I'm surprised this Crist article received no play here...

[PaceAdvantage]

In the DRF dated 9/16/2006, Steve Crist wrote a piece titled

Why trainers win more today


I thought it offered more than a few compelling arguments against the Super Trainer "vast conspiracy" theory that seems to abound these days....this board being no exception. Sure there are cheats, there always will be. That's not the point.

But rather then me try and re-invent the wheel, allow me to quote a few choice cuts from Mr. Crist's well researched take on the subject:

Let us start with the basic premise of the argument:
Today's most successful trainers are supposedly winning races at unnatural and unholy rates, unattainable by even the Hall of Fame horsemen of previous eras, thus proving that the game must not be on the level.

Crist attacks this theory with sniper-like precision, using various stats as ammo:So in 1985, the best trainers were winning at an 18-percent clip, and 20 years later they were winning at about a 23-percent clip. This is a statistically meaningful increase, but one additional win for every 20 starters is hardly a revolutionary change. Moreover, there are additional factors at work that may well account for the entire difference

Those factors being:

Reduction in field size from 9.03 starters in 1985 to 8.17 in 2005
Today's leading trainers run at many more tracks than their 1985 equivalents did.
Today's top stakes trainers have their choice of more and better horses than their 1985 equivalents did.
To expand on some of these factors:So on average field size alone, yesteryear's 18-percent trainer is today's 20-percent trainer.

Today's claiming powerhouses, such as Steve Asmussen, Scott Lake, and Cole Norman, each started horses at more than 20 tracks in 2005, whereas 1985's claiming-win leaders mostly dominated a single oval or circuit. It is, of course, easier to find winning spots when you're choosing from six cards of racing a day rather than one.

In 1985, Charlie Whittingham won at a 14.66-percent clip and Woody Stephens won at a 20.23-percent clip, figures that are cited to prove that today's 25-percent trainers must be using rocket fuel to exceed such immortals. Stephens and Whittingham, however, raced most of their principal owners' homebreds and had many stalls occupied by horses they knew would never amount to much. Today, a Todd Pletcher gets the cream of dozens of owners' homebreds and sales purchases and has few hopeless cases in his shedrow.

Comments?

[cato]

The article uses Steve Asmussen, Scott Lake, and Cole Norman, as examples -- haven't all of them been suspended in the last few years for postive test results (i.e., horse with illega substances in their systems)?

[Valuist]

The article uses Steve Asmussen, Scott Lake, and Cole Norman, as examples -- haven't all of them been suspended in the last few years for postive test results (i.e., horse with illega substances in their systems)?

Yes they have.

And no, I don't think Crist's argument holds much water (or any other liquified substance :D ). Why does the fact that today's trainers run at more tracks help their winning percentage? They have more horses to keep track of, have to hire more help, etc. Yet the percentages are higher.......really makes no sense.

[ryesteve]

Those are all legit arguments, but I think what gets people all hyped up is not win%, but rather the way some trainers manage to get amazing improvement out of their new acquisitions. But even so, this is hardly a new phenomenon either. There have always been trainers like this. The good thing nowadays is that simulcasting offers so many betting opportunities, it's no big deal to pass a race, rather than guess whether or not a certain trainer will be performing magic with a recent claim. Back in the old days when you could only bet the races that were being run live, if you decided to pass every race that included a recent Oscar Barerra claim, you'd end up losing a big chunk of available races.

[PaceAdvantage]

Why does the fact that today's trainers run at more tracks help their winning percentage?

As Crist himself says:

It is, of course, easier to find winning spots when you're choosing from six cards of racing a day rather than one.

This doesn't make sense to you?

[Pace Cap'n]

Surely the balance of his argument is more well-founded than the attempt at basic math in his first postulation:

So in 1985, the best trainers were winning at an 18-percent clip, and 20 years later they were winning at about a 23-percent clip. This is a statistically meaningful increase, but one additional win for every 20 starters is hardly a revolutionary change. Moreover, there are additional factors at work that may well account for the entire difference

Assume that the 18% is derived from 18 winners out of 100 starters. Add 20 starters with 5 more wins and figure the percentage. 23/120 = 19.16%.

Sheesh.

[BillW]

Surely the balance of his argument is more well-founded than the attempt at basic math in his first postulation:

So in 1985, the best trainers were winning at an 18-percent clip, and 20 years later they were winning at about a 23-percent clip. This is a statistically meaningful increase, but one additional win for every 20 starters is hardly a revolutionary change. Moreover, there are additional factors at work that may well account for the entire difference

Assume that the 18% is derived from 18 winners out of 100 starters. Add 20 starters with 5 more wins and figure the percentage. 23/120 = 19.16%.

Sheesh.

But if you add one additional win for every 20 starters you get 23%. 18% is 3.6 wins per 20 starts and 4.6 wins per 20 starts is 23%

[DrugSalvastore]

What he writes in that article is hardly surprising.



