From today\'s New York Times
\"Lou Raffetto, the chief operating officer at Pimlico, said the track would maintain 24-hour surveillance on the horses in the Preakness. While not all starters will have a prerace blood test, as the Derby starters did, Raffetto said some might be spot tested.\"
I guess it was too much to expect consistency over the course of three whole races (also known as the Triple Crown). Inspiring stuff.
HP
That is truly pathetic, though to be honest, I expected nothing less from Maryland racing. What a joke that place has become since Frank DeFrancis passed away.
What the hell happened to \"all horses in graded stakes\" being tested?
If this turns out to be true it\'s effing unbelievable. I haven\'t seen it yet, but Dave said on the OTB show that Joe Drape wrote a piece in today\'s Times about the effect of the testing on the Derby.
From the article:
\"The same type of scrutiny will take place before the Preakness Stakes on Saturday at Pimlico Race Course in Baltimore, where a full field of 14 horses is expected to try to stop Giacomo from winning the second leg of the Triple Crown.\"
\"Over Belmont\'s opening week, for example, the betting favorites won 18 percent of the time, below the industry average, which is considered 33 percent. Over the same period in 2004, the favorites won 28 percent of the time. But during the recently concluded Aqueduct meet, which ran from Jan. 1 to May 1, the post-time favorites won 36 percent of the time.\"
\"I\'m all for anything that increases consumer confidence,\" said Pletcher, who last year won more than 24 percent of his races. \"And if the added security does that, then that is fine because we have nothing to hide. But it had nothing to do with the outcome of the race; it was the fast pace that cooked some of the favorites and set it up for Giacomo.\"
\"Lou Raffetto, the chief operating officer at Pimlico, said the track would maintain 24-hour surveillance on the horses in the Preakness. While not all starters will have a prerace blood test, as the Derby starters did, Raffetto said some might be spot tested.\"
\"In addition, the top finishers will undergo extensive drug testing. The track will also employ investigators from the Thoroughbred Racing Protection Bureau and will accept assistance from some of the investigators from the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority who patrolled Churchill Downs.
We will be very vigilant about monitoring the comings and goings, Raffetto said. There is no harm in stepping up surveillance.\"
Dave is right Jerry. It\'s in today\'s Times. Amazing how Todd Pletcher sounds exactly like...Chuckles, from the TG bulletin board!
HP
So Pletcher says it was the hot pace that cooked some of the favorites in the Derby. I am assuming the \"favorites\" group he refers to, includes Bandini.
So, the owners of the rabbit, who also own Bandini, were responsible for the collapse of Bandini and the other favorites?
Sounds like the ramblings of a liar.
Beyerguy,
Thanks for posting.
Wretched Pletcher said:
\"I\'m all for anything that increases consumer confidence,\" said Pletcher, who last year won more than 24 percent of his races. \"And if the added security does that, then that is fine because we have nothing to hide. But it had nothing to do with the outcome of the race; it was the fast pace that cooked some of the favorites and set it up for Giacomo.\"
So, the jockey elite at the Derby were ALL fooled into mis-timing their rides, none could get their horses to rate, and none of the top 3yos have the capacity to rate against a fast pace. I guess we have the awesome responsibility of weighing the probability of that against the probability that the additional security accounts for crazy finish of the Derby. Hmmm...tough call.
I\'d also feel a little better if he said which \"consumers\" confidence he would like to increase. He can\'t possibly be talking about the players.
Todd gets my nomination for the coveted Michael Gill Golden Bone Saw Award. raz
A couple of those horse\'s who backed way off their tops in the Derby had incured injury\'s that probably were the result of running those big number efforts (unsupported tops) in previous race\'s which manifested themselves in their next start or in this case the Derby . The numbers that Jerry gave out for that race make perfect sense , and how they relate to overall patterns for those individual horse\'s seems more viable than other senario\'s ...
HP wrote:
> Dave is right Jerry. It\'s in today\'s Times. Amazing how Todd
> Pletcher sounds exactly like...Chuckles, from the TG bulletin
> board!
>
> HP
Haven\'t seen the full Preakness entries yet, but last word was Pletcher was a pass, despite the fact that the drug testing is not going to be as thorough as it was at Churchill Downs. With no drug testing why would he pass? Well, maybe it wasn\'t \"drugs off\" that got Pletcher beat in the Derby. Maybe it was washing out and injury and a wet track horse and an inside trip.
Maybe, just maybe, drugs off had absolutely nothing to do with the Churchill results, including the week\'s graded stakes. Theres been no additional Graded Stakes to confirm that since Derby weekend, so its a question of handicapping and conviction.
It was an interesting Derby and it can probably be interpreted in a number of ways, however after viewing the race myriad times, theres some things that stand out. Some horses responded more competively to being bounced around than others. Those might be good horses to evaluate for odds Preakness day. Another inescapable fact was that everything around at the end ran wide for a most of the race and anything near the rail wasn\'t around late to count.
Greater Good ran like an *******, ******* horse again, but not with a cent of my money on him anywhere. He bore in on High Limit (Later...WRONG...it was Flower Alley that bore in) who was forced in on Noble Causeway. Stevens pulled Causeway up right onto the hind quarters of High Limit and though running with conviction the latter instantly put the brakes on. Later he rallied back into competition. Sort of the injured horse version of the \"split run\".
Post Edited (05-17-05 09:18)
If any of Pletcher\'s Derby Three were in any shape to run they would, for the exact reason Raffetto gave: laxed policing for the Preakness. Pletcher\'s problem is Bandini broke down; Flower Alley is spent; and Coin Silver is not that good anyway. There\'s not enough of whatever he gives \'em to get them where they need to be. So he can bluster about having \"nothing to hide\" when none of his will show up to be found out.
