Mott, this helps those backing your horse

[Grits]

on Saturday--A LOT. 48 hours after the fact. Glad you shared this with us yesterday. :rolleyes:
Normally, I try not to complain but really glad Mott and JV shared the excitement of To Honor And Serve's paid workout. That trainer intent thing can keep one guessing, huh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/01/sports/01racing.html?_r=1

[Shelby]

See? This is the one aspect of racing that I just don't get from a bettors stand-point. How is one to know when a race is a prep race and when a race is the real deal to a trainer. Shouldn't all horses be allowed to do their very best in every race? I understand that horses need to train. Can't they do it in a non-wagering type race? Can't he line up horses from his own stable and race them against each other for practice?

Like 2 seconds before the race went off I got a tweet (twit, twitter, tweetie? I never know what to call it) from a horse guy that I follow and he said "this is probably a tune up race for To Honor and Serve". So, this guy knew. How did he know? What am I missing?

I don't like to complain, either, but this just stumps me.

[The Bit]

You take all the pertinent info you can find and make your best guess. I don't think of Mott as a trainer that has his horses ready to fire their best shot off a layoff, especially if bigger goal is on the horizon. Obviously, in this instance, the Kentucky Derby is out there just about coming into view.

Now if he shows up at Saratoga for a G1 off a layoff, well than you have to figure the horse probably is ready.

[cj]

Like 2 seconds before the race went off I got a tweet (twit, twitter, tweetie? I never know what to call it) from a horse guy that I follow and he said "this is probably a tune up race for To Honor and Serve". So, this guy knew. How did he know? What am I missing?

I don't like to complain, either, but this just stumps me.

I would think most people knew. There was no way Mott was going to send this horse out guns a blazing in his first prep race for a much bigger goal.

That said, Mott should keep his mouth shut about it. I realize most trainers feel the need to rationalize every loss, but you shouldn't do it by telling those that backed your horse that you weren't trying after the fact.

[Shelby]

Well, I didn't know...but I am still learning about all of this. Which is why I read here and try to learn from all of you smart ones. :)

So, you guys obviously didn't bet To Honor to win. What if the horse just ran and won it? Would that not happen? Would the jockey rein him in and slow him down? Are these dumb questions? :confused: You can tell me the truth lol.

[Shelby]

And, yeah, CJ, I agree. As a trainer, don't tell me that you were just in the race to get a little exercise and not to win it. That depresses the dummies like me out there lol.

[Greyfox]

That said, Mott should keep his mouth shut about it. I realize most trainers feel the need to rationalize every loss, but you shouldn't do it by telling those that backed your horse that you weren't trying after the fact.

Exactly.:ThmbUp: In Hong Kong he'd be called in on the carpet for that type of remark.

[Tom]

Putting a horse in a betting race and not trying to win is basically fraud.
We accept it, but clods need to know when to shut their big at mouths.
That said, I don't see how the horse got anything out of that race based on the numbers. Now he has only one prep left to get ready - I hope it costs him at CD.

Hey, at least Zenyatta always tried. :rolleyes:

[cj]

Well, I didn't know...but I am still learning about all of this. Which is why I read here and try to learn from all of you smart ones. :)

So, you guys obviously didn't bet To Honor to win. What if the horse just ran and won it? Would that not happen? Would the jockey rein him in and slow him down? Are these dumb questions? :confused: You can tell me the truth lol.

I look at these things as a bettor since that is what I do. At 8 to 5, he was a bet against. Anyone that is familiar with Mott knows he is conservative. But even if I didn't, at those odds he was a toss. In this case, the most likely winner was the favorite, so it was a pass for me. However, these are exactly the type of horses you want to try and beat. Horses that take big money and have questionable form and/or trainer intent.

Bettors like big figure horses, but sometimes they forget it is at least as important to know when a horse is likely to run fast as it is to know if he can run fast.

[The Bit]

So, you guys obviously didn't bet To Honor to win. What if the horse just ran and won it? Would that not happen? Would the jockey rein him in and slow him down? Are these dumb questions? :confused: You can tell me the truth lol.

I didn't expect him to win. However, if he did win at 8/5, than that was a risk I was willing to take. And no Johnny rode the horse with expectations of winning, but he wasn't going to go out and take Soldat on through a 46 flat half mile either. But again, if it is the Kentucky Derby and To Honor shows that he is a need the lead type, than he will be head and head with Soldat no matter how fast they go.

They aren't dumb questions because if you don't figure it out and take it into consideration, you'll go broke in a hurry :)

[Dan Montilion]

If I have a suspicion a horse is being prepared for a race at a later date. And even if at 70 percent is still a contender. The tried and true method is 8/5 its a no go, at 8/1 its an all out effort. on

[Shelby]

All of what you guys are saying makes sense.

This situation is something I need to remember when betting on bigger races.

It just irks me because:

1. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around someone spending the money to enter a horse knowing that you don't want it to win.

2. It's very unfair to bettors.

3. It screws up the "race shape" that I have formed in my mind. Not that I'm very good at that, yet, but I'm learning.

[toussaud]

How do you know he's being 100% honest about his horses performance? This is horse racing politics at it's finest IMHO, you see it every year. Guys this is a really nice 3yo with 2 grade 2's behind his name, and a future. What is he supposed to come up and say "yeah.. you know this horse is a bum, I see now he doesn't have what it takes". He has owners he has to answer to, stallion implications, etc


This is no different IMHO than super saver's injury after the travers to explain him running up the track for the last 3 months.

Trainer buys time, paints a good picture for his horse in hopes he turns it around, but I don't believe for a second that the trainer is satisfied with the performance. I think that's the picture he wants to portray to the media.

[Grits]

Again, he and his jockey should have given their "indepth remarks" to the owner, NOT the media, NOT the New York Times, smiling and chuckling all the while.

You're thinking is to the extreme, Toussaud. At this point, stallion prospect shouldn't be of great concern to this Hall of Fame trainer that, unfortunately, talked more than a "two dollar radio."

