It doesn\'t cost a nickel to post on this board or some of the others in defense of Dutrow and other cheaters in the game.
It has also been posted that big scores are made by backing these crooks as a handicapping advantage.
It would be nice to see the opinions of all the people that have to pay feed and training bills and get beat by the criminals.
What about Mr. Brown who makes his living selling advice and seeing lots of his selections beat by cheaters.
People who condone cheating in racing should form their own web site and boast about their ill gotten gains among themselves.
rosewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It doesn\'t cost a nickel to post on this board or
> some of the others in defense of Dutrow and other
> cheaters in the game.
>
> It has also been posted that big scores are made
> by backing these crooks as a handicapping
> advantage.
>
> It would be nice to see the opinions of all the
> people that have to pay feed and training bills
> and get beat by the criminals.
>
> What about Mr. Brown who makes his living selling
> advice and seeing lots of his selections beat by
> cheaters.
>
> People who condone cheating in racing should form
> their own web site and boast about their ill
> gotten gains among themselves.
You seem to know quite a bit about Dutrow, so I have a question:
Other than the mepivacaine positives (two horses, one suspension), which Dutrow fought diligently and spent over $100K of his own money defending himself before he gave up, what other serious horse drugging violations does he have?
I only find trivial bute overages and ticky-tack Lasix stuff. What am I missing? Cobra venom? Elephant juice? WD-40? What?
Enlighten me, if you will, and please spare me all of the stuff about his \"character\" and his smoking pot years ago, and all of that other crap that has nothing to do with the \"cheater\" tag; I\'m asking for specific horse drugging violations that directly correlate to him being labeled a cheater.
Rick,
I don\'t know Rick Dutrow. I don\'t think WD-40 enhances performance. We are not talking about smoking dope or not wearing a seat belt.
(two horses,one positive) is enough for me.
Have a nice day.
rosewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (two horses,one positive) is enough for me.
Really?
If Dutrow is cheating as much as he is alleged to be, wouldn\'t he have more than one positive?
(Or is it your position that his horses are getting a pass at the spit box and other testing?)
Is he cheating now? I\'ll say no, because there is no evidence to support it. How would you answer that question, rosewood?
The problem with allegations that have no basis in proof is that they can be used against anybody...the old, \"So have you stopped beating your wife?\" trick.
Dutrow has one significant positive, ONE, that he fought and fought, until it became financially imprudent to continue to do so -- and as a result, tons of his detractors (like you) call him \"cheater\" and think that he has some \"magic bullet\" substance that NO ONE can detect.
If that were true, then the exact same allegations can be made against Mott, Clement, et al who consistently win more that others trainers: Guilty until proven Innocent. Is that where we are at in horse racing -- everybody that wins frequently is guilty?
And if you really feel that way -- why are you still betting on horses?
Slippery slope, IMO.
\"Assuming\" Dutrow is cheating, IMO he does it in way that makes it more difficult to make a case against him. He\'s constantly moving up horses, but it\'s almost always after a two or so month layoff and often with a horse that has had some problems or is coming from a much less successful barn. That\'s the kind of move up thing allows for the possibility of superior horsemanship, a superior vet, superior problem recognition, superior resources, legal drug enhancement (like steroids) etc...
It\'s the guys that take horses from other top notch horsemen and turn them around in a week that are easier to make a case against.
One thing I can tell you for certain is that most of the guys that do well on trainer changes do especially well with horses with good recent back figures that have recently gone bad. They seem to get them to recover their best form very quickly.
rosewood Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It doesn\'t cost a nickel to post on this board or
> some of the others in defense of Dutrow and other
> cheaters in the game.
>
> It has also been posted that big scores are made
> by backing these crooks as a handicapping
> advantage.
>
> It would be nice to see the opinions of all the
> people that have to pay feed and training bills
> and get beat by the criminals.
>
> What about Mr. Brown who makes his living selling
> advice and seeing lots of his selections beat by
> cheaters.
>
> People who condone cheating in racing should form
> their own web site and boast about their ill
> gotten gains among themselves.
I know I am not the only person to whom the posting above is directed, but I would like to make one thing absolutely clear if my earlier post today may have been misread -- I do not condone cheating in any way. It is absolutely deplorable and should be cracked down upon to the maximum extent.