It's sad to hear about the shocking "non-racing related" deaths of both the 2005 Horse of the Year and best dirt router of last year (Saint Liam) and the 2005 Champion sprinter and best dirt sprinter of last year (Lost in the Fog) I'm just glad that no one has been irresponsible enough to speculate that these two horses, who both raced for "move-up" trainers, may not have been as purely unlucky from a health standpoint as it seems.

Hopefully they didn't eat the same "bad grass" that Pletcher trained Freedom's Daughter, Left Bank, and Warners all eat after gigantic wins at the 2002 Saratoga meeting. Two of them died shortly after. The other got very sick and died a few months later.

Anyway....

No one who is savvy thinks about long-term win percentage when you talk about trainers who have a suspicious edge over other trainers. The three key things to focus on are....


* #1 Magical hot streaks trainers go on-

Like Pat Byrne (w/ Allday as his vet) going 17-14-3-0 at the 1997 KEE Spring meet, or Frank Passero winning 14 straight races at Gulfstream Park with a string he brought down from Canada.

* #2 Trainers consistantly moving up horses dramatically..as if touched by a magic wand.

Like Rick Dutrow Jr. (who is nearly 50% off the claim over the last year and a half.) makes a habit of doing. His three stable stars last year (Saint Liam, Silver Train, and Sis City) were all horses he magically turned around once he got his hands on them. Think about Jeff Mullins, winning three consecutive Santa Anita Derbies with horses no one took seriously at all before he got his hands on them. Look at some of the numerous mind-boggling move-ups trainer Scott Lake has with speed sprinters. The latest being Outcashem, who has crossed the wire first in 16 of his last 17 races since Lake claimed him, including 8 stakes wins. However, the "move-up" of the year title seems certain to go to Fleet Indian, who has improved impossibly since transferring to Pletcher.

* #3 Trainers producing sustained positive ROI statistics that defy everything.

You have a trio of trainers at Charles Town right now, who are profitable in virtually every single statistical category from a rather large sample size. You have a five-some of trainers in No. Cal who have ROI numbers that you have to see to believe...and from massive sample sizes!

It should be noted that Todd Pletcher, Rick Dutrow Jr., and Steve Assmussen (three of the top four eclipse award vote getters in '05) all had recent bad tests for Mepivicaine.

Until Jose Canseco wrote his book...no one took people who claimed that ballplayers are cheating that seriously.

I'm not saying trainers are using illegal drugs to gain an edge over "clean" trainers. However, it is impossible to ignore that certain trainers seem to have an alarming edge over everyone else.

IMO, this was not one of Crist's better articles. But, maybe I'm just bitter because his wife beat me by about 15 shots in a game of putt-putt at Saratoga over the summer.

[DrugSalvastore]

Below are a pair of priceless quotes from a Matt Hegarty article about Asmussen's bad test....

* This one is great...Asmussen claims they administered the wrong illegal drugs.

"Indeed, Asmussen testified that he had actually asked the veterinarian to administer two other medications but not mepivacaine itself. The other medications are also illegal, although far less potent than mepivacaine, and Asmussen said he did not know they were illegal. His testimony was contradicted by the veterinarians, who said that Asmussen never asked for the other drugs and that they would never administer them on race day. Yet, according to records produced at the June 23 hearing, the two medications were billed to No End in Sight's owner, Bill Heiligbrodt."


* The following quote is the stuff of legend...

"It's undescribably upsetting," Asmussen said. "I have a very good career going here and would not jeopardize it over a drug that is so obvious and so easy to detect."

However, I assume he would have no problem jeopardizing it over a drug that is not obvious and nearly impossible to detect?

Anyway...here is the link to this story.

http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=77686&subs=0&arc=1

[cj]

Not one of his better efforts. Where is the mention of the 30 point Beyer move ups?

[JustRalph]

Where is the mention of the 30 point Beyer move ups?


Which trainer? Mullins?

[cj]

Which trainer? Mullins?

Not Mullins, I would have said 40!

Seriously, the list is too long, I'd hate to slight anyone and not include them. The guys are pretty obvious by now on most circuits.

[DrugSalvastore]

I'm sure CJ was referring to more trainers than just Mullins. If I had to venture a guess, I would bet that Scott Lake holds the all-time record for most move-up's of 20 points or more...and virtually all with front-running spritners off-the-claim.

Speaking of top horses who were "move-ups"


Lava Man, the king of Southern California, would improve his Beyer figure to a new 16 point lifetime top in his first start off the claim for Doug O' Neill. That race came in career start #14. So, it wasn't like Lava Man was real lightly raced or anything.

If people don't remember, O'Neill claimed him out of a turf race at Del Mar for $50,000 (he got beat four lengths in it) and ran him back thirty days later in the Pamona Derby Trial at Fairplex.

Lava Man was 0-for-5 lifetime on dirt coming into the race, went off at 10/1 odds, and romped by over six lengths under a moderate hand ride. Obviously he was a brand new horse for O'Neill.

And, as far as trainers go, Doug O'Neill is an absolute saint compared to some of the guys in the game.

[speculus]

I find Crist's logic weird to say the least.