All this testing stuff led me to an old but still good article linked below. It describes the ascent of Steve Allday, written when he was the \"Racing Manager\" for Frank Stronach during the Pat Byrne years. Note that the article points out Allday was, previous to that, the \"Racing Manager\" for the Allen Paulson Stable (presumably during the Cigar years). Isn\'t it funny how each of those stables showed uncanny dominance during his \"Racing Manager\" tenure, when scores of their runners were winning out of sight? And isn\'t it funny how Favorite Trick and Countess Diana were mere shadows of themselves in their post-Byrne/Allday careers?
It\'s good reading for those that haven\'t read it.
http://www.louisville.com/loumag/apr98/byrne.shtml
great article nick, thanks ......
does anybody remember the year pat got busted at the spa? was that before or after awsome agains\'s BC win?
Chuckles,
I agree it\'s possible drugs have nothing to do with it, but Pletcher still sounds exactly like you! I didn\'t intend it as an insult...
HP
>Millineum wrote
> And isn\'t it funny how Favorite Trick and
> Countess Diana were mere shadows of themselves in their
> post-Byrne/Allday careers?
>
> It\'s good reading for those that haven\'t read it.
>
> http://www.louisville.com/loumag/apr98/byrne.shtml
>
Interesting read. When Byrne abandoned Favorite Trick that was telling regarding his Derby Chances. Still a shame the goofy writers made Trick Horse of the Year denying Skip Away is my recollection.
Its clear Pletcher is a cheater. Whats not clear is that lack of drugs impacted the Derby. Zito and Frankel are back. Dutrow is dying to get in. Status Quo.
Injured:
Bellamania
Wilko
Bandini
High Limit
Pace Impacted:
Spanish Chestnut
Going Wild
Flower Alley
High Fly
Bellamania
High Limit
Trip Disadvantaged
Sun King
High Fly
Flower Alley
High Limit
Afleet Alex
Noble Causeway
Trip Advantaged
Bellamania
Giacomo
Closing Argument
Buzzards Bay
Don\'t Get Mad
Rarely will a horse win the Derby with the ground conceding trip Giacomo got. That wasn\'t a Grindstone or Sea Hero ride. That was pure, unadultered being on the right path on the right day.
That track though fast, took something out of the horses late. Especially, if they were down inside. Anything that moved towards the rail languished there.
Post Edited (05-17-05 09:01)
CtC,
Can I add:
Trip Disadvantaged
Greeley\'s Galaxy
I think you are overstating the bad rail a bit, just my opinion.
No way by my measure Bellamy Road had a good trip being wide around both turns and dueling for the lead against a brutal pace. I\'m pretty sure TG will designate this race h_pace. If that is an advantage, I have a LOT of studying to do!
We are in the subjective realm here, but Bellamania didn\'t run that much more pace disadvantaged to Closing Argument, but he certainly got the benefit of the wide. Wide was very good. You\'re not gonna see many trips like Giacomo got win a Derby. Watch the gallop out past the wire. \"Hanging Alex\" is still game post wire and heads Closing Argument, Though Giacomo with the good ground holds his edge. When the perfecta bore way out, its possible Alex thought they were out of the race. That wasn\'t Alex\'s best race, but it wasn\'t near as bad as everyone is saying. Still odds factored, the Preakness is an interesting bet. Giacomo to miss the board? Any takers?
One last thing, When Bellamania and High Fly angled down to the rail late, that was their Waterloo. Those paths were not good.
Post Edited (05-17-05 09:50)
IMHO...
1. Bandini ran so terribly neither drugs or pace could account for his performance. He may have left his race on the track given how washed out he was and he may have gotten hurt during the running of the race (or both), but drugs is not the answer.
2. Coined Silver ran about as well as expected given that he beat a field on non-entities on a sloppy track sitting off a fast pace in his prep (a race in which I bet him partly for those very reasons) and had not showed all that much before that.
3. Flower Alley ran the best race of his life when the impact of pace/trip is taken into consideration. He finished approximately even with High Fly with a rougher trip. He was stopped dead at one point in addition to being closer to the pace early. I rated that performance a lifetime top.
Post Edited (05-17-05 10:09)
It\'s just amazing that no matter what the subject, people just have the same axes to grind...
The point is that the powers that be in Maryland are IMMEDIATELY backing off the testing program they had in place, and this is absolutely not what was supposed to happen (as per Jerry\'s post).
Maybe the racing establishment prefers the guys like Pletcher and Frankel and they\'re not crazy about a level playing field where a horse like Giacomo wins. For all their talk about a \"fair game for the players,\" the guys that are rumored to be associated with these questionable vet practices are well-entrenched in the industry, and they have a lot of powerful friends (and racetrack owners) in their corner. That\'s the really ugly side of this, and it just has NOTHING to do with anyone\'s opinion of how anyone ran in the Derby.
HP
I can\'t recall ever working anywhere where it was OK to be drunk on the job (and on national television) except in Maryland.
So you\'re saying drinking on the job is wrong?
Wouldn\'t you?
Any thoughts related to Zito\'s hesitating with regards to entering HIGH FLY.
I was thinking he may have needed the effort after the 5 week gap or he did one of his regressions off of a new top (Fla Derby).
Now I\'m thinking he may be growing weary of a campaign that began in Janauary with a series of tough races.
HIGH FLY runs the entire way to achieve his numbers. Perhaps he has not recovered as well as NOBLE CAUSEWAY who did very little in the way of running.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
HP,
I am all in favor of the strictest possible drug testing.
