Hambo Day

[markgoldie]

Fifteen race card. Two favorites won the entire day. Overall win % of favorites: 13.3%. The following favorites lost:

R1: Misterizi 1.90-1
R4: Shark Gesture 0.20-1
R5: Put On A Show 0.20-1
R6: Leader Of The Gang 0.40-1
R7: Noble Falcon 2.60-1
R8: Enough Talk 0.70-1
R9: Poof She's Gone 1.10-1
R10: Lucky Chucky 1.50-1
R11: Rock N Roll Heaven 0.30-1
R12: Vintage Master 1.10-1
R13: Dreamfair Eternal 1.40-1
R14: One More Laugh 0.60-1
R15: Vlos 2.40-1

Odds' on favorites winning: 2. Odds' on favorites losing 6. Win % 25.0

Non-odds' on favorites winning 0. Non-odds' on favorites losing 7. Win % 0.

ROI of betting all odds' on favorites: -65%.

ROI of betting all favorites: -81.33%

Weather and track conditions: In a word, "perfect."

These are the best horses, trained by the best trainers in the sport, and driven by the best drivers in the sport.

Any conclusions?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Hey Mark,

This doesn't really address your question directly, but I thought a lot of the favorites were bet down to ridiculously low prices. Maybe that was the big on-track crowd? The most egregious example, in my opinion, was Put On A Show in race 5. She warmed up dead lame (in pre-race warm-ups and in the post parade), but they still bet her down to 2/5. But I covered this in another thread. To address your question more directly, I know favs only won at a 13% rate, but the sample size is so small (one race card) that I don't think anything can be concluded. What do you think?

[markgoldie]

Hey Mark,

This doesn't really address your question directly, but I thought a lot of the favorites were bet down to ridiculously low prices. Maybe that was the big on-track crowd? The most egregious example, in my opinion, was Put On A Show in race 5. She warmed up dead lame (in pre-race warm-ups and in the post parade), but they still bet her down to 2/5. But I covered this in another thread. To address your question more directly, I know favs only won at a 13% rate, but the sample size is so small (one race card) that I don't think anything can be concluded. What do you think?
Well, I thought some might ascribe it to the detention barn quarantine necessary to enter these stakes.

But what I really think is a bit more complicated. This also ties into some comments from a different thread. The modern harness horse is becoming more and more like a thoroughbred every day. When I first saw a standardbred up close in the 1960's, they looked like glorified mules for the most part- shortish, stockily built, thickish leg bones, jug heads, etc. Now it's very hard to distinguish most of them from a thoroughbred. This, of course, is the result of relentless in-breeding. Meadow Skipper, a horse that raced in the 60's is in the pedigree of virtually every pacing horse and if you go back a few generations, he will usually appear multiple times.

As they look and act more like t-breds, they are gaining t-bred traits. One of these is inconsistency. I had many horses in the early 70's that I could tell you for a fact exactly how they would race on a given day. Now, you just put them out there so to speak and hope.

Because trips are more important to harness horses than t-breds, an extra wild card is thrown into the mix. Not only is pace important, but precise positioning as well.

On smaller tracks, like half-milers and even five-eighths to some extent, the turns act as a buffer against closers. On mile tracks, there is simply no place to hide.

And so I think we are beginning to see (if we aren't already) that getting a favorite home on a mile track in a competitive field is the most difficult task in all of racing.

[Saratoga_Mike]

As they look and act more like t-breds, they are gaining t-bred traits. One of these is inconsistency. I had many horses in the early 70's that I could tell you for a fact exactly how they would race on a given day. Now, you just put them out there so to speak and hope.



What's the win % for favs at the current Meadowlands harness meet? I don't think you can take one day's numbers and draw such an overarching - yet interesting - conclusion.

[pandy]

Several of the horses were way over bet, but I do think that standardbreds "bounce" a lot more often that they used too. There could be many reasons for this, faster races, lasix, in breeding, doping, to name a few. The bottom line is, if you are betting on harness racing, the best bets are sharp horses that are early in their form cycle. Most of the losing favorites yesterday were either due for a subpar effort after a series of peak performances or a career top, such as Put On A Show, Rock n Roll Heaven, One More Laugh, or were already one or two races into a downward form cycle, such as Shark Gesture and Enough Talk.