Being a gambler himself, Crist should know that in this game, for any professional--whether it's jockey, trainer or a professional gambler--the strike rate (win percentate) will always come DOWN with MORE action. It's never the other way around.

[aaron]

It must have been a slow day at the form,because Crist can't really believe that the super trainers don't exsist. Also,what he fails to mention is that super trainers exsisted in 1985 and the situation has gotten worse in the last 20 years.I have heard him handicap races and refer to these trainers as a must use on his ticket.
Trainers have been trying to get an edge forever.If you go back 30-40 years you'll probably find some trainers who were very well known moving horses up very suspiciously.
The reason the situation has gotten worse in NY probably stems from the legalization of lasix.Another thing NYRA can take credit for.If you trace NY racing before lasix and after,its my guess you'll find more super trainers after lasix was legalized.

[ryesteve]

The reason the situation has gotten worse in NY probably stems from the legalization of lasix.Another thing NYRA can take credit for.
Can you clarify that? I could've sworn that during the time when the legalization of Lasix was sweeping the country, NYRA was one of the last holdouts. If you're going to blame them for finally giving in, that's an awfully long reach just to find something else to criticize them for.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I heard somewhere Coke and "horse" (herion) was used many years ago by trainers for horses. So is doping up horses brand new?
I would like to see more discussion on advantages bigger trainers have over smaller ones- like the funds to claim horses at will, not just when an owner makes a window of opportunity; like affording better or more constant use of legal drugs, ultrasouynd and other equiptment, alternative treatments, better care during off-track layups, maybe being able to give a racer more layoff time, having a good first-call rider, working horses in compay, putting more than 1 horse in a race.
Seems to me if I was a trainer and could track a good horse and be able to claim at just the correct moment, do a good exam of it, work it in company, give it acupunture or good legal supplements, and either pick my spot or ship to a nearby circuit that has more selections on turf or a deeper or firmer track, I may prefer that to having a small string and feel the pressure to put it in a race with "good enough" conditions, find a decent jockey willing to ride it, and hope it does not get claimed away.

[aaron]

rye steve,
You are correct NYRA was one of the last holdouts.They never should have allowed lasix in NY.The reason they allowed lasix was to increase field size.I don't believe lasix increased field size.As is the case with most racing jurisidictions,they don't have the sense to do the right thing.They are basically a gutless organization who are controlled by politicians.
All these ill conceived moves by racing in the last 30 years has led to the downfall of racing.

[Valuist]

As Crist himself says:



This doesn't make sense to you?

Theoretically it does. But then they've got to make shipping arrangements, which isn't always easy at the last minute. And for claiming horses, which is what most of what Lake and Asmussen train, there isn't much margin for error.

[Valuist]

Below are a pair of priceless quotes from a Matt Hegarty article about Asmussen's bad test....

* This one is great...Asmussen claims they administered the wrong illegal drugs.

"Indeed, Asmussen testified that he had actually asked the veterinarian to administer two other medications but not mepivacaine itself. The other medications are also illegal, although far less potent than mepivacaine, and Asmussen said he did not know they were illegal. His testimony was contradicted by the veterinarians, who said that Asmussen never asked for the other drugs and that they would never administer them on race day. Yet, according to records produced at the June 23 hearing, the two medications were billed to No End in Sight's owner, Bill Heiligbrodt."


* The following quote is the stuff of legend...

"It's undescribably upsetting," Asmussen said. "I have a very good career going here and would not jeopardize it over a drug that is so obvious and so easy to detect."

However, I assume he would have no problem jeopardizing it over a drug that is not obvious and nearly impossible to detect?

Anyway...here is the link to this story.

http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NID=77686&subs=0&arc=1

I've been tracking how horses run in their first race after leaving the barns of certain trainers. So far, I've got 40 horses who were claimed away from Asmussen. NOT ONE of them won their first start for their new barn.

Those quotes are priceless.

[PaceAdvantage]

It must have been a slow day at the form,because Crist can't really believe that the super trainers don't exsist.

Where in the piece does it state that super trainers don't exist? I think the point of the article was to show other reasonable and verifiable explanations for what may appear to be an epidemic to some out there when people point to the high winning percentages of modern day trainers.

Like DrugS said, what Crist writes isn't all that surprising, thus it must have merit for some of the perceived "Super Trainer" cases out there....

For instance, take a guy like Todd Pletcher. I've talked to some folks who deal with this guy on an every day basis, and what I've been told is that he makes sure every 't' is crossed and every 'i' is dotted when it comes to his horses and correct jurisdictional procedure, thus I have a very hard time believing that he is screwing around and intentionally administering illegal race day medications....

Ya'll can talk all you want about Freedom's Daughter, Left Bank, and Warners, but you know what? Sometimes nasty freaky shit happens in this world....

[DJofSD]

Are there fewer tracks than there was 20 years ago? There are definetly fewer runners than then. I expect the number of trainers have gone down too.

So, in other words, when all factors are taken into account, the rise in the top trainers win percentages is actually even larger than at first glance.

