Defending the indefensible

[Track Phantom]

I was part of a conversation elsewhere about the sensational win percentage by Wayne Catalano and Frank Calebrese at Arlington Park. For those of you not following it, Catalano is winning at a 72% clip to the start of the Arlington Meet (20 starters) and is winning at about 45% for the entire year.

What I find intriguing is how so many dedicated players rush to the defense of these "super" trainers when it is completely obvious to a rational person that they are doing something outside of the rules to obtain these percentages.

In my opinion, given the uncontrollable variables (weather, horse showing up dull, disinterested, traffic problems, bad rides, on and on) it is highly unlikely someone could win at over 30% while being totally legitimate, not to mention winning over 70%.

I started handicapping in May of 1986 at the age of 17. By end of June I had read a lot of the required reading to be a handicapper. Over the next few years, I immerssed myself into the game. I probably read and analyzed most every days racing form from '87 to '92. I do not ever remember trainers winning at such high numbers. In 1980, the leading trainer won 25% of his starts. Bill Mott has never won more than 24% in a single season.

Somewhere around the early to mid '90's, the term, "supertrainer" emerged. Andy Beyer wrote..."We have to deal with the fact that certain trainers may become the central factor in a race and render irrelevant conventional handicapping methods". This is one of the most disturbing things about the game today and has pushed away many dedicated players I used to discuss horse racing with.

It would appear that we are far beyond the accusation standpoint. Because we rely so heavily on statistics, it is fairly easy to see a trend that is atypical. Because these supertrainers win with claimers, and often claimers they just purchased days earlier, it makes it impossible to believe their horsemanship had anything to do with their miraculous turnaround.

I understand the desire of dedicated horse players to defend such monumental training feats. The failure to do so would be accepting that rampant cheating occurs and the thousands of hours of pouring over a racing form would seem foolish. Analyzing generations of breeding in a horse's pedigree or whether the outside post hurt his chances in the previous start would mean very little if all that was needed was a simple injection or concoction for a horse to win at any distance, level or surface.

So, as horeplayers, what are our options?
1. Cover your ears and scream out loud "There is no cheating"

2. Accept the fact that cheating occurs and try to use it in your handicapping

3. Let it bother you and affect the person you are outside of horse racing (if you exist outside of horse racing)

4. Find every opportunity to bring to light the issue in hopes the faint chant will be heard by an organization that can hold horse racing accountable for their lack of governance

5. Walk away from the game

I don't know what the answers are. However, I can tell you that at one point or another, I've done all of the above. There might be a #6, though. That is to walk away from the game...for good. That one I obviously have not done yet. But if there was ever something that could force me from this game forever, it is this issue.

[Imriledup]

I guess the moral of the story is that you are allowed to win (as a trainer) but just don't win too much.

The horseplayers aren't going to know who cheats unless the racing commission actually catches them with physical evidence. Some may say the same about some of the trainers at Bay Meadows/Golden Gate and how their ridiculously high win (place and show) percentages scream that something is terribly wrong.

I'm not sure how the presence of a supertrainer (or more than one) can impact betting handle, but if the racetrack and judges believe it DOES impact betting handle for the good, what incentive would they have to rule said trainer off the grounds?

If a supertrainer has a barnful of horses, is extremely active in the claiming game and enters hundreds of horses into their races, that makes the field sizes larger and thus, betting handle goes up. Get rid of a trainer like this and you have less horses running in less races and that means, less betting handle. No incentive really to 'catch' this supertrainer doing anything wrong.

Its the same exact situation with Major League Baseball. When Sosa and McGuire were chasing down the ghosts of Maris, no one said a thing (even though both these guys looked like King Kong) because baseball was profiting. People were happy, people were buying merchandise, people were coming to the games, etc. Why rock the boat? In fact, if it wasn't for Jose Canseco feeling he was 'blackballed' out of baseball (when, in fact, the real reason was that he forgot how to hit) this stuff might still be going on today.

Does racing have a Jose Canseco who will come out and finger a handful of big name trainers and force racing to do something drastic?

Can racing or a state adopt a new rule that says if a trainer gets a drug positive, they can be arrested, jailed and prosecuted for tampering with a sporting contest? I bet these guys would be less likely to do anything if they knew they might be in jail as a racefixer, as opposed to getting a 30 day suspension and 5k fine instead for breaking a 'racing rule'.

