Exceptional performance reference tool has potential to reduce cheating

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

[cj]

Speed figure makers are always the first to know.

[thaskalos]

Isn't that what the Beyer figures did at their beginning...causing their legendary founder to coin the term "super-trainers"? As I recall, some trainers weren't too pleased...

[cj]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Isn't that what the Beyer figures did at their beginning...causing their legendary founder to coin the term "super-trainers"? As I recall, some trainers weren't too pleased...

I thought the advent of "super trainer" was in regards to the guys that started having strings all over the country with various assistants, but I could be wrong. Like Wayne Lukas was a the original but the term wasn't around yet.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I thought the advent of "super trainer" was in regards to the guys that started having strings all over the country with various assistants, but I could be wrong. Like Wayne Lukas was a the original but the term wasn't around yet.

Wasn't Jack Van Berg the original in terms of multiple strings (though not with all high level horses like Lukas)? I think it was Davidowitz in "Betting Thoroughbreds" who talked about the trainer angle of Van Berg horses winning in bunches at tracks when Jack was actually on the grounds instead of at another track. I think Lukas was still training quarter horses when Davidowitz's first edition came out.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

I thought the advent of "super trainer" was in regards to the guys that started having strings all over the country with various assistants, but I could be wrong. Like Wayne Lukas was a the original but the term wasn't around yet.

The first paragraph of the attached article provides the answer.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/the-jui...01-gdti85.html

[classhandicapper]

The good thing about a tool like this is that it gives regulators an objective method to flag potential problems. It isn't just disgruntled horseplayers with opinions and suspicions.

Any one figure could be impacted by pace, race development, bias, or the subjective part of the figure making process, but if a certain trainer is getting flagged way more than usual they can take the analysis to the next level and look at the details of his horses.

[thaskalos]

An acquaintance of mine once trained thoroughbreds, with moderate success. I asked him once if the track stewards ever questioned him after a horse of his showed suspicious improvement in a race...as the rules say they should. He told me it only happened once...but he was prepared and had a ready answer for them.

"A little goat wondered into the horse's stall the day before the race, and my horse perked right up. It was the strangest thing I've ever seen"...he told me that he told the stewards. And it worked like a charm.

[aaron]

Originally Posted by cj

I thought the advent of "super trainer" was in regards to the guys that started having strings all over the country with various assistants, but I could be wrong. Like Wayne Lukas was a the original but the term wasn't around yet.

I don't know what term Beyer used, but he called out trainers over 20 years ago.I don't remember if he called him super or juice trainers but he definitely called them out. His article is probably available somewhere.

[AskinHaskin]

"By Andrew Beyer
July 18, 2003

The racing game continually changes in subtle ways, and horseplayers must adapt to the changes in order to survive. But in recent years, bettors have observed one change so profound that it has altered the sport and the nature of handicapping: the rise of the super-trainer.

Of course, horseplayers have always known that it is essential to consider the strengths, weaknesses and overall competence of thoroughbred trainers. In modern-day racing, at tracks large and small from coast to coast, certain trainers have become as important as the horses themselves.

The super-trainers achieve winning percentages that defy all the traditional norms of their profession. In the past it was extraordinary for a trainer to win with as many as 25 percent of his starters. Of the top 35 race-winning trainers in 1980, only one (future Hall of Famer Bud Delp) reached that figure. When the great horseman Bill Mott had the best year of his career, operating an exceptionally powerful stable that included horse of the year Cigar, he won with 24 percent of his starters. But such a performance would represent a mini-slump for many of the contemporary super-trainers, who dominate race meetings by winning at a 30 or 40 percent clip."



Which is it going to be? "years" or "Race meetings"




It should be observed that Baffert has qualified during a full year only once since he got serious about Thoroughbreds, and for that he needed

Game Winner 4/4
Justify 6/6
McKinzie 4/5

to get him over the 30% marker.


Of course he's qualified this year so far, but that is mostly to point and laugh at all of the idiots.


Strange the way the doper of the century in racing has better numbers after getting caught red handed than he did before he was caught.