Put the shoe on another foot. What if the trainer had been Rick Dutrow? Be honest, the guy woulda been crucified, two hours after the NYT hit the street. Instead, this time, in this case, its Mott, so all is good. PASS. Its not good. Knowing Mott's habits are, indeed, of value. And most do. But this flies in the face of bettors. Too much information after the race was run.

How do you know he's being 100% honest about his horses performance? This is horse racing politics at it's finest IMHO, you see it every year. Guys this is a really nice 3yo with 2 grade 2's behind his name, and a future. What is he supposed to come up and say "yeah.. you know this horse is a bum, I see now he doesn't have what it takes". He has owners he has to answer to, stallion implications, etc


This is no different IMHO than super saver's injury after the travers to explain him running up the track for the last 3 months.

Trainer buys time, paints a good picture for his horse in hopes he turns it around, but I don't believe for a second that the trainer is satisfied with the performance. I think that's the picture he wants to portray to the media.

[toussaud]

I don't think it is (thinking to the extreme) in the least bit. I see it time and time and time again. Some suckers will take THAS at 2 to 1 or something based of these remarks in the florida derby and be bewildered when he proceeds to run up the track while lamenting just how hard this game is.

At this point, stallion prospect shouldn't be of great concern to this Hall of Fame trainer that, unfortunately, talked more than a "two dollar radio." It's not to him. But it is to his owners. Stallion prospect, actually having a legit shot at the derby, whatever you want to call it, no one wants to know they don't have a top horse after being one of the best 2YO's and we aren't even in march yet (well today).

Look no futher than Court vision's Foutain of youth, Mott gave you the same song and dance

Still, trainer Bill Mott remains optimistic: "He made up a lot of ground over a track that many other horses couldn't that day. It was a good race and starting point for a horse that had been off for a while, and I look for improvement next time."

http://beat.bodog.com/horseracing/court-vision-can-compete-at-wood-memorial-at-aqueduct-78026.html

There was no improvement. The horse just was not a dirt horse. But that's not what IEAH, who had just bought court vision for an ungodly amount of money, wanted to hear at the time going into the derby. It would behoove you not to pay a lick of attention to anything a trainer says going into and coming out of the kentucky derby.

[tzipi]

All of what you guys are saying makes sense.

This situation is something I need to remember when betting on bigger races.

It just irks me because:

1. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around someone spending the money to enter a horse knowing that you don't want it to win.

2. It's very unfair to bettors.

3. It screws up the "race shape" that I have formed in my mind. Not that I'm very good at that, yet, but I'm learning.

All very true Shelby but unfortunatly it will always happen. In top races they want to stretch the legs in a race sometimes but it even happens in claiming races all the time. They want to put in a "workout"(take back,run wide,etc) and inflate their price for their next race. Hard to know unless you're in the circle.

[Grits]

This may be. You may well be correct, Toussaud. Still, let many of trainers sing like canaries--in this same manner--and see how many bettors sit back and say, "oh my goodness, I should've kept my money in my pocket. Silly me."

Court Vision was the biggest money burner in racing. Man! I hate that horse. And its really going some distance for me to say, "I hate".:lol:

[Greyfox]

All of what you guys are saying makes sense.

This situation is something I need to remember when betting on bigger races.

It just irks me because:

1. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around someone spending the money to enter a horse knowing that you don't want it to win.

2. It's very unfair to bettors.

3. It screws up the "race shape" that I have formed in my mind. Not that I'm very good at that, yet, but I'm learning.

It happens often in Allowance races.
When I see G1, G2, horses in Allowance races I get leery.
The public tends to overbet them and they are actually prepping for a G1 or G2 race coming up. You always have to ask "What is this horse doing in this race?"

[OTM Al]

I don't at all regret using him and all the info you need is the layoff. Thing is, sometimes you still want to use these horses because it just might be them at 70% is still better than the competition. No where in his talking did Mott say "Don't win". I find what he did very reasonable and much more intelligent than running in a made up 1 turn listed stakes race.....

[toussaud]

This may be. You may well be correct, Toussaud. Still, letl many of trainers sing like canaries--in this same manner--and see how many bettors sit back and say, "oh my goodness, I should've kept my money in my pocket. Silly me."

Court Vision was the biggest money burner in racing. Man! I hate that horse. And its really going some distance for me to say, "I hate".:lol:
I admit he burned a few of my tickets as well. And to make it worse, the times that you toss him he wins (like the woodbine mile)

[thaskalos]

IMO, this trainer practice is reason #3 (right behind cheating trainers and oppressive takeout) on the list of why horseracing cannot make the grade as an appealing gambling game.

While it's true that some of these "public workouts" can be spotted by the bettor in advance, that is not always the case. There are claiming horses in peak form, in every track in the country, whose jockeys are being told to "take it easy on them because we have a better spot next week"...and that is an unacceptable state of affairs, which has gone on too long.

If a horse makes it to the starting gate, it must be assumed that its jockey will try his/her best to get the best race possible out of this horse.

If the horse is in need of a "public work"...the trainer's intentions should be revealed to the stewards, and announced to the bettors before the start of the race.

This game is hard enough...without having to read the trainer's mind before we place a bet.

[rastajenk]

"It's all in the game." Once in a while, he won't run, and he'll ruin your fun, But these things your heart can rise above.

Or something like that.

[Hanover1]

Putting a horse in a betting race and not trying to win is basically fraud.
We accept it, but clods need to know when to shut their big at mouths.
That said, I don't see how the horse got anything out of that race based on the numbers. Now he has only one prep left to get ready - I hope it costs him at CD.

Hey, at least Zenyatta always tried. :rolleyes:

Tom I am surprised here....you of all folks ought to know that the explaination should have been: "The horse probably needed one..." since not all horses fire first off layoff. Also, you should know that its not so much the fractions, but the work at the distance amongst horses who are competing that is of the benefit here, and not so much a fraud as you would let on. Cannot explain enough to bettors that some horses DO, and WILL need to race amongst others once, if not more times, in order to reach peak performance levels. This is NOT something that gets achieved in the morningtime amongst stablemates, however a scant few require little else.

