Defending the indefensible

[Track Phantom]

I was part of a conversation elsewhere about the sensational win percentage by Wayne Catalano and Frank Calebrese at Arlington Park. For those of you not following it, Catalano is winning at a 72% clip to the start of the Arlington Meet (20 starters) and is winning at about 45% for the entire year.

What I find intriguing is how so many dedicated players rush to the defense of these "super" trainers when it is completely obvious to a rational person that they are doing something outside of the rules to obtain these percentages.

In my opinion, given the uncontrollable variables (weather, horse showing up dull, disinterested, traffic problems, bad rides, on and on) it is highly unlikely someone could win at over 30% while being totally legitimate, not to mention winning over 70%.

I started handicapping in May of 1986 at the age of 17. By end of June I had read a lot of the required reading to be a handicapper. Over the next few years, I immerssed myself into the game. I probably read and analyzed most every days racing form from '87 to '92. I do not ever remember trainers winning at such high numbers. In 1980, the leading trainer won 25% of his starts. Bill Mott has never won more than 24% in a single season.

Somewhere around the early to mid '90's, the term, "supertrainer" emerged. Andy Beyer wrote..."We have to deal with the fact that certain trainers may become the central factor in a race and render irrelevant conventional handicapping methods". This is one of the most disturbing things about the game today and has pushed away many dedicated players I used to discuss horse racing with.

It would appear that we are far beyond the accusation standpoint. Because we rely so heavily on statistics, it is fairly easy to see a trend that is atypical. Because these supertrainers win with claimers, and often claimers they just purchased days earlier, it makes it impossible to believe their horsemanship had anything to do with their miraculous turnaround.

I understand the desire of dedicated horse players to defend such monumental training feats. The failure to do so would be accepting that rampant cheating occurs and the thousands of hours of pouring over a racing form would seem foolish. Analyzing generations of breeding in a horse's pedigree or whether the outside post hurt his chances in the previous start would mean very little if all that was needed was a simple injection or concoction for a horse to win at any distance, level or surface.

So, as horeplayers, what are our options?
1. Cover your ears and scream out loud "There is no cheating"

2. Accept the fact that cheating occurs and try to use it in your handicapping

3. Let it bother you and affect the person you are outside of horse racing (if you exist outside of horse racing)

4. Find every opportunity to bring to light the issue in hopes the faint chant will be heard by an organization that can hold horse racing accountable for their lack of governance

5. Walk away from the game

I don't know what the answers are. However, I can tell you that at one point or another, I've done all of the above. There might be a #6, though. That is to walk away from the game...for good. That one I obviously have not done yet. But if there was ever something that could force me from this game forever, it is this issue.

[Imriledup]

I guess the moral of the story is that you are allowed to win (as a trainer) but just don't win too much.

The horseplayers aren't going to know who cheats unless the racing commission actually catches them with physical evidence. Some may say the same about some of the trainers at Bay Meadows/Golden Gate and how their ridiculously high win (place and show) percentages scream that something is terribly wrong.

I'm not sure how the presence of a supertrainer (or more than one) can impact betting handle, but if the racetrack and judges believe it DOES impact betting handle for the good, what incentive would they have to rule said trainer off the grounds?

If a supertrainer has a barnful of horses, is extremely active in the claiming game and enters hundreds of horses into their races, that makes the field sizes larger and thus, betting handle goes up. Get rid of a trainer like this and you have less horses running in less races and that means, less betting handle. No incentive really to 'catch' this supertrainer doing anything wrong.

Its the same exact situation with Major League Baseball. When Sosa and McGuire were chasing down the ghosts of Maris, no one said a thing (even though both these guys looked like King Kong) because baseball was profiting. People were happy, people were buying merchandise, people were coming to the games, etc. Why rock the boat? In fact, if it wasn't for Jose Canseco feeling he was 'blackballed' out of baseball (when, in fact, the real reason was that he forgot how to hit) this stuff might still be going on today.

Does racing have a Jose Canseco who will come out and finger a handful of big name trainers and force racing to do something drastic?

Can racing or a state adopt a new rule that says if a trainer gets a drug positive, they can be arrested, jailed and prosecuted for tampering with a sporting contest? I bet these guys would be less likely to do anything if they knew they might be in jail as a racefixer, as opposed to getting a 30 day suspension and 5k fine instead for breaking a 'racing rule'.

