This board seems to be a radically anti-juice trainer and anti-Allday board. I\'m aware of the widespread cheating (drug use) that\'s going on, and i\'m hip to the fact that vets and trainers are way too aggressive---but I\'ve done so well betting over the last few years, that I\'m starting to worry that a clean game might not be in my best interest.
the latest casuilty in the milkshake incident is Adam Kitchingman. I\'m really upset about that--because I\'ve been looking forward to betting Kitchingman at Del Mar later this year. He has a lifetime training record of 7-for-20 (35% wins) at Del Mar. Kitchingman won at a 29% clip in the rookie season of 2003 going 12-for-42. Last year he went 21-for-94 (22% wins) Since the trainers have come under scrutiny in 2005, Kitch is just 2-for-22 (9% wins) overall, and a dismal 1-for-15 at Santa Anita. He seems to have lost his magic wand.
As for Jeff Mullins, he\'s lost 18 consecutive races as of today. His longest losing streak of all of 2004 was just a 17 race slide that ended on March 5th of 2004. It\'s getting bad for us when someone as invincible as Mullins has been reduced to being a near throwout type trainer.
If all horses ran on hay, oats, and water- the trainer would go from being one of the central factors in the handicapping process- to being only a factor in instances dealing with First Time Starters, or layoffs. I can only speak for myself, but I don\'t really know if I would want that to happen.
I don\'t know. If a betting style is slanted towards trainer betting, its probably going to suffer. A much more sound betting style is to work at ascertaining which horse should be best in the spot that day.
I also think most of the big winners for the huge juice boys, go off at fairly unrenumerative odds. Occasionally you\'ll get the jump up juice horse at 10-1 plus but not that often and when you do its generally a \"I\'m just betting the trainer this race\" score. Its harder to do right now, but theres still value in beating the \"Frankel Cheaters\" but you have to pick your spots.
What will happen of course is that the horse will matter more and the medicine will matter less and picking the horse will become a bigger part of the game again.
I like that.
CtC
It doesn\'t seem to be affecting the trainers at the MAGNA tracks in MD and FL yet! Is Magna providing safe haven for certian trainers (especially those that train for Mr. MAGNA?)
NC Tony
Ok here\'s the problem I have with knocking trainers like Bobby F. You have these so call jump up trainers, and we know who they are, if anyone is using the juice it\'s these guys, getting a 15K runner and in two races he\'s winning a stake. With the big boys like Bobby and others, ( and they might be using something, but not as strong of the others, who knows ) but they get the good bred horses also. If their owners buy a 300,000 horse and it\'s winning G1\'s and 2\'s, can you really say he\'s using the juice. I think some people just don\'t like certain trainers. It\'s funny people will only knock a few trainers and leave the others that are batting 22% and up alone.
K. McLaughlin also trains for Mr Magna. Look at his GP%...........Most have come on the turf and off layoffs as well.
Overall Statistics
From 01/03/2005 To 02/24/2005
Current Meet Leading Trainers
Name Sts 1st 2nd 3rd Win% $% Purses
Pletcher 68 19 16 6 28 60 $764,580
William I. Mott 52 10 14 9 19 63 $298,440
Daniel C. Hurtak 59 9 10 5 15 41 $102,370
Mark A. Hennig 32 9 3 3 28 47 $273,770
Richard E. Dutrow, Jr. 25 8 7 2 32 68 $636,300
Kiaran P. McLaughlin 31 8 6 2 26 52 $298,980
Nicholas P. Zito 43 7 7 4 16 42 $320,510
Wesley A. Ward 31 6 4 4 19 45 $152,050
Stephen R. Margolis 25 6 3 0 24 36 $180,970
Maria Virginia Pascual 19 5 6 1 26 63 $66,350
Dougie Sal,
I\'ve been saying the same thing for awhile.
Most of the posters here are geared primarily towards final time figures as the definition of performance and don\'t spend nearly as much time on trainer issues (other than the TG stats that relate to the figures) and the things that can impact final time.
There is more than one path to profits.
I suspect that a serious crackdown on the trainers is actually going to make the game more difficult to beat. Everyone has access to pretty good speed figures. Very few people study trainers very carefully.