[thaskalos]

"It's all in the game." Once in a while, he won't run, and he'll ruin your fun, But these things your heart can rise above.

Or something like that.Because "it's all in the game"...there will soon be NO game.

There will be nothing but slot machines where the betting windows now reside...

[Hanover1]

IMO, this trainer practice is reason #3 (right behind cheating trainers and oppressive takeout) on the list of why horseracing cannot make the grade as an appealing gambling game.

While it's true that some of these "public workouts" can be spotted by the bettor in advance, that is not always the case. There are claiming horses in peak form, in every track in the country, whose jockeys are being told to "take it easy on them because we have a better spot next week"...and that is an unacceptable state of affairs, which has gone on too long.

If a horse makes it to the starting gate, it must be assumed that its jockey will try his/her best to get the best race possible out of this horse.

If the horse is in need of a "public work"...the trainer's intentions should be revealed to the stewards, and announced to the bettors before the start of the race.

This game is hard enough...without having to read the trainer's mind before we place a bet.

Since it is not written into the rules anywhere for a trainer to declare his intent before declaring to start, guess we are stuck with what we have to go on. Next thing we will require is horses intent????

[thaskalos]

Next thing we will require is horses intent????No...

Next, it will be the HORSEPLAYER'S turn to declare his lack of intent...

[rastajenk]

Some of you act like this is new. Wasn't this kind of thing going on back in racing's heyday before the Age of the Internet, when you were falling in love with the game, warts and all?

[PhantomOnTour]

It is a racing reality that some horses are not being sent out to win, but rather to gain conditioning and/or experience.
Knowledge of trainer moves and a good look through a horses pp's should reveal the barn's mindset about entering their horse in this race.
In the case of To Honor & Serve; he has the earnings to get into the Derby and was coming off a few months layoff. There was a real possibility of a front end duel and his connections may not have wanted that (and a possibly taxing race)first off the layoff. They may have wanted to see if he can rate.
Lots of possible reasons why he didn't run that well, and we'll know what it was when he runs again.

[Hanover1]

No...

Next, it will be the HORSEPLAYER'S turn to declare his lack of intent...

You will never change the way a horse gets into peak condition, no matter how hard we try to change the rules, or threaten to hasten the extinction of the sport.......

[thaskalos]

You will never change the way a horse gets into peak condition, no matter how hard we try to change the rules, or threaten to hasten the extinction of the sport.......I was talking about those horses who are already in sharp form...but are not allowed to display it because of "the better spot next week"...

This is how we are supposed to attract today's more sophisticated younger audience?

[NJ Stinks]

I will say this. In the UK trainers are asked to comment about their horse's condition/chances before a big race. Not just a few of the top contenders either - all of the trainers. Their responses are printed in the Racing Post and can be found online.

Just one reason I value the Racing Post content more than DRF's.

[rastajenk]

And of course they always respond honestly. :p

[toussaud]

This is silly guys. I play aussie racing almost nightly. Over there they race horses in to shape. You might see a horse in a 1200 meter race, which will be pointing him for a 1600 meter race, which will be pointing him to a 2000 meter race, which is to get him in peak form for the 2400 meter race, which is the goal of the horse.


You guys want the trainers to do the handicapping for you.

If a trainer, tells the jockey to Stiff the horse that's one thing. But it's your job to figure out who will and will not fire, the trainer does not have to have neon signs. The horse should give the best effort he can for that day, but no where is it written, that the trainer has to have him in top peak form every race, that's hogwash and silly.

[riskman]

The Fountain of Youth is a Grade 11 $400,000 race for 3YO leading up to the KY Derby. Close to 3M was wagered on this race. If this race is the new normal then you can have it. Grade 2 races are preps for what? Give me a break, this is outright disturbing. Deciding to wager or not is one thing but entering a major contender for the Derby and using it as a prep because To Honor and Serve has the earnings to qualify for entry is outrageous in my opinion. Call me naive, but racing should come up with a few sensible principles to guide us as racing continues to show its disregard for the wagering public. Another black eye. Perhaps the owner might want to donate his 40,000 3rd place money to some charity that could benefit the sport/game.

[Stillriledup]

If you bet on a horse like this, you have to factor into your handicapping that he might be 'short'. You also know he's a Ky Derby contender, so if you put 2 and 2 together, you can see how this scenario might have played out.

Also, the inside lanes at GP were golden, so Soldat figured to be in the 1 path on both turns and figured to be the most likely winner of the race.

If you follow the game real well, you know that Mott is known as a 'conservative' type of trainer. Most of his runners are long fused routers and turf horses, he doesnt train too many sprint types, so if you really know the 'program' you can really make a good strong guess as to 'intent'.

This is ALL part of handicapping. If you bet on a runner who's not ready to win, that's your fault, not the trainer's fault for not having him ready.

In Harness racing, they make you race in a 'qualifier' to show that you are 'fit'. In Thoroughbred racing, they don't make you do that. This is not a bettors game, its an owners/trainers game and those guys can do whatever they want, they don't have to have their horse fit and ready because the game and the tracks permit it.

If this was a bettors game and there was a national commissioner who was a former bettor, maybe he would require horses to race in 'qualifiers' with no betting. This way, a horse like THAS would be in a race to 'tighten him up' before he went in front of the public in a betting race.

I find it ironic that racing execs are always trumpeting the 'protecting the public" mantra and then they permit horses to have paid workouts at the public's expense.

[Dahoss9698]

Some of you act like this is new. Wasn't this kind of thing going on back in racing's heyday before the Age of the Internet, when you were falling in love with the game, warts and all?

Of course it was going on back then. Should Mott have said it? No way. But I'm surprised at the outrage. Part of the handicapping process is taking this kind of thing into account and always has been.

[thaskalos]

Of course it was going on back then. Should Mott have said it? No way. But I'm surprised at the outrage. Part of the handicapping process is taking this kind of thing into account and always has been.Please explain someting to me...

Let's forget about this isolated Bill Mott situation...is the process of "darkening a horse's form" ethical?

When a horse's jockey is asked to do less than his best in a race, because of a "better spot next week"...is this far removed from cheating?