Meanwhile, the superest Super Trainer of them all remains one Mark Hanson (now a winner with 19 of his past 28 TB starters), and who not long ago ended a six-calendar-year stretch during which he won with 169 of 407 Quarter Horse starters.


Beyer also conveniently fails to mention field sizes as an obvious reason why some trainers of today have considerably better winning percentages than do those of yesteryear.

The idiot score has gone from about 10% to that of 14% or so.

[ranchwest]

Why would improvement arouse suspicion? If they're doping, wouldn't that be a frequent occurence?

[aaron]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

"By Andrew Beyer
July 18, 2003

The racing game continually changes in subtle ways, and horseplayers must adapt to the changes in order to survive. But in recent years, bettors have observed one change so profound that it has altered the sport and the nature of handicapping: the rise of the super-trainer.

Of course, horseplayers have always known that it is essential to consider the strengths, weaknesses and overall competence of thoroughbred trainers. In modern-day racing, at tracks large and small from coast to coast, certain trainers have become as important as the horses themselves.

The super-trainers achieve winning percentages that defy all the traditional norms of their profession. In the past it was extraordinary for a trainer to win with as many as 25 percent of his starters. Of the top 35 race-winning trainers in 1980, only one (future Hall of Famer Bud Delp) reached that figure. When the great horseman Bill Mott had the best year of his career, operating an exceptionally powerful stable that included horse of the year Cigar, he won with 24 percent of his starters. But such a performance would represent a mini-slump for many of the contemporary super-trainers, who dominate race meetings by winning at a 30 or 40 percent clip."



Which is it going to be? "years" or "Race meetings"




It should be observed that Baffert has qualified during a full year only once since he got serious about Thoroughbreds, and for that he needed

Game Winner 4/4
Justify 6/6
McKinzie 4/5

to get him over the 30% marker.


Of course he's qualified this year so far, but that is mostly to point and laugh at all of the idiots.


Strange the way the doper of the century in racing has better numbers after getting caught red handed than he did before he was caught.



Meanwhile, the superest Super Trainer of them all remains one Mark Hanson (now a winner with 19 of his past 28 TB starters), and who not long ago ended a six-calendar-year stretch during which he won with 169 of 407 Quarter Horse starters.


Beyer also conveniently fails to mention field sizes as an obvious reason why some trainers of today have considerably better winning percentages than do those of yesteryear.

The idiot score has gone from about 10% to that of 14% or so.

I don't think Beyer ever thought of Baffert as a juice trainer, especially not back then.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

Why would improvement arouse suspicion? If they're doping, wouldn't that be a frequent occurrence?

when 1+1=3

claims or trainer changes where a solid horse has established form and suddenly he's a stakes horse who doesn't tire like the others...

Originally Posted by ranchwest

frequent occurrence?

- certain trainers and owners are really good and it's a frequent thing for them

rarely you do see smaller operations with a 'form reversal' or run a race out of nowhere

[mountainman]

Skeptics sometimes miss the ball by over-fixating on the feats of sexy high-profile trainers. And while implausible improvement from horses that have changed hands stands out more starkly, and thus engenders more cynicism, the sudden, inexplicable awakenings of small "mom and pop" outfits, in cases where the same shop-worn stock simultaneously comes to life and starts blowing up the tote board, occur surprisingly often and should raise plenty of eyebrows in their own right.

As a side note: Those lower-profile "miracles" can, for obvious reasons, create great betting opportunities for alert players good at spotting an emerging trend.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mountainman

the sudden, inexplicable awakenings of small "mom and pop" outfits, in cases where the same shop-worn stock simultaneously comes to life and starts blowing up the tote board, occur surprisingly often and should raise plenty of eyebrows in their own right.

As a side note: Those lower-profile "miracles" can, for obvious reasons, create great betting opportunities for alert players good at spotting an emerging trend.

Yeah, sometimes if feels like you can tell when the "supply" truck must have recently arrived. It's tough (at least for me) to spot things like that early enough. I'd have to focus on it.