Is doping a horse NOT racefixing? You can make a strong case that it is, right? Why then are the Asmussens, Pletchers and Biancone's not on their way to jail? No, they receive 6 month suspensions and let their assistant go on the program and run the barn by cellphone, while they play golf and lay on the beach sipping pina coladas. They never lose a horse and its back to business as usual 6 months or a year later.

These trainers will be seen holding babies or wishing mom a happy mothers day on TVG, but if you look deeper, you can see violation after violation.

To my knowledge, Roger Clemens never actually tested positive for Steroids and yet with one man's testimony, you have the entire nation tossing him under the bus. Sports talk radio and tv programs can't say the two words 'Roger Clemens' fast enough these days. If Roger Clemens was a horse trainer, he'd be done with his 6 months suspension and living the high life just like many of our top trainers in this country are doing.

Racing has no leadership and has to make drastic changes going forward if this sport is going to survive. The abuse of legal and illegal drugs is at an all time high. Every single runner (except Casino Drive ironically enough) has been treated with lasix. All people seem to care about is the bottom line, no one is really looking out for the horses. PETA might be screaming about Eight Belles, but where are they when these poor, cheap claimers are given the most powerful drugs known to man just to keep them on the track. When they can no longer race, they are tossed away like yesterday's newspaper.

If Eight Belles lives and retires, she gets treated like royalty, the 5k claimer who is pumped full of stuff that you don't want to even know about, gets no such love.

This is a very cruel, unforgiving game and not one for the faint of heart. Many people feel that artificial surfaces are the cureall, but those people are sadly mistaken. We need to clean this game up from the drug cheats before we can worry about installing artificial surfaces in every racetrack in America.

I don't follow Arlington at all, but i'm somewhat familiar with the exploits of the trainer mentioned at the top of the thread.

I dont' know if catalano is cheating or has ever used an illegal drug in his life but i'll ask you all this question:

If Catalano is doing all this stuff on oats, hay, good horsemanship, elbow grease and great placement, than why would anyone risk getting caught with EPO, Snake Venom, etc if you can win this many races on elbow grease, quaker oats and a bottle of fiji?

Is the moral of the story that you can win, but not too much?

I would hate it if Arlington was my home track. What do you do with Catalano 4-5 shots littering the races? You can't bet on OR against them, do you just skip those races?

I don't know the answer..... and even if i did, who would listen?

[john del riccio]

Is it possible for one of the database guru's to do the following:

Evaluate theperformance of the horse claimed by Catalano AFTER they are claimed away. This is the key to determining if he is, as the Beatles said,
"getting a little help from his friends".

You casn use whatever metric is easiest, class level, speed figures, money earned, it doesn't matter. Soundness issues aside, if a horse was competitive for 20 while in hi sbarn, but when it moved to another barn with a competant trainer, if they can't compete for 10, something is up.

John

[RichieP]

Very simple explanation. Mr. Calabrese and Mr. Catalano are Italian and feed their charges steady diets of Friselle and Zabaione.

I mean come on now. It really is that simple :liar:

[witchdoctor]

Very simple explanation. Mr. Calabrese and Mr. Catalano are Italian and feed their charges steady diets of Friselle and Zabaione.

I mean come on now. It really is that simple :liar:

I am going to have to get my trainer to do that. Got any good recipes? :ThmbUp:

[Cangamble]

Smart high percentage trainers who have help don't claim horses. There are at least a couple on the Ontario circuit right now. They have horses that walk very sore, jog very sore, but run very fast.

[PaceAdvantage]

May I humbly inquire as to the following:
What I find intriguing is how so many dedicated players rush to the defense of these "super" trainers when it is completely obvious to a rational person that they are doing something outside of the rules to obtain these percentages.Where exactly are you finding dedicated players rushing to defend super trainers? If you read this board, it's filled with players criticizing the system, accusing the trainers, and demanding change. Thus, I'm just curious as to where all these dedicated players are hiding out and defending "super" trainers.

It's funny you mention Bill Mott though, because he was suspended for an illegal race day medication positive. I suppose we should label him a cheat forever.

Same goes for Neil Drysdale on the west coast.

Perhaps in writing the above two sentences, it will be perceived that I have somehow rushed to defend "super" trainers?

[magwell]

I dont know drysdale but Bill Mott is a honest and good trainer, he would never do anything to hurt his horses, he is a complete horseman. {I know this as fact}

[PaceAdvantage]

I dont know drysdale but Bill Mott is a honest and good trainer, he would never do anything to hurt his horses, he is a complete horseman. {I know this as fact}And I have absolutely no reason to disagree with you. I was just pointing out that he was suspended because one of his horses tested positive for an illegal race-day medication, making the argument that "all trainers who ever tested positive are cheats" kind of awkward when you start bringing up guys like Mott and Drysdale who have also had horses test positive.