Because an unethical practice has been allowed to go on for a long time, is that a good enough reason to allow it to continue?

[Cardus]

Please explain someting to me...

Let's forget about this isolated Bill Mott situation...is the process of "darkening a horse's form" ethical?

When a horse's jockey is asked to do less than his best in a race, because of a "better spot next week"...is this far removed from cheating?

Because an unethical practice has been allowed to go on for a long time, is that a good enough reason to allow it to continue?

What is your remedy?

[Shelby]

I admit he burned a few of my tickets as well. And to make it worse, the times that you toss him he wins (like the woodbine mile)

Yes. :mad:

[thaskalos]

Please explain someting to me...

Let's forget about this isolated Bill Mott situation...is the process of "darkening a horse's form" ethical?

When a horse's jockey is asked to do less than his best in a race, because of a "better spot next week"...is this far removed from cheating?

Because an unethical practice has been allowed to go on for a long time, is that a good enough reason to allow it to continue?

What is your remedy?My remedy?

Heavy fines and suspensions for trainer and jockey whenever a jockey fails to fully engage a horse during the running of a race.

What's the excuse for the jockey on a contending horse not to be giving at least a vigorous hand ride down the stretch?

If the horses are entered under instructions not to do their best...then those intentions should be made known to the bettors before the race.

It is called integrity of the game...

[point given]

And how often do horses win the prep race instead of the next one which they were getting pointed towards. ? Where did R Heat Lightnings race come from ? She fizzled first out and everyone got off her because of it and then runs well next out, but everyone knows Pletcher has 'em ready first out,and we got a curve ball ? It's all part of the game.

[Marlin]

I will say this. In the UK trainers are asked to comment about their horse's condition/chances before a big race. Not just a few of the top contenders either - all of the trainers. Their responses are printed in the Racing Post and can be found online.

Just one reason I value the Racing Post content more than DRF's.Um Bill Mott's comment BEFORE the race went something like this: "We are expecting a good effort, BUT this isn't our ultimate goal". I thought it couldn't be any more clear THAS wasn't cranked up. Congrats to Bill Mott for saying it after the race as well. I'm sick of people leaning on perception rather than reality. Perception is for crybabies. Reality is life.

[Chris G]

I suggest reading the DRF, Bloodhorse & Thoroughbred Times. You can sometimes find out trainer intent by reading the articles. And this can be true even a couple months in advance when a trainer discusses his schedule.

[joanied]

Um Bill Mott's comment BEFORE the race went something like this: "We are expecting a good effort, BUT this isn't our ultimate goal". I thought it couldn't be any more clear THAS wasn't cranked up. Congrats to Bill Mott for saying it after the race as well. I'm sick of people leaning on perception rather than reality. Perception is for crybabies. Reality is life.

I read through most of the posts, and was just going to add that I saw Mott interviewed before the race...and yes indeed...he did say he expected a good effort, but the ultimate goal was down the road...so to speak...
I guess not everyone would have seen that before the race interview...but I would also think that most know how Mott trains, knew the colt hadn't run in a while and would just assume he may not be 100% for the FoY...

I actually didn't think he did run a good race, regardless of him being a short horse... he's gonna have to show a lot more next time to be a real Derby contender...IMO.

[Hanover1]

I was talking about those horses who are already in sharp form...but are not allowed to display it because of "the better spot next week"...

This is how we are supposed to attract today's more sophisticated younger audience?

If a horse is in sharp form, he does not need a race, he is ready. If he is in sharp form in most trainers barns, he is in to win, period.
Trying to figure out how this plays in the Mott situation, and I conclude it does not......

[Hanover1]

The Fountain of Youth is a Grade 11 $400,000 race for 3YO leading up to the KY Derby. Close to 3M was wagered on this race. If this race is the new normal then you can have it. Grade 2 races are preps for what? Give me a break, this is outright disturbing. Deciding to wager or not is one thing but entering a major contender for the Derby and using it as a prep because To Honor and Serve has the earnings to qualify for entry is outrageous in my opinion. Call me naive, but racing should come up with a few sensible principles to guide us as racing continues to show its disregard for the wagering public. Another black eye. Perhaps the owner might want to donate his 40,000 3rd place money to some charity that could benefit the sport/game.

Last owner I spoke with made it clear what his desires were, and I was hired to make it happen-call me naive.....

[Hanover1]

[QUOTE=Cardus]My remedy?

Heavy fines and suspensions for trainer and jockey whenever a jockey fails to fully engage a horse during the running of a race.

What's the excuse for the jockey on a contending horse not to be giving at least a vigorous hand ride down the stretch?

If the horses are entered under instructions not to do their best...then those intentions should be made known to the bettors before the race.

It is called integrity of the game...
Simply put, you are asking that trainers and owners be obligated to tell you in advance of exactly what intentions are during the race. Is it outrageous for us to expect you to tell us how hard you intend to drive down the odds on any particular horse before a contest, so we too can get a decent price?
The situation as it exists was not created to baffle or deceive the betting public as so many try to insinuate. As many have pointed out, understanding trainer patterns and careful analysys of DRF should suffice. Not the trainers/owners job to make your selections crystal clear, but to do for the horse as is required.

[joanied]

The way I see it... it is a rare time when a trainer sends out a horse in a graded stake race and not try to win it...a horse may need a race, he isn't 100%, but if he can win without laying his life down, then that trainer, and his jockey is going to try and win that race...

in this case, it's not like Mott told his rider to pull the horse, and I guess it's up to the horse player to decide if this horse can and will run to it's best ability...IMO, To Honor and Serve did run to his best ability in the FoY...he wasn't 100%, which was obvious to anyone that looked at the past performances, knew the horse was coming in from a lay off and might run short.

[open_question]

Say what you will about Mott, the man knows how to condition a horse. I have to believe that Mott got To Honor And Serve in the best shape he could before the FOY.

I mean, look, no-one should be too surprised that THAS lost the FOY to Soldat. Even if the colt had been in top condition, he was at a clear disadvantage to Soldat because of his post position. The outer post was going to make it difficult for him to get to the rail in front of Soldat, who has some early kick and was going to be gunned out of the one-hole.

