Turf Harness Racing, I like it!

[pandy]

At small tracks like Northfield, for instance, the guys don't have enough money to juice their horses, yet the final times are still very fast for the class. Drugs can't make a horse go 7 seconds faster. The positives in the thoroughbred sport are probably higher than they are in harness, and most of the leading trainers have the most positives. And Yonkers and other tracks now have high purses, so I don't get where you're coming from with the purse thing. You are over estimating the power of drugs. Yes, the guys who use drugs will have an advantage, but these drugs didn't result in the times being 7 seconds faster.

[botster]

Originally Posted by Stick

OK
Let's say for argument sake that a 1:53 horse would go in 2:00 if the bikes were changed back. We have a race where a driver like Sears or Tetrick has the speed horse in the race. Today he might go 28:1 56:2 124:3 1:53
My question is if he had the old bike and went 30 1:00 1:30 2:00 would someone catch him? It just seems to happen a lot. A good driver controls the speed and a poor one doesn't. The poor driver might go 29:3 59 128:3 and he gets beat. Will a better bike save him if everyone else is also on a better bike?

Driving strategy today and especially over the last fifteen years has changed so dramatically that it would make that Frank Ervin guy roll over in his grave...LOL.Tough to answer this question, a poor driver is going to cost a horse a race in just about every situation.An average driver with the best horse will beat the better drivers much of the time.It's the old adage "it's what you have between the shafts" I guess.

Rating a horse on the frontend is not nearly as a big factor as it was years ago, especially on the bigger tracks with all the lead changes. Horses,especially higher class one's are so much more competative today, because of the speed factors we have been discussing here.I believe certain drivers just get along better with different types of horses, and that makes the difference.Rating them in holes and on the outside play a huge part today. Many horses today rate themselves on the frontend to a large degree if they are left alone.

A few drivers that really have impressed me over the last few years have been Andy Miller and Dan Dube.

Andy really is a phenominal driver, better than Sears IMO. and damn close to Tim Tetrick.His uncanny ability to get the unruly horses to go is absolutely amazing to watch.Dube can get one to go better than just anybody at the Meads.What a display he put on this meet with that mare DR. NABRINSKY!Even argueably the best driver ever to sit behind one John Campbell could not get this horse to go while she was pulling her sputtering act regularly during her miles this meet...JUST AMAZING!

[botster]

Originally Posted by pandy

At small tracks like Northfield, for instance, the guys don't have enough money to juice their horses, yet the final times are still very fast for the class. Drugs can't make a horse go 7 seconds faster. The positives in the thoroughbred sport are probably higher than they are in harness, and most of the leading trainers have the most positives. And Yonkers and other tracks now have high purses, so I don't get where you're coming from with the purse thing. You are over estimating the power of drugs. Yes, the guys who use drugs will have an advantage, but these drugs didn't result in the times being 7 seconds faster.

Getting caught and "racing dirty" and getting away with it, are two different things bob.I can't speak for the t-breds, so I must take you on your own knowledge and word to be true... in which I do! As I said earlier, I have much respect for you as a handicapper of the harness game.

These trainers who are on top of the Northfield training standings do make money training horses for a flat daily rate...They "gyp", no doubt, but they do have an unfair prerace regemine that give them that advantage.Remember the trainer Bob Belcher who raced here in New York before he got tossed? He made his move back to Northfield a few years back and cleaned up before he was ousted again.Again, why do you think a guy like Virgil Morgan or Ron Burke would bother racing in condition races at Northfield from time to time...EASY MONEY FOR THEM! Northfield has the flying turns also in which speed up the aleady speed favoring half miler already.

This whole seven second thing has to be compared relatively.You can't take a super horse who took a mark from years back, and say horses on the average are all seven seconds faster today, because of the racebikes and tires.

In closing, I want to add...I always "go to bat" for you when I am asked of, "whom is the best pro handicapper of Harness"?

[Stick]

I think it would be naive to believe that horses are not given illegal things at tracks with smaller purses. At Maywood and Balmoral the purses have been very low for years. Do you know how many positives guys like Rucker and Joe Anderson picked up here? Where do you think Seldon and Eric Ledford were racing before they went to the Big M? 30 days here, 30 days there, put up another fake trainer's name and move on.