[Greyfox]

Get rid of a trainer like this and you have less horses running in less races and that means, less betting handle. ?

I don't buy this part of your logic. Get rid of a trainer like this and the horses are distributed to other trainers.

Until a trainer is caught, he's only a suspect. It is surprising that other trainers don't rebel and scratch out of races that these super trainers are in. Also these wise guys seem to stay ahead of the curve so to speak. Drug testing costs money. Many small venues cannot afford the tests on a continuous basis. However, if I where a steward at Arlington or wherever, I'd be going over these super trainers horses with a fine tooth comb.

In the meanwhile, I play the super trainer horses, like golf. Play them as they lie. It's not my job to out them. It's my role to play the ponies. If I'm going to make money then I have to use the supertrainers in my predictions. Unfortunately, their presence in a race often leads to very poor payouts so one has to often increase the amount of the bet as well. If you can find out the races that they are vulnerable in, you can get some pretty good hits.

[JustRalph]

Is it possible for one of the database guru's to do the following:

Evaluate theperformance of the horse claimed by Catalano AFTER they are claimed away. This is the key to determining if he is, as the Beatles said,
"getting a little help from his friends".

You casn use whatever metric is easiest, class level, speed figures, money earned, it doesn't matter. Soundness issues aside, if a horse was competitive for 20 while in hi sbarn, but when it moved to another barn with a competant trainer, if they can't compete for 10, something is up.

John

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*) (From Index File: C:\2007\apx_may2sept\pL_profile.txt)
Trainer: CATALANO W

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 410.20 379.60 397.40

Wins 74 107 139
Plays 196 196 196
PCT .3776 .5459 .7092

ROI 1.0464 0.9684 1.0138
Avg Mut 5.54 3.55 2.86

I just built a database on Arlington from 2007 April to Sept (the same meet they are in now) The numbers above are from that sample.

Here is this current meet:


Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*) (From Index File: C:\2008\apx\pL_profile.txt)
Trainer: CATALANO W

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 65.80 45.90 41.60
Bet -34.00 -34.00 -34.00
Gain 31.80 11.90 7.60

Wins 12 14 15
Plays 17 17 17
PCT .7059 .8235 .8824

ROI 1.9353 1.3500 1.2235
Avg Mut 5.48 3.28 2.77

To Tell you the truth, this is my first attempt at Database building and capping but in running the trainers through the Arlington Database When I first built this thing, I was pretty much floored by the Catalano win % at Arlington. * The formatting is a bitch, but I think you can figure it out. The numbers next to the word "wins" read like a toteboard. Win/Place/Show

I don't know what Mr. Catalano does, but he does it pretty well at Arlington. My numbers show him winning at over 70% right now, so far.

[Tom Barrister]

Is it possible for one of the database guru's to do the following:

Evaluate theperformance of the horse claimed by Catalano AFTER they are claimed away. This is the key to determining if he is, as the Beatles said,
"getting a little help from his friends".

You casn use whatever metric is easiest, class level, speed figures, money earned, it doesn't matter. Soundness issues aside, if a horse was competitive for 20 while in hi sbarn, but when it moved to another barn with a competant trainer, if they can't compete for 10, something is up.

John

I've done this already. To put it mildly, the percentage goes way down when the horse moves away from such as Catalano to the barn of Joe Mediocre.

Not all of that can be inferred to drugs. While some of the super-trainers might use drugs, the ones with tons of horses also must know how to handle their charges. Catalano didn't get the legions of horses that he has simply because he's supposedly clever at injecting something that the labs can't detect. He also knows how to train and place his horses. While it's pretty plain that drugs are in rampant misuse in the industry, crying foul every time an illogical horse wins is going too far in the other direction, in my opinion. The game does need to be cleaned up, but that's not the only reason (and possibly not a reason at all in some instances) that the good trainers win at the rate that they do.

[GameTheory]

It is also not just about "winning". Winning is the most conspicuous but the wrong metric. You can win at high rates with claimers simply by dropping them well below their true level. It is about performance and the horse showing capability for raw speed and/or endurance that the horse has not shown before and never does again once it has left that trainer.

[Imriledup]

I don't buy this part of your logic. Get rid of a trainer like this and the horses are distributed to other trainers.