[sonnyp]

i spent many years at the meadowlands and did observe a few things concerning "elimination" nights compared to "final" nights.

i'm guessing, the same analysis you did for yesterday, if done on an "elimination" card would produce a polar opposite result. you touched on it in your post when you discussed pace and trip the 2 most unpredictable factors in harness racing.

on "elimination" cards the ultimate goal is not necessarily to win the race but to qualify for the final with the big money on the line. the mindset of the drivers of horses perceived NOT to be the "stick out" in each race then becomes that of not doing something stupid, such as challenging a perceived "stick out" and costing a qualifying placement in the final. as a result, many of these "elimination" races become non-contentious with the perceived "stick out" winning without much of a challenge.

on the "finals" card i think you see just the opposite in the mindset of the drivers creating a totally different set of circumstances. winning becomes the goal and rather than driving conservatively, many "overdrive" their horses creating totally unpredictable scenarios which often get the "stick out" beat. they let it all hang out since there is no ultimate goal coming up the following week.

you're a very knowledgeable guy. what are your thoughts on the difference between the flow of the races on qualifying cards compared to the finals cards.

[markgoldie]

Several of the horses were way over bet, but I do think that standardbreds "bounce" a lot more often that they used too. There could be many reasons for this, faster races, lasix, in breeding, doping, to name a few. The bottom line is, if you are betting on harness racing, the best bets are sharp horses that are early in their form cycle. Most of the losing favorites yesterday were either due for a subpar effort after a series of peak performances or a career top, such as Put On A Show, Rock n Roll Heaven, One More Laugh, or were already one or two races into a downward form cycle, such as Shark Gesture and Enough Talk.
Pandy:

I used to race bottom-rung mares and geldings 45 times a year and got almost the same effort every single week. There was no such thing as a "form cycle." Sure, they sometimes got lame and you had to stop, but the physical exertion itself was not knocking horses out. Not so now.

This, of course, opens a newish area of harness-race handicapping- form-cycle prediction. However, I do as much with t-breds as h-horses by way of handicapping and betting. I can tell you that form-cycle analysis has been a staple of t-bred 'capping for years and years, as I'm sure you know. "The Sheets" and Thorograph are deeply involved in this aspect. But it is such an inexact science that in the final analysis, it poses far more questions than it answers. No need to get into specifics since you are a world-class handicapper. But you know what I mean.

[DeanT]

Good points Sonny and Pandy.

I believe they are bouncing more because of how hard they are raced now. Look at the average first quarter time at the M yesterday versus years ago. 27 used to be smoking around that first turn. Now two races went in 25.4. The Hambo resulted in an easy lead for Tetrick; and he goes 54. Three years ago they went 58 and 56 was a solid Hambo half.

You can see it at Mohawk as well. 26 first quarters versus 27 to 27 and change last year and the year before. 26 first quarters set up a race, because even if the leader gets a rest, the closers have a chance to get into gear and grab cover in a slowing second quarter.

As for yesterday there were some anomalies. Put on a Show could not pace (altho how she was going to beat the Sears horse even if sharp I wonder). Brennan went 28 and change down the back with SG, who needs to fly as he is not a stop and start horse. One More Laugh off time, and should not have been bet that low anyway. He aint a super horse. Noble Falcon looked to be way overbet prolly due to McDermott's win in the 4th and people hammering that. On and on.

But it is harder to win races now as chalk in finals. I agree with Sunny on that. These guys are out and going, and it is a big reason we will see most of the sophomore pacers and trotters race only a handful of times, versus 20 or 30 years ago.

[sonnyp]

Good points Sonny and Pandy.

I believe they are bouncing more because of how hard they are raced now. Look at the average first quarter time at the M yesterday versus years ago. 27 used to be smoking around that first turn. Now two races went in 25.4. The Hambo resulted in an easy lead for Tetrick; and he goes 54. Three years ago they went 58 and 56 was a solid Hambo half.

You can see it at Mohawk as well. 26 first quarters versus 27 to 27 and change last year and the year before. 26 first quarters set up a race, because even if the leader gets a rest, the closers have a chance to get into gear and grab cover in a slowing second quarter.

As for yesterday there were some anomalies. Put on a Show could not pace (altho how she was going to beat the Sears horse even if sharp I wonder). Brennan went 28 and change down the back with SG, who needs to fly as he is not a stop and start horse. One More Laugh off time, and should not have been bet that low anyway. He aint a super horse. Noble Falcon looked to be way overbet prolly due to McDermott's win in the 4th and people hammering that. On and on.

But it is harder to win races now as chalk in finals. I agree with Sunny on that. These guys are out and going, and it is a big reason we will see most of the sophomore pacers and trotters race only a handful of times, versus 20 or 30 years ago.


just said that to a friend yesterday. the whole game is still evolving. in addition to the breed, the equipment, track surfaces etc., the driving is lightyears different.

the oldtime stars on the roaring grand circuit would be horrified at what's going on today. as you stand there waiting for the "catch driver" to return with your horse, you have to wonder how much is left in the tank.