[botster]

Originally Posted by pandy

Ok, here's my reply. First of all, steroids are the best enhancer and they are gone, yet the final times have now slowed. Also, when they raced with wood bikes, there were plenty of juicers. Remember John Barchi? There were quite a few guys who won a high percentage first off the claim and they had drugs, yet the horses weren't going 7 seconds faster like they do now. It's the bike, not the drugs. I wish they would run a few races in wooden bikes so people would understand this because a horse that goes in 1:53 with the Harmer would go around 2:00 in a wood bike. Another thing about drugs, lots of thoroughbreds are drugged yet they are NOT going faster than they did years ago. Why is that?

What about EPO? Do you have any idea how long this has been around? If I tell you it was around in the early ninetees at a small track such as Monticello way before the slots entered and the Ledfords were busted, would you believe me? Undetectable for all those years until only a few years ago.Now remember, these guys back then were racing for the same purses as Northfield is today.Pre racing has taken over the game and has become an art, and has become the shortcut for the trainers who want to get to winners circle.

This stuff by the way is still being used today with disasterous ramifications to the horse I should add.

The effects this drug has on many horses during a race are remarkable indeed.Take your leading barns at your local track with their massive amount of stock racing on these drugs and you have your primary reason why the average times are faster today.

[botster]

Originally Posted by Stick

I think it would be naive to believe that horses are not given illegal things at tracks with smaller purses. At Maywood and Balmoral the purses have been very low for years. Do you know how many positives guys like Rucker and Joe Anderson picked up here? Where do you think Seldon and Eric Ledford were racing before they went to the Big M? 30 days here, 30 days there, put up another fake trainer's name and move on.

Of course they are Stick, remember this is the stuff that they get caught with because of errors in "hours out",second trainers and groom administering goofs."Slap on the wrist", and it's business as usual. Many naive persons here when it comes to preracing these days I suppose.

I still love the game and angles still hold up for me at the M1 and Mohawk/Woodbine from time to time.

[botster]

Originally Posted by pandy

And Yonkers and other tracks now have high purses, so I don't get where you're coming from with the purse thing. You are over estimating the power of drugs. Yes, the guys who use drugs will have an advantage, but these drugs didn't result in the times being 7 seconds faster.

The fan who has not been around the inside of the game will always underestimate the drugs in this sport, because they haven't seen first hand what goes on behind the scenes.I have seen way too much, from a trainers standpoint over the years to ever overestimate what I have seen guys do in relation to preracing horses.

Now some may say jealousy plays a role in what I am posting and that is their rite, but I love the game and hate to see droves of good hard working people leaving the game, because of what has been going on over the years.

The cold hard facts are that more rigorous testing is not being done, because of lack of funds and plain ignorance.I am not making this stuff up as I go along.The harness industry, even with the slots are still not doing well enough for them to repair what has been damaged.Legitimate testing and investing time and manpower to clean up the game, cannot be done with an industry that is ready to go belly up!

A business that is barely surviving is never going to get funded for these things.So yes the financial status such as purses,handle,and attendance are directly coralated to why horses are "racing dirty" in this game.Stating this, I would have to assume that the runners, because of their better financial status must have more advanced testing.I could be wrong here, but that is what I am trying to get across.

[Pacingguy]

Originally Posted by botster

Why do you think they have retention/detention barns in certain stake races in the harness game?Way too many guys know what to give "hours out", so it won't be detected and better yet they can't administer stuff that they KNOW WON'T BE DETECTED!.When the big money is on the line owners and everyone affiliated with a competitor in such a race wants all their competition to be clean for a restricted time.

And this year the Meadowlands eliminated the detention barn for overnight events; due to the cost. This is absurd. You would think the track with the highest harness handle would want to protect the integrity of their product.

That being said, don't kid yourself. The runners are just as dirty as the trotters are with regards to medication. I suspect most of us reading this thread are big in harness so we are more attuned as to what is going on in harness racing. If we followed the flats more, we would be more cognizent about the runner's violations.

Also, they use drugs at the smaller tracks. The price for the medicine is adjusted based on the earnings potential; the same reason horse shoes cost more at the Meadowlands than they do say at Monticello.

[botster]

Originally Posted by Pacingguy

And this year the Meadowlands eliminated the detention barn for overnight events; due to the cost. This is absurd. You would think the track with the highest harness handle would want to protect the integrity of their product.

That being said, don't kid yourself. The runners are just as dirty as the trotters are with regards to medication. I suspect most of us reading this thread are big in harness so we are more attuned as to what is going on in harness racing. If we followed the flats more, we would be more cognizent about the runner's violations.

Also, they use drugs at the smaller tracks. The price for the medicine is adjusted based on the earnings potential; the same reason horse shoes cost more at the Meadowlands than they do say at Monticello.