[ryesteve]

rye steve,
You are correct NYRA was one of the last holdouts.They never should have allowed lasix in NY.The reason they allowed lasix was to increase field size.
Technically, you're right... but you can't maintain a viable product with 2 and 3 horse fields. You need to find a different drum to beat on. They had no choice. Eventually, no one would've run their horses in NY.

[aaron]

Todd Pletcher was a Lukas assisitant,PA.Every trainer is trying to get an edge.For us to believe,he is doing this without help from the vets is nieve.
When Easy Goer went to the derby,he was put on lasix for the 1st time,not because he necessarily needed it,but because the trainer didn't want any other horse to have an advantage over his horse.
Most trainers are not rocket scientists,thus they have to look for any advatage that is there.
The more resources available,the bigger the advantage.
One question I have about Pletcher is why do his horses generally decline at 3 and 4,if they last that long.

[BIG49010]

What people fail to realize is that training and vets have advanced in the last 20 years. The trainers that are on the cutting edge, are the guys that are at 25-30%, the lagards that don't know about new bleeder medications, stomach problems, etc... are low hanging fruit for the guys that do. These so called "Super Trainers" also have systems in place with good people to attend to all the little details of training a large volume of horses. If you have read articles about Pletcher, he is a very detail oriented, and the statistics support that. You have owners that don't want to pay the big vet bills and training bills, and you have others that want to win at any cost, and they move their horses to the better trainers. If anything the percentages are going to get better for the "supers", and the lagards will be out of the game.

As a handicapper, if you don't pay attention, you are missing out on the keys to the kingdom.

[twindouble]

Not one of his better efforts. Where is the mention of the 30 point Beyer move ups?

Good point cj. If you all believe in your speed figures, there's no way 5 and 6yo horses will improve 10 legnths over their best, young maturing horses yes but when they throw out a monster race and you never see anything close to it again the flag goes up. I get no pleasure infering cheating but one would have to be fool not to be aware it right along. Like I said many times handicapping the thieves is part of the game, always has been. I think Crist is using stats to make a point, sounds good for the game though. I still think overall the game is reasonably honest otherwise we all would go by the wayside with our handicapping.

T.D.

[ezpace]

and books like, "how to bet exotics",plagarizing

many with content others have used years ago.

He proves his ignorance with the "six cards to choose from comment"

many like him write on gambling and know nothing about the animals.

or buisness.

They think horses are machines that can run at any track and that the trainers know

exdatly where to place them. What a goof. Reality is when they are large trainers with many clients

they have to produce with a lot of heat from owners and a lot of expenses at many tracks.

They need an edge getting to big,, so they use DOPE as per Assmussens admittance.

Super TODD has the green light anywhere. Assmussen made the mistake

of leaving KY , TX and going to LA. to steal pots... nope isn't gong to happen in cajun country for long..not an outsider anyway.

LA. is the place when some trainer wants to ship in a GIANT against

mediocre LA. company in a cheap stake race ...they tell them when they call in the entry .."make sure and bring your own security guard".....

Christ needs to wallow in his gambling,,making sure gamblers pay up for racing data and writing on those subjects changing others content.for his books.

[DrugSalvastore]

Christ needs to wallow in his gambling,,making sure gamblers pay up for racing data and writing on those subjects changing others content.for his books.

Is that anyway to talk about our lord and savior??

[ezpace]

"game resonably honest" somebody said.??? HAR . Those days are over because of NO dope enforcement. Maybe an Occasional hand slap sometimes.

I enjoy big days still .buttafter many years of owning some racing stock and breeding stock ((my passion)

the people who run racetracks can SHOVE IT....they ruined it.

Refuse to do what others do to win races or compete against them.

[the little guy]

Is that anyway to talk about our lord and savior??


Compared to the rest of his post that was only a minorly stupid mistake.

[DrugSalvastore]

Well, when the title of the post reads...


Christ dreams up selling $5 forms.....


You shouldn't exactly expect anything rationale to follow....unless of course the poster happens to be Pat Robertson...or someone else who talks with our lord on a nightly basis.

[KingChas]

rye steve,
You are correct NYRA was one of the last holdouts.They never should have allowed lasix in NY.The reason they allowed lasix was to increase field size.

If I recall correctly the problem arose moreso with the Triple Crown.Some trainers were concerned about their 3 yr olds that had been running on lasix for the first two legs now had to go off it for the first time at the Belmont.I can't recollect the trainer or horse that started this possible boycott threat of the Belmont. But I think it was back in the early 90's.Perhaps Summer Squall/Unbridled time? :confused:Correct me if I'm wrong .Just recall some T.C. trainers comments at that time.Felt his horse was at risk.

[the little guy]

It's probably Alysheba as he was on lasix as a 3YO and couldn't use it in the Belmont....and lost.

The interesting thing is that they ran him without lasix as a 4YO and, of course, he had a great year.

[maxwell]

Trainers today will ship to Timbucktoo Downs if it looks like they have the upper hand and the purse is worth the effort. Slots at many locales makes it an easy choice.