Is doping a horse NOT racefixing? You can make a strong case that it is, right? Why then are the Asmussens, Pletchers and Biancone's not on their way to jail? No, they receive 6 month suspensions and let their assistant go on the program and run the barn by cellphone, while they play golf and lay on the beach sipping pina coladas. They never lose a horse and its back to business as usual 6 months or a year later.

These trainers will be seen holding babies or wishing mom a happy mothers day on TVG, but if you look deeper, you can see violation after violation.

To my knowledge, Roger Clemens never actually tested positive for Steroids and yet with one man's testimony, you have the entire nation tossing him under the bus. Sports talk radio and tv programs can't say the two words 'Roger Clemens' fast enough these days. If Roger Clemens was a horse trainer, he'd be done with his 6 months suspension and living the high life just like many of our top trainers in this country are doing.

Racing has no leadership and has to make drastic changes going forward if this sport is going to survive. The abuse of legal and illegal drugs is at an all time high. Every single runner (except Casino Drive ironically enough) has been treated with lasix. All people seem to care about is the bottom line, no one is really looking out for the horses. PETA might be screaming about Eight Belles, but where are they when these poor, cheap claimers are given the most powerful drugs known to man just to keep them on the track. When they can no longer race, they are tossed away like yesterday's newspaper.

If Eight Belles lives and retires, she gets treated like royalty, the 5k claimer who is pumped full of stuff that you don't want to even know about, gets no such love.

This is a very cruel, unforgiving game and not one for the faint of heart. Many people feel that artificial surfaces are the cureall, but those people are sadly mistaken. We need to clean this game up from the drug cheats before we can worry about installing artificial surfaces in every racetrack in America.

I don't follow Arlington at all, but i'm somewhat familiar with the exploits of the trainer mentioned at the top of the thread.

I dont' know if catalano is cheating or has ever used an illegal drug in his life but i'll ask you all this question:

If Catalano is doing all this stuff on oats, hay, good horsemanship, elbow grease and great placement, than why would anyone risk getting caught with EPO, Snake Venom, etc if you can win this many races on elbow grease, quaker oats and a bottle of fiji?

Is the moral of the story that you can win, but not too much?

I would hate it if Arlington was my home track. What do you do with Catalano 4-5 shots littering the races? You can't bet on OR against them, do you just skip those races?

I don't know the answer..... and even if i did, who would listen?

[john del riccio]

Is it possible for one of the database guru's to do the following:

Evaluate theperformance of the horse claimed by Catalano AFTER they are claimed away. This is the key to determining if he is, as the Beatles said,
"getting a little help from his friends".

You casn use whatever metric is easiest, class level, speed figures, money earned, it doesn't matter. Soundness issues aside, if a horse was competitive for 20 while in hi sbarn, but when it moved to another barn with a competant trainer, if they can't compete for 10, something is up.

John

[RichieP]

Very simple explanation. Mr. Calabrese and Mr. Catalano are Italian and feed their charges steady diets of Friselle and Zabaione.

I mean come on now. It really is that simple

[witchdoctor]

Originally Posted by RichieP

Very simple explanation. Mr. Calabrese and Mr. Catalano are Italian and feed their charges steady diets of Friselle and Zabaione.

I mean come on now. It really is that simple

I am going to have to get my trainer to do that. Got any good recipes?

[Cangamble]

Smart high percentage trainers who have help don't claim horses. There are at least a couple on the Ontario circuit right now. They have horses that walk very sore, jog very sore, but run very fast.

[PaceAdvantage]

May I humbly inquire as to the following:

Originally Posted by Valento

What I find intriguing is how so many dedicated players rush to the defense of these "super" trainers when it is completely obvious to a rational person that they are doing something outside of the rules to obtain these percentages.

Where exactly are you finding dedicated players rushing to defend super trainers? If you read this board, it's filled with players criticizing the system, accusing the trainers, and demanding change. Thus, I'm just curious as to where all these dedicated players are hiding out and defending "super" trainers.

It's funny you mention Bill Mott though, because he was suspended for an illegal race day medication positive. I suppose we should label him a cheat forever.

Same goes for Neil Drysdale on the west coast.

Perhaps in writing the above two sentences, it will be perceived that I have somehow rushed to defend "super" trainers?

