Beards?? In or out?

[Hanover1]

Been going on a very long time, and many are frustrated at their existence. Tough to track for bettors purposes, but useful for horsemen, and not always understood. Understanding the reasons against, are many and easy as well to understand. Try this one: You leave Florida with 60 head, and can only get stalls for 40 at track A. You need to send 20 to track B, along with your top man to oversee the daily happenings while you tend the 40 daily at track A. Everything on the up and up so far? According to the rules at present, there is no problem thus far. Now, you have held a clean license for decades, and are in good standings wherever you go. Would you want your name down on the 20 at track B, that you cannot oversee every hour of the day, when you hired a man you feel is competent to fill in for you? Putting his name down as trainer makes sense, as he is, in effect, there every day, and should be responsible for them, as to trainer responsibility. Something happens, whatever, I cannot leave track A, because I may be on the track at the time, ect...so it falls to the guy that is in charge of that string. He is down as trainer, and in effect, a beard. So how do we solve the inherit problems that arise from the beard issue, if there is a need for them?

[Grits]

Been going on a very long time, and many are frustrated at their existence. Tough to track for bettors purposes, but useful for horsemen, and not always understood. Understanding the reasons against, are many and easy as well to understand. Try this one: You leave Florida with 60 head, and can only get stalls for 40 at track A. You need to send 20 to track B, along with your top man to oversee the daily happenings while you tend the 40 daily at track A. Everything on the up and up so far? According to the rules at present, there is no problem thus far. Now, you have held a clean license for decades, and are in good standings wherever you go. Would you want your name down on the 20 at track B, that you cannot oversee every hour of the day, when you hired a man you feel is competent to fill in for you? Putting his name down as trainer makes sense, as he is, in effect, there every day, and should be responsible for them, as to trainer responsibility. Something happens, whatever, I cannot leave track A, because I may be on the track at the time, ect...so it falls to the guy that is in charge of that string. He is down as trainer, and in effect, a beard. So how do we solve the inherit problems that arise from the beard issue, if there is a need for them?

Now this is a real dilemma isn't it? Beard (in this case, an assistant trainer, not a bet runner, per sey) getting the day rate you're getting as the trainer of record?

Love it when the horsemen want to lay it on "The Help." Yet, make more money than "The Help", while wanting less accountability. Yep, this'll fix racing, for sure.

[CryingForTheHorses]

Been going on a very long time, and many are frustrated at their existence. Tough to track for bettors purposes, but useful for horsemen, and not always understood. Understanding the reasons against, are many and easy as well to understand. Try this one: You leave Florida with 60 head, and can only get stalls for 40 at track A. You need to send 20 to track B, along with your top man to oversee the daily happenings while you tend the 40 daily at track A. Everything on the up and up so far? According to the rules at present, there is no problem thus far. Now, you have held a clean license for decades, and are in good standings wherever you go. Would you want your name down on the 20 at track B, that you cannot oversee every hour of the day, when you hired a man you feel is competent to fill in for you? Putting his name down as trainer makes sense, as he is, in effect, there every day, and should be responsible for them, as to trainer responsibility. Something happens, whatever, I cannot leave track A, because I may be on the track at the time, ect...so it falls to the guy that is in charge of that string. He is down as trainer, and in effect, a beard. So how do we solve the inherit problems that arise from the beard issue, if there is a need for them?


I think having 60 horses is way too much for a trainer to keep tabs on..I myself could never have a string of horses at 1 track and never be there to oversee each horse.These trainers that want this many horses and have a assistant are adding fuel to the fire.IMO "The Help' should never give the horse anything other then the daily routine of cleaning the stalls and looking after them.I would also never let anyone set feeds.All drugs if any are administered by a vet with me there and written in a daily log.I see horses here with help running and the trainer is never here.I think there ought to be a rule about this.These guys cant possibly know how each and every horse is.To see how they are handled,Watching them train and cool out,To see if any are sick or have left feed.How does a guy with this many horse possibly know this?.Hired help will always tell the trainer what he wants to hear....