Until a trainer is caught, he's only a suspect. It is surprising that other trainers don't rebel and scratch out of races that these super trainers are in. Also these wise guys seem to stay ahead of the curve so to speak. Drug testing costs money. Many small venues cannot afford the tests on a continuous basis. However, if I where a steward at Arlington or wherever, I'd be going over these super trainers horses with a fine tooth comb.

In the meanwhile, I play the super trainer horses, like golf. Play them as they lie. It's not my job to out them. It's my role to play the ponies. If I'm going to make money then I have to use the supertrainers in my predictions. Unfortunately, their presence in a race often leads to very poor payouts so one has to often increase the amount of the bet as well. If you can find out the races that they are vulnerable in, you can get some pretty good hits.

Personally, i would be willing to foot the bill for the drug tests on the trainers that i want tested. If my large bet gets beat by a horse i feel was drugged, i should have the option of paying the bill to have that horse supertested. I bet there are players and owners and other people in the game that would foot the bill to have certain people tested for every chemical known within the industry to be used.

If its about money, why doesn't the racing commission say, "it costs X dollars to run a successful test of a winning horse. Send in a money order and the name of the winning horse and we'll go forward with the test".

They can't complain about money if they don't ask for 'donations' to do these tests.

I'd be glad to foot the bill on a test or two on one of these 45% trainers that never seem to lose a race.

[john del riccio]

I've done this already. To put it mildly, the percentage goes way down when the horse moves away from such as Catalano to the barn of Joe Mediocre.

Not all of that can be inferred to drugs. While some of the super-trainers might use drugs, the ones with tons of horses also must know how to handle their charges. Catalano didn't get the legions of horses that he has simply because he's supposedly clever at injecting something that the labs can't detect. He also knows how to train and place his horses. While it's pretty plain that drugs are in rampant misuse in the industry, crying foul every time an illogical horse wins is going too far in the other direction, in my opinion. The game does need to be cleaned up, but that's not the only reason (and possibly not a reason at all in some instances) that the good trainers win at the rate that they do.

Tom,

I completely agree. The point I was trying to make and get some help in proving empirically is that horses should not fall apart after leaving a suspicious barn. If they are sound they shoul dbe able to compete at a level below what they have been or even two levels below, but I see many cases where they are well below that. Also, an older horse (6 yo & up) that run an
all time best at a distance and over a surface that they have competed over their whole careers is almost always a dead give away that the barn is playing games. This is less so WRT grass horses.

John

[Shenanigans]

And I have absolutely no reason to disagree with you. I was just pointing out that he was suspended because one of his horses tested positive for an illegal race-day medication, making the argument that "all trainers who ever tested positive are cheats" kind of awkward when you start bringing up guys like Mott and Drysdale who have also had horses test positive.

What was the drug he was nailed for? Was it an illegal drug or a race-day drug he went over on? There is no such thing as "illegal race-day medication". "Illegal" means "not ever to be used". "Race-day meds" are the ones allowed to be used on race day but only so much can be in the system. Then there is the "legal medication" that vets are allowed to administer, but the horse is not allowed to have it in the system come race day - not the same as illegal.

[startngate]

While I am not going to bury my head in the sand on drug use in racing, sometimes it really is just a trainer change that can improve a horse.

I'm dating myself here a bit, but here's a prime example from 1993 at Penn National.

Mario Benito was the far and away leading trainer at PN that year. He claimed a horse from Jonathan Shepherd out of an open $15,000 turf race that the horse won. Benito ran the horse back for $25k, got beat badly, then $20k, got beat badly again, then $15k and got beat badly once more.

After the $15k race, I overheard Benito's exchange with Shepherd's Asst. where Mario kidded with him for sticking him with a bad horse. Shepherd's Asst. asked him what he was doing to the horse between starts, and Mario responded with some training regiment of jogs, gallops and works. Shepherd's Asst. stopped him and told him to turn him out between races (Mario had a farm across the street). Mario told him he was nuts.

Horse gets entered back for $10k, and, you guessed it ... gets beat badly again. This time Shepherd claimed the horse back.

Horse runs back two weeks later for $25k and airs. Now, an irate Benito is screaming at Shepherd's Asst, who basically said "All we did was turn him out between races ... I told you so".

Both were excellent trainers, yet only one had figured out the "trick" to the horse.

And I don't believe Shepherd is a "super trainer" although he is very good with grass horses.

Still, a 70% clip is hard to accept as just being hay, oats and water.