The more horses one has, the more races to exploit.

[classhandicapper]

I think there's some legitimacy to Crist's case, but he obviously ignored the consistent big move ups by some horses for specific trainers.

I'm in the middle on this whole issue.

1. I feel 100% certain that some trainers, assitant trainers, grooms, vets, etc... are not only more competent, but have access to better facilities, equipment, etc.. Also, some owners are more patient etc.... So it's no surprise to me that horses often move forward or backward after changing barns. I've been seeing that kind of thing since I first started playing horses in the 70s. If a new and better trainer gets a horse, lays him off for several months, and he comes back much better, what's the shock?

2. I am close to 100% convinced that the one skill that the very best trainers have that is WILDLY underappreciated by many handicappers (but not everyone because it's often reflected on the odds board quite well) is that their horses are much more likely to hold their form and run a good race. Some may attribute that to drugs, but I think they also recognize when their horses are not doing well and stop. That skill automatically translates into a higher win percentage. Just to make up some numbers, if the typical favorite runs a total dud 33% of the time, the very best trainers' horses throw in a dud less often, that makes them "live to win" that much more often and translates into a higher win percentage.

3. The best trainers have more skill at evaluating their own horses' ability. That allows them to spot their horses better. Just look at the way Pletcher spots his various strings around the country very effectively relative to their ability.

4. The best trainers get the best stock. The best stock is much more likely to continue developing over time and win more often.

All that said, there are still big moves forward by some horses after only a very short period of time with a new trainer. That's obviously very suspicious.

It's also highly suspicious when a formerly mediocre trainer or one with very little experience with horses suddenly turns into a super trainer. It's doubly suspicious if after the first positive the trainer turns back into a dud!

I think there's a lot of cheating going on, but I think it's somewhat overblown by some people that are actually making excuses for their lack of handicapping success and/or lack of understanding of the role of the trainer in the outcome. Cheating has been going on since at least the 70s. So nothing is new. I don't have that much experience on the backstretch, but I saw enough in my brief work experience to know that not all trainers are equal.

[Valuist]

2. I am close to 100% convinced that the one skill that the very best trainers have that is WILDLY underappreciated by many handicappers (but not everyone because it's often reflected on the odds board quite well) is that their horses are much more likely to hold their form and run a good race. Some may attribute that to drugs, but I think they also recognize when their horses are not doing well and stop. That skill automatically translates into a higher win percentage. Just to make up some numbers, if the typical favorite runs a total dud 33% of the time, the very best trainers' horses throw in a dud less often, that makes them "live to win" that much more often and translates into a higher win percentage.


I think there's a lot of cheating going on, but I think it's somewhat overblown by some people that are actually making excuses for their lack of handicapping success and/or lack of understanding of the role of the trainer in the outcome. Cheating has been going on since at least the 70s. So nothing is new. I don't have that much experience on the backstretch, but I saw enough in my brief work experience to know that not all trainers are equal.

I agree cheating has been going on for years; its nothing new. I do think the top trainers are also in a better position to buy the top of the line feed and the expensive legal and illegal drugs that the smaller trainer can't afford. Maybe they pay their help better so they get better assistants and grooms.

One guy who I was suspicious about before but I think might be legit is Tom Amoss. If you listen to this guy on The Works, he is extremely knowledgable. He absolutely "schooled" Gary Stevens during Derby week.

[PaceAdvantage]

I think there's some legitimacy to Crist's case, but he obviously ignored the consistent big move ups by some horses for specific trainers.

I'm not so sure he ignored it as much as it's a separate issue, in my opinion.

All Crist was doing was addressing the frequently heard comment that many more trainers today are winning at a higher percentage rate than even hall of fame guys from 20+ years ago, thus "proving" that the game is fixed. He offered legitimate reasons why this may be so.

Big move ups are a whole other ball of wax, and don't necessarily go hand in hand with high percentage winners (is Pletcher considered a big move up trainer?....no....)

[ponyplayerdotca]

This is a minor detail that has always bothered me (and may or may not offer something to this discussion on trainers).

I've never agreed with the idea of allowing a super trainer to have several different teams of assistants at several different racetracks and being allowed to have his or her name appear as the trainer of record.

My small example (insert appropriate names for your local track of similar instance):

Last year, Bobby Frankel sent a crop of horses to Woodbine here in Toronto for Stronach Stable. Local assistant trainer Bryan Lynch was in charge of all of them. Mr. Frankel has rarely ever been to Woodbine, and could not have possibly overseen day-to-day training of these horses (regardless of touching base via cell phone or not). Yet, he was listed as the trainer of record, including his nationwide training stats and percentages.

To me, that's not accurate (or fair) to the horseplayer. The trainer of record was really Bryan Lynch. He oversaw the local caretaking of the animals daily in the barn. He's the one who saddled them in the paddock and sent them out to race. He should have been listed as the trainer with his own training stats and percentages showing in the sheets. The stats wouldn't have been influenced by the many other divisions Frankel had nationwide.