Kev,
I agree Bobby F. has a lot to work with but I think some suspicion had to be aroused when he took Spoken Fur, a decent filly, and in her first start for Frankel she jumped - if memory serves - about 4 or 5 Thorograph points and then stayed at that level (typical Frankel)until the wheels came off in The Alabama. That is just one example that comes to mind and I can see why some folks qustion that type of improvement.
Mark
Yeah, taking a look at what his private buys have done would be interesting. But I want to remind everyone about what I said here several times-- in the spring of 01, every horse in Frankel\'s barn moved to a 3-4 point new top, at the same time. These were older horses, many of them turf horses, with established tops. The chance of one horse doing that is small, the chance of several really small, the chance of all of them (Aptitude was one) statistically impossible. We heard later that was when he hired Allday.
It\'s easy to tell with the claiming trainers-- you can see the figures move up. But you can also tell by what % of a trainer\'s horses run big numbers, and what % of the time they do it-- not by how often they win.
And you can also tell by correlating that with which vet they use.
I\'m heading out of town for a couple of days, you guys are on your own. Play nice.
kev wrote:
> 300,000 horse and it\'s winning G1\'s and 2\'s, can you really say
> he\'s using the juice. I think some people just don\'t like
> certain trainers.
First off, 300K really isn\'t that much for a horse. It\'s almost slumming as hard as that is to comprehend. Look at the number of Great Trainers that have to wait years for another horse. Drysdale had A.p. Indy in 1992. It took him until 2000 to get another with some abilitiy. (FuPig)
Shug ran good horses in the Derby in consecutive years 1988 and 1989 with Seeking the Gold and Easy Goer. A couple years back he had one named Accellerator that was close to Derby good, but I think he missed it. I can\'t recall now.
Look at Charlie Whittingham\'s Derby record. Ferdinand in 86, Sunday Silence in 89 and Strodes Creek in 94 and that was a pretty good string.
Bottom line is you just don\'t come up with good horse after good horse in this game. It doesn\'t happen. Rather, it didn\'t happen until the last five years. Frankel has been getting hand me downs from Juddmonte and others and improving them trememdously. He\'s always been a good trainer, but he never moved horses like he\'s currently doing.
According to Delmar Deb, he\'s complaining about the milkshake positive impositions and threatening to race elsewhere. I don\'t know it that is true and honestly I can\'t point to what he\'s doing and say: \"There it is! There\'s the proof of his shenanigans!\", but he is cheating.
Everything seems to be leaning towards oxygen pick up and lactic acid inhibitors. Supposedly this vet \"White Mercedes\" stated he worked with \"Titrations\". (Allday is Frankel\'s Vet). I\'m not sure what Titrations are but from my glancing at medical (lab) reports they have a Ph component (Acid/Base) and involve identitifying an unknown substance by the quantitative remainder of a known substance introduced into the compound. I\'m speculating, and I don\'t like to do that, but I think Allday is playing word games with the neutralization of lactic acid by administering a buffer.
CTC:
Frankel signed the agreement for testing and milkshakes for the current SA meeting without any quibbling. It was last year (SA winter meet & HP spring)that he and Mullins threatened to take their \"toys\" and leave.
I\'ve always thought that the performance enhancing medication used by Mullins, Avila, Mitchell, & Becerra was different from whatever the Allday trainers used (assuming anyone is using anything - don\'t want to get sued here!). The typical \"treated\" Mullins horse would either look like Man o\' War coming around the far turn and maintain a sustained drive for as much as 1/4 mile; or re-break at the 1/8th pole when it looked like the whole field would pass him.
Horses trained by Frankel, Pletcher & Romans who ran to or above their tops always looked the part from the paddock to the starting gate and throughout the race. This could be the result of just the difference between claiming v. stakes horses, or perhaps Allday is keeping the horses at a \"level\" 3 or 4 weeks prior to the race with a little bit every day. And Mullins (et al)just give their horses the booster shot on race day.
Don\'t know - but until the rulemakers find out what it is that is being used and can identify it and test for it, the best chemists will continue to win.
Post Edited (02-25-05 14:17)
Delmar Deb wrote:
> Don\'t know - but until the rulemakers find out what it is that
> is being used and can identify it and test for it, the best
> chemists will continue to win.
Biology and chemistry are ascertainable. Its why the chemists have been able to move the horses of late. Chemists can also be employed by the oversight folks. They\'ve always feed horses secret things to get a fitness edge. Dickenson still gives his horses Guiness. (I like foreign beer, but that stuff is swill.) I was naive about milkshakes. I really thought they were making the horse peppier and came to realize the predominant benefit is to stave off fatigue. So I\'m coming to the party late, but I still think its ascertainable.