[proximity]

penn national??

isn't that the place where you have boyfriend-girlfriend trainers both winning at 40%?? that is soap opera material.

maybe they are secretly training the horses by running them up and down the escalators from the casino to the "clubhouse."

i also don't hear too many players defending this stuff, but overall an excellent post valento.

[Greyfox]

Personally, i would be willing to foot the bill for the drug tests on the trainers that i want tested. If my large bet gets beat by a horse i feel was drugged, i should have the option of paying the bill to have that horse supertested. .

You are paying the bill. :jump:
You're just not paying high enough.;)

[Track Phantom]

....but that's not the only reason (and possibly not a reason at all in some instances) that the good trainers win at the rate that they do.

Major problem with your argument. Just like you cannot prove factually that drugs are the reason a horse wins, you also cannot prove that a trainer has won a single race without the use of illegal substances. At this point, it is all speculative.

I do remember one example that resonated with me for a long time. Cole Norman, one of the biggest violators to ever step foot onto a track, had a horse (forget the name) win a stakes race by 9 1/2 lengths. After the race, Norman was busted for a drug in this horse and the purse was revoked. When the horse came back about 4 weeks later, he faced virtually the same field and went off at 2-5. He lost by over 30 lengths and all but came to a walk in the stretch. He lost again by double digits in his next start, as well. Who really knows how these trainers would do without the drugs. I think it is really telling when a guy like Mullins goes into "detention" or whatever you call it, and he goes from winning 33% of his starts to winning 5% while being scrutinized. It happened.

[PaceAdvantage]

What was the drug he was nailed for? Was it an illegal drug or a race-day drug he went over on? There is no such thing as "illegal race-day medication". "Illegal" means "not ever to be used". "Race-day meds" are the ones allowed to be used on race day but only so much can be in the system. Then there is the "legal medication" that vets are allowed to administer, but the horse is not allowed to have it in the system come race day - not the same as illegal.By illegal race-day medication, I mean a drug that is not allowed to be present in the horse on the day that he competes in a race. It is illegal to be present on race day. Illegal does not necessarily mean "not ever to be used." Something can be easily termed illegal on race day, and legal during training.

For Mott, it was a local anaesthetic, lidocaine. Obviously, it is legal to use in training, but can't be present in the urine on race day.

For Drysdale, he got stung with a positive after winning the Hawthorne Derby in 2002. He was suspended 45 days and fined $2,500.

Both clenbuterol and promazine sulfoxide (tranq) were found in the post-race test. The claim by Drysdale was that the amount of the tranq found to be present would have been almost enough to prevent the horse from walking, let alone winning the race. Drysdale was granted a stay by a court of law, but I can't find any info on how the case ultimately wound up....

In any event, both these suspensions were the result of medication that can be given legally to the horse, but not on race day (or not above a certain threshold). Thus, it was illegal on race day.

However, does anyone draw any such distinctions anymore? It seems to me, once a trainer is pegged with a positive, that's it, he immediately moves into the realm of the "cheater." People don't usually take the time to make sure it was medication that is OK to use on "off days."

In fact, Dutrow is the poster-boy for cheating trainers....has he ever been nailed for a totally "illegal" substance in his horses? Not that I can find. That big 120 day suspension he served a few years ago was for clenbuterol and mepivacaine (another local anaesthetic), plus a claiming violation.

Given the fact that the vast majority of trainers who get busted for drug positives in their horses are getting nailed for medications that are legal every other day except race day, I'm not sure why you brought up this distinction in the first place.

[Shenanigans]

Because there are a few trainers who's names that have been mentioned that have been nailed for ILLEGAL drugs. I won't give any of those names due to "libel". :rolleyes:

[PaceAdvantage]

Because there are a few trainers who's names that have been mentioned that have been nailed for ILLEGAL drugs. I won't give any of those names due to "libel". :rolleyes:Well, if they have been nailed (and by nailed, I assume you mean suspended/ruled off and/or fined), then how could that be libel?

[Shenanigans]

[QUOTE=Valento]
I do remember one example that resonated with me for a long time. Cole Norman, one of the biggest violators to ever step foot onto a track, had a horse (forget the name) win a stakes race by 9 1/2 lengths. After the race, Norman was busted for a drug in this horse and the purse was revoked. QUOTE]

Um, Pace, I seem to remember the word "libel" being used with said trainer.

[FunkyMonkey]

[QUOTE= It seems to me, once a trainer is pegged with a positive, that's it, he immediately moves into the realm of the "cheater."