I don't think that the Lukas', Pletchers', Lakes', and Asmussens' of this world should be allowed to become as big as they are. I know that's not reality and it will never change. But it's just another factor of deception we as players are forced to deal with every time we want to play the game.

Any thoughts? :ThmbUp: :ThmbDown:

[delayjf]

I may be wrong, but I believe that Jack VanBerg was the first "Super Trainer", in that he had stables full of horses at several tracks at one time, often leading the trainer standing at several tracks at once.

Lukas was the heir apparent in the 80's and dominated many tracks at the same time as well.

I think Crist makes some valid points with regards to field size. I can see how guys like Lukas, Moss, Fletcher, and Frankel can become dominate trainers, look at the Owners that filled their stables - Lukas - Overbrook, Stein,Lewises, Moss-Paulson, Frankel-Moss-Juddmont, Stonach- Fletcher - Where to begin
These guys are getting a lot of good horses.

I am however dubvious as to the reasons for the success of the Super Claiming trainers like - Asmussen, Lake, Mullins - these guys are not getting superior stock from mult-millionaire owners / stables.

Obviously Crist and Beyer disagree on this issue.

[twindouble]

I may be wrong, but I believe that Jack VanBerg was the first "Super Trainer", in that he had stables full of horses at several tracks at one time, often leading the trainer standing at several tracks at once.

Lukas was the heir apparent in the 80's and dominated many tracks at the same time as well.

I think Crist makes some valid points with regards to field size. I can see how guys like Lukas, Moss, Fletcher, and Frankel can become dominate trainers, look at the Owners that filled their stables - Lukas - Overbrook, Stein,Lewises, Moss-Paulson, Frankel-Moss-Juddmont, Stonach- Fletcher - Where to begin
These guys are getting a lot of good horses.

I am however dubvious as to the reasons for the success of the Super Claiming trainers like - Asmussen, Lake, Mullins - these guys are not getting superior stock from mult-millionaire owners / stables.

Obviously Crist and Beyer disagree on this issue.

I agree with Beyer, primarily because the form reversals are way beyond normal with some of those trainers.

T.D.

[DrugSalvastore]

(is Pletcher considered a big move up trainer?....no....)

Actually, the vast majority of bettors I talk with seem to think he is.

In my opinion, he doesn't get enough horses transfered to him, however, after the job he has done with Fleet Indian this year...I'm certainly not going to argue with anyone who wants to label him as a move-up trainer.

You just aren't supposed to improve consistent mares the way Pletcher has improved this NY bred mare.

[JustRalph]

You just aren't supposed to improve consistent mares the way Pletcher has improved this NY bred mare.

and he is sending 30-40 horses to Hollywood park.........this should be interesting............

[Tom]

I posted a long time ago my concern about 5-6 year old horses posting new tops, significant increases.

I am flexible, though - it might not be drugs. Might be magic.:rolleyes:

[DrugSalvastore]

Here are the PP's for Fleet Indian. Notice how she was an honest and very consistant performer during her pre-Pletcher career---however, since Pletcher got his hands on her, she's magically transformed into the clear-cut favorite in the Breeders Cup Distaff future book.

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/fleetindian.pdf

and her latest two races can be found with this link.

http://www.drf.com/row/watch_pps/of.pdf

Notice how she improved to a 10 point new lifetime top 1st time for Pletcher. And since that race she's four consecutive times between 16-to-26 points faster than her Pre-Pletcher lifetime top.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Here are the PP's for Fleet Indian. Notice how she was an honest and very consistant performer during her pre-Pletcher career---however, since Pletcher got his hands on her, she's magically transformed into the clear-cut favorite in the Breeders Cup Distaff future book.

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/fleetindian.pdf

and her latest two races can be found with this link.

http://www.drf.com/row/watch_pps/of.pdf

Notice how she improved to a 10 point new lifetime top 1st time for Pletcher. And since that race she's four consecutive times between 16-to-26 points faster than her Pre-Pletcher lifetime top.
____________
What stands out to me about Fleet Indian's record, besides the fact the he won stakes as a horse older than 3 yrs, is 2 things:
His out of the money races were 18 and over DRF variants, and the wins with Pletcher as well as his 80K win just before Pletcher got him was with lower variants; and that Pletcher's 2 wins at NYRA tracks were with fields of 4 and 5.
I assume the DEL wins were legit stakes, but is the horse being doped up, or is he matured and liking faster tracks at smaller tracks and smaller fields at NYRA tracks?
______________
Assistant trainers- when looking at the PP's I would like to know a trainer's PP at the track the race is on. I really never noticed if trainer's % covers all tracks or just the one.

[DrugSalvastore]

Kenwood,

Fleet Indian is a mare....and you really aren't convinced she's improved markedly since joining the Pletcher barn?

She was purchased to be a broodmare and was going to be retired, the new owner turned her over to Pletcher in an attempt to get some open blacktype on her resume.

Prior to Pletcher, with 12 starts under her belt, she had just a single NY bred stakes win with no seconds and no thirds in stakes of any kind. For a daughter of Indian Charlie, out of a winless Afleet mare--she wasn't worth that much as a broodmare prospect.