I\'d like to see all of TGJB\'s opinions implemented and I\'d like to see all the jurisdictions adopt the very same drug policies and have a national oversight body that employs at least one top bio-chemist.
DEB,
I have noted the exact same pattern between the claiming juice trainers and the stakes trainers.I go to the track fairly often and note, for example that ALL of Pletchers horses look grand!!barrel chested, thick bowed neck etc.They sort of remind me of Bonds, Sosa, Giambi et al,post steroid use.
My feeling is that most of these \"super trainers\" would be eating crackers for dinner if American racing was confined to turf races only. This does not, of course, extend to Frankel or Pletcher who train million dollar animals bred on both sides to be stars on the grass.
My theory on this is the fact that grass racing is all about late pace which may detract from the advantage gained by \"juiced-up\" horses on dirt.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
twoshoes,
Are you talking about S.Fur back in 2003?? I don\'t have the TG numbers for that, but Beyers had her running a 91 before BF got her and then ran a 104 and after that a 88-91-94-89......the wheels came off in the Alabama 03\'???(maybe she ran in 04\' I don\'t know ) she was 3rd by 7, Island Fashion won by 6 that day and then came back to get beat by 1/2 in the Gazelle. Before BF 7-3-1-2, after BF for the year 2003 5-2-0-2, again I\'m not saying BF is not using anything I don\'t know, but my point is he gets alot of good horse, unlike others.
CTC, Look at BF derby wins, oh none and his BC win record not that good either, I know some will say well thats because he can\'t use the juice at those places ( bull ). Let\'s look at all BF horse\'s for the year 2003, that won atless a G3 or better
1. Aldebaran 2. Betty\'s Wish 3. Chiming
4. Continuously 5. Denon 6. Empire Maker.
7. Final Destination 8. Ghostzapper.
9. Heat Haze. 10. Lilac Queen 11. Medaglia d\'oro 12. Megahertz 13. Midas Eyes 14. Milwaukee Brew 15. Peace Rules 16. Sea of Showers 17. Sightseek 18. Speak in Passing 19. Spoken Fur 20. Tates Creek 21. War Zone 22. Watchem Smokey 23. Wild Sprit 24. You....Any of these jump out at anyone, that might be a jucie hoss, jump up out of their skin?? What about the old horses of old......looking back at some of them, they held on to their form very well also. If there was some way to stop the jucie, you would see people like Jeff. M and Richard D. and others fall big time and the big trainers like BF and Todd P. would keep getting the good horses cause of their names. Thanks for all the input, this is a real good topic.
Here is some stats that were run on the so-called super trainers ( not by me )
1. When the ST claim\'s a horse, or it has changed hands to them ( within 60 days ) 24% win and 41% w/p
2. On the grass 21% 36% w/p
3. Any trainer with a first time starter (FTS) wins at about 8.5% and with the ST 28%, purse was set at 10,000 and up...and also sprints only.
4. ST and a horse coming off a 6 month layoff, 17% and 32% w/p purse 10,000 and up.
Kev,
It would be helpful to know the same stats for all trainers. These stats are not especially useful since there is nothing with which to compare them.
Mike
>My theory on this is the fact that grass racing is all about late pace which may detract from the advantage gained by \"juiced-up\" horses on dirt. <
I agree.
IMO, the evidence that turf racing is very different from dirt racing is almost overwhelming. Yet many horseplayers handicap them the same way.
Granted, if you are focusing on in form horses with fast final time speed figures you are going to stumble onto a lot of winners on turf.
However, the demands of turf racing are much different than the demands of dirt racing. That is why we see 3yo fillies beat Grade 1 older males on turf at 12 furlongs in Europe and they would get carted away in an ambulance if they tried that on dirt in the US. A top notch fresh filly can run very fast for 3 furlongs and some of the time that\'s all they need to do on turf.
Turf races often turn into a 3F sprint between very fresh horses that weren\'t used much pre stretch. It\'s often all about position and closing kick acceleration.