[pandy]

I agree that the drivers are much more aggressive in the big stakes races. That's why I picked Art Official against Somebeachsomewhere a couple of years ago and I usually handicap stakes races differently than regular races.

But the flow is actually a problem now in harness racing, even at the Meadowlands. The fractions are so fast that there is no flow. On half mile tracks this is a huge problem. There was actually very little flow in the Hambo, which has been the case for the past 4 years. Several of the BigM drivers have admitted that no one wants to pull first over anymore and consequently they are pulling first over late. And then you have drivers trying to bottom out the field and opening up on them, all it takes is one weak first over horse clogging the rim and the races is pretty bad, and this happens a lot now and could get worse because I heard that a new bike is coming out that is even more off centered than the Harmer, and thus faster.

I know I sound like a dinosaur but I miss the old days!

[pandy]

Mark, I totally agree with you, cycles are tough to predict. I never considered myself a cycle handicapper, especially with harness. In fact, years ago my favorite bets were off hard-used trips. Now a lot of horses that are used hard bounce in their next start and then you have to figure out if they are going to win off a "bounce re-bound" pattern. I don't like it. Thanks for the compliment.

[DeanT]

I agree that the drivers are much more aggressive in the big stakes races. That's why I picked Art Official against Somebeachsomewhere a couple of years ago and I usually handicap stakes races differently than regular races.

But the flow is actually a problem now in harness racing, even at the Meadowlands. The fractions are so fast that there is no flow. On half mile tracks this is a huge problem. There was actually very little flow in the Hambo, which has been the case for the past 4 years. Several of the BigM drivers have admitted that no one wants to pull first over anymore and consequently they are pulling first over late. And then you have drivers trying to bottom out the field and opening up on them, all it takes is one weak first over horse clogging the rim and the races is pretty bad, and this happens a lot now and could get worse because I heard that a new bike is coming out that is even more off centered than the Harmer, and thus faster.

I know I sound like a dinosaur but I miss the old days!

They have been doing that the last few years at the M though, imo. Whereas you would have the movement early, now you have several drivers sitting out there waiting for cover. It's maddening as a capper. They wait for cover when going 28.3 in the second quarter, then they are second over in a 54.1 back half with no shot anyway. They were better off getting on the move like the old days and brushing to the front.

[sonnyp]

They have been doing that the last few years at the M though, imo. Whereas you would have the movement early, now you have several drivers sitting out there waiting for cover. It's maddening as a capper. They wait for cover when going 28.3 in the second quarter, then they are second over in a 54.1 back half with no shot anyway. They were better off getting on the move like the old days and brushing to the front.


i posted about this very thing about a year ago. the stewards are NOT doing their job. there is a rule in place that calls for a driver to do everything possible to advance his position after "pulling" his horse...for obvious reasons.

this goes back to the days when campbell and o'donnell were dominant. they would passively sit outside in nutrel waiting for sombody to pull in front of them and just get in the meadowlands flow 2nd or 3rd over.

the stewards need to enforce the rule about advancing after pulling but they wont.

[DeanT]

I broached that last year with someone there Sonny, agreeing with you. I think the judges could fine a driver for pulling and not advancing. One Mississippi, and if you do not move forward you are fined. I bet it would be fixed overnight and we'd see much more flow. The half in half out stuff now is also not the way the game should be played.

[pandy]

A friend of mine who is a professional bettor pointed out to me how Sears (and others do this sometimes) likes to ease his horse off the rail down the backstretch, sort of half in and half out which keeps others behind him inside because he looks like he's going to pull, then when they do pull, he cuts them off. This is another thing that the judges could put a stop to. You either have to stay on the rail or pull and move the horse forward, no half-in, half-out. These type of tactical driving tricks only make the flow of the race even worse.

Of course this all comes back to the super sulkies. If the horses had the conventional bikes, the races would be at least 5 seconds slower and the flow would be good. The Harmer is off centered so the driver is actually off the rail but the horse is closer to the rail, which is one of the main reasons why the horses go so much faster in it. People thought these bikes were an advancement when the Joe King Modified Sulky came out but every time a new bike comes out the races to faster, and harness racing continues to decline. Most of the professional harness bettors turned to betting the flats a long time ago.