[Hanover1]

Now this is a real dilemma isn't it? Beard (in this case, an assistant trainer, not a bet runner, per sey) getting the day rate you're getting as the trainer of record?

Love it when the horsemen want to lay it on "The Help." Yet, make more money than "The Help", while wanting less accountability. Yep, this'll fix racing, for sure.

Totally out of context here...what does pay have to do with it? Perhaps if you reread my last few sentences on the subject it becomes clear that I was looking for answers to solve the beard problem, not fish for insults to horesemen.

[Hanover1]

I think having 60 horses is way too much for a trainer to keep tabs on..I myself could never have a string of horses at 1 track and never be there to oversee each horse.These trainers that want this many horses and have a assistant are adding fuel to the fire.IMO "The Help' should never give the horse anything other then the daily routine of cleaning the stalls and looking after them.I would also never let anyone set feeds.All drugs if any are administered by a vet with me there and written in a daily log.I see horses here with help running and the trainer is never here.I think there ought to be a rule about this.These guys cant possibly know how each and every horse is.To see how they are handled,Watching them train and cool out,To see if any are sick or have left feed.How does a guy with this many horse possibly know this?.Hired help will always tell the trainer what he wants to hear....

Many would agree with you. The training by telephone has become quite popular in this regard, and I see tons of problems there as well. For me, 20 is a handful, but have been involved with much larger sheds. Help was never allowed to administer anything, zero, zip, nada. Assistant always/usually sets feed, and always has. Keeping tabs on who comes to the barn helps alot, including nights. Some guys have risked alot by splitting sheds, but do so for logistic reasons. If something were to happen along the way, the man in charge should take the responsibility, and if it is the assistant, sent with a string, then he takes responsibility, and does so without any qualms. Its done alot, but not as much as in the past actually. Many find a training center solves alot of these problems, and shipping individual horses to other lead trainers for stake preps, ect...solves alot of this. But it is "bearding".
Guys that intentionally use others to retain control of operations while serving suspensions, bans, is the real problem here, and I mention the other situations as a matter of comparison. Both situations are considered bearding, so once again, how do we deal with this problem?

[BIG49010]

I can remember a time in Illinois that the assistants were listed in the program, but a quick check of a 2010 Arlington and a 2011 Gulfstream shows no assistants listed.

As a handicapper back in those days, several trainers were only as good as the assistant they had, and when he left so did the winners.

[Hanover1]

I can remember a time in Illinois that the assistants were listed in the program, but a quick check of a 2010 Arlington and a 2011 Gulfstream shows no assistants listed.

As a handicapper back in those days, several trainers were only as good as the assistant they had, and when he left so did the winners.

One could interpret that a few ways. Meaning the assistant took the risks to insure wins, while lead was in the clear? Many sheds today are only as good as assistants/help. 1 Guy can't do it all.

[Grits]

Totally out of context here...what does pay have to do with it? Perhaps if you reread my last few sentences on the subject it becomes clear that I was looking for answers to solve the beard problem, not fish for insults to horesemen.

I read each sentence of your post. I don't need to reread the last few, Hanover. Pay has a whole lot to do with it. A trainer doesn't mind taking on the horses/owners, yet, when he can't get as many stalls as he needs on the grounds, his responsibility for those animals should be removed and placed upon an assistant who is not being paid the level of income the trainer is, nor was he hired by the owner? All of this because the trainer can't be two places at one time, but knew this.

Unlike you, I'm not an insider, I'm not clear on the times, Dutrow, Asmussen, or Pletcher, etc, may have sent their horses to other trainers to get them race ready. I figured it all came down to the assistants, none of whom I've seen given days, but have seen carry on in the DRF.

Assistants are not making the money the trainer is making. Of course, about 1%, account for the large incomes in horse training, kinda like the top echelon of wealth as we know it in our economy, present, past and future.