[magwell]

I dont know drysdale but Bill Mott is a honest and good trainer, he would never do anything to hurt his horses, he is a complete horseman. {I know this as fact}

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by magwell

I dont know drysdale but Bill Mott is a honest and good trainer, he would never do anything to hurt his horses, he is a complete horseman. {I know this as fact}

And I have absolutely no reason to disagree with you. I was just pointing out that he was suspended because one of his horses tested positive for an illegal race-day medication, making the argument that "all trainers who ever tested positive are cheats" kind of awkward when you start bringing up guys like Mott and Drysdale who have also had horses test positive.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Imriledup

Get rid of a trainer like this and you have less horses running in less races and that means, less betting handle. ?

I don't buy this part of your logic. Get rid of a trainer like this and the horses are distributed to other trainers.

Until a trainer is caught, he's only a suspect. It is surprising that other trainers don't rebel and scratch out of races that these super trainers are in. Also these wise guys seem to stay ahead of the curve so to speak. Drug testing costs money. Many small venues cannot afford the tests on a continuous basis. However, if I where a steward at Arlington or wherever, I'd be going over these super trainers horses with a fine tooth comb.

In the meanwhile, I play the super trainer horses, like golf. Play them as they lie. It's not my job to out them. It's my role to play the ponies. If I'm going to make money then I have to use the supertrainers in my predictions. Unfortunately, their presence in a race often leads to very poor payouts so one has to often increase the amount of the bet as well. If you can find out the races that they are vulnerable in, you can get some pretty good hits.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by john del riccio

Is it possible for one of the database guru's to do the following:

Evaluate theperformance of the horse claimed by Catalano AFTER they are claimed away. This is the key to determining if he is, as the Beatles said,
"getting a little help from his friends".

You casn use whatever metric is easiest, class level, speed figures, money earned, it doesn't matter. Soundness issues aside, if a horse was competitive for 20 while in hi sbarn, but when it moved to another barn with a competant trainer, if they can't compete for 10, something is up.

John

Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*) (From Index File: C:\2007\apx_may2sept\pL_profile.txt)
Trainer: CATALANO W

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 410.20 379.60 397.40

Wins 74 107 139
Plays 196 196 196
PCT .3776 .5459 .7092

ROI 1.0464 0.9684 1.0138
Avg Mut 5.54 3.55 2.86

I just built a database on Arlington from 2007 April to Sept (the same meet they are in now) The numbers above are from that sample.

Here is this current meet:


Surface: (ALL*) Distance: (All*) (From Index File: C:\2008\apx\pL_profile.txt)
Trainer: CATALANO W

Data Summary Win Place Show
Mutuel Totals 65.80 45.90 41.60
Bet -34.00 -34.00 -34.00
Gain 31.80 11.90 7.60

Wins 12 14 15
Plays 17 17 17
PCT .7059 .8235 .8824

ROI 1.9353 1.3500 1.2235
Avg Mut 5.48 3.28 2.77

To Tell you the truth, this is my first attempt at Database building and capping but in running the trainers through the Arlington Database When I first built this thing, I was pretty much floored by the Catalano win % at Arlington. * The formatting is a bitch, but I think you can figure it out. The numbers next to the word "wins" read like a toteboard. Win/Place/Show

I don't know what Mr. Catalano does, but he does it pretty well at Arlington. My numbers show him winning at over 70% right now, so far.

[Tom Barrister]

Originally Posted by john del riccio

Is it possible for one of the database guru's to do the following:

Evaluate theperformance of the horse claimed by Catalano AFTER they are claimed away. This is the key to determining if he is, as the Beatles said,
"getting a little help from his friends".

You casn use whatever metric is easiest, class level, speed figures, money earned, it doesn't matter. Soundness issues aside, if a horse was competitive for 20 while in hi sbarn, but when it moved to another barn with a competant trainer, if they can't compete for 10, something is up.

John

I've done this already. To put it mildly, the percentage goes way down when the horse moves away from such as Catalano to the barn of Joe Mediocre.

Not all of that can be inferred to drugs. While some of the super-trainers might use drugs, the ones with tons of horses also must know how to handle their charges. Catalano didn't get the legions of horses that he has simply because he's supposedly clever at injecting something that the labs can't detect. He also knows how to train and place his horses. While it's pretty plain that drugs are in rampant misuse in the industry, crying foul every time an illogical horse wins is going too far in the other direction, in my opinion. The game does need to be cleaned up, but that's not the only reason (and possibly not a reason at all in some instances) that the good trainers win at the rate that they do.

[GameTheory]

It is also not just about "winning". Winning is the most conspicuous but the wrong metric. You can win at