You certainly did make a straw man argument when you said "[t]elling them who they can and can't use as trainers is nonsensical", and given that you can't recognize that you were knocking down a straw man (literally NOBODY in this thread told any owner who they could or couldn't use as a trainer), you probably shouldn't be lecturing anyone about the definition of a straw man argument.

I agree that this issue is complicated. Which is why people shouldn't make it sound like folks are simplistically telling owners which trainers they can employ".

Well, for all you contractionists, this is what you're going to get more and more.

I don’t know about you but if I have a horse that can compete in graded stakes races, it’s going to one of the leading trainers that knows how to consistently win them

It is bad if a lot of owners are losing a lot of money. However, owners have the freedom to change trainers. They already do that when they see fit, even with top stock. If you think you have good horses but aren't winning due to someone else out training your trainer, move your horses.

If you are a trainer and aren't getting the same stock and earnings you used to get, it gets harder to justify all the hard work and expenses associated with the job. So you may just drop out, become a jockey agent, help manage horses for a partnership, or retire earlier rather than stay in the game as a trainer. If even a few highly regarded trainers drop out, that concentrates the best horses in those few hands even more.

Success attracts money. There's not much we can do about that. That's the way it should be. But that doesn't mean it's always a good thing or that you can't go too far.

The post TLG made was not difficult to understand. If you don't agree with him you might try offering your own analysis. Your dubious claim of a straw man argument does nothing to further the conversation.

To me, it makes sense that a few of the top trainers would dominate the game's Grade-1 races. An owner with big money to spend can't be blamed for engaging the services of the most successful trainer that he can find. And I don't see this as a problem...because I don't view the Grade-1 races as an accurate barometer with which to judge the general condition that this game is in.

The bigger problem is the ever rising rate of favorites winning rising to near harness racing level numbers, and this G1 thing is a microcosm of that. Nearly every circuit has a guy or two or three winning the vast majority of races.

I agree...and this isn't a "new" problem, IMO. It was more than a few years ago when I started a thread here about Juan Carlos Guerrero, who rose from total obscurity to a level where he was showing a 40% winning percentage across every single training statistical category. Other trainers then started scratching their horses out of the races where Guerrero's horses were present...and this led to even shorter fields, and even higher winning percentages for "King Carlos".

As a bettor, it doesn't bother me much when a top trainer wins 10% of the Grade-1 races...because the purses of the Grade-1 events pretty much ensure that the fields will retain most of their fullness and competitiveness. It's when I see the proliferation of the 6-horse fields that I revolt...because that's what threatens to make this game totally unbettable for the profit-minded player.

Since Letruska thinks she's Personal Ensign....
If I had a Filly/Mare who was going to be a giant number in the Distaff,I would consider rerouting her into the F/M Sprint.

It's no coincidence that the best trainers get the most expensive horses or horses with superior breeding. It just makes sense that the best bred horses or horses with great conformation win the most Grade 1's. Some talk about Letrushka here. The horse was sired by a Derby winner, Super Saver. The dam was a daughter of Successful Appeal . The horse has a combination of speed and stamina both were which were bred into her. These regally bred horses also tend to pass on the good genes whereas feel good horses that were great on the track but lacked a little in breeding don't tend to be good sires. California Chrome, Holy Bull, Skip Away and Silver Charm to name a few. Tiznow was an OK sire but nothing special.

Seattle Slew wasn't bad.

Just a couple of posts ahead of yours was on a tweet about how they are dropping like flies out of the BC FM Sprint.

(IMO, that's a shame because Gamine is one of the more vulnerable favorites on the card...at least in the face of a full field with other speed horses).

A lot of turf stakes in NY have become unplayable for me. This is no knock on Chad Brown. He's legitimately great!! He develops his horses well, knows where they are in that development, spots them well, and reads the probable race development well. The problem is everyone else knows his horses are more likely to fire their "A" race, move forward to a new peak, or get a great trip than the other horses. So the odds on his horses are almost always a few ticks lower than they would be if trained by someone else. You can't bet against many of them because those lower odds are typically justified by his extraordinary talent. And it's harder to find an overlay on some trip or race flow because he trains them and they get bet so hard. That would all be tolerable if he had a handful of top horses. But he has so many of the best turfers in the country (partly due to his talents developing them) that he often has 2 or even 3 horses in a race. I've even seen examples of NY based horses that would ordinarily run and fit shipping out just to avoid running against some Chad monsters. So this is not just impacting other trainers. It's impacting gamblers. Again, more power to him. He's great. He deserves it. But that doesn't make it good for everyone.

Hard to argue this after the results of last weekend's turf stakes. :)