Post Edited (02-26-05 14:17)
Kev,
From memory Spoken Fur\'s line looked something like this. A move forward in her last start for prior connections to a 5 or so from a previous top of 7 or 8. Frankel gave her five or six weeks and she exploded to around a 1 and change and stayed right around that level (1-2.)I don\'t recall what her Alabama number was offhand but I believe it brought her back to around a 5. I\'m sure somebody can check on this but that was what I remember. Point being, this is not an isolated incident. His private purchases tend to move forward dramatically off a freshening and then in typical Frankel fashion don\'t bounce. I\'m not accusing him of cheating but I am saying I can understand the suspicion that it\'s not all due to quality horseflesh. Maybe he has a training program that these horses respond to - like Dutrow.
Mark
A few points.
No matter what you think about the issue of drugging, it\'s obvious that not all trainers, grooms, and vets are of equal ability.
Even on the naive assumption that everyone was being honest, we should expect that when horses move from weaker connections to better connections they would often improve, sometimes sharply, and for a period of time.
One must also examine stock carefully. Once a trainer is successful, he/she will tend to attract better stock. He/she might have the ability to choose specific horses that they KNOW are not being handled properly and can be improved upon. That in itself is an important skill and a sign of excellent horsemanship.
If a trainer is getting a barn full of well bred lightly raced horses to pick from, you should expect that he/she would develop many of them into top notch horses that would continue to improve.
That\'s why I tend to take a contrarian view on this subject. I\'m not naive enough to think that a lot of guys aren\'t cheating.
I\'m just not so quick to accuse people with spectacular training records and a reputation for improving horses as certain drug users/cheaters.
Horsemanship, training, vetting etc.... are all skills. Some people are great at it and some people stink.
I also have a problem with using only only one set of speed figures (or even just speed figures) to evaluate thoroughbred perfomance and then using those subjective views to make the case that someone is cheating.
Evaluating performace is obviously highly subjective. IMHO, many horses that some people think are running spectacular races actually are not (and vice versa). That doesn\'t mean I\'m right, but we should at least be able to agree that before we cast stones about a horse running an improved performance, it should be so clear that everyone agrees with that point of view no matter whose figures they are using or not using.
Post Edited (02-26-05 12:18)
It should be pointed out that Spoken Fur was a relatively lightly raced 3yo filly. It is not at all unusual for lightly raced 3yos to explode forward. That goes double if it just moved into a more skilled barn and the trainer had 6 weeks to work with it.
Now I am not taking the position that everyone is wrong about Frankel. I\'m just saying that if I was the judge and you all brought the Spoken Fur case to my courthouse I\'d throw everyone out of my court so I had time to make the double.
CH,
I\'m not in this for an argument. It was just one case regarding Frankel that came to mind. I agree the that a 3yo filly, especially one with a nice line like this filly had could be expected to move forward for a better trainer with good rest. This was a lot of movement (4 points from her previous top and 8 points from her first start of the year.) And she didn\'t react. Make of that what you will. I\'m not pursuing a court case and would certainly not want you to miss the double.
Mark
twoshoes,
No problem. Hey for all I know Spoken Fur was juiced. I remember that race because Frankel was moving a lot of horses up at that time and he was making my life handicapping stakes races somewhat miserable. :-)
It just seems to me that some people jump to conclusions very quickly so I find myself taking the contrarian position all the time. :-)
Post Edited (02-26-05 14:20)
Yeah, Dutrow has a secret training program alright. Its called the \"Junkie Program\" or \"How to hit a vein in the dark\".
Well #3 is compare to other trainers ( it\'s on there). #4 is 9.2% for all trainer\'s. Number 1 and 2 are just basic, you should know that overall trainer\'s don\'t hit at 21% on the grass and most trainer\'s can\'t win at the high rate for claiming horses. It just shows that on grass they are still hitting good, but not as strong as on the dirt. Coming off long layoff\'s they do better than the norm. but can\'t get that high win rate, compare to other times. Your right I don\'t know what the avg. is for claiming or grass, but like I said it\'s not that high.
I\'d be willing to bet almost anything that the trainer change stats (or at least the horses form change) will be more impressive if you only look at those horses that went from a non-ST to a ST (clearly a favorable trainer change). One would suspect that going from one ST to another ST would not improve the horse.
I\'d be willing to bet that trainer changes from a ST to a non-ST show that the horses tend to deteriorate.
The 1st time start stats could easily be influenced by stock.