[Canadian]

Of course this all comes back to the super sulkies. If the horses had the conventional bikes, the races would be at least 5 seconds slower and the flow would be good. The Harmer is off centered so the driver is actually off the rail but the horse is closer to the rail, which is one of the main reasons why the horses go so much faster in it. People thought these bikes were an advancement when the Joe King Modified Sulky came out but every time a new bike comes out the races to faster, and harness racing continues to decline. Most of the professional harness bettors turned to betting the flats a long time ago.


Do you think the industry should look into regulating bikes?

[sonnyp]

i honestly believe that the meadowlands, although advancing the sport, killed the gamblers.

i remember the first few years it was a melting pot. joe defrank was the race secretary coming in from the detroit, windsor circuit. with him came greg wright, ray remmen, unknown john campbell etc. these guys horses had a huge advantage because the race conditions were written based on money earned versus A-B-C used in new york and new jersey where individual horses of lesser quality had higher earnings than their mid-west counterparts because of the higher purses they were racing for on the east coast.

the new york circuit with the big names, ben webster, bud gilmour etc. came.

new jersey was represented with mike gagliardi, george berkner etc.

new england brought ted wing, jim dougherty etc.

montreal came with robert sampson, and the fillions.

toronto showed up with shelley goodreau,ron waples etc.

to be sure it killed the grand circuit. dancer,haughten o'brien etc all of a sudden had "outside" competition.

each circuit came, not only with horsemen, but with their gamblers. mugzee,cookie,babe,and all the other damon runyon characters were present ready to make a killing with huge action and pools.

what happened ? they all went broke !! they eventually realized no bet was safe on the big mile track. if you went to the top, you couldn't control the pace with the front running friendly turns of the smaller tracks. they ran you down in the stretch. if you ducked you were the victim of traffic and pace. there just was no controlling a race. after all it rendered the greatest half mile driver of all time, herve fillion, to being just another face in the crowd.

my point is that the handcapping at the meadowlands has become almost impossible because of the size of the track and quality of the competition. where there was always horses to throw out before, there are fewer and fewer at the big m.

[pandy]

They should have regulated the bikes years ago. They do have guidelines but they are too broad. First of all, when a new bike comes out, the guys who have the bike have a big advantage and thousands of gamblers who are betting have no idea of this.

[pandy]

As much as I used to enjoy the racing at the Meadowlands, I tend to agree that the half mile track racing with the conventional bikes was the best from a betting standpoint. There were a lot of big harness bettors in NY. But the original Meadowslands racing was good and I did win consistently there years ago, when the closers came down the far outside.

[Trotman]

Pandy your dead on with your post, Roosevelt and Yonkers
back in the day we're great for betting. I agree with your statement regarding the rules for racebikes. I remember when Joe King brought out the single shaft bikes I jumped on them right away after reading an article about them before they actually showed up at the track and I can tell you it was amazing.

[nijinski]

Haven't done that well at the Big M this year , finally had a winner on
Hambo Day and my horse gets DQ'd.
My brother kept saying , your fine it's a big race , not coming down.
But the wait was too long and I knew that was a negative.

All in all I had a great time and ended up breaking even after expenses so
shouldn't complain and I will miss the Hambo big time if thaey have to move.

[botster]

Hey Mark,

The most egregious example, in my opinion, was Put On A Show in race 5. She warmed up dead lame (in pre-race warm-ups and in the post parade), but they still bet her down to 2/5. But I covered this in another thread. do you think?

She was a just a bit lame behind...huh Mike? By the final odds on her, we may have been the only two, except of course the connections affiliated with horse to observe it.Where in the hell was the track vet on this one?

In my entire career being involved with this game, that horse was one of the worst physical specimens I have ever witnessed on the track to compete on raceday.Just another obvious reminder of the widespread abuse of drugs in the sport.You know they had to have helped her with every prerace known to man to keep her from falling down on the track. I wonder if she has been able to stand yet in her stall???

It's chemical warfare at it's best.Oh yeah, I hope you caught the winner #9 in the same race, paid double digits.

[botster]

Haven't done that well at the Big M this year , finally had a winner on
Hambo Day and my horse gets DQ'd.
My brother kept saying , your fine it's a big race , not coming down.
But the wait was too long and I knew that was a negative.

All in all I had a great time and ended up breaking even after expenses so
shouldn't complain and I will miss the Hambo big time if thaey have to move.

I agree, the time factor before the decision did you in on that one.Poor call IMO, I believe they could have, and should have, left you up on that one.Don't worry, they say it "evens out"...yeah right;) .

[botster]

I want to make a few points here.