This is dicey territory, at best. That desire to win you spoke of, and the money that comes with it, is a powerful motivator. Ask Lukas.

I don't believe you will see an end to far reaching racing stables. Or the trainers that own them.

[Tom]

If the trainer cannot keep tabs on all of his horses, he has no business having them at a track. Not putting his name on them is a fraud and should result in loss of license. Problem solved.

[Hanover1]

If the trainer cannot keep tabs on all of his horses, he has no business having them at a track. Not putting his name on them is a fraud and should result in loss of license. Problem solved.

I buy into that. Not a problem. Now said trainer has his name on everything at several tracks. Still no problem? As it stands now, nothing is wrong with this situation under current guidelines. Yet we know somebody else is in charge day to day. Don't care who that fellow is? Its about transparency after all, is it not? After all, training by telephone is legal.

[macguy]

I buy into that. Not a problem. Now said trainer has his name on everything at several tracks. Still no problem? As it stands now, nothing is wrong with this situation under current guidelines. Yet we know somebody else is in charge day to day. Don't care who that fellow is? Its about transparency after all, is it not? After all, training by telephone is legal.


The "super trainer" phenomenon of the last few decades really bothers me.

Trainers are being credited with starts and wins all over North America, when in reality they have had little or nothing to do with the training of the horse. They likely have several horses in their "super" stables that they have never put their hands on, let alone trained.

Strictly speaking from a statistics point of view, they are winning awards based on the volume of horses that they send to post, yet really have very little to do with the day to day training of the majority of their horses.

I don't like it.

[Hanover1]

The "super trainer" phenomenon of the last few decades really bothers me.

Trainers are being credited with starts and wins all over North America, when in reality they have had little or nothing to do with the training of the horse. They likely have several horses in their "super" stables that they have never put their hands on, let alone trained.

Strictly speaking from a statistics point of view, they are winning awards based on the volume of horses that they send to post, yet really have very little to do with the day to day training of the majority of their horses.

I don't like it.

You are correct albiet a little misguided as to how little/much these "supertrainers" know about each horse. I have personally seen 1 man know each and every piece of equipment and shoe and breeding of over 100 head in the winter. They split up when shipping north in the spring, but the guy never forgets each one. Daily around 5am, a phone call is placed to each satellite barn, and each horse is discussed, and lead trainer has final say as to the daily scedule/work load/equipment/rider, ect...including feeds meds, ect....on down the line. Now what actually takes place may vary from the phone conversation, but it typically involves work times, or equipment issues, and are recorded anyways. Assistants that waver from the phone conversations for any period of time without positive results is usually in hot water. Meds are carefully screened via billings to head office, and any discrepancies are quickly caught. In short, these guys DO have a hand in what goes on for each and every horse, every day, even though they may not lead them over to the paddock and toss the shammie.

[toussaud]

I think it would be made clearer, if we actually sat down and defined what a trainer is and is not.

Todd Pletcher, Steve A.. they aren't trainers as much as they are advisers. At least in my opinion.

They wake up in the morning, go over a list of horses with each barn and advise them/suggest to to them how to get the best performance out of that horse for that particular day. But they don't feed the horses, they don't tack the horses, they don't rub down the horses, they are only on hand for usually the most prized horses workouts in the mornings.. that's not training. at least top me it's not.

[PaceAdvantage]

I think it would be made clearer, if we actually sat down and defined what a trainer is and is not.

Todd Pletcher, Steve A.. they aren't trainers as much as they are advisers. At least in my opinion.

They wake up in the morning, go over a list of horses with each barn and advise them/suggest to to them how to get the best performance out of that horse for that particular day. But they don't feed the horses, they don't tack the horses, they don't rub down the horses, they are only on hand for usually the most prized horses workouts in the mornings.. that's not training. at least top me it's not.You have no clue what the actual named persons in your reply actually do each morning, do you?