I don\'t there\'s any evidence it mattered when it comes to the Pletcher horses in the Derby as others had suggested in the thread.
The evidence, circumstantial as it may be, is that Pletcher trainees ran well or won every prep up to the Derby and crapped out in the big race, plus it is well established that he is a client of one of the more suspect vets. Not only that, but quite a few of these horses ran well without a whole lot of racing or any real conventional development.
So his horses run very well UP TO the Derby, with the vets\' full attention. Then comes the big dance, heavy security and...hey, where\'s Todd? Wha\'happen?
Class, what do you attribute Pletcher\'s success with developing 3yo\'s to? You had quite a few posts here about his abilities with these horses and your profits playing them. How is it possible his horses jump up and win these Grade I or II preps right away? Hay, oats and water, right? He\'s just got a knack for it? I made a few scores too, and it was because I felt really good about the Pletcher horses moving forward, or at the very least, retaining their previous race form, when I would assume others would back up. And up to the Derby it was a nice way to make a few bucks.
It\'s possible that drugs had nothing to do with it. But Drape didn\'t go after Pletcher for a quote for nothing...
It\'s interesting that so many people are willing to give Pletcher the benefit of the doubt as opposed to writing emails to Lou Raffetto, Spot Tester, about his lame plans for the Preakness. Why not rip into Todd and ask him some tough questions about the guy in the White Car?
HP
HP,
When I take a good look at the past performances of the typical lightly raced Pletcher horse I usually see a very well bred lightly raced horse that slowly improves as it moves up the class ladder. He generally spots them very well in terms of distance, quality of competition, etc... They also fire their best shot a very high percentage of the time. All that often leads to a high win percentage and an underappreciation of the horses\'s chances on the odds board. That has been the case for years now.
I generally don\'t see the dramatic form reversals and improvement from TP that I see from other trainers. So I haven\'t had difficulty finding profitable wagers on his horses. That\'s the bottom line for me.
Again, I am all for strict testing, but as long as we have the situation we have now, the idea is to understand the training patterns of the \"suspect\" guys and bet them if you fimd a profitable situation.
The money is just as green if you figure out a certain trainer\'s horse is going improve (for whatever reason) as it is if you like the speed figure pattern. I don\'t worry as much about the \"why\" as some people. I just want to cash tickets.
Class,
Wow is about all I can say, except this...
(1) \"I don\'t there\'s any evidence it mattered when it comes to the Pletcher horses in the Derby as others had suggested in the thread.\"
--So that was the first thing you wrote.
Then,
\"I generally don\'t see the dramatic form reversals and improvement from TP that I see from other trainers. So I haven\'t had difficulty finding profitable wagers on his horses. That\'s the bottom line for me.\"
--That\'s exactly the point. Pletcher\'s horses are VERY consistent. If you\'ve read JB\'s posts on this subject vis-a-vis Frankel, for example, one of the points he makes is that they don\'t bounce or react to efforts when you would think they should. In other words, the repeated top efforts are one potential indication of...something going on. Are you reading any of those posts? Really interested in anyone else\'s opinion?
(2) \"Again, I am all for strict testing, but as long as we have the situation we have now, the idea is to understand the training patterns of the \"suspect\" guys and bet them if you fimd a profitable situation.\"
--Here you seem to be modifying things a little, and are you suggesting that Pletcher IS indeed one of the \"suspect\" guys? Or are you talking about another trainer or what? Unless I\'m reading this wrong, here you seem to be suggesting that I could benefit from this if I could only understand Pletcher\'s training pattern. And in the same sentence, you say \"suspect.\" So I\'m guessing this means Pletcher may be \"suspect.\"
(3) \"The money is just as green if you figure out a certain trainer\'s horse is going improve (for whatever reason) as it is if you like the speed figure pattern. I don\'t worry as much about the \"why\" as some people. I just want to cash tickets.\"
--So you are not concerned about drugs, since you don\'t worry as much about the \"why\" as long as you are cashing tickets. What happened to the guy two paragraphs before this who wrote,
\"Again, I am all for strict testing...\"
--So to sum up, you seem to have covered ALL sides of this issue...
In (1) Pletcher is not suspect based on his Derby performances.
In (2) Pletcher may be in the \"suspect\" group for you and you may take this into account when you handicap (for those \"profitable situations\" involving Todd Pletcher, right?).
In (2) you are all for strict testing.
But when (3) rolls around -- the money\'s green and you just want to cash, so to hell with really busting chops about strict testing. You win!
Good stuff.
HP
HP-- you know I love you, despite your annoying personality. And of course you are right. But you have to stop arguing with CH because LOGIC HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. He is looking for attention, and every person who challenges him gives him the opportunity to expound, reason and evidence notwithstanding. Which would be okay IF IT WASN\'T ON MY SITE. The guy is posting more than I am, and while I am open to some handicapping discussions that are supplemental or alternative to Thoro-Graph, I\'m not open to their getting as much play, let alone becoming what this board is about.
To a lesser degree this goes for a lot of you other guys too. I like that we have THE place for a sophisticated exchange of ideas, but there is way too much fluff starting to show up here. If you have something to say, post. If you post when you don\'t, you better be funny-- this ain\'t a chat line. It doesn\'t have to be about TG-- for example, Jimbo\'s post about a projected morning line is fine-- but we need a little discretion and focus here.
Okay Jerry. I thought my last post was pretty funny. Sometimes I use the board to practice techniques for arguing with my wife. I\'ll go back to the bathroom mirror for awhile.
HP
My post wasn\'t about you, and it was moderately funny. Problem is it\'s guaranteed to bring a response.
HP,
I\'m not sure why I waste this much of my time with you, but this will be the last post. You mostly just enjoy giving me a hard time.