We have had this discussion before with racebikes, and I once again must chime in on this subject.Racebikes are NOT the chief reason we see the lowering of final times today.I had put up a poll on a trainer/driver forum a few years back and charted those results.That poll showed conclusively that horseman believe that racebike evolution factor in very little when compared to preracing,breeding,modern day drivers,track surfaces, and so on.

Case in point...I raced a ten claimer a few weeks back at The Meadowlands.In my second start with her (off a win with her in the same class prior) the winning mile went in 1:50.1."Now really guys",do you believe any piece of equiptment that every other trainer has access to rig his horse is going to make a ten claiming mare go that fast?... 1:50.1!!!!!.

Does this make the handicapping public ignorant?.NO, they have always been weary of shananigans in the backstretch (though many accusations boardering the ridiculous).Nine out of ten horsmen will tell you (off the record of course), that preracing has enabled horses to go much sounder and much faster.Regulate the prerace strictly and the speed will decrease IMMENSELY.

[pandy]

I am trying to get some interest up in running a race or even a few races in conventional sulkies. It could even be part of an promotional day, such as an old-timers day. I could see Monticello doing something like this. That would be the best way to see how much faster the races are due to the bikes. There are still trainers who do not dope their horses including top horsemen like Schnittker, Remmen, and many others who don't get positives.

If you look over the history of the sulky starting with Joe King's modified sulky, each time a new bike came out the races went faster. There have been a lot of sulky upgrades since then. The modified sulky lowered the times about 2 to 3 seconds, depending on the horse, then each subsequent new super bike cut another few lengths off the time. The Harmer is off-set, so the horses are actually going a shorter mile because the horse is closer to the rail.

Your point that the horsemen don't think the bikes are the reason for the faster times is moot as far as I'm concerned. Horsemen, owners, and especially breeders, all want to believe that they have improved the breed. Because of artificial insemination, I do think there are more faster horses, but I don't believe that the horses are much faster. Horses like Albatross and Bret Hanover could go 1:53.3 in a wood sulky. I believe that they could both go in around 1:47.3 with the Harmer, maybe even faster. Bret Hanover was a very fast horse, his driver didn't even lean back in the bike and he didn't ask him for speed because he won so easily. And years ago the tracks didn't care about fast times so the turns weren't banked and the tracks may not have been as fast as they are now.

[markgoldie]

I am trying to get some interest up in running a race or even a few races in conventional sulkies. It could even be part of an promotional day, such as an old-timers day. I could see Monticello doing something like this. That would be the best way to see how much faster the races are due to the bikes. There are still trainers who do not dope their horses including top horsemen like Schnittker, Remmen, and many others who don't get positives.

If you look over the history of the sulky starting with Joe King's modified sulky, each time a new bike came out the races went faster. There have been a lot of sulky upgrades since then. The modified sulky lowered the times about 2 to 3 seconds, depending on the horse, then each subsequent new super bike cut another few lengths off the time. The Harmer is off-set, so the horses are actually going a shorter mile because the horse is closer to the rail.

Your point that the horsemen don't think the bikes are the reason for the faster times is moot as far as I'm concerned. Horsemen, owners, and especially breeders, all want to believe that they have improved the breed. Because of artificial insemination, I do think there are more faster horses, but I don't believe that the horses are much faster. Horses like Albatross and Bret Hanover could go 1:53.3 in a wood sulky. I believe that they could both go in around 1:47.3 with the Harmer, maybe even faster. Bret Hanover was a very fast horse, his driver didn't even lean back in the bike and he didn't ask him for speed because he won so easily. And years ago the tracks didn't care about fast times so the turns weren't banked and the tracks may not have been as fast as they are now.
Gotta disagree with you a bit on this one. Yes, bikes are faster now. But nothing they have today is remotely as fast as the single shaft. The single shaft was so fast because the horse could lean hard to the left in the turns and thereby vastly negate the effects of centrifical force. And horses racing in the ss some 30-odd years ago couldn't begin to go what these horses are going today.

You can easily train a $15,000 claiming type a half in :56 and change in a jog cart on a 5/8 track and if Frank Ervin were here with us, I think he'd tell you that even the great Bret couldn't begin to do that. More efficient race bikes allow horses to carry their speed farther but that's basically it. The raw speed has to come from the horse itself. Bret and Albatross could carry their speed due to great lungs and flawless gaits. But neither could pace a quarter in :25 and change because the breed itself was simply incapable of producing such animals at that time.

[DeanT]

I agree with Mark. I think a Harmer is worth a couple of ticks and no more than that on a Telstar, and certainly nowhere near several seconds from the old bikes.