I also think Jerry has the right idea when he says you can\'t just look at win percentages because some guys have better stock and spot their horses much better. You have to look for changes in the horses form.
I dont know about everyone else here, but I am making alot of money, everyone is still betting juice mullins horses. I will play them all back next month.
can he possibly lose the 9th, he has the best figure horse again
neither of his horses figured in the 7f stakes. this is very interesting though.
the public has no fear here in the 8th, making his horse the 5/2 fav...... things are getting very interesting will all of the new testing going on.
stopped at the end as the 2/1 fav (was on two weeks rest though)...... 1/25
Post Edited (02-26-05 19:14)
that horse actually ran well, but still the thing about juice mullins horses is despite the pace and rest they always kicked on, they are not anymore.
heard this at another forum,
Mullins won today and we all missed it.
Bob Boone who is mullins main client sent one down a couple weeks ago from golden gate from trainer john martin. Instead of transferring name of the trainer they left him in martins name, but he was trained, vetted, and saddle d by none other then jeff mullins, non 24 hour detention, and if you want to see the difference in juice mullins to jeff mullins then go watch the second today at 10/1 versus all the up the track horses he has run.
I hope the stewards catch wind to this.
Very Interesting. I\'m not up to speed on Mullin\'s clients. I suppose theres plenty of potential for this. The key of course is who gets the trainers share of the purse. Not that it couldn\'t be handed right over minus a \"handling fee\" to the trainer that juiced the horse.
I would think it would be pretty hard to miss a detention trainer walking over to another barn. I would think everyone is watching a detention trainer.
Saddlecloth wrote:
> heard this at another forum,
>
> Mullins won today and we all missed it.
>
> Bob Boone who is mullins main client sent one down a couple
> weeks ago from golden gate from trainer john martin. Instead
> of transferring name of the trainer they left him in martins
> name, but he was trained, vetted, and saddle d by none other
> then jeff mullins, non 24 hour detention, and if you want to
> see the difference in juice mullins to jeff mullins then go
> watch the second today at 10/1 versus all the up the track
> horses he has run.
>
> I hope the stewards catch wind to this.
Here\'s something: Why don\'t you guys, who\'s talking about this trainer is using and blah,blah,blah.....why don\'t you all come up with some ex. before the race is run?? But see this is why it wouldnt work out, cause some of you are so fixed in on this, there will be a BS story of why their horse did or didnt win. Oh it didnt win cause the heat was on him or if it wins oh looks like they got one past them. I only play on the weekends and I will look for some of these trainers and see if I find anything out of whack with the claims.
Is anybody bellyaching with \"Ah wulda won dat race if dat rat bastage trainer didn\'t use da needle...dere goes the mortagage payment\"?
I haven\'t read a single post of that nature. If you bet this game enough, you have to realize you take your chances with some trainers running lights out when they shouldn\'t. (And by lights out, I mean numbers they couldn\'t obtain about four years ago.) Right now theres a bit of correction in the works, but theres a couple of \"movers\" that seem to be running through it. At least for the time being. In other words its careful time to take 7-2 on a horse against the recent phenoms.
CtC
My point is come with some facts......quit talking all that junk and have something to back it up with. I want to see some of these movers, and I\'m not just talking about TG numbers either. Here\'s a list of so call super trainers, which is a mover??
Richard Dutrow....Todd Pletcher....Tom Amoss....Steve Asmussen....Bobby Frankel...Martin Wolfson...Michael Pino...Jeff Mullins...Cole Norman...Wayne Catalano...I\'m sure theres more big hitters, the main ones I hear everyone talking about is Jeff, Richard, Bobby, any of these others guys doing bad things???? and why and how and show me???
It seems like everyone was waiting for Dutrow to stub his toe with the coming of milkshake testing, but this was not the case. I do not want to argue that some players will always be one step ahead of their competition and the labs, because we know this is so. It will be impossible to ever bring the game back to hay, oats and water.
Dr Allday is not the leading trainer in the United States.
The trainers who tend to get the most mention on this board are Frankel, Dutrow and Pletcher. These are not bad trainers who found a vet and a vein; they are excellent horsemen and trainers, and two of them are the sons of excellent horsemen. They have owners who are willing to go deep to acquire top notch stock, and to pay top dollar to maintain that stock.
