Pletcher Comebackers

[TGJB]

Sightseek actually ran her tops in NY, and regardless ran at CD before they changed labs. The point is SA was dirt and she ran much worse there than on other dirt, as did a lot of other Frankel horses around that time (including relative to the other SoCal tracks), to the point where he started fewer horses there. We could all try to come up with guesses why SA would be a different situation-- I heard it suggested at the time by a top California racing writer that it was because his barn at SA was in plain view, not at the other tracks. But the point is that SOMETHING was different.

Considering that most Pletcher runners are first or second choice, 7 for 96 is statistically significant (I\'d love to see his ROI). It may be the lab, it may not, but it would be some kind of coincidence if not. No idea why it would be different at Keeneland, but you could say the same thing about Frankel at SA.

Some time when the statute of limitations has run out I\'ll tell you about the old Kentucky lab, and why they don\'t use it any more. It\'s a classic example of why it\'s important that drug tests get published, in detail.

[Caradoc]

I\'ll try hard to make this my final post on the topic.

1.  The introduction of Sightseek has nothing to do with the subject raised here, which is whether Pletcher had experienced a notable downturn in the performance of his Kentucky runners since the end of 2010.  Further, there was a dark suggestion in this thread that this supposed downturn had something to do with a change in labs required by the KHRC.  Anyway, you will note that Sightseek did run what was a top at Churchill in the spring of her 4yo campaign.

2.  Whether Pletcher runners are first or second choice has no relevance to the performance of those horses on your figures, which I assumed was the metric we should be using, the coin of this realm. If this is to be a serious conversation, then it would surely be more meaningful to look at the run-based performance of his runners for the periods we are discussing rather than to lazily conclude anything based solely on the winning percentage of his runners for a limited period of time at one track.

3.  Once again we are again not working off the same data.  What is the 7 for 96 statistic you now reference?  Do you mean Pletcher\'s 12 for 94 in Kentucky is 2012? If not, then what?

[TGJB]

7 for 60 2011 at CD, 0 for 36 2012. 7 for 96 at CD since the lab change.

I don\'t know whether we\'re set up to do a study that way, I\'ll make a mild inquiry but won\'t make anybody do any programming. If the guy sent out a lot of longshots the dropoff from 21 for 89 (2010) to 7 for 96 could be considering just an aberration. But if you say the guy figures to win around 20%, that\'s a pretty big dropoff oover a pretty big sample. A pure statistics guy could tell you more.

And again, it may or may not have anything to do with the lab, or being watched, or the presence/absense of his vet (Allday), or something else, as I said.

Finally, re \"dark suggestions,\" I KNOW what Allday admitted to (read--boasted about) to the Jockey Club Safety and Integrity committee (ironic, that) when I was working with them, some of it about work he did for Pletcher. You have no idea. And it was about the time period others are discussing on this thread, the time of Left Bank and others. I\'m not guessing.

[miff]

Capo Bastone empty for TAP in Spiral, must be the new lab in KY..... or maybe CB is the slow one paced garbage can he looked like going in.

[Eight Belles]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 7 for 60 2011 at CD, 0 for 36 2012. 7 for 96 at CD
> since the lab change.
>
> I don\'t know whether we\'re set up to do a study
> that way, I\'ll make a mild inquiry but won\'t make
> anybody do any programming. If the guy sent out a
> lot of longshots the dropoff from 21 for 89 (2010)
> to 7 for 96 could be considering just an
> aberration. But if you say the guy figures to win
> around 20%, that\'s a pretty big dropoff oover a
> pretty big sample. A pure statistics guy could
> tell you more.
>
> And again, it may or may not have anything to do
> with the lab, or being watched, or the
> presence/absense of his vet (Allday), or something
> else, as I said.
>
> Finally, re \"dark suggestions,\" I KNOW what Allday
> admitted to (read--boasted about) to the Jockey
> Club Safety and Integrity committee (ironic, that)
> when I was working with them, some of it about
> work he did for Pletcher. You have no idea. And it
> was about the time period others are discussing on
> this thread, the time of Left Bank and others. I\'m
> not guessing.

Why don\'t you consider going on the record/give details, TGJB?  From what you\'ve said, you obviously have to think that publicly airing this would be in the best interest of racing, so that\'d be in your favor.  If he were to sue, if you are correct, then it\'d open a big can of worms that he wouldn\'t want to open through the depositions (in other words, you\'d get the back-up and more even if no one wanted to had it not come to this).

[ajkreider]

Silsita didn\'t seem to mind the change of scenery.  

TAP\'s numbers at GP are great, but so are Maker\'s and Brown\'s.  Mott and Wolfson not that far back either.  Factoring in that he gets the pick of the litter (and jocks) every year, how remarkable is it?

[high roller]

Could be T.A.P. used the juice just on the Bourbon Oaks Winner in the prior race and not on Capo Bastone so as to throw the Lab guys off?

[Rick B.]

Eight Belles Wrote:

> Why don\'t you consider going on the record/give
> details, TGJB?  From what you\'ve said, you
> obviously have to think that publicly airing this
> would be in the best interest of racing, so that\'d
> be in your favor.  If he were to sue, if you are
> correct...