Look at the old video of horses like Bret and Most Happy Fella (or if you saw them, look in your minds eye). They were bulky, stocky and had little leg speed compared to today's horses. Look at Somebeach compared to them. He is sleek, long gaited and perfectly gaited. Today's horse simply covers more ground at a higher rate than the older ones, imo.

[pandy]

Your theory about the breed doesn't hold up well if you go back and look at the fractions and final times when the modified sulky first came out. Overnight races went 3 seconds faster and the breed didn't suddenly improve in 1976. Remember, if the modified sulky was even 2 seconds faster (it was probably more than that), there have been many upgrades since then and why do you think they keep making new bikes? Each new bike that comes out is designed to make speed. From a technical standpoint, the Harmer has to be faster because it is off-centered, so the horses are literally running a shorter mile because they are closer to the rail. If each new bike was even one-fifth of a second faster than the modified sulky, once you add it all up, the result is a much faster bike. I agree that it's possible that the breed is a bit faster, but not much. I don't see how the top horses today can 6 seconds faster than horses like Albatross, Bret Hanover. Look at Nihilator, he went 1:49.1 in the first modified bike. He would certainly go much faster in the Harmer. There isn't a horse alive today that could beat Nihilator.

[pandy]

I agree, the Single Shaft was the fastest bike.

[Charles54]

Pandy:

I used to race bottom-rung mares and geldings 45 times a year and got almost the same effort every single week. There was no such thing as a "form cycle." Sure, they sometimes got lame and you had to stop, but the physical exertion itself was not knocking horses out. Not so now.

This, of course, opens a newish area of harness-race handicapping- form-cycle prediction. However, I do as much with t-breds as h-horses by way of handicapping and betting. I can tell you that form-cycle analysis has been a staple of t-bred 'capping for years and years, as I'm sure you know. "The Sheets" and Thorograph are deeply involved in this aspect. But it is such an inexact science that in the final analysis, it poses far more questions than it answers. No need to get into specifics since you are a world-class handicapper. But you know what I mean.

Mark, I did some research on harness racing a while ago and I ended up printing output quite a bit like the Sheets (I attached one just for fun.) I didn't look at them much because that's not I was doing, but it did seem possible to glean meaningful performance patterns from individual horse's long-term history (my brother won using them.)

Of course, it sounds like the patterns may have changed over the years. Are there any particular conditioning/performance routines you think are more or less common these days?

[pandy]

A friend of mine used to sell sheets like this for harness racing at the Meadowlands and all of the professional bettors who hung out at the track bought them from him for quite a few years. He still does them for himself.

[DeanT]

Your theory about the breed doesn't hold up well if you go back and look at the fractions and final times when the modified sulky first came out. Overnight races went 3 seconds faster and the breed didn't suddenly improve in 1976. Remember, if the modified sulky was even 2 seconds faster (it was probably more than that), there have been many upgrades since then and why do you think they keep making new bikes? Each new bike that comes out is designed to make speed. From a technical standpoint, the Harmer has to be faster because it is off-centered, so the horses are literally running a shorter mile because they are closer to the rail. If each new bike was even one-fifth of a second faster than the modified sulky, once you add it all up, the result is a much faster bike. I agree that it's possible that the breed is a bit faster, but not much. I don't see how the top horses today can 6 seconds faster than horses like Albatross, Bret Hanover. Look at Nihilator, he went 1:49.1 in the first modified bike. He would certainly go much faster in the Harmer. There isn't a horse alive today that could beat Nihilator.

Bikes should not make a horse go faster for short bursts, though, and it has. I have a five claimer who will race in the Georgian Downs sprint on Xtreme day, and has before. He can go a quarter in 24.4 I would bet. How many 5 claimers in 1976 could go a quarter in 24.4 if you put them in a Harmer? I think none. A son of Meadow Skipper out of a tar Heel mare has to be different in terms of pure leg speed when compared to a foal by Rock n Roll Hanover and Kikikatie.

Come to think of it, that horse paced a 27 flat on a bull ring once with ease to grab control. My trainer did not bring the Harmer for some reason and had to borrow a farmers ~1995 clunky old Telstar that day. That's about as fast as he can go on that crap track, and as fast as he's gone on any bull ring with a Harmer.

I am not sold on the offset either. It only adds a few feet mathematically, and I think the removal of the hubrail made much more of a ground loss difference. You'd stay five feet off the rail at Roosevelt in 1985, now you can hug it, because you wont kill yourself.

