appear to have also been around New York, can you honestly say that you have not noticed more previously obscure, losing trainers do dramatically better in the last few years. And some of these \"deadly\" lay off trainers that get consistently explosive performances from a large portion of their horses after 60-120 day lay offs.
A good friend who is a NY trainer swears the supertrainers are \"spoon\" feeding their horses this juice day by day slowly building the horse up to these explosive performances.(zero proof)
I\'m not paranoid or cynical, but I\'ve been around too long to believe that there isn\'t something very profound happening in certain barns.I could list a few trainers and two supertrainers who are as guilty as sin IMO, but this is America, so I\'ll wait until they are caught, if ever.
On a little disappointing note, it seems that the Feds are zeroing in on the Mafia BS, Money Laundering, Tax Stuff, but not the drug issue beyond \'SHAKES\" Martin a fairly obscure losing trainer for several years.
CATALIN,
With Oscar, you are talking legend!!!
My second favorite was Peter Ferriola.
I use to hang out right by the AQU paddock and watch for Ferriola\'s assistants (mostly his kid and his son\'s girlfriend who was quite a looker in a cheap Queens type of way) to see if they were betting or not. One Saturday, last race of the day Ferriola\'s running a horse named Damian\'s Groom. He had just claimed him from a friend of mine and I knew for a fact the horse was a complete cripple. Anyway, Ferriola and his crew leave the paddock after saddling and I\'m standing there within earshot. Ferriola hands five hundred to one of his henchmen and tells him to go bet the horse. The guy responds \"Pete, you gotta be kidding. This horse aint won in 2 years.\" \"Just watch,\" Ferriola responds. I bet my $100 at 8-5 (a big bet for me at the time). You can guess the rest. Damian breaks slow, circles the field and wins by a city block. Wish I\'d been using TG at the time. I\'d love to know how much he moved up that horse.
Catalin
Catalin,
> What makes this such a bitch is thats there\'s no way to tell from the PP\'s who is on and who isn\'t.<
I think you hit the nail on the head.
During my early days as a handicapper, I made the 2 biggest scores of my life on a trainer pattern. So I was immediately attracted to that style. However, I would also constantly struggle with the timing and changes. If you discover a pattern and wait to see if a trainer is going well before betting, you lose all the value because the public catches on. If you don\'t wait, you wind up getting on some bad horses. That\'s why I don\'t even try anymore. I found that it was a ton of work and a constantly changing style that gave me little confidence I could win consistently.
I do know guys that are very good at it though.
In stakes races it\'s more about figuring out who is actually better than who and recognizing conditions that might favor or hurt some horses in a particular race.
I like to focus on pace figures, trip, and even class/quality issues that I think are sometimes not built into the prices because people are so speed oriented. Also, a lot of the time reputation dominants the board. I\'m always thrilled when the media is hyping some horse that I can tell isn\'t as good as he looks. There\'s value in betting against hyped horses too. I also think many people don\'t have a full appreciation of how lightly raced and young horses develop over time. These kinds if things are less applicable in the claiming ranks where an understanding of trainers is very important.
When one of the supposed juice guys shows up in a stakes, the horse has usually revealed his form prior to making it up to that level. From a betting perspective, I really don\'t care if a \"horse of the year\" is juiced or not when I already have his figures.
Post Edited (02-18-05 08:41)
>Since you appear to have also been around New York, can you honestly say that you have not noticed more previously obscure, losing trainers do dramatically better in the last few years.<
That does seem to be the case.