For me, the big concern is not that THAS lost the race, but that he tired visibly and lost so much ground. He only trailed Soldat by a head at the 3/4 mark but was well-beaten by almost 7 lengths at the wire. Basically he stopped running, which does not bode well for his Derby chances.

Perhaps we should consider the very real possibility that To Honor And Serve is not going to be as competitive as a 3yo as he was as a 2yo.

We could interpret Mott's pre-race comments as stemming from his concerns about the colt's ability to compete at the top level as a 3yo, and his post-race comments as stemming from wishful thinking (and relief that his horse didn't finish worse than 3rd).

I'm just saying.

[toussaud]

I am honestly, not sold on either truth be told but for different reasons but I wills ay this... come derby day, I bet 10 bucks, THAS will be in better form than soldat will be. solddat will never be as good as he is right now. I still don't think the reversel will be good enough to win the derby, but just saying.

[joanied]

IMO...I don't think either colt will fair well in the Derby...always a fan on Mott, and would love to see him win a KD...but unless THAS improoves quite a lot, I don't think he'll be much of a factor in the Derby...he really threw in the towel on the FoY...it seemed to me he just kinda gave up the good fight, and indeed did loose a lot of ground...
guess we'll have to wait and see:)

[toussaud]

It doesn't bother me that he threw in the towel. Travelin man ran a damn good race after throwing the towel in the Hutchinson. What bothers me, is that he threw in the towel in a race with no real pace.

[thaskalos]

[QUOTE=thaskalos]
Simply put, you are asking that trainers and owners be obligated to tell you in advance of exactly what intentions are during the race. Is it outrageous for us to expect you to tell us how hard you intend to drive down the odds on any particular horse before a contest, so we too can get a decent price?
Don't worry...

If things continue the way they are (escalating takeouts, "supertrainers", etc,)...the bettors won't have anything left to drive down the odds with.

It's only a matter of time...

[sammy the sage]

Grits...glad ya started this thread...reminded me of why I've QUIT wagering every f'g week-end on such a CORRUPT sport...

If ain't the drugs, then the jock's drunk, or trainer ain't trying or horse is crippled, ect... :bang: :( :faint: :mad:

Just betting the REALLY BIG days now...were at least then you KNOW everybody's giving 110% :lol:

[nijinski]

I can't say I hold anything against Mott . I also don't think this situation
should be on the black eye list.
There is world of information and reading material out there for horseplayers
mentioning horses coming off a layoff , even stats for trainers who do well with
fresh horses. A good handicapper would know to look at horses pp's and know
this horse may not be fully cranked. As well they know "no" horse is a sure thing. I can name many instances when I wondered if a horse was ready
probably needs one and bet them because of good works , and lost.

I think Motts a fine trainer who was just being honest and maybe he was
before the race too and we just didn't hear about it.

[joanied]

It doesn't bother me that he threw in the towel. Travelin man ran a damn good race after throwing the towel in the Hutchinson. What bothers me, is that he threw in the towel in a race with no real pace.

That too, toussad :) ...good point, though, about Travelin' Man...it's just that it seemed THAS didn't even try to find a little more...

[joanied]

I can't say I hold anything against Mott . I also don't think this situation
should be on the black eye list.
There is world of information and reading material out there for horseplayers
mentioning horses coming off a layoff , even stats for trainers who do well with
fresh horses. A good handicapper would know to look at horses pp's and know
this horse may not be fully cranked. As well they know "no" horse is a sure thing. I can name many instances when I wondered if a horse was ready
probably needs one and bet them because of good works , and lost.

I think Motts a fine trainer who was just being honest and maybe he was
before the race too and we just didn't hear about it.

He was...before the race...and you are correct about all that info...I said the same thing:)

[andicap]

I have to agree with those who say that handicappers who were paying attention would have been off the horse. Mott is not known for winning with three-year-olds largely because he is ultra patient with his charges and is always looking for the long-term.

Any horseplayer worth his salt knows Mott's M.O., his disdain for the Triple Crown trail and his refusal to rush a horse to get ready for the Derby. A look at the horse's record, his lack of racing and a solid workout history told you all you needed to know about his chances. At 8-1, yeah take a shot, but not under 2-1.

Would you have Velasquez push the horse very hard throughout the stretch just so he could have maybe finished second --- and thereby ruining any of his chances for the Derby? As Horatio Luro said, you can't squeeze the lemon dry.

Judging when a trainer will have his horse go all out and when he will probably instruct the jockey not to push him down the lane is part of the handicapping game.

This happens when you bet the NFL as well. A coach knows that a team can not be in peak form for all 16 games so some weeks he pushes them harder than others. Were they trying? Sure. But they were not conditioned as well as they might be because it's impossible to keep a team on edge for five straight months.

No different than with a racehorse.

This is not fraud. This is not chicanery. This is just good horsemanship.

[cj]

Would you have liked Velasquez to have pushed the horse hard throughout the stretch just so he could have maybe finished second --- and thereby ruining any of his chances for the Derby?

...

This is not fraud. This is not chicanery. This is just good horsemanship.

All I said is he should just shut up about it. In the end it is still about gambling. We all know the game is played this way, but don't brag about it later.

[Grits]

Hanover, you're preaching to the choir. You can continue doing so until the cows come home, but the majority of all here KNOW the horse could've needed the race. Honest, we do. The majority also know how to handicap, accordingly.

With the obvious noted, if you'll turn your attention to the actual matter at hand, which is NOT handicapping. Nor is it HOW to bring a horse up to a race as big as the one on the 1st Saturday in May. If, instead, you'll enlighten us (the great unwashed) that back these animals--as to exactly how these quotes below written in the NYTimes by Joe Drape are advantageous to this sport, and those who wager on it, 2 days after the race has been run?

I'm curious as to how you can truly justify such dialogue?