Since going to Pletcher, she's 5-for-5, with 5 stakes wins, 4 Graded Stakes wins, and she's now a Grade 1 winner. She's made over $1.1 million since joining Pletcher. She's won her last four stake races by a combined 30 lengths, and she's the clear-cut future book favorite for the Breeders Cup Distaff.

Her 112 Beyer is the highest dirt route figure run by a filly or mare all year long. Pretty impressive for a 5-year-old mare who never could top a 86 through the first 12 starts of her career.

Fleet Indian's previous trainer, Jimmy Toner, is not exactly a bum either. He trained 1999 eclipse award champion and Breeders Cup winner Soaring Softly. As well as other Grade 1 winners like Wonder Again, Flying Chevron, Memories Of Silver, and Tribulation.

[twindouble]

To bring up one example doesn't really tell the story, anyone can make a case pro or con as to why a horse improved, the horse had this problem or that problem that went unnoticed and so on, nothing gets settled. It was the frequency of these unusal form reversals that got my attention ESP with the older horses. To me it was an easy deduction to make that drugs were involved and that's proved out. Not much more to be said other than clean the mess up. Meanwhile take note as I did.

T.D.

[classhandicapper]

I'm not so sure he ignored it as much as it's a separate issue, in my opinion.

All Crist was doing was addressing the frequently heard comment that many more trainers today are winning at a higher percentage rate than even hall of fame guys from 20+ years ago, thus "proving" that the game is fixed. He offered legitimate reasons why this may be so.

Big move ups are a whole other ball of wax, and don't necessarily go hand in hand with high percentage winners (is Pletcher considered a big move up trainer?....no....)

Maybe I misread it, but I don't see why he would want to separate the issues even if they aren't the same thing. Most horseplayers see the super high win percentages and the move ups as part of the same problem - drugs.

[classhandicapper]

Here are the PP's for Fleet Indian. Notice how she was an honest and very consistant performer during her pre-Pletcher career---however, since Pletcher got his hands on her, she's magically transformed into the clear-cut favorite in the Breeders Cup Distaff future book.

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/fleetindian.pdf

and her latest two races can be found with this link.

http://www.drf.com/row/watch_pps/of.pdf

Notice how she improved to a 10 point new lifetime top 1st time for Pletcher. And since that race she's four consecutive times between 16-to-26 points faster than her Pre-Pletcher lifetime top.

While remaining neutral on the reason, I just want to point out that her rapid improvement came after a layoff. To me, that is more logical than a 10 day miracle. With all due respect to her former trainer, he's not Todd Pletcher.

I don't know the steroid rules, but I am very curious about that.

[DrugSalvastore]

Steriods have always been legal. Winstrol, Equipoise, etc.

Someone who worked for Ken McPeak once told me that Pletcher cycles horses on Winstrol. However, so do a lot of trainers. Doug O' Neill talked candidly about using Winstrol on his horses in an article last year. I believe he had to scratch a horse he either shipped or was planing to ship to Japan because of it.

Pletcher's vet (Steve Allday) seems like the real magic man. He was with Pat Byrne when he had that insane 17-14-3-0 record at the '97 KEE Spring meet. Byrne also emphatically swept both Breeders Cup 2yo races that year with Countess Diana and Favorite Trick. The latter was actually named Horse of the Year over Skip Away. He was the first 2yo HoY since Secretarait. Both Countess Diana and Favorite Trick switched to Bill Mott next year, and had pretty modest years.

Allday has trainers besides Pletcher like Frankel, Dutrow Jr., Romans, McLaughlin.

I think we'd all love to see them go back to hay, oats, and water. That's not realistic.

[BIG49010]

Winstrol can make some real changes in a filly, I had a 5k claimer that couldn't out run a fatman, and she was running mid 70 and couldn't go past 7 furlongs, the vet put her on it, and she started running mid 90's on grass and won 3 Allowances in a run. She had tried the grass before the Winstrol and was nowhere to be found. She just carried herself differently. She was treated 1 or 2 times a month I think, I know you can burn a horse out on it also with too much use.

[Valuist]

To me, a move-up trainer is a claiming trainer. I can't remember the last time Pletcher claimed a horse. That's not to say he isn't capable of doing the same thing the magicians are; its just hard to point a finger at a trainer when he's been the only trainer for a particular horse.

[Valuist]

Steriods have always been legal. Winstrol, Equipoise, etc.

Someone who worked for Ken McPeak once told me that Pletcher cycles horses on Winstrol. However, so do a lot of trainers. Doug O' Neill talked candidly about using Winstrol on his horses in an article last year. I believe he had to scratch a horse he either shipped or was planing to ship to Japan because of it.

Pletcher's vet (Steve Allday) seems like the real magic man. He was with Pat Byrne when he had that insane 17-14-3-0 record at the '97 KEE Spring meet. Byrne also emphatically swept both Breeders Cup 2yo races that year with Countess Diana and Favorite Trick. The latter was actually named Horse of the Year over Skip Away. He was the first 2yo HoY since Secretarait. Both Countess Diana and Favorite Trick switched to Bill Mott next year, and had pretty modest years.