Dutrow may very well be a cheater and he should be subjected to tough scrutiny and punishments if he does not withstand the scrutiny. His personality -- no matter what one thinks of it -- has nothing to do with the fact that he should face the full force of the law if he is breaking it. In terms of whether or not he is breaking the law, I strongly suspect he is, but I am not expert enough to be able to say that with certainty.
If you are suggesting that people -- without any inside information whatsoever -- who cash bets on horses trained by likely cheaters are themselves cheaters, then that is simply crazy. Anybody who won on Big Brown is sitting on ill gotten gains?
Sir,
I would not attack you or anyone else personally. Maybe using Dutrow in particular was not a good way to vent my frustation and I should have just gone out and kicked the dog instead.
Just pick anyone of the 15 or 20 trainers that JB mentioned and insert that name in place of Dutrow.
I have no desire to get in a pissin contest with anyone and probably should have or could have made a better presentation.
BB is a fast horse with bad feet and I did not bet him before the TC and have played against him in the Derby and Preakness partly due to his trainer, which is my choice.
He bet me in the Derby and I was a big enough winner in the Preakness to be positive for the first two. It is not sour grapes. Looking forward to the Preakness if he runs.
Regards
Kicked the dog? What the @$#&^*? Is that an expression? Jeez! One I\'ve never heard before!
Rosewood. Betting \"AT\" trainers and jockeys is ALWAYS a losing proposition. You can not win in this game betting with a fistful of resentments. Tried it. Doesn\'t work. I used to bet football that way too. Never panned out.
Instead of kicking the dog, why not take him for a nice long walk. Drop by the butcher shop and get him a nice big bone. It will make you feel better about things and make the dog happy:-)
Rosewood is not really a dog kicker,just suffering from lack of a good thesaurus. Uncle Buck, I think you\'re right, keep your friend\'s close and your enemies closer, to coin a phrase (for lack of imagination) I definitely would like to know about numbers and trends in trainers and jocks that have legit or not so legit reasons. Knowledge is power! I did it again- these one liners keep coming- I\'d better stop now...
Time for a beer to go with the barbeque-Have a good Memorial Day!
Ok, we\'re sold. Dutrow is honest and wins races on oats and hay. We get it. He\'s dominating thoroughbred racing on oats, hay and water.
He\'s just out-training everyone, its clear as crystal.
remmember the days of dutrow claiming horses and running them back 3 days later and running big figures? makes you wonder
I have no direct evidence, but my observation has been that some of his move-ups off the claim (or after a training change) are ridiculous. I sit out any race that has a Dutrow horse first-time after a layoff because I have no idea what to expect. I am sure that there are those here who can give you exact statistics. I can only tell you what I see with my own eyes.
Imallin,
No trainer is dominating racing.It\'s not just hay and oats.Tricky is one of the modern day trainers pushing right up against the illegal line,crossing it occasionally, when legal stuff does not pass a horses system when normally expected,like Asmussen and app 20 others.There is so much legal stuff that guys are loading these horses up with steroids/super jugs et al and zoom!
Much stiffer penalties, for purposely crossing the line type offenses, are needed with big monetary fines.
Still, no one caught with the magic bullet YET and maybe never will be if the testing doesn\'t catch up with the illegal designer stuff out there.Money for testing is nowhere near what the drug testing people are asking.Many of the empty management suits that you hear barking about drugs and racing reform are the same ones who have underfunded the testing side for years.
Mon Guy,
Tricky was app 32% off the 1st time trainer change angle.Their are a few others in that range.Speaking of trainers, is Catalano giving his horses virgin olive oil or pasta, winning at somewhere near 70% at Arlington.
Mike
Thanks.
>Speaking of trainers, is Catalano giving his horses virgin olive oil or pasta, winning at somewhere near 70% at Arlington. <
What is this some kind of version of the equine Zone Diet? ;-)
THere is something to be said for olive oil, fish oil etc.... My entire digestive system improved massively when I started supplementing. Maybe his horses are more regular, have fewer cramps, and no longer get indigestion, heartburn, and acid reflux on race day. ;-)
kfach,
Regarding Catalano at Arlington. He\'s always claiming for Frank Calabrese. He claims for 10K and runs him right back down your throat at 10K, or brings \'em back for 7500.00 I can give you more specifics, if you\'re interested.
Raw numbers on Catalano on first time off the claim:
Last 30 days 6 claims, 4 wins;
Last 90 days 13 claims 7 wins;
Last 6 months 20 claims 11 wins;
Last Year 83 claims 32 wins;
Last 2 years 163 claims 55 wins.