\"Nutrients\" can not make winners out of horses whose hooves are not properly maintained, whose training regimen is all wrong, who always seem to be ridden by jockeys who give them no chance to win, who are continually entered in races they can not win.
I would not be surprised if you told me that the top trainers were able to assemble the best \"teams\"-- assistant trainers, exercise riders, grooms, leg men, night watchmen, etc. It wouldn\'t surprise me if you told these trainers paid their help relatively well.
If we went back to hay oats and water, Pletcher, Dutrow and Frankel would continue to dominate racing. They would continue to be resented for their success. They would continue to win because they are top horsemen who thrive on winning. They will still have the best system for winning, the best organization. I am tired of hearing that when the playing field gets leveled [ ] (fill in the name of your favorite trainer who has been winning at a 10% clip for the last 5 years)will make a comeback.
I\'ll grant the big three you mentioned have more in their pocket than medications. They obviously have a good base and by that I don\'t mean alkalizing agents. They didn\'t dominate four years ago before the edge was ascertained and they won\'t dominate when the edge is dissipated. When they are outted they will have to do it the old fashioned way.
One thing they all do have in common is Steve Allday and his \"titrations\".
Proof can be an elusive thing. Some of it is already documented. Some of it is still based on incedulous anecdotal evidence. If the horse fixers could be identified with the Mafia, the Feds would break this conspiracy with all the proof necessary to end it. To some extent they have entered the field with the betting parlor incident.
One thing about the Mafia. They don\'t confess. You gotta wear them down.
CtC
Post Edited (02-27-05 13:05)
i think balance is all kev is asking for, and i agree. the jones/pletcher/velazquez team will win races no matter who the vet is. all three of them are at the top of their profession. unfortunately, i have read few posts on this board praising todd pletcher, and there have been very few praising johnny velazquez (besides from the 100 or so that i have wrote). velazquez has become one of the best jocks ever to ride a horse, and while there have been thousands of posts with opinions on every aspect of the sport, nobody has posted on the sports best human star. the same applies to the stronach/frankel/castellano team. they will win big races regardless of the vet, there is no doubt about that. but how many posts have you seen on this board praising jj castellano? the guy is a rising star no doubt, and nobody cares. pletcher and frankel know how to train horses, their clients know how to breed and purchase horses, and the jocks they use are great athletes. i think the sport is moving in the right direction regarding drug testing, and if it moves a bit quicker in implementing TGJB\'s ideas, i think things will be ok. there is nothing wrong with focusing on certain vets, and there is nothing wrong with having suspicion regarding the big \"move up\" trainers. the sport has failed everyone in the area of drug testing, and everybody is now paying the price. just a little balance is all we need here; there are some talented people in the sport doing some great things.
Post Edited (02-27-05 14:33)
I don\'t follow the game nearly as close as I used to but I can tell you this. I was a huge John Velazquez fan back when the average player thought you just got Jorge\'s first name wrong.
Big move up rider almost from day 1. I thought he and Jorge Chavez were the best in NY for a few years running (How come I didn\'t play the $1500 ~ Derby Exacta?).
So, there are / were a few players going way way back , that knew he was a major talent. The last 5 years or so was just a coming of age.
Kev and Richiebee,
I agree with you guys.
I think we all want a clean game. However, I don\'t think it\'s a good idea to soil the reputation of successful trainers, vets, and other horseman based on suspicions. Not everyone is equally competent. So not everyone will get equal results. It has always been that way in racing. We need proof of cheating.
As much as I respect Jerry\'s intentions and work, I don\'t believe that subjective speed figures represent much in the way of proof. Not everyone agrees that speed figures are a complete and accurate way to measure performance. Even among those that consider final time very important, there is often a wide range of opinions on how fast horses are running in general or in specific races.
I think we have to seperate the tools we use as handicappers to understand horses and their connections from the tools we use to bash horsemen that have more success than seems possible without cheating.
Pletcher found the elixer right about the time Frankel did. I\'m pretty certain Frankel\'s first horse on it was Aptitude. With Pletcher it was in the \"Left Bank\" era, though I\'m not entirely sure it was Left Bank.
Does anyone remember the goofy numbers Lefty ran? Not only did he suddenly get fast, he started carrying his speed deep. (Both typical symptoms of the affliction.) Oh yeah I know, the Lukas methodology finally sunk in and Velasquez found every hole and saved ground.
Yes I do remember Left Bank. That was freaky. :-)