You don’t see many old-school prep races these days, the kind in which a trainer takes a talented horse to a race and doesn’t really care if he wins. The trainer is looking for seasoning and fitness.
“Don’t try to do too much,” Mott, a Hall of Famer, told him. “See how he feels and what we might need to work on.”
Afterward, Velazquez leapt off To Honor and Serve and launched into a rapid-fire rundown of his trip. By the way Velazquez was smiling and sputtering, one would have thought that To Honor and Serve had won rather than finished third, nearly seven lengths behind the victor, Soldat. For Mott, the trick now is improving To Honor and Serve’s stamina in the mornings so the colt will have a more well-rounded effort in the Florida Derby on April 3. Mott does not want his best, just his very good. The goal, after all, is to come home first in the 137th running of the Kentucky Derby.

NOTE: For future reference, bear in mind this last particular paragraph come Florida Derby Day. Whatever you do, please, include it into your handicapping. Its the least Mott's able to at this point--throwing us this bone early and all.:lol:

[Grits]

Andicap, when was the last time you heard an NFL coach on Monday morning stand before the news media and explain:

"well gentlemen, our actual goal this year, as all of you know, is the Lombardi Trophy. Forgive me this week for us getting our @$$ kicked; I'm trying to bring to us up to the playoffs right, and then on to the SuperBowl.":lol:

[rastajenk]

Jim Caldwell, just last year. :ThmbUp:

[Let's Roll]

If there were not 20 spots available on Kentucky Derby day this kind of stuff would not happen. Imagine a field of only 12 or 14. Every prep would mean so much more from an earnings standpoint.
I think if the field size is reduced the entire character of 3 year old racing changes.

[Dahoss9698]

Please explain someting to me...

Let's forget about this isolated Bill Mott situation...is the process of "darkening a horse's form" ethical?

When a horse's jockey is asked to do less than his best in a race, because of a "better spot next week"...is this far removed from cheating?

Because an unethical practice has been allowed to go on for a long time, is that a good enough reason to allow it to continue?

Sure it's unethical. But it has nothing to do with To Honor and Serve. Mott certainly isn't trying to darken his form. I know what you are talking about and it sucks. I'm not sure how frequent it occurs, but I don't think it's that much. Yes, one time is too many. But I'm not really sure how to correct it. It's also way down on the list of things that bother me about the game.

One more time, I don't think Mott should have said what he did. But I also don't think he did anything wrong by not having his horse fully cranked. His job is to get the horse ready for the Derby.

[thaskalos]

Sure it's unethical. But it has nothing to do with To Honor and Serve. Mott certainly isn't trying to darken his form. I know what you are talking about and it sucks. I'm not sure how frequent it occurs, but I don't think it's that much. Yes, one time is too many. But I'm not really sure how to correct it. It's also way down on the list of things that bother me about the game.

One more time, I don't think Mott should have said what he did. But I also don't think he did anything wrong by not having his horse fully cranked. His job is to get the horse ready for the Derby.I didn't mean to imply that Mott was guilty of darkening his horse's form.

My exchange with Hanover1 reminded me of an occasion about a year ago...when he commented to me that we horseplayers were seeking to profit from the horsemen's "sweat"...

I apologize for taking this thread in the wrong direction...

[Chris G]

If there were not 20 spots available on Kentucky Derby day this kind of stuff would not happen. Imagine a field of only 12 or 14. Every prep would mean so much more from an earnings standpoint.
I think if the field size is reduced the entire character of 3 year old racing changes.

I was always in favor of the big fields for the Derby, but this year I've finally changed my mind. I believe they need to limit it & make them earn every dollar as a 3yo.

And start breeding some toughness into them instead of this baby/duck training stuff we're stuck with now.

[JustRalph]

I thought the winner towered over the Mott horse and there was no way I would have played the Mott horse. I think he finished just where I thought he would. I may not be buying what Mott is selling........

[Valuist]

I wasn't overly impressed by ANY of them. Gourmet Dinner was probably the best horse, given that the winner got a soft pace/loose lead over that track where inside speed has been excellent all meet. Dialed In would've smoked that field.

[Tom]

If there were not 20 spots available on Kentucky Derby day this kind of stuff would not happen. Imagine a field of only 12 or 14. Every prep would mean so much more from an earnings standpoint.
I think if the field size is reduced the entire character of 3 year old racing changes.

A big AMEN to that!
12 tops. Even then, half the filed would be a stretch to win the thing.
But the Derby is not about horse racing.

[lamboguy]

Well, I didn't know...but I am still learning about all of this. Which is why I read here and try to learn from all of you smart ones. :)

So, you guys obviously didn't bet To Honor to win. What if the horse just ran and won it? Would that not happen? Would the jockey rein him in and slow him down? Are these dumb questions? :confused: You can tell me the truth lol.
quite frankly speaking you are right. things have changed in the racing game the same way they have in the game of baseball. in baseball today you don't see baseball pitchers pitching a full game, you have set up pitchers and closers in the role as relief pitchers. you have designated hitters.

i liked the old way better in racing, you race your horse every 3-5 days, and the best horse standing for the big dance wins. not today though, horses don't even come out of the barn sometimes, and when they had time off they work 5-6 times before they race and often times they are not even fit for their first race.

they came up with a way to substitute good solid training procedures for horses today. these trainers load up their barns with high priced horses, move them around all over the country, hit them with $400 worth of race prep drugs, and have the system for races being written changed to fit their programs. this way you can effectively wipeout a small guy that owns or trains horses and keep the winning to a select few.

[lamboguy]

I was always in favor of the big fields for the Derby, but this year I've finally changed my mind. I believe they need to limit it & make them earn every dollar as a 3yo.

And start breeding some toughness into them instead of this baby/duck training stuff we're stuck with now.
they find people that don't care what they spend on a horse, enter them in the kentucky derby without a snowballs chance in hell to win, and get their faces on television.

i know you are going to bring up mind that bird. he is a bi-product of terrible racing these days. he had every right in the world to win that race because it was loaded up with make believe horses. he had been training in the high altitude and was as fit as can be, the rider came up with a plan, and he scored.

keep in mind that no other rider in the world would have been able to win that race other than calvin borel. when calvin jumped ship that year for rachel, that was the downfall for mind that bird.