He\'s a minimum 34% in all claim categories, and his ITM % is right at 70%.
I\'ll do something this afternoon of Dick Dutrow, Scott Lake, Tom Amoss, Bruce Levine, Steve Krebs. Just overview type stuff, nothing in-depth.
If you compare Catalano\'s numbers on the first time off the claim, versus the first time he takes over on a training switch, he\'s even higher percentage.
Last 30 days 4 takeovers, 3 wins, 100% ITM;
Last 90 days 12 takeovers, 8 wins, 92% ITM;
Last 6 months 17 takeovers, 10 wins, 82% ITM;
Last Year 34 takeovers, 19 wins, 82% ITM,
Last 2 years 58 takeovers, 26 wins, 79% ITM.
Catalano is obviously one guy you want to be careful playing against in most spots on a trainer change. He is, however, a guy you can play Pick 3\'s and Pick 4\'s with if you like others in the sandwich races with attractive odds.
Just an observation.
How would Gary Contessa compares to Dutrow, Lake, Levine et al?
Smalltimer,
Thanks for those stats. I am not that familiar with Catalano.
If you used Formulator to gather those stats, let me warn you about one thing. If a trainer is suspended and the horse is temporarily listed under the assitant, it counts the return to the primary trainer as a trainer switch. That has a tendency to make the trainer switch stats worse than the claim stats because it really isn\'t a favorable barn switch. It isn\'t a barn switch at all. If you are going to look at that category, you are going to have to look at the details.
I have found that more often than not move up trainers do better with claims than other trainer switches (large scale barn switches) anyway.
My theory on that is that when they claim a horse they are making an \"active decision\" to take a horse. So they must often see something in the specific horse that the current barn is not exploiting, a problem that the current barn does not notice or know how to cope with, a problem it knows will be positively impacted by whatever else they are doing (legal and/or illegal) etc.... That makes the probability of a move up greater. When horses are moved into a barn in a more random broader way, they still often move up, but not with the same frequency or to the same degree. Of course there are no hard fast rules, but I think that\'s a reasonable assumption if you don\'t have the data to study.
Some barns can afford to give Gastroguard, give Lubrisyn, have painful joints injected, float sharp points off teeth, work horses on lasix, and feed enough with good supplements.
Alot of lower level claiming barns can\'t afford the bells and whistles for the horses. Some horses are not even getting fed enough, nor even getting good quality feed.
No, not trying to \"explain away\" moveups, but realize that they can occur because the horse does move to a better barn, that does see and fix all the little things preventing best performance.
And no, I wouldn\'t expect the above husbandry changes to magically work in three days (exception sore joint injected)
In Catalano\'s case, these were primarily horses running at Tampa Bay and owned by Frank Calabrese, they were then moved to Catalano in Chicago. So, the numbers I use are correct.
This is just an overview. If I\'m making a play, its based on multi-year research.
Thanks for the input
Sight
It\'s definitely happening in NY.Several sharp claiming outfits,with deep pockets, are taking horses and tapping joints et al to get a few good races out of their claims. Many of these horses move up with this type of overhaul and should not be confused with the move ups from \"stuff\" which is being used.The problem is distinguishing who is doing what.
Mike
Mike,
I most definitely agree with this. Two of my horses recently switched barns as we were concerned about a lack of attention by the previous trainer. I am going to leave out the names of both trainers but they are both names that we all know very well. The new trainer is definitely considered a \"move up\" trainer.
We had been told by the previous trainer that both horses were \"ready to run.\" The new trainer took 2 days to evaluate both horses and completely shut one down and started all over again with the other.
The first one went back to jogging for 30 days because of a splint that was flaring up which would have impacted his performance in the next race and/or soundess coming out of the next race. He won\'t run for another 2 months.
The second horse got a shoe change and several trips to the chiroprator and after a month with the new trainer is moving better than ever and is scheduled for a race in June. We will see how he runs but it is clear that he is moving better in the mornings than he was before the barn switch.
Long story not so short, I absolutely believe there are legit move-ups. As you say, it\'s not always so easy to figure out which ones are legit and which ones aren\'t.
29Pearls Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How would Gary Contessa compares to Dutrow, Lake,
> Levine et al?
29--
They will all have to pay admission to enter the Racing Hall of Fame.