Obviously, with horses they have at different tracks in the country, they can't be in all places at all times. But take a guy like Pletcher, who is based in NY at the moment, and has a nice big fat barn at Belmont. Are you telling me you know for certain he doesn't feed the horses, doesn't tack the horses and doesn't rub down the horses?

He just sits in a lawn chair puffing on a cigarette, right? Kind of like the no-show jobs on HBO's The Sopranos? That's what you're telling us is a fact?

:faint:

[toussaud]

You have no clue what the actual named persons in your reply actually do each morning, do you?

Obviously, with horses they have at different tracks in the country, they can't be in all places at all times. But take a guy like Pletcher, who is based in NY at the moment, and has a nice big fat barn at Belmont. Are you telling me you know for certain he doesn't feed the horses, doesn't tack the horses and doesn't rub down the horses?

He just sits in a lawn chair puffing on a cigarette, right? Kind of like the no-show jobs on HBO's The Sopranos? That's what you're telling us is a fact?

:faint:


In your heist to try to create a gotcha moment you competently missed the point I am trying to make.

While I am not 100% sure what a trainer does every morning, and hell I take no shame in that, I'm a programmer by trade and I am quite sure that 99% of the people here on this forum have no idea what I do when I am creating a database driven ecommerce website, doesn't mean they are stupid, it just means that is not what they do for a living...

anyway, the point i am trying to make is...

who is based in NY at the moment, and has a nice big fat barn at Belmont. Are you telling me you know for certain he doesn't feed the horses, doesn't tack the horses and doesn't rub down the horses?

I'm quite freaking sure, unless he's the reincarnation of superman, he's not doing that for his string of horses based in Arcadia, and he's not doing the same for his string based at Aqueduct int he winter while he's @ palm meadows.

In short, if you were to define a trainer as whatever you wish to define him as, a person who feeds and rubs down horses every morning, by the very definition you just laid out, he would not be training the horses at Aqueduct or Santa Anita, even though he's listed as the trainer of record. All I am saying is that, if he isn't "training horses" again, using your own definition you just laid out there, then he would not be the trainer of record, because he's not training the horses. That's all i'm saying. Whatever he is doing, whatever hands on things he is doing at Palm Meadows for instance in January, he isn't doing at Santa Anita or Aqueduct.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm quite freaking sure, unless he's the reincarnation of superman, he's not doing that for his string of horses based in Arcadia, and he's not doing the same for his string based at Aqueduct int he winter while he's @ palm meadows.Didn't I agree with you when I wrote: "Obviously, with horses they have at different tracks in the country, they can't be in all places at all times."

However, you stated:Todd Pletcher, Steve A.. they aren't trainers as much as they are advisers. At least in my opinion.

They wake up in the morning, go over a list of horses with each barn and advise them/suggest to to them how to get the best performance out of that horse for that particular day. But they don't feed the horses, they don't tack the horses, they don't rub down the horses, they are only on hand for usually the most prized horses workouts in the mornings.. that's not training. at least top me it's not.You made no distinction on whether the horses you were talking about were 3,000 miles away or 3 yards away. Reading your post, one might get the idea that these guys, even when physically present at whatever barn they happen to be at the moment, do nothing in terms of hands-on training.

[toussaud]

that's why i said we need to define what a trainer is and is not. I am not implying that a trainer is one thing and he isn't a trainer if he doesn't do X and Y. But I believe there should be a set definition as to what a trainer is and is not, and I would like to think, that the definition, includes some day to day hands on activities.

[Hanover1]

....I aint even gonna try......

[macguy]

that's why i said we need to define what a trainer is and is not. I am not implying that a trainer is one thing and he isn't a trainer if he doesn't do X and Y. But I believe there should be a set definition as to what a trainer is and is not, and I would like to think, that the definition, includes some day to day hands on activities.


Well I suppose we could look at it this way. In today's world, what is required to be the horses trainer? As far as I can tell, all that's required to be a horses "trainer" is a trainers licence and the horse stabled at the track under the "trainers" name. Is that enough?