As it should be...it is your responsibility as the trainer to know what is going on...and a positive for whatever reason is against the rules thus by definition cheating...so, anybody who has ever had a positive test that has been upheld is a cheater...and, it is possible to be a "good horseman" AS WELL AS a cheater.

Let's be consistent and unambiguous in our use of the label...that would be a step forward as far as I see it.

[PaceAdvantage]

[QUOTE=Valento]
I do remember one example that resonated with me for a long time. Cole Norman, one of the biggest violators to ever step foot onto a track, had a horse (forget the name) win a stakes race by 9 1/2 lengths. After the race, Norman was busted for a drug in this horse and the purse was revoked. QUOTE]

Um, Pace, I seem to remember the word "libel" being used with said trainer.I know you're smarter than this, just from reading your posts here on the board.

Valento writes about a documented suspension and positive. How can that be libel? It happened. There is proof. There are articles written.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleindex/article.asp?id=36637

What you talked about regarding Norman was never documented (as far as I know), and I have no proof that what you are saying is true. That's the difference.

[jonnielu]

I was part of a conversation elsewhere about the sensational win percentage by Wayne Catalano and Frank Calebrese at Arlington Park. For those of you not following it, Catalano is winning at a 72% clip to the start of the Arlington Meet (20 starters) and is winning at about 45% for the entire year.

What I find intriguing is how so many dedicated players rush to the defense of these "super" trainers when it is completely obvious to a rational person that they are doing something outside of the rules to obtain these percentages.

In my opinion, given the uncontrollable variables (weather, horse showing up dull, disinterested, traffic problems, bad rides, on and on) it is highly unlikely someone could win at over 30% while being totally legitimate, not to mention winning over 70%.

I started handicapping in May of 1986 at the age of 17. By end of June I had read a lot of the required reading to be a handicapper. Over the next few years, I immerssed myself into the game. I probably read and analyzed most every days racing form from '87 to '92. I do not ever remember trainers winning at such high numbers. In 1980, the leading trainer won 25% of his starts. Bill Mott has never won more than 24% in a single season.

Somewhere around the early to mid '90's, the term, "supertrainer" emerged. Andy Beyer wrote..."We have to deal with the fact that certain trainers may become the central factor in a race and render irrelevant conventional handicapping methods". This is one of the most disturbing things about the game today and has pushed away many dedicated players I used to discuss horse racing with.

It would appear that we are far beyond the accusation standpoint. Because we rely so heavily on statistics, it is fairly easy to see a trend that is atypical. Because these supertrainers win with claimers, and often claimers they just purchased days earlier, it makes it impossible to believe their horsemanship had anything to do with their miraculous turnaround.

I understand the desire of dedicated horse players to defend such monumental training feats. The failure to do so would be accepting that rampant cheating occurs and the thousands of hours of pouring over a racing form would seem foolish. Analyzing generations of breeding in a horse's pedigree or whether the outside post hurt his chances in the previous start would mean very little if all that was needed was a simple injection or concoction for a horse to win at any distance, level or surface.

So, as horeplayers, what are our options?
1. Cover your ears and scream out loud "There is no cheating"

2. Accept the fact that cheating occurs and try to use it in your handicapping

3. Let it bother you and affect the person you are outside of horse racing (if you exist outside of horse racing)

4. Find every opportunity to bring to light the issue in hopes the faint chant will be heard by an organization that can hold horse racing accountable for their lack of governance

5. Walk away from the game

I don't know what the answers are. However, I can tell you that at one point or another, I've done all of the above. There might be a #6, though. That is to walk away from the game...for good. That one I obviously have not done yet. But if there was ever something that could force me from this game forever, it is this issue.

Spending thousands of hours pouring over a racing form is foolish, conventional handicapping methods have been irrelevant since before you started. What Catalano is pointing out is that you and many other handicappers are caught up in a lot of mythology that never was relevant in the first place.

If you and Beyer didn't know everything already, maybe you guys could discover something too.

I'd bet that Catalano claims a lot of horses from trainers that know everything about horseracing.

jdl

[proximity]

i know stephanie beattie must claim alot of horses from people who know everything about horseracing too.

[ryesteve]

What Catalano is pointing out is that you and many other handicappers are caught up in a lot of mythology that never was relevant in the first place.

If you and Beyer didn't know everything already, maybe you guys could discover something too.
Notwithstanding the unrequited man-crush you have on Andy Beyer, the method you use involves assigning a numerical value to a horse's performance as well. Are you seriously going to tell us that when a trainer such as Catalano claims a horse, your measuring stick shows no discernable change in performance?