[Shelby]

they find people that don't care what they spend on a horse, enter them in the kentucky derby without a snowballs chance in hell to win, and get their faces on television.

i know you are going to bring up mind that bird. he is a bi-product of terrible racing these days. he had every right in the world to win that race because it was loaded up with make believe horses. he had been training in the high altitude and was as fit as can be, the rider came up with a plan, and he scored.

keep in mind that no other rider in the world would have been able to win that race other than calvin borel. when calvin jumped ship that year for rachel, that was the downfall for mind that bird.


That race (for me) was the best race ever. I had $2 WPS on MTB and cheered them all the way home.

I don't think I've won anything since then. :lol:

[joanied]

I'm on the same page as those that would like to see the Derby field reduced. Yeah, it's every trainer/owners dream to win the thing...but is that a good enough reason to continue with 20 horses running, half of which do not belong...how many more super long shots have to win it, never to win another race, before 'they' realize that they are diminishing the biggest draw we have as a sport...the Triple Crown.

I agree, it's no wonder the colts that are heading for the gate on Derby day don't run much, and, worst, avoid each other at all costs...I think the field size should be 14 (just like the full feild size for all the BC races), and if a few derby dreams are dashed, well, so be it.
This would force the issue of Derby contenders running more often and not ducking each other until the big day...
a tiny example...Stay Thirsty...I've been on this one for quite sometime...but I am seriously thinking he just won't have enough so called foundation under his girth come Derby day.
The horses that already have enough earnings to get in just coast up to the big day...with 6 weeks between starts, and IMO, that sucks!

[PhantomOnTour]

I am going to chime in and agree about field size reduction for the Derby. Either that or revamp the earnings thing (i.e.-reduce the impact of 2yr old earnings).
Oddly though, the big race in other countries is often a stampede if you will:
Melbourne Cup-25 or more entrants?
Grand National-40 or more?
The Arc de Triomphe-20 ran last year

[andicap]

All I said is he should just shut up about it. In the end it is still about gambling. We all know the game is played this way, but don't brag about it later.

Yes, you and Grits are 100% right about that. Appearances and perception mean everything.

[toussaud]

That race (for me) was the best race ever. I had $2 WPS on MTB and cheered them all the way home.

I don't think I've won anything since then. :lol:
for the love of god why lol?

[joanied]

I am going to chime in and agree about field size reduction for the Derby. Either that or revamp the earnings thing (i.e.-reduce the impact of 2yr old earnings).
Oddly though, the big race in other countries is often a stampede if you will:
Melbourne Cup-25 or more entrants?
Grand National-40 or more?
The Arc de Triomphe-20 ran last year

Glad to have one more that would like to see the Derby reduce field size ...
but I don't think you can use those races you mention, phantom, or any races in Europe or Australia...I beleive they have much wider tracks than we do and they run so different from us, slower (except the Aussie sprints) with the fields, for the most part, spread out...
and the Grand National...hell, lucky if 15 of the 40 finish the race :D

[Wiley]

It's interesting the author lauds Mott's old school methods here yet does not look at the fact this colt will only have two prep races this year prior to the KDerby, too little foundation in my book and definitely not old school training.

I see both sides here in a good discussion, but might add there might be an element of damage control by Mott, the colt lost so he was short and we did not push him. Anyone who has followed the game for any period of time would question this colts placement in this race and his ability to win it off the shelf and I did read Mott's comments, somewhere, prior that the colt would not be fully primed for this race.

In the race, it looked to me, Velasquez did sit chilly most of the race so the colt did a lot on his own but was not going to get by Soldat regardless when he came to him on the far turn. It might be he is not good enough or he could come back tougher and run a monster race. We will see in the Florida Derby, but I guess if the pattern continues Mott won't care if he wins that race either.

[joanied]

Right...'old school' would have all the top Derby contenders having at least 4 starts already since the first of the year.

[OTM Al]

Right...'old school' would have all the top Derby contenders having at least 4 starts already since the first of the year.

Not really, but they would have 3-4 starts before the Derby.

[netbet]

If you are interested in horses "prepping" for the big dance...check out the 7th at Meydan tomorrow.

This is The Al Maktoum Challenge with a purse 0f 300K. A few of these will be running in the Dubai World Cup on the 26th....do you think a few will be using this as a prep? While a few more may be using this race just to get into the big race.....your job as a handicapper is to try and figure out this piece of the puzzle.

Granted, it definitely helps if the trainers states this up front....but do we then blame them if the horse somehow wins and we bet someone else based on their comments?

Patrick

[Grits]

Yes, you and Grits are 100% right about that. Appearances and perception mean everything.

Andy, you left out one important factor--and it was my point in starting the thread.

Any sport's appearance and perception is only as good as it's fan's (and in this case,) it's bettor's trust.

When actions or comments allow this to be questioned those fans/bettors have cause for concern. Horseracing, needless, to say has had a good deal of concern brought upon itself in recent years.

I believe Bill Mott and Johnny V should have had this conversation away from the media. Far away. This was a mistake on their part.

[Tom]

If you were a potential new player, and lost a bet on LAT last year, then came back to try again and lost on this horse, then heard Mott, wouldn't you be heading to the slot machines? Or Vega to bet on WWE matches?

[Stillriledup]

I think what this thread is about isnt necessarily Mott and his jockey not giving 100 percent, its the fact that Mott came out afterward and actually SAID, in so many words, we didnt really try to win.

This puts the horseplayer in a position where he or she has to hear from one of the participants that if you bet my horse, you were a sucker.

We all know that 'giving them a race' happens, but as a player, you don't need the trainer you bet on basically laughing in your face saying the horse wasnt ready, especially since he didnt say this emphatically before the race.

Now i know we cant expect jocks and trainers to handicap for us, but i just believe that if you are Bill Mott, you can't say that your horse wasnt ready, even if he wasn't.

The racing industry permits this stuff to happen, so its just part of the handicapping process. You, as a handicapper, can't go into the process thinking that every horse is 'all in' every time they run. Its ok to bet on a horse who's 'short' good players do it all the time, if the price is right, you factor in that the horse might not be 100% cranked, and you take your chances. You win or lose and move on to the next event. What you DONT need is the trainer coming out afterward and telling you that you bet on a horse with no chance.