Uncle Buck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rosewood. Betting \"AT\" trainers and jockeys is
> ALWAYS a losing proposition. You can not win in
> this game betting with a fistful of resentments.
> Tried it. Doesn\'t work. I used to bet football
> that way too. Never panned out.
>
>In other words when races give you Lemons....Make Lemonade...
There is, of course, an answer to this entire mess, and I predict that before too long it will come to pass. It is elitest, but so what?
People for whom the sport of horse racing matters the most will form their own private league, with a commissioner and rules. Those invited to join will be selected for their integrity. Those that break the rules will be kicked out. Because it will be a private club, due process will be less of an issue. This is the ONLY way control can be wrested from the crooks.
QuotePeople for whom the sport of horse racing matters the most will form their own private league, with a commissioner and rules. Those invited to join will be selected for their integrity. Those that break the rules will be kicked out. Because it will be a private club, due process will be less of an issue.
?? The Jockey Club, etc. have been around for decades. Horse racing has always been the acme of private club and individual fiefdom.
then why play?
what keeps these guys in? if i cant keep up i quit, simple. lots of other ways to make money.
Play turf races. You don\'t see many of these guys dominating racing on the grass because it requires actual training skill.
Take a look at the super trainers winning percentages on dirt versus turf. Look at the guys who win consistently on the grass (Clement, Mott, Motion, Tagg, Shugs) ...clean, right?
Why? Because turf racing is all about late speed. Don\'t you find it curious that a large percentage of the move up horses these fakes \"train\" all have early speed?
THE GRASS IS ALWAYS GREENER!!!!
Good Luck,
Joe B.
You\'re getting warmer...
That\'s an interesting concept considering Clemente, Mott, Motion, Shug and Tagg are collectively 792 wins in 3,940 starts (20.1% Win) over the last 2 years.
Not including the fact that ALL 5 trainers show a negative ROI in turf races.
Clement -0.36, Mott -0.26, Motion -0.12, Shug -0.05, Tagg -0.33.
He didn\'t advocate betting them blind. A negative ROI means nothing. Any competent player will filter those starters and obtain a positive ROI. Whats your point??
My point is, he makes no sense. Just arbitrarily says, \"play turf.\"
Doesn\'t say anything about filtering those starters to reach a positive ROI.
Besides, what is their collective differences when comparing their dirt numbers to their turf numbers?
And what % do those move up trainers have when comparing their dirt to their turf numbers? Just another general statement with no info to back it up. It\'s just more sour grapes from a player who has given up part of the game.
I\'m pretty sure that what he was saying is that since there are far fewer trainers who get move-ups on turf, those races are more likely to conform to regular handicapping principles. And he\'s right.
Smalltimer:
Clement-Mott $35 exacta today at Belmont. Not a bad ROI if you had it 50 times.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
Did you have it 50 times?
I\'m usually a person who does not respond to this blog, more of a reader as a fan of the sport and someone who has made what I consider to be good money since being introduced to the sheets. Smalltimer seems to be someone who likes to create controversy since joining the blog a few weeks ago. I have found that using the sheets I have made a lot more money on turf using the sheets since I started using the sheets, OPS Smile over Flag Down in the 97 Manhattan. I agree there is less games played on the grass than on the dirt. As for the poly issues as with everything else I will adapt as I love the sport and they could be running on asphalt around Fenway Park and I would follow it. Some of us follow the sport because we love it as a place to enjoy our spare time. Ive been to every Belmont since 78, Derby since 82 and Preakness since 85 and there is no greater sport. So as Jerry pointed out on an earlier posting in the last week or so go back to talking figures or get off the page so us fans who want valuable info, get it and not the BS everyone else is bringing.
$100 box. Some days I\'m smart, most days I\'m not.
Good Luck,
Joe B.
It\'s funny how people play this game so differently. Some people avoid races with \"move up\" trainers and others consider them a bread and butter part of their game.
When I open my DRF, the first thing I do is look for all the favorable trainer changes to see if there are any prospects for a bet. After that, I start looking at some details of the horses\' ability, competition, figures etc... Over the last 3 years, trainer changes have been among my most profitable plays.
kfach,
I confess, that\'s exactly what I do. When I find something real strong I generally know I\'m playing the horse in that race its just a matter of how I want to play it. I\'m rarely gonna look a gift horse in the mouth, especially at strong odds.