[Suppositionist]

I’m no big fan of Catalano or Calabrese but few things to consider which to me point to the plausibility of them being legitimately successful.



First, if they did have an illegal way for getting a horse to run faster, would they be so blatant about using it? Seems to me that that would scream investigate me. I should think they’d use it more discretely and hit them at the windows. Most of their horses are prohibitive favorites and everyone knows when they are going to pop.



Secondly, these guys split-up a few years ago and neither did as well as when they were together. They reconciled last year, I think, and their barn has been on the up swing ever since. They went to GP this past winter and were very successful (30% win, I think) against some pretty decent east coast outfits. It stands to reason that an outfit that has been that successful against pretty stiff competition would tear up the Arlington contingent which consists in large part of mostly the trainers from Hawthorne. That’s no knock against the Hawthorne trainers talent, just that most aren’t as ambitious and or attracting the investment that Calabrese is willing to put up. That’s analogous to Zito or Romans bringing their “A” stock to AP. You’d expect them to do very well, wouldn’t you? I just think that Catalano may be a step ahead of pack when it comes to judging stock that will excel on poly, that would help explain it too.



Just some thoughts.



Course if they are guilty, hang em and hang em high.



S

[njcurveball]

I'd bet that Catalano claims a lot of horses from trainers that know everything about horseracing.

jdl

A few years ago Catalano came to Mountaineer and proceeded to win about 45% for the first 2 weeks. After that he won about 7 or 8% with mostly favorites and 2nd choices.

This years 45% trainer is next years "sample tested positive" suspended story. Arlington is run by a Mob mentality, ask no questions of people who cannot give the right answers. :jump:

[Track Phantom]

[QUOTE=Shenanigans]I know you're smarter than this, just from reading your posts here on the board.

Valento writes about a documented suspension and positive. How can that be libel? It happened. There is proof. There are articles written.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleindex/article.asp?id=36637

What you talked about regarding Norman was never documented (as far as I know), and I have no proof that what you are saying is true. That's the difference.

That's cool you find that article... looks like my memory is correct. Would love to see the PP's of Go Poppa Fooze and verify the horse stopped to a walk in the next start at low odds.

[PaceAdvantage]

Here's a question from someone who knows little about Catalano/Calabrese....do they tend to spot their horses in obvious races? Do they claim a horse and then drop him to a level where he looks highly competitive? Are they not afraid to lose horses if they think they can win?

[jonnielu]

A few years ago Catalano came to Mountaineer and proceeded to win about 45% for the first 2 weeks. After that he won about 7 or 8% with mostly favorites and 2nd choices.

This years 45% trainer is next years "sample tested positive" suspended story. Arlington is run by a Mob mentality, ask no questions of people who cannot give the right answers. :jump:

The handicapper's job is to find the ability, and then bet it.

The trainer's job is to find the ability and then hide it from everybody else.

Checking the results charts for any track in North America for any day tells me that one party is doing their job much better then the other party, still, after all of these years.

One thing that you never hear from the handicapper is that he might not be in tune with the realities of horse racing, while the trainer's might be.

jdl

[jma]

Here's a question from someone who knows little about Catalano/Calabrese....do they tend to spot their horses in obvious races? Do they claim a horse and then drop him to a level where he looks highly competitive? Are they not afraid to lose horses if they think they can win?

Yes. They frequently claim a horse for $10000 and run him for $5000 to win at 3-5. Calabrese's goal is to win the owner's title for most wins each year, and he does. They're definitely not afraid to lose a horse because they'll claim five more just like it. I have written about this in other threads, that I don't know if Catalano at Arlington is the best example of a "cheater" despite his high win percentages because he really does know how to spot horses and run them in their right spots. Again, not saying he's pure and honest, but trying to be fair.

[PaceAdvantage]

Thanks jma...that's kind of what I figured....

[Track Phantom]

Thought I'd bump this thread I started in 2008. I gave it a "re-read" and it's interesting that my thoughts haven't deviated a single iota in a dozen years (and probably were the same for the dozen years prior to this).

[PaceAdvantage]

https://i.imgflip.com/1c44mo.jpg

[cj]

Reading through again, funny and sad seeing the names Cole Norman and Stephanie Beattie.

[Track Phantom]

Reading through again, funny and sad seeing the names Cole Norman and Stephanie Beattie.
Agree 100%. It's sad in that the years go by, faces and names may change but the actions remain the same. That is the one reason I am not holding out much hope that the game will significantly change in the long-term. Once the FBI goes away, people will just be less cavalier in their actions. Maybe they won't be as blatantly obvious as Servis or Navarro but those at the top will remain there, I believe.