As far as I am concerned a trainer is innocent until proven guilty. I have the same suspicions about certain trainers that everyone else has, but TP is low on my list of those that are mentioned here often.
I consider the consistency of his horses to mostly be the result of great stock, great horsemanship, and excellent spotting of his horses. Those are recognizable skills. Great stock is great stock!
I thought I was pretty clear about that.
However, since I (or anyone else) can never be sure, I do examine the instances that are mentioned by others as evidence of drugs (like the Derby). I saw no evidence that drug testing had an impact on the performance of TP\'s horses.
My personal preference as a \"fan\" is for strict testing and a clean sport.
As a \"gambler\", I actually think it\'s easier to win with these move up trainers than without them if you study their moves.
However, I have no control over this issue. I have to deal the with realities of the game as they exist and not how I would like them to be.
Rather than whine every day about some horse that improved to beat me, I make an effort to get a good line on the trainers and their patterns. From a gambling perspective, it doesn\'t matter why any specific trainer wins (drugs or superior horsemanship). It only matters that I cash tickets and not rip them up and whine about it.
Post Edited (05-17-05 17:24)
Sorry Jerry, I promise this will be my LAST post for awhile. I\'m going on vacation...
This is really offensive. Nobody\'s \"whining\" about losing. I don\'t whine, ever.
You don\'t see any contradiction between being for \"strict testing\" and happily cashing tickets. A triumph of amorality.
I would be willing to forego a few winners to see the game cleaned up. You sound like a Yankee fan. Yankee fans aren\'t interested in baseball, they are interested in seeing the Yankees win. If an umpire makes a bad call and the Yankees benefit, the Yankee fan is happy. Most baseball fans want to win but they want to see the game played the right way and they don\'t want to benefit from any shennanigans.
You are, in many ways, the typical racing fan, who doesn\'t care to reconcile your interest in gambling with any real affection or concern for the horse. For all your lip service about \"strict testing,\" it\'s just that, lip service. You could care less. A guy like you will put up 100 posts here but you would NEVER take the time to write a letter or email Lou Raffetto! You are content to pat yourself on the back about your astute powers of observation. A real \"winner.\"
HP
Jerry,
I have been a TG user for about three years now, and I have a great respect for your product. I was a DRf only user prior to being turned on to your sheets. Your product gave me profitable information about this game that I love.
But things have changed now. The figures that horses have run before are increasingly less reliable predictors of how they will run today. The most important decisions a handicapper in todays game has to make are 1. Were this horses past performances aided by performance enhancing substances, and 2. Will the horse recieve performance enhancing substances today.
I grew up at the track (Beulah Park and Latonia) by my fathers side with a $10 budget that he alotted me to make WPS bets. The joy of the game was and has always been finding out whether or not I could process the available information better than the guy next to me, and make it profitable. That takes skill. The game today takes a lot less skill, and a lot more luck. In a fair--or closer to fair-- game, your product is invaluable; well worth the $25 sticker. In todays game, the expenditure is much harder to justify.
I consider myself a rational person. As such I struggle with my irrational activity of wagering resources on events which I know have a high probability of being fixed. But I know why I do it. I do it for the same reason the other rational people who post here do it. I love it, it\'s in my blood. I could stop but I really don\'t want to.
Which leads to the truth of the matter. Right now, Jeff Mullins is right! We are all suckers, plain and simple. The question is whether or not we are going to do anything about it. Do we the bettors have any voice in this thing? Me being the small fish that I am, not really. But I am sure Jerry that you know the biggest fish. The ones who could possibly start to effect some changes. But, who knows, maybe the biggest fish are privvy to the info necessary to be profitable in today\'s game and have no motivation to seek any changes. That would be too bad.
All I know is a no nonsence, no tolerance, straight forward system needs to be put in place across the country very soon, because I am far too intelligent to remain a perpetual sucker, no matter how much I love this game.
Post Edited (05-18-05 10:40)
Clark, I would very much like to see this as a letter to the editor of DRF or Bloodhorse. They are much more likely to publish it if you take out the TG references.
Ok here's the contrarian opinion. IMHO this site is way over the top on the drug issue. The prevalent assumption here of some murky vet with some magic \"juice\" controlling some group of \"super trainers\" would make for a good novel but it borders on paranoia.
It\'s all just sheer speculation and I think largely unfounded.
"Juice" implies a hop. What if the juice for Scott Lake is myectomy (fix throat) and deep tissue massage as he has publicly stated. What if for Dutrow he has Allday fix them behind through internal blisters or injecting stifles or whatever (as he explained in DRF article). What if Frankel\'s thing is he just doesn\'t run them until they are right, buys domestic horses cleverly and knows better than anyone what to do with a Euro import (as he has been doing for 20 years).
It\'s called horsemanship.
Either it's that or it's one vet with some magic juice that he can use with impunity and nobody else can figure out what it is. The logic that every time someone has success it's because they are simply the most daring and crooked is IMO the height of cynicism.
Don't get me wrong I know there are cheaters out there and I am with you on the Maryland thing and tightening up the testing to punish transgressors and restore public confidence. It's just not as bad as you think. It's not that easy to hop a horse. And it usually doesn't work.
The recent press has been centered around milkshakes. Milkshakes have been around for 30 years. It's like a marathon runner eating a candy bar during the race. It is right to outlaw them but it\'s not magic juice.
Dutrow\'s suspension was for a \"caine\", like Novocain which is a local anesthetic and the first thing they test for (so that can\'t be what he\'s \"using\") plus clenbuterol which has often been legal in certain jurisdictions. Hardly \"juice\". Most \"hops\" through the years are really just pain killers like Sublimase which allow class horses to do their thing.