I don't follow the t-breds, so if they have the same standard testing at Belmont as they do at Yonkers, then it has to be that they have just "bottomed out" at their average time all these years.A different breed could easily show different results in this manner.

I don't think the average time has dropped all that dramatically in the harness game over the last five years or so. I am thinking this may be the "bottoming out" of the average time for harness horses...Only time will tell I suppose.

You must factor in the other reasons why the average time has improved so much.The track surfaces in the sixties and seventies were not maintained in a manner to induce speed like they are today.Niatrosses time trial changed things forever in this manner.

We all agree that drivers were mostly "sit and wait" type of guys, until the "REDMAN" broke that barrier.The drivers today are virtually all speed minded.

The breed has to be factored into the mix to some degree.Breeders put emphasis on times when they are comparing studs and mares.Many people may not know this, but MANY barns have drastically stopped physically training their horses in between races!These same horses compete every week, with no signs of missing that training.How about layoffs?Is it just coincidence that horses can come off six month layoffs and win today?That was unheard of in the sixties,seventies and even eightees.

The preracing today plays the biggest factor.Does anyone think guys like Stanley Dancer and Bill Haughton were using dirty tactics, such as these leading trainers we see today currently are? Will Ken Rucker be looked at by his peers in twenty years in the same way these true horsemen and graceful individuals WERE AND STILL are today?

You have to also factor in the technology along with the preracing as well.Did Dancer have the benefit of equisisers,swimming pools,nebulizers,magnetic and shock therapy devices in aiding him to keep his horses sound?

All these factors along with the equiptment we have been using for the last twenty years to the present have played a factor,but there is no way you can claim it's the only factor ,or even the most prevalent factor in why the average speed has been elevated.

I don't like the idea of comparing super horses to prove my point, but I guess some think that is ok.With all due respect, to think NIATROSS would have gone seven seconds faster in his world record time trial with a harmer bike is just ludicrous!To even think four or five seconds is absurd, and many horsemen would tell you the same.Now this trial though the condition may not have been ideal, everything was done to assist the great one to break the record.Let's remember with the track being maintained as fast as it could be,driving style was not a factor (though some may debate this)...LOL, and let's just leave the preracing that day with Clint and his crew.The equiptment could never have been the seven second difference in why the horse didn't go in 42 and change.

[botster]

[QUOTE=Pacingguy]And this year the Meadowlands eliminated the detention barn for overnight events; due to the cost. This is absurd. You would think the track with the highest harness handle would want to protect the integrity of their product.

Thanx for pointing this out "guy"...Again proving my point! This is a game where officials just DO NOT CARE anymore, so the trainers and vets are doing what comes natural.

This is not realistic, but if you were to detain all the horses trained on the grounds at the M1, in a detention/retention barn, with the stake restriction rules they use to put into practice, you would undoubtably see almost everyone one of the leading trainers stock fall on an average of two to three seconds over a meets time.Many horses wouldn't be able to even race, and would have to find another way to live out their lives or head to the amish,or worse the slaughter!

This game has gotten this bad folks.You just can't stick your head in the sand like the "proverbial osterich" and go on not believing it.If it's fun and your making money betting them...fine,but let's take off the rose colored glasses, so we can get the big picture.

[wilderness]

Originally Posted by botster

The breed has to be factored into the mix to some degree.Breeders put emphasis on times when they are comparing studs and mares.Many people may not know this, but MANY barns have drastically stopped physically training their horses in between races!These same horses compete every week, with no signs of missing that training.How about layoffs?Is it just coincidence that horses can come off six month layoffs and win today?That was unheard of in the sixties,seventies and even eightees.

The preracing today plays the biggest factor.Does anyone think guys like Stanley Dancer and Bill Haughton were using dirty tactics, such as these leading trainers we see today currently are? Will Ken Rucker be looked at by his peers in twenty years in the same way these true horsemen and graceful individuals WERE AND STILL are today?

You have to also factor in the technology along with the preracing as well.Did Dancer have the benefit of equisisers,swimming pools,nebulizers,magnetic and shock therapy devices in aiding him to keep his horses sound?

botster,
Your mixing LOTS of apples and oranges here, and especially in a light that casual fans could easily misinterpret.

Are you aware that these pages are spidered by the major search engines and content appears in internet searches?

Some horses do win off layoff's, however you make it sound like the horse came from the pasture to the track!
NOTHING!
Could be further from the truth.

