Woodbine’s Leading Trainer: Cheater or Unfairly Accused?

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by chadk66

I didn't read very much. Just a couple short segments. Didn't dive into it that much. So if they're claiming four days why are they allowing it to be used up to two days out. For all intents and purposes bute does the same then. it's anelgesic.

Who allows it 2 days out? Most jurisdictions follow ARCI guidelines of a 10-day ineligibility period. It's 4 days at Woodbine.

Shock wave can block pain perception in specific structures in the lower leg of the horse. Not so with bute.

[Afleet]

Wonder if he is returning to Oaklawn this season? I remember betting against him w/so-so results. He does drop horses down regularly and claims a lot of horses. He did have some horses air there last season at low odds.

[Elkchester Road]

He raced a big enough sample of starters at Oaklawn last year, and his numbers were much more down to earth. NO trainer can claim from him and move one up...very few can claim from him and win next time out. Many times more were claimed from him and have yet to race again. All of this exists in a bubble. He is somehow "protected" at Woodbine. What amazes me is how the industry...particularly other trainers...allow about 5% of trainers to turn 50% or more of the remaining trainers into bottom feeders.

When these "incredible" statistics exist in a vacuum (one locale)...it isn't by accident. When it happens over multiple seasons...once again, it isn't by accident.

I understand that these "super trainers" put a lot of entries in the box...but do racing offices EVER consider how many trainers, and entries, are run off by these guys? That number is LARGER than the entries of these super trainers.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Elkchester Road

He raced a big enough sample of starters at Oaklawn last year, and his numbers were much more down to earth. NO trainer can claim from him and move one up...very few can claim from him and win next time out. Many times more were claimed from him and have yet to race again. All of this exists in a bubble. He is somehow "protected" at Woodbine. What amazes me is how the industry...particularly other trainers...allow about 5% of trainers to turn 50% or more of the remaining trainers into bottom feeders.

When these "incredible" statistics exist in a vacuum (one locale)...it isn't by accident. When it happens over multiple seasons...once again, it isn't by accident.

I understand that these "super trainers" put a lot of entries in the box...but do racing offices EVER consider how many trainers, and entries, are run off by these guys? That number is LARGER than the entries of these super trainers.

I almost wonder if many cases if it isn't who these trainers are training for that is a bigger issue in all that.

[Afleet]

Originally Posted by Elkchester Road

He raced a big enough sample of starters at Oaklawn last year, and his numbers were much more down to earth. NO trainer can claim from him and move one up...very few can claim from him and win next time out. Many times more were claimed from him and have yet to race again. All of this exists in a bubble. He is somehow "protected" at Woodbine. What amazes me is how the industry...particularly other trainers...allow about 5% of trainers to turn 50% or more of the remaining trainers into bottom feeders.

When these "incredible" statistics exist in a vacuum (one locale)...it isn't by accident. When it happens over multiple seasons...once again, it isn't by accident.

I understand that these "super trainers" put a lot of entries in the box...but do racing offices EVER consider how many trainers, and entries, are run off by these guys? That number is LARGER than the entries of these super trainers.

the article says Woodbine has been going after him

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Who allows it 2 days out? Most jurisdictions follow ARCI guidelines of a 10-day ineligibility period. It's 4 days at Woodbine.

Shock wave can block pain perception in specific structures in the lower leg of the horse. Not so with bute.

how many trainers utilize the shockwave would you think? Can trainers own these things or just a vet?

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by chadk66

how many trainers utilize the shockwave would you think? Can trainers own these things or just a vet?

The California and New York rules require that only licensed vets can perform the treatments, the devices must be registered with the commission, the treatment must be reported to the commission (horse is ineligible to run for 10 days), and the treatment must be performed in a location designated by the commission. Parx made a house rule that prohibited the machines all together.

Some complications with rules:

The biggest problem in terms of enforcement is the use of the machine off racetrack grounds where commissions typically do not have jurisdiction.

...there’s currently no conclusive way to test whether a horse has been administered shockwave therapy.

[baconswitchfarm]

Originally Posted by chadk66

how many trainers utilize the shockwave would you think? Can trainers own these things or just a vet?

I only have reference from the standardbred business, but I doubt there is much difference. Almost all trainers use them. Most training centers have multiple ones floating around owned by trainers thus eliminating the exorbitant mark ups by vets. If every horse that had been shock waved in the last ten days couldn't race you would have to cancel the card.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

https://twitter.com/DougieSal/status...55237820325888

Devastating info.......answers any question I might have

[Immanuel Kant]

He will be at OP this winter.

He was under surveillance more than any other trainer at WO all meet long.

What is the point of continually casting aspersions if they cannot be proven?

I agree with CJ........use the info as you will

[chadk66]

I don’t know what rules are at each track but back when I was training you could ship in day of the race. That would pretty much negate preventing it from being used within 48 hours.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by cj

Does it really matter to gamblers? I think worrying about whether a guy is cheating or not is bad for the bottom line. Just be aware of what the trainer is good at (and not so good at) and use that info. The "why" doesn't really matter to us as bettors.

I was under a misconception that handicappers do care if a trainer cheats.

I guess we just have to clean up the sport for the trainers and owners if handicappers don’t care.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

I was under a misconception that handicappers do care if a trainer cheats.

I guess we just have to clean up the sport for the trainers and owners if handicappers don’t care.

I think you are taking that farther than I intended. Of course I want a clean sport. I just don't happen to think it helps me one bit as a bettor.

And, to be frank, there isn't a damn thing I can do about it about any cheating that is going on. I'm not the Don Quixote type.

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by Afleet

the article says Woodbine has been going after him

Yes...that's what the article SAYS. The eye test says different. It is the same old, same old.

[ubercapper]

I used Stats Race Lens to query his off claim stats for the past five years. The images are part of this tweet

Twitter

Statistically it's possible on small numbers, & could just as easily go the other way. For example this year the numbers are 21/56, last year 12/37. If this year's numbers were 18/56 (just 3 less wins) the % would be the same both this year & last.

I tried to be objective, looking at the numbers, and reminding myself "improbable is not impossible."

My conclusion is these percentages are possible on small numbers, & could just as easily go the other way. For example this year the numbers are 21/56, last year 12/37. If this year's numbers were 18/56 (just 3 less wins) the % would be the same both this year & last.

---

Last edited by ubercapper; 12-21-2018 at 11:05 AM.