Have you ever noticed how the super trainers' horses look better than anyone else's? How could a hop do that?
JB - You have a great product and provide wonderful insights to bettors. However it seems the premise behind your thinking lately is that horses are getting faster because they are hopped. The thing is you have scant proof of either. I find it amazing that you couldn't analyze the derby until you find out where Afleet Alex took a bath! It's so far over the top it's laughable. Handicapping races is hard enough without contortions over figuring out who does or doesn't' have the \"juice\".
bloodline bob wrote:
> Ok here's the contrarian opinion. IMHO this site is way over
> the top on the drug issue.
Personally, I believe this site is the Advant Garde on this issue. Anyone that has followed the races closely the last five years has to know theres been a climatic shift to a few trainers that employ the same suspect Vet.
>The prevalent assumption here of
> some murky vet with some magic \"juice\" controlling some group
> of \"super trainers\" would make for a good novel but it borders
> on paranoia.
Sometimes novels are biographys or non fiction.
> It\'s all just sheer speculation and I think largely unfounded.
They are testing all over the jurisdictions to get a handle on this. Drugs are standard, what is out of the Grade I routine is \"drugs off\" and that is the current advant garde issue.
> "Juice" implies a hop. What if the juice for Scott Lake is
> myectomy (fix throat) and deep tissue massage as he has
> publicly stated. What if for Dutrow he has Allday fix them
> behind through internal blisters or injecting stifles or
> whatever (as he explained in DRF article). What if Frankel\'s
> thing is he just doesn\'t run them until they are right, buys
> domestic horses cleverly and knows better than anyone what to
> do with a Euro import (as he has been doing for 20 years).
>
> It\'s called horsemanship.
No, its not horsemanship. Theres at least two dozen better horsemen that the guys you\'ve mentioned. They\'d accomplish more if they decided to cheat.
> Either it's that or it's one vet with some magic juice that he
> can use with impunity and nobody else can figure out what it
> is. The logic that every time someone has success it's because
> they are simply the most daring and crooked is IMO the height
> of cynicism.
The issue is that the substances are not on the controlled list or are not detectable. Or, at least to this point they haven\'t been.
> Don't get me wrong I know there are cheaters out there and I am
> with you on the Maryland thing and tightening up the testing to
> punish transgressors and restore public confidence. It's just
> not as bad as you think.
Its much worse than we even talk about. Its sickening to debate that deeply.
>It's not that easy to hop a horse. And
> it usually doesn't work.
Granted, you still need a decent horse to win a Grade I. Drugs or not.
> The recent press has been centered around milkshakes.
> Milkshakes have been around for 30 years. It's like a marathon
> runner eating a candy bar during the race. It is right to
> outlaw them but it\'s not magic juice.
Yes, every substance given to a horse to make it run faster is illegal. Once identified it is added to the controlled list.
> Dutrow\'s suspension was for a \"caine\", like Novocain which is a
> local anesthetic and the first thing they test for (so that
> can\'t be what he\'s \"using\") plus clenbuterol which has often
> been legal in certain jurisdictions. Hardly \"juice\". Most
> \"hops\" through the years are really just pain killers like
> Sublimase which allow class horses to do their thing.
The reason so called \"pain and sickness\" medications must clear a horses system below certain concentrations on race day is because there is concern they may enhance performance in higher levels.
> Have you ever noticed how the super trainers' horses look
> better than anyone else's? How could a hop do that?
Thats an enormous supposition. Oxygen certainly could be a factor, without acquiescing to your theory the supertrainers horses look better.
> JB - You have a great product and provide wonderful insights to
> bettors. However it seems the premise behind your thinking
> lately is that horses are getting faster because they are
> hopped. The thing is you have scant proof of either.
The proof is in ridiculous performance figures coming from the same group of suspects. If you havne\'t been following the industry lately EVERYONE is finally doing a little something about it.
I find it
> amazing that you couldn't analyze the derby until you find out
> where Afleet Alex took a bath! It's so far over the top it's
> laughable. Handicapping races is hard enough without
> contortions over figuring out who does or doesn't' have the
> \"juice\".
I never understood the significance of the \"Alex bath\" either and if they juiced him they should be ashamed because he fell off 6 points from his prior.
Now the Preakness:
Malibu Moonshine - This trainer is a long time horseman. He\'s a local icon. He\'s got a good hole and if Leatherby thinks this horse belongs here. Who wants to seriously disagree? Big Balloons exotic special.
High Fly - Bailey is helping to cost me money lately. Hime not identifying the pace and bias last was a puzzlement. If Bailey gives him a good ride he should be a factor. Can he win? Not sure yet.
Noble Causeway - Stevens put the big yank on him in the Derby. It absolutely stopped him and maybe stung, maybe not, he just didnt\' want to run from that far behind. They say his breeding is special. Still like High Fly more.
Greeley\'s Galaxy - Didn\'t train well at Churchill pre Derby. Broke like a slug. Ran inside rank and on the bad path early. Bumped viciously late and still kept on. Beaten half a pole but was it that bad? Possible winner.
Scrappy T. - Have liked this horse since horror Whirlaway Trip. Doesnt need the lead. Won\'t be far off of it. Toss Wood, other 2 turn efforts are fine. Can\'t leave out, still deliberating win potential.
Hal\'s Image - Loved his breeder. Old Hal brought his 3/4 brother along this trail. Halo\'s Image is not Jolies Halo though. Maybe a deuce to show for old Hal. Tend to think the family is running him for the old man.