Allday has trainers besides Pletcher like Frankel, Dutrow Jr., Romans, McLaughlin.

I think we'd all love to see them go back to hay, oats, and water. That's not realistic.

If I remember correctly, Byrne's run extended into the CD meet. I thought he had a 15 race winning streak. And this was right after Passero had a similar winning streak at Gulfstream that winter. In any event, Stronach decided to make Byrne his main trainer and Byrne lost both 2YO champs. Favorite Trick and Countess Diana were big disappointments in their 3YO seasons and Byrne didn't train that long for Frankie. You hear about trades where everybody wins? I think in this deal, everybody lost.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Kenwood,

Fleet Indian is a mare....and you really aren't convinced she's improved markedly since joining the Pletcher barn?

She was purchased to be a broodmare and was going to be retired, the new owner turned her over to Pletcher in an attempt to get some open blacktype on her resume.

Prior to Pletcher, with 12 starts under her belt, she had just a single NY bred stakes win with no seconds and no thirds in stakes of any kind. For a daughter of Indian Charlie, out of a winless Afleet mare--she wasn't worth that much as a broodmare prospect.

Since going to Pletcher, she's 5-for-5, with 5 stakes wins, 4 Graded Stakes wins, and she's now a Grade 1 winner. She's made over $1.1 million since joining Pletcher. She's won her last four stake races by a combined 30 lengths, and she's the clear-cut future book favorite for the Breeders Cup Distaff.

Her 112 Beyer is the highest dirt route figure run by a filly or mare all year long. Pretty impressive for a 5-year-old mare who never could top a 86 through the first 12 starts of her career.

Fleet Indian's previous trainer, Jimmy Toner, is not exactly a bum either. He trained 1999 eclipse award champion and Breeders Cup winner Soaring Softly. As well as other Grade 1 winners like Wonder Again, Flying Chevron, Memories Of Silver, and Tribulation.
________________
Sorry about the wrong sex!
Indian Charlie won a maiden, 2 allowances, 1 stakes at 3, and 3rd in a stakes, then retired with an injury.
In the SA Derby, Real Quiet gained 2 lengths on IC in the stretch and Baffert said he came out of the SA Derby "a little tired".
Sorry, I am not surprised that his Daughter lost a few young, did very well in Allowances young, then won on faster tracks with smaller fields. Sounds like what her daddy did! I still no reason to be surprised at the improvement.
I will check opn the 112 Beyers!

[kenwoodallpromos]

________________
Sorry about the wrong sex!
Indian Charlie won a maiden, 2 allowances, 1 stakes at 3, and 3rd in a stakes, then retired with an injury.
In the SA Derby, Real Quiet gained 2 lengths on IC in the stretch and Baffert said he came out of the SA Derby "a little tired".
Sorry, I am not surprised that his Daughter lost a few young, did very well in Allowances young, then won on faster tracks with smaller fields. Sounds like what her daddy did! I still no reason to be surprised at the improvement.
I will check on the 112 Beyers!
_______________
You will also note that in the 1st Iriquois race she stumbled, and was out 10 months, after which she had her worst record in mostly 7f sprints. Before Pletcher began racing her, she also was laid off. Perhaps just like Indian Charlie FI had a serious injury at 3; hard to blame her for not winning stakes in 2005 IMO.

[delayjf]

So is possible that the difference between the Supers and the others is the willingness to spend the required amount to get the steroids to build up the horse's physically. This would go along way to explaining why some trainers do well with lay-offs as steroids do take time to have their affect.

The thing about steroids is that they are illegal to administer within so many days of racing, BUT their effects don't go away over-night. I've also heard of trainers using creatine ( which is legal and can be purchase anywhere), which definately works in humans, but I'm not so sure how well it works in horses. Given the amount required for humans, you'd have to give about 4 times as much to a horse to get the same result - IF horses muscles react the same as humans.

[BlueShoe]

Do any of you East Coast guys remember Oscar Barrera,the brother of Laz,Laz of Affirmed fame?Oscar seemed to perform absolute feats of magic(?) when claiming a horse with so so form,moving him up and winning easily.Since this was before the days of coast to coast simulcasting,and Im in SoCal,my recolection is rather sketchy,but friends from New York have told tales about Oscar that seem to outdo the guys that we have been talking about.In an interview,Oscar was once reputed to have said that much of his success with new claims was due to his making needed equipment adjustments and changes.The howls of laughter were said to be heard in almost every racetrack that Oscar raced at.

[Tom]

Shifty Sheik! Ah, I remember him well. (His son ended up training at Finger Lakes- Oscar, not Shifty)

He used to claim a horse and run it back in two-three days.

The joke at OTB back then was a trainer goes to the track - he has a horse in the first. He looks in the program and sees it entered again in the seventh, but with Oscar as the trainer! :D