In most any scenario, TGJB would be opening himself up
to getting murdered on legal fees. I\'ll guess that he
VERY BADLY wants to spill the beans on this stuff, but
has been advised against it by his wise legal counsel.

[Rick B.]

high roller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Could be T.A.P. used the juice just on the Bourbon
> Oaks Winner in the prior race and not on Capo
> Bastone so as to throw the Lab guys off?

What is it these trainers give a horse like Capo
Bastone, that makes them stumble at the start and
lose all chance?  

[Eight Belles]

Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eight Belles Wrote:
>
> > Why don\'t you consider going on the record/give
> > details, TGJB?  From what you\'ve said, you
> > obviously have to think that publicly airing
> this
> > would be in the best interest of racing, so
> that\'d
> > be in your favor.  If he were to sue, if you
> are
> > correct...
>
> In most any scenario, TGJB would be opening
> himself up
> to getting murdered on legal fees. I\'ll guess that
> he
> VERY BADLY wants to spill the beans on this stuff,
> but
> has been advised against it by his wise legal
> counsel.


He\'d be protected if the truth is on his side.  As for the costs to get to the truth, I suspect that the vet would be advised by his wise legal counsel that deposing the people in that room wouldn\'t at all be what they would want to see happen.

But if we\'re still hesitant to go that route, then how about helping someone in the press to get the info?

[kekomi]

liver disease in horses, which is what both devil may care and uncle mo suffered from, even though it wasn\'t ever called that officially at the time (at least as far as i am aware), is caused by one of 5 things: consumption of a toxic substance, infection, non-infectious inflammation, a metabolic disorder, an obstruction, or idiopathic presentation (which means, no one has clue). in most cases the cause is never identified.

horses in the same barn would be likely to have the same exposure to various toxins and infectious diseases, so it wouldn\'t be that unlikely for one barn or even track to be hit hard--but if there had been a widespread problem in the TAP barn or at any of the tracks he stabled his horses, more than two horses would have gone down.

find a common denominator between devil may care and uncle mo, or conclude it was an unfortunate coincidence...FWIW my thought at the time was that it was from bad (i.e. tainted) blood or plasma transfusions, which would explain why it was limited to two horses--you can only transfuse with compatible blood, and horses have over 30 blood groups and 8 blood systems...but then again, my years with pro-cycling have made me see the tell tale signs of blood doping everywhere...was there an older horse in the TAP barn who hadn\'t raced in awhile that had heptitis at that time by chance? (the blood for a blood packing transfusions would ideally need to come from a horse that wasn\'t racing at the time, so the the blood would be oxygen rich--though they could just do what lance armstrong did and pull blood from mo and devil may care in the off season and store it till race day, but blood doesn\'t store well (which is why lance only raced once year for all practical purposes)... it can be frozen but that\'s a tricky and iffy process...just ask jesus manzano...)

since i\'ll never know the cause, the thing that bothered me the most about the whole affair was that liver enzyme tests only will indicate a problem once 60-70% of liver function has been lost. i took a lot of criticism elsewhere for upbraiding steve haskin for his cheerleading the return of uncle mo in the fall after mo\'s liver disease was announced--running that poor horse again was animal abuse--especially since i don\'t recall that they ran him lasix free, which means that his already impaired liver was stressed even more by forced dehydration.

if your curious here\'s the merck manual\'s entry on equine liver disease: http://www.merckmanuals.com/pethealth/horse_disorders_and_diseases/digestive_disorders_of_horses/disorders_of_the_liver_in_horses.html#v3218288

[jma11473]

As far as the ROI, the seven winners paid $87.80 in total (he had a couple nice ones in there). There are different ways of computing ROI but for the base $2 wager for 96 horses it\'s bet $192, return of $87.80.

I didn\'t find any other patterns except that Pletcher at CD was 2 for 3 at 4 1/2 furlongs. So, at all other distances he was 5 for 93; $186 bet, a return of $64.60.

[Caradoc]

You write that Pletcher\'s dropoff – such as it was - \"may or may not have anything to do with the lab . . .\"  It was your dark suggestion in this thread that the dropoff in Kentucky had something to do with the lab change.  After initially reciting his decline in performance in Kentucky since 2010 (since corrected to a decline at just CD) you wrote: "Kentucky changed labs in December 2010."  That was not an invitation for us to conclude that the supposed decline had something to do with the lab change?

Finally, you're right.  I have no idea what Allday admitted when he was before the Jockey Club Safety and Integrity Committee.  And since there is apparently no public record of that testimony apparently a lot of other people will never know either.  What I do know and what you should know also is that whatever he said has nothing to do with this discussion, unless Allday specifically testified about treating Pletcher horses who ran in the state of Kentucky since the end of 2010, including some explanation as to why results would differ at CD, but not at Keeneland.  Unless he did, any reference to his testimony is a red herring.

[miff]

Speaking of the devil, his Verranzano and Revolutionary just worked lights out at Palm Meadows according to one NY trainer there.

Verranzano still looking physically imposing.

[miff]

Kekomi,

Have been told that the practice of stacking is a possible culprit in liver disease.The thought being that the liver become over worked by having to process an inordinate amount of drugs.Stacking widely used in the game,still legal.

If Sight is out there, would ask her opinion.

Mike