Closing Argument - Well its offical. FREAK. Maybe not Smarty Jones Freak or Ghostsprinter Freak. But FREAK nevertheless. Bear out has to be a concern. Must use though. Can he win? Probably can.
Galloping Grocer- Looks to be on improve again, though restricted class can make a horse look good. Still think this horse has potential to return to form. The question though is what kinda form was that? Favor Scrappy more.
Wilko- Well, that was the last bit of my money he gets. He finished 6 lengths back, but at no time was he ever explosive or showing late stamina. Hes yours.
Sun King- Beaten 15 and 10 lengths respectively in his last two. Zito has brought horses like Louis Quatorze in to win off bad efforts. But this bad? Caught the bias part of the track but after a mile was definitely in \"Chuck it\" mode. Prado scoots. Don\'t like his new \"reserved\" style either, think it discourages him. You can have him.
High Limit- Still believe TGraph scored the Bluegrass closer to precise than anyone else and High Limit, though beaten handily at Keeneland, was the best of the rest by far. Mauled by Flower Alley and Noble Causeway and running on the worst part of the track understandibly tossed it in. Non effort.
Aleet Alex- Crist says he\'s 1 for 5 at two turns. (I guess 8.5 marks is two turns at Belmont now?) Shame on you Mr. Crist. You\'re a New Yorker! Make his record closer to (4) 1-1-1
That would be a 1st at 9 marks and a 3rd at 10 marks despite a Derby bounce. Beat him on form perhaps, but don\'t discount him on Sun King lack of distance affinity.
Giacomo- The luckiest horse in the world.
Going Wild - This horse really wants the lead and won\'t relax off of it. One day he\'s gonna get the lead again like in the Sham and its gonna be a pace issue. Not saying its Sunday, especially with High Limit poised to pop.
Isn\'t it a well established fact (supported by Congressional testimony) that attempts years ago to hop horses were so unsuccessful that the tactic was abandoned and instead chalks were tranquilized and bet against?
I think Bloodline Bob\'s post makes a lot of sense particularly the part about Lake, Dutrow, et al.
Chuckles, you make a bald assertion in response to that. Back it up. Name two dozen trainers who could be better than Lake, Dutrow, et al. What\'s your criteria?
What is the yardstick for who\'s using? It would seem to be level of success and nothing else, yet I never see Shug McGaughey\'s name mentioned. He\'s successsful.
How about Lukas & Baffert? There not as successful as they were a few years ago. Did they run out of drugs? Change vets? Zito, OTOH, is more successful. Did he get new and better juice?
I\'m not naive, people are going to try and cheat. Stricter drug testing is better for everyone (except the cheaters, whoever they may be). The goal should be strict PRE RACE testing for everyone, all the time or detention barns for everyone, all the time. But until this happens and it isn\'t going to happen anytime soon, we must deal with what is.
Oh, and the little drama about Afleet Alex being taken to another stall to be hosed down doesn\'t advance the case, it damages it.
Bloodline Bob, come on the Balco case should have proved to anyone that drug use in sports is extensive. If people are willing to take drugs to improve performance, what makes you think that people aren\'t using all sorts of drugs on animals. Offlee Wild might be the Barry Bonds of thoughbred world. Nice horse but not outstanding until he found Richard \"Balco\" Dutrow. Are you really under the misconception that Offlee Wild\'s performance in his last four races were due to trainning?
As TGJB likes to say, the awareness and perception issues brought forth by enhanced testing are important in themselves.
The reality is that its likely that at the end of the year that Frankel and Pletcher will likely continue to win Graded Stakes at a 25% or so strike rate and Dutrow, even with a 60 day vacation, will likely be leading trainer at NYRA. (They gave him 60 days at a time in the year when his stable traditionally hasn\'t done much anyway).
There seems to have been a lot of bitterness and hand wringing over the result of the Derby; Come on guys, the Pim Special and the Preakness are both great betting races and are tied together in a double. Time to dust ourselves off and get back on the bike.
TGJB-- the Hindenburg just passed over Staten Island, headed north towards Varick Street.
RE Bloodline Bob\'s post,
Somewhere between what Bloodline Bob posted and this board\'s drug paranoia is where the truth lies, imo.
All the vet procedures mentioned and milkshakes are as old as the hills in this game and do not account for the inordinate success of certain trainers imo.Performance enhancing drugs are a problem if you ask just about any trainer on the backstretch at any major racetrack in America.
There is little doubt that horsemanship/stock play a significant role in winning races. There are many great horsemen like Jerkens, Mott, Mc Guaghey,Lucas, Baffert who do not come close to Pletcher, Frankel, Asmussen, Dutrow, Mullins and others in winning races anymore, how come?, did they the former group forget how to train horses? What happened?
The claiming game is very different and there may be some plausible explanation as to why a claiming trainer wins more often than a trainer who may be superior horsemen.
I agree with Bob that the reason for a horse not running his expected fig is not SOLELY due to drugs \"on\" or drugs \"off\".Sometimes, on this board, I feel that drugs are used as a poor excuse to explain why a runner or a race comes up completely contrary to TG thinking/philosophy.The last half in the derby was raced in 53+ secs and Afleet Alex needed to be drugged during bath time to do that.If you believe that one, you should give up the game.
Like I said,if you take the best of both sides of this issue, you are probably as close as you can get to reality.
HP,
Try paying attention to what I say instead of just looking for ways to attack me.
I clearly said that as as fan I would like the sport to be cleaned up.
What part of that didn\'t you understand?
\"HOWEVER\" since I am not in a position to do so, I have to play the game as it is. The way game is now, IMHO it is actually easier to beat. That doesn\'t mean I wouldn\'t give up a few winners to make it better. It means I want to cash as many tickets as possible given the conditions.