I am in no way saying technology like bikes do not make a difference - it does. But making a horse in 1970 show the speed for a piece that horses show today? I cant buy that. There were way to many fumbly gaited horses who could not pace at all for a lick back then as compared to today.

[pandy]

The hubrail is another things, definitely makes the races faster. It would be great if we can get a track to run some races in the conventional sulkys to see how much slower they go.

[DeanT]

I think one of the things a Harmer has done has allowed the drivers to clip the horse's hocks with the heel of their boot, which scares them. They can not do that with other bikes unless they drop the boot. It is not the most overly humane thing to do, and most places fine for it, but it happens quite a bit. The top two or three drivers get away with it regularly, and it has to add a couple of ticks, imo.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

I had a horse that was a solid 12.5K-16K claimer with a cheetah but couldn't win a 3K without one. Literally 4 seconds difference because of the bike.

I also had a open mare that if you put a cheetah on her she couldn't make the course because it brought her to her knees to where she couldn't get around the turns.

[botster]

Bikes should not make a horse go faster for short bursts, though, and it has. I have a five claimer who will race in the Georgian Downs sprint on Xtreme day, and has before. He can go a quarter in 24.4 I would bet. How many 5 claimers in 1976 could go a quarter in 24.4 if you put them in a Harmer? I think none. A son of Meadow Skipper out of a tar Heel mare has to be different in terms of pure leg speed when compared to a foal by Rock n Roll Hanover and Kikikatie.

Come to think of it, that horse paced a 27 flat on a bull ring once with ease to grab control. My trainer did not bring the Harmer for some reason and had to borrow a farmers ~1995 clunky old Telstar that day. That's about as fast as he can go on that crap track, and as fast as he's gone on any bull ring with a Harmer.

I am not sold on the offset either. It only adds a few feet mathematically, and I think the removal of the hubrail made much more of a ground loss difference. You'd stay five feet off the rail at Roosevelt in 1985, now you can hug it, because you wont kill yourself.

I am in no way saying technology like bikes do not make a difference - it does. But making a horse in 1970 show the speed for a piece that horses show today? I cant buy that. There were way to many fumbly gaited horses who could not pace at all for a lick back then as compared to today.



The argument trying to prove otherwise is complete folly. Anyone who has ever sat behind one the right way of the track with a few years under their belt in both eras will agree.

Bob believes the horsemen opinion is mute on this subject.That to me is even greater folly! That mindset would be the same as an everyday horsman commenting to Bob that a dropdown, driver change, in handicapping very rarely improves a horse, and his (Bobs) opinion is also equally as mute.

[pandy]

You guys must be young because anyone who was around in 1976 will attest to the fact that the modified sulky was 2 to 3 seconds (depending on the horse) faster than the conventional sulky and that was on a half mile track. This is a fact. Now there have been many other bikes since then and every time a driver has to buy a new one he has to spend several thousand dollars. If the Harmer, or any bike, was not going to make his horse faster he would not spend $5,000 for it, he would stick with the bike he has. If a new bike comes out and it improves a horse by a quarter of a length, that is more than enough for a driver to go from average to top driver overnight. That's why every time a new equipment comes out they all buy it, they have to to stay competitive. As for the breeding, they breed thoroughbreds the same way, in breeding, and they are not faster. Sure, it's possible that the horses are a little faster. There's a company now that sells wheels for $1,000 a pair. They make speed. Brent Holland bought these wheels last month and has suddenly been winning with longshots at Yonkers even from outside posts. Cat Manzi tried the wheels for a week or two and that was when he won 7 races in one night. As for the off-center Harmer, I think a mathematician would say that it improves time a lot more than you are estimating. You have to take the inches closer to the rail and extrapolate it by a mile plus the fact that the bike corners better than the conventional sulky did.

[DeanT]

Botster, I missed your post on the last page. I agree with you 100%.

Bob, it aint that they do not make a difference; as you said, a quarter length is huge! Im just saying not 30 lengths or something.

Case in point: Jog carts (i see Mark brought this up last page, so apologies). Talk to a guy who trained a 12 claiming horse in 1970 in a jog cart. Then put a 12 claimer that wins today in 150 with a Harmer, in that same jog cart (jog carts have not changed very much at all). Today's 12 claimer might go 158 in the cart and yesterday's 12 claimer would not break 206 in that cart. Horses are simply (due to breed, speed, pre-race, vet work, health, track cushion and other factors) faster today.