[NY BRED]

My understanding is the FBI has recordings from Servis to Navarro advising SGF-1000, a Performance enhancing drug was undetectable and responsible
for the impressive career of Maximum Security including his recent win in the
Saudi 20,000,000 race.

The fitting justice for this piece of filth (not really the right word),would be
for the FBI to ship this criminal to Saudi Arabia, and
see real justice done.

[cj]

My understanding is the FBI has recordings from Servis to Navarro advising SGF-1000, a Performance enhancing drug was undetectable and responsible
for the impressive career of Maximum Security including his recent win in the
Saudi 20,000,000 race.

The fitting justice for this piece of filth (not really the right word),would be
for the FBI to ship this criminal to Saudi Arabia, and
see real justice done.

Your understanding? It is literally in the indictments.

[big frank]

Mr Innocent Gary West has employed Catalano for many years ! West had no clue and is shocked that his trainers were using illegal drugs ! Yeah Right......Does he employ any trainers that run a clean game ????? no way jose-----------.West is full of shit !

[Tom]

Agree 100%. It's sad in that the years go by, faces and names may change but the actions remain the same. That is the one reason I am not holding out much hope that the game will significantly change in the long-term. Once the FBI goes away, people will just be less cavalier in their actions. Maybe they won't be as blatantly obvious as Servis or Navarro but those at the top will remain there, I believe.

Once the FBI goes away, it will be BAU.
Racing has proven it is incompetent in stopping these doppers so far. Just what NEW plan do they have to stop them in the future?

Racing's best bet is use COVID as an excuse to shut the side show down for a month and hope it blows away.

What will be different on May 1, 2020 than today?

Crickets......

[Tom]

Mr Innocent Gary West has employed Catalano for many years ! West had no clue and is shocked that his trainers were using illegal drugs ! Yeah Right......Does he employ any trainers that run a clean game ????? no way jose-----------.West is full of shit !

Looking back now, Mr A****** made such a fuss and whined and cried when he though HE was getting screwed.

Turn out, HIS horse the one doing the screwing.
Mr. Big Mouth apologized yet for being the singles biggest JERK of the TC this year?

Ban his arse for 10 years.
At lest ban his mouth.
Stinking cherter.

[proximity]

Reading through again, funny and sad seeing the names Cole Norman and Stephanie Beattie.

indeed wells and beattie were like the harry and meghan of the early racino era. if either percentage dared dip into the 30s it was a bear market. they were "ed bains" in every category!! low percentage connections looked on in awe from the gap; the steam rising from their coffee to meet the cool morning Grantville air as they shared laughs with this racing royalty over the plight of the hapless gambler. somewhere a dusty vox populi trophy stands as testament to it all.... :coffee:

[cj]

indeed wells and beattie were like the harry and meghan of the early racino era. if either percentage dared dip into the 30s it was a bear market. they were "ed bains" in every category!! low percentage connections looked on in awe from the gap; the steam rising from their coffee to meet the cool morning Grantville air as they shared laughs with this racing royalty over the plight of the hapless gambler. somewhere a dusty vox populi trophy stands as testament to it all.... :coffee:

Good old David Wells and Rapid Redux, of course owned by Robert L. Cole who has somehow escaped major scrutiny up to this point.

[proximity]

i always viewed those mid-atlantic starters as a waste of good racing form space but in hindsight I see that they did serve to protect the low percentage men from making bad claims and having to face the partners to explain 35 point beyer declines. keep everyone in the game longer!!

[clicknow]

Racing shouldn't even HAVE to rely on the FBI to ferret out and solve their problems with trainers playing russian roulette with horses and screwing the public and other honest trainers.

It would be like being in a dysfunctional marriage where 2 people are always fighting, and every time they have a fight they call the cops, which consumes resources. Then after the cops leave,they go right back at it again, requiring yet another intervention.

AGAIN, (ad nausem) get the Horse Racing Integrity Act enacted, which would put the USADA in charge of drugs & create uniformity in all states for rules & regulations.

Otherwise, leave the game if you expect to be treated honestly and fairly for the $$ you are spending in the sport. Or, I guess we could just keep whining for another 2 decades or so....if racing is still even around by then. Which it won't be if this crap continues.


FWIW, when the FBI went to Penn Nat. I never put another dime in their pocket. Not even $2. I'm not gonna finance their dysfunction.