What I don\'t want to do is analyze every race and blame drugs for every performance that doesn\'t match my own figures and analysis. Even though there IS a drug/cheating problem, IMO, it is not nearly as bad as some here believe.
Furthermore, if I got the point where I believed it was and was analyzing races in terms of drugs to the extent I sometimes see, I would probably quit the game.
Post Edited (05-19-05 09:58)
BB,
Thanks for expressing a counter point of view.
Class
Bally Ache wrote:
> Chuckles, you make a bald assertion in response to that. Back
> it up. Name two dozen trainers who could be better than Lake,
> Dutrow, et al. What\'s your criteria?
Thats really quite easy. The 3 dozen trainers that were most successful at the highest levels BEFORE Pletcher, Frankel and Dutrow employed the subject Vet.
Its comical that folks on this board actually think the 3 Stooges suddenly and \"simultaneously\" developed a level of horsemanship that eclipsed trainers like Drysdale, McGaughey, Tagg and dozens of others. That the faster times for the 3 Stooges, during their streak, are attributed to \"Sudden Horsemenship\".
CtC:
Drugs and emotions aside, what really sets Frankel and Pletcher apart is their ability and willingness to train far flung strings of 180 - 220 horses at different locations.
Not many trainers, certainly like the ones you mentioned--Drysdale, Shug, Barclay Tagg and many others--have any inclination to run the old Team Lukas type operation. Of course there are many trainers out there who would like as many horses as they can get their hands on, but their ability does not warrant it.
There are a lot of advantages created by mere volume. From a wagering standpoint, for all of the advantages they have or are taking, Frankel, Pletcher and Dutrow still lose races at a 70%+ clip, which makes the game very bettable.
Richiebee makes a relevent point. On Derby Day there was a segment on television devoted to Pletcher. He has 100 employees and has to spend 2 1/2 hrs. every day in a meeting with the person who handles his paperwork etc.
A lot of trainers just wouldn\'t be able to handle the aggravation.
Miff-- I agree with a lot of that, and my point about AA was that we don\'t know, and should. We shouldn\'t have to guess, and a detention barn would go a long way towards solving the problem.
What Bloodline and BallyAche are missing is this-- we\'re not saying these guys are suspect because they are successful. We are saying it because we are seeing repeated logic defying move-ups by the same trainers in FIGURE terms. It\'s simply not reasonable to think that so many older horses can all of a sudden made to run MUCH faster than they ever have before, by the same people over and over.
I have used this example several times before-- in the spring/summer of 01, Frankel\'s entire barn, which consisted almost exclusively of older horses, moved forward to 3 to 4 point new tops, all at the same time. The chance of one horse doing it is small, the chance of a few too insignificant to measure. The chance of a whole barn? You tell me.
I\'m not sure where the truth lies in all of this, but here\'s a devil\'s advocate point of view on the supertrainers:
Some of you have suggested that trainers with past success who seem to be clean (i.e . Mott, McGaughey) are no longer winning because they have taken the high road and decided not to cheat, not because their training skills have eroded. The implication being, of course, that the more successful trainers are not much better horsemen, but are cheating.
But let\'s look at the NFL for some interesting parallels.Chuck Noll won four Super Bowls in less than a decade as coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers. After that, he seemed to have a lot less success. Did he forget how to coach? How come his team didn\'t perform well after 1979? Maybe his coaching skills DID erode, or he was no longer able to relate to the players. (Interestingly enough, and counter to my argument, some have recently stated that those Steelers teams won so much because they were ahead of everyone else on steroid use!) Don Shula also had remarkable success in the 1970s and early 1980s. But by the 1990s, his critics claimed that the game had passed him by. Did he suddenly forget how to coach? I don\'t know, but isn\'t it a reasonable possibility?
Now let\'s look at the modern era of the NFL. Bill Belichick has guided the Patriots to win 3 of the last 4 championships, in an era when many Super Bowl teams don\'t even make the playoffs the following season. Everyone hails him as a genius, head and shoulders above his fellow coaches. No one, to my knowledge, has accused him of cheating. So if Bell Belichick can coach that much better than his peers, isn\'t it possible that Frankel or Pletcher may train that much better than theirs?
Would anyone have taken a bet in early 2001 that any team (that wasn\'t the Rams) would win 3 of the next 4 Super Bowls? Probably not, but it happened....Bill Belichick did suddenly improve his performance, maybe Frankel did too.
Post Edited (05-19-05 14:04)
Clark,
You are right on the mark with your comments and JB is correct in that you should submit this post as a letter to the editor at one or more of the major, national racing publications.
As far as what we, the horseplayers, can do about it...I submit that a good, old-fashioned boycott would be a good place to start.
As all seasoned and disgruntled horseplayers know, without us there IS no game.
Take away the wagering dollars and there will be no million dollar yearlings sold in Kentucky every year.
There will be no Todd Pletchers and Nick Zitos with their barns full of million dollars babies,
AND there will be no BC or TC campaigns with thier million dollar purses.
United we stand, divided we fall.
You are the \"U\" in the union.
Solidarity forever!
Personally, I haven\'t wagered on a horse race since last years BC and the outcome of this years KD has only reinforced my opinion that I made the correct six months ago.
If the players feel this strongly about the current state of affairs in racing then it is time to step up to the plate and take a stand!
Or else, Jeff Mulins REALLY is right!
DLF-- Again, we are not talking about winning, which can be a function of lots of things. We are talking about making horses run much faster overnight.
From the Lone Star Notes in the Fri DRF:
\"The Texas Racing Commission staff on Wednesday began discussing ways to refine testing procedures for alkalizing agents after some horses have tested positive for bicarbonates during the current program, which is being used solely to collect data...