[pandy]

Horses now go about 6 seconds faster, on average, than they did in conventional bikes. Bret Hanover, Albatross, were around 1:53.3, now a horse like that goes 1:47.3. So it's roughly 6 seconds. The modified sulky accounts for 3 of those 6 seconds. The pylons, better wheels, off-centering, drivers who lean back to cut friction, and many upgrades over the original Joe King modified make up most of the other 3 seconds. We have to remember, the races are speed favoring now. Consequently the first quarter and first half are much faster because of the driver's strategy. The pace is faster, which of course results in faster final times, so that also comes into play, years ago the drivers were always trying to save something because it was tough to go wire to wire. Again, it would not surprise me if the breed were a bit faster, but not much. If the horses were so much faster they wouldn't keep coming out with new bikes because no one would buy them.

[DeanT]

Consequently the first quarter and first half are much faster because of the driver's strategy. The pace is faster, which of course results in faster final times, so that also comes into play, years ago the drivers were always trying to save something because it was tough to go wire to wire.

We finally found common ground :)

Yes, that is a huge difference. Even the first quarter fractions today from years ago are adding to final times. Six years ago the average half for No Pan Intended was about 55.3. He went 56.2 at the Meadows, 55.4 in the Tattersalls and 57 in the Jug Final. Good luck seeing anything near that today. 54.2 would be a nice rest the way some of these drivers this year are piking. Nihilator and Niatross's final scores were set up by bizarre first/second quarters. Shannon Majority should own a piece of Nihilator's race record for his first panel.

Ps: I would like to see the vet bills on these 2 and 3YOs the last two years. I would also be surprised if many of them last to the Breeders Crown going 25.3/53.1 all the time.

[markgoldie]

Mark, I did some research on harness racing a while ago and I ended up printing output quite a bit like the Sheets (I attached one just for fun.) I didn't look at them much because that's not I was doing, but it did seem possible to glean meaningful performance patterns from individual horse's long-term history (my brother won using them.)

Of course, it sounds like the patterns may have changed over the years. Are there any particular conditioning/performance routines you think are more or less common these days?
Since I have been doing this for 45 years or so, I can state that there are indeed many differences in performance patterns these days compared to the past. Unfortunately, I can only report that the newer patterns have made things far less prdictable than more so. This breed is maturing into thoroughbreds with a cart, so to speak.

Layoffs of 21-28 days used to mean an almost infallible falling off of performance. In fact, even a 14-day layoff usually meant a reduced performance. Now, the picture is muddied. At 21 days, we see a mixture of reduced, the same, and even enhanced performance. It is still skewed a bit toward the reduced, but you cannot depend on it.

Bouncing second out off a layoff was virtually unheard of, but now it's commonplace. Tends to be more in mares and younger horses and it follows the degree of race stress to some extent, that is, a front-running effort, or parked out effort being more stressful than a follow-along, closing attempt, such that the greater the stress the more likely a bounce. But even this is not written in stone- simply a greater possibility.

A very poor effort followed by a 7-day turn around used to be a very bad omen, but now the horses are recovering from the mystically bad effort like it didn't even occur. Yes, the results are skewed toward the continuation of the poor race, but it's not something you can depend upon. So more and more, bad efforts are seemingly popping up and disappearing like mirages.

Over the years, I have made a great deal of money with something I dubbed the "Z" pattern. This was characterized by a layoff of more than 2 months, followed by a qualifier or two in which the horse came from behind. This, followed by the first race in which the horse closed and the second in which the horse left or was used hard early in the race. The third race back was the target race for play, as the second stressful race was the final tightener, if you will, that would lead to the very good performance which was expected. While this still works to some extent, more and more the second stressful race sets the horse back much more often. In fact, I now prefer a 2-week rest before the target race, rather than a 7-day turnaround.

In keeping with this conversation, yesterday I saw a two-year best performance by a horse off a longish layoff and a mediocre qualifier at Indiana Downs. Same trainer and driver. Never would have seen such a thing in the past. But it happened yesterday and so it is a new possibility.

All of this is mimicking thoroughbred patterns that we have seen for years which has now seeped into standardbred racing. In short, I am at pretty much of a loss as to "gaming'" form cycles. Tendencies persist, but you'd better not be opening your wallet on any single event.

[pandy]

Good post mark. Many horses are running better off two week breaks these days. My horses to watch list is not as reliable as it was years ago because so many horses bounce off the hard-used trip now.

[toetoe]

Brent Holland bought these wheels last month and has suddenly been winning with longshots at Yonkers even from outside posts.


Now I understand Steuben's win last week. First over for two laps !!! Presumably, it didn't overtax him, and he has the same bike tonight, right ? Also, Blacktuxwhitesox is so much best in race (9), it's not fair.