Generally speaking, even lame horses are "let down" casually.
Horses require a "bottom" of jogging and training miles before returning.
Any trainer that doesn't follow these procedures either takes a chance of destroying the any season long chance with the horse, or even injuring the horse further and perhaps permanently.
ALL the drugs in the world won't compensate for this required "bottom work".

A very good example from more than 100-years ago, is the famous horse Lou Dillon who had a remarkable season in 1903. However. . .the horse had been void the proper "bottom" training.
As a result, in 1904 there was a tremendous end to the horses career, known as "Memphis Gold Cup Scandal".

As far as what technology didn't exist for the old STARS?
1) Most of the larger stables (Haughton, Dancer, Miller and many others were not exactly "mom and pop" stables. They had multiple divisions of their stables across the country and handled by many locals), had their own vets on staff.
2) caretakers were a lot less expensive in those days (not to mention they were more experienced) and frequently ONE horse had multiple caretakers.

In summary. . .certainly, there are horses that win races with no "bottom" and racing at Scuba Downs for non-Winners of a cheese sandwich, however these horses have short seasons and even shorter longevity.

Also in reflection, as bad as the testing is today, in earlier years there was either no testing at all (when was the saliva test implemented?) or poor and inexpensive testing that was unable to verify Class One drugs, of which were NOT specifically being tested for.

BTW, although I know it was not your intention?
To mention Rucker in the same paragraph as Billy or Stanley is IMO an abomination.

[wilderness]

I should add that pools (swimming horses) may also be utilized for "bottom training" on older horses.

[botster]

[QUOTE=wilderness]botster,
Your mixing LOTS of apples and oranges here, and especially in a light that casual fans could easily misinterpret.

Are you aware that these pages are spidered by the major search engines and content appears in internet searches?

Some horses do win off layoff's, however you make it sound like the horse came from the pasture to the track!
NOTHING!
Could be further from the truth.

A very good example from more than 100-years ago, is the famous horse Lou Dillon who had a remarkable season in 1903. However. . .the horse had been void the proper "bottom" training.
As a result, in 1904 there was a tremendous end to the horses career, known as "Memphis Gold Cup Scandal".

When your dealing with the internet, anything can be misinterpeted yes,but I make no apologies to posting the truth, as I see it.

It's hard to put in obvious details sometimes, knowing that a new fan to this sport is very hard to find these days.Yes your right ,horses are always trained down off lengthy layoffs.The fact remains however, that the horses that were coming off layoffs years ago, and were trained down ,were not winning and performing nearly as well as they do today.

And yes, many horses have been ruined, because of not having the needed foundation under them to compete off the layoff.

[botster]

[QUOTE=wilderness]botster,


As far as what technology didn't exist for the old STARS?
1) Most of the larger stables (Haughton, Dancer, Miller and many others were not exactly "mom and pop" stables. They had multiple divisions of their stables across the country and handled by many locals), had their own vets on staff.
2) caretakers were a lot less expensive in those days (not to mention they were more experienced) and frequently ONE horse had multiple caretakers.

No apples and oranges here.Good help from even three caretakers per horse still cannot be as helpfull to a horse than breathing treatments,meds that help a horse recover from a race,and pain killers that we are using today.

Many of the top barns have multiple guys working for them Many of them listed as "BEARD" trainers, just in case they get caught with a positive out of town.Vets...same story here, but a bigger operation gets you more for your money, when it comes to the prerace today.A major investigation needs to be done on these guys.

You may be correct about the experience of the oldtime people.The sad results of the less knowledgable, and those those seen with very liitle natural talent today, is because of the moral breakdown of society in general.When you are given an opporotunity to cheat...MOST WILL!

[botster]

Also in reflection, as bad as the testing is today, in earlier years there was either no testing at all (when was the saliva test implemented?) or poor and inexpensive testing that was unable to verify Class One drugs, of which were NOT specifically being tested for.

BTW, although I know it was not your intention?
To mention Rucker in the same paragraph as Billy or Stanley is IMO an abomination.[/QUOTE]

Again this is a reflection to the work ethic, and breakdown of morality, especially honesty in this case.Trainers back then, such as guys we mentioned believed in honesty and fairness and most were friends on and off the track.Guys used their natural ability and horses raced on their natural abilty to a large degree...That was the "unwritten rule".

Much anamosity today against the competition.Trainers are tired of getting the "screws put to them" and are forced to exit.The bigger barns are taking over...You can call it manopolizing in every sense of the word.