Blood samples are drawn from every starter in two randomly selected races each card, but not labeled. Changing that protocol, however, along with other aspects of the test, is being discussed...
\'At this point, we\'re looking at what changes need to be made with the investigatory testing protocol to gather additional information to help us determine the appropriate regulatory response,\' said Flowerday\".
Here\'s a thought-- label the damn samples. And test all the horses.
IMO Jerry couldn\'t have picked a better example. He\'s been around for years and years but he hasn\'t been on top for years and years. Seems to me he used to be known for winning turf races on the West Coast, often with imported horses. Certainly he was no factor in the glamour 3 yr. old races.
Pletcher, I wouldn\'t be surprised. But I\'m not at all sure about Dutrow. His father was a helluva trainer, for those old enough to remember. So it\'s in his genes and he learned from a master.
My point is, if we were each to make up a list they wouldn\'t be identical by any means and it doesn\'t seem fair to paint them all with the same brush.
If, as LV Horseplayer suggests, we were to organize a boycott that would be a wonderful thing. But you know that\'s not going to happen. We really are taken for granted and we really are looked down upon.
I can tell you this for sure. I\'d jump at the chance to take an IQ test against Bobby Frankel or Nick Zito just to name a couple.
TGJB,
I understand and agree with your point of view about horses moving up quickly for some of these guys (especially older claiming horses). That\'s really the tipoff.
However, some of the horses they perform miracles on are held out of action for a couple of months before returning much improved. Often they are also somewhat lightly raced or had shown early potential, but got stopped by a problem. That suggests something else could be going on.
Some of the big move ups come when there is a trainer change from a guy that was clearly not among the elite to someone that is.
Still others are lightly raced well bred horses that move up in bursts.
Not to make excuses for crooks because I probably agree with you more than I disagree, but I tend to think it might be a mistake to assume the worst just about every time a horse improves sharply for a new barn.
There are obvious differences in skill among trainers. They have different resources, help, work ethic etc... . You can\'t overlook this stuff when trying to assess why a horse might have improved. I don\'t know a darn thing about veternarians, but I\'d guess there are also \"HONEST\" differences of skill in that department also.
It just seems to me that there\'s a middle ground between those that think the game is totally out of hand and those that know there\'s a problem, but think it\'s not quite as bad as that.
Class said,
\"Not to make excuses for crooks because I probably agree with you more than I disagree, but I tend to think it might be a mistake to assume the worst just about every time a horse improves sharply for a new barn\"
Class,
OK,how do you account for several trainers who are moving up many, many horses for many many years? Horsemanship? I think the correct word is Horseshit!!
TGJB,
I\'ve been censored!!! Son of a $%^@!!
Miff-- believe it or not, the program does that automatically. But yeah, I probably would have anyway.
miff,
>OK,how do you account for several trainers who are moving up many, many horses for many many years? Horsemanship? I think the correct word is Horse$%^@!!<
I think there are trainers that are cheating, but I think the problem is wildly overrated here.
Post Edited (05-19-05 16:39)
JB,
To be honest, I find it impossible to feel strongly about either side of this argument. I am sure there are cheaters, but how many and how often is hard to tell from my perspective. I would certainly agree that as a figuremaker, you have a better view to the circumstantial evidence on a day to day basis. A question I do have is why I don\'t see the same level of concern from guys like Beyer and his group of figuremakers and the many racing guys that don\'t use either T-Graph or Sheets. I will give you that your figures are more accurate and useful, but the type of evidence you talk about should be apparent to Beyers and other racing columnists and handicappers.
I am not saying that NOBODY else talks about it, but the intensity and the certitude of the comments is stronger here than anywhere else.
Whoa there, Jimbo-- Andy not only feels strongly about the \"move-up\" question, he did a \"supertrainer\" discussion at the DRF Expo last year. He has written on the subject, but he has to deal with issues of libel and political correctness at the DRF. I have had direct personal conversations with Privman, Finley and many others about this-- I don\'t know anyone seriously involved in the GAME (and I don\'t include track operators and the old white guys in Kentucky in that group) who doesn\'t think this is a major issue. There is activity on many fronts about this right now, we\'ll see where it goes.
jimbo,
\"the type of evidence you talk about should be apparent to Beyers and other racing columnists and handicappers.\"
I know you didn\'t ask me, but I think it is apparent to them also. It\'s apparent to everyone. I think it\'s degree that is debateable.
There\'s a difference in perception about some of the move ups.
It\'s one thing to get a 6YO horse whose lifetime best was a 5 and turn him into a 0 ten days later.
It\'s another thing to take a 4YO trained by an incompetent that showed some promise at 3 but that went bad, send him to rich man\'s farm for 3 months where he got the best treatment and care available and bring him back to the races much improved.
These are the two extremes, but if you start with an extremely cynical view you wind up with an overrated view of the problem.
Post Edited (05-19-05 17:07)
\"Isn\'t it a well established fact (supported by Congressional testimony) that attempts years ago to hop horses were so unsuccessful that the tactic was abandoned and instead chalks were tranquilized and bet against?\"
I\'ll address that. I usually don\'t like to talk about such things, but I\'m bored. And the fixers know this already, so I\'m not giving them any help, (I hope)
1) It\'s a certainty when you stiff, hopping is not certain. It\'s easier to bet more and cash every time. Cash flow.
2) By getting the favorite out, you are stealing all the money bet on it, probably near 1/2 the pool (before takeout) in exotics. And you only have to touch one horse (or jockey, or both)
3) Stiff one, hop 1 or 2 , you can own the pool with very little risk.
4) Rinse and repeat.