Its possible that Mott is actually wrong about his own horse. His horse might have just not been good enough and what you saw is what you get. Whether or not THAS has more in the tank is for any individual handicapper to decide on his own, you don't need a barn foreman to tell you what you saw on video.

The thing about not giving full effort lies with the rider. If that jock knows the horse 'might be short' he will ride him in accordance. If the jock knows the horse has bigger fish to fry in a few months, he will 'save something' for those later dates.

As a bettor who bets on THAS, you don't want the jock to save anything, you want him to be riding like its his last mount on earth. Its up to the judges to police this sport and make sure the jock gave full effort and didn't ride like he knew the horse would 'need one'.

As we all know, the judges don't care to police the game in this fashion.

[Shelby]

for the love of god why lol?

:lol:


Calvin is my favorite jockey. :)

[riskman]

Mott did make this statement before the FOY:

"We're going into this race with only six works, which isn't an overabundance of works," Mott said. "This is by no means supposed to be his best race. We want to get started and get a good race. We'd love to see a good effort, but we're starting off the year, coming off a layoff.
http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/editorial/article.cgi?id=21008

In a way Mott did a CYA but the remarks published in the Times was more telling after the race.

Guess I was looking for that duel between the two favorites that never materialized, now we know why.

[joanied]

Mott said pretty much the same thing after the race as he said before it...and reading posts I'm beginning to wonder if the folks, the handicappers want to hear honesty or bull$hit... Mott was trying to be honest with his words...was he not? IMO, he gave anyone listening before the race an honest opinion of how THAS might run...that he got a little too 'wordy' after the race isn't that big a deal, IMO, because he gave an interview before the race and IMO, maybe the guy that wrote that article should have included that pre race interview in the story...if he had, we probably wouldn't be having this thread.

I haven't had time to look at a replay of the race, but maybe someone has and can add whether or not Johnny V rode THAS through the entire stretch...I only saw it the one time, I think I recall him going to the whip in deep stretch, but pretty much putting it away at somewhere between the 1/8 & 1/16th poles?

[igiveupregistering]

And of course they always respond honestly. :p :lol: :lol:

All here focus on them selves as bettors.., whah...whah...whah!...Mott is bad...lying to us bettors...tell us before the race the horse wasn't ready Mott... :liar: :liar: pants on fire.

Get real. That is why they call it gambling. Mott's responsibility is to the owner and the horse. Mott's competition is other trainers. :sleeping:

Does Belichick broadcast his game plan to the Jets? So Mott is supposed to tell his competition , and the rest of the betting world "the 100% unvarnished truth about his horse's physical readiness for this race, as well as his (Mott's) strategy for the race"? :lol:

THAS was a disappointment. 9/5 and he finishes a well beaten third.
Mott said what all trainers say when a big horse disappoints....he needed the race, it was a prep, johny liked the way THAS... whatevered.
Trainers' version of "redboarding" after a poor effort by a contender.

The odds were the story like a prior poster pointed out...THAS was 9/5 off layoff vs tough competition. Bet against.

[Shelby]

Ok, so lets talk about Drosselmeyer. He's entered in a $60,000 stakes race at Tampa Bay Downs on Saturday and his odds are 2-1.

He hasn't raced since his Belmont June 5, 2010 win, which is a longer layoff than THAS had.

If I'm absorbing all of the advice given from you guys, this would be a horse that you would not bet because this is only a small stakes race and Mr. Mott is probably entering him in so he can have a tune-up race. Right?

I haven't seen or heard any comments from Mr. Mott yet regarding the horse.

[OTM Al]

Ok, so lets talk about Drosselmeyer. He's entered in a $60,000 stakes race at Tampa Bay Downs on Saturday and his odds are 2-1.

He hasn't raced since his Belmont June 5, 2010 win, which is a longer layoff than THAS had.

If I'm absorbing all of the advice given from you guys, this would be a horse that you would not bet because this is only a small stakes race and Mr. Mott is probably entering him in so he can have a tune-up race. Right?

I haven't seen or heard any comments from Mr. Mott yet regarding the horse.

That and he isn't very good. Look at what has happened to all the horses coming out of that race. One failure after another. Unless ther rest of the field really stink, he likely won't win

[Marlin]

Ok, so lets talk about Drosselmeyer. He's entered in a $60,000 stakes race at Tampa Bay Downs on Saturday and his odds are 2-1.

He hasn't raced since his Belmont June 5, 2010 win, which is a longer layoff than THAS had.

If I'm absorbing all of the advice given from you guys, this would be a horse that you would not bet because this is only a small stakes race and Mr. Mott is probably entering him in so he can have a tune-up race. Right?

I haven't seen or heard any comments from Mr. Mott yet regarding the horse. http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/61323/drosselmeyer-out-of-mineshaft-handicap The jock isn't at Tampa. The Dubai World Cup must not still be the goal. 60K a little different than a 400k Derby prep. However, no I wouldn't bet this horse on Saturday. That doesn't mean I'd necessarily bet against either.

[Linny]

It used to be that a prep was a prep. It was understod that good horses oten lost come-backers. Look up Kelso's record. He used to get crushed in allowance races to start his campaigns. Good handicappers used to be able to spot a prep a mile away. Now, with trainers so worried about their win % they never want to lose anything and handicappers can't even imagine running a horse into shape.
Prep races are no longer stepping stones. Each race is expected to be the ultimate effort.
Years ago a good handicapper explained it to me like this before Street Sense's Derby: Todd Pletcher has a 34% win rate. Carl Nafzger has an 11% rate. Is Todd 3x better than Carl? The difference is that Carl Nafzger is willing to race a horse into shape and treat preps as just that.

Ed: I will avoid Drosselmeyer like plague.

[Shelby]

I didn't use Drosselmeyer. :)

Lesson learned.

[toussaud]

I didn't use Drosselmeyer. :)

Lesson learned.
how did he do?

[Shelby]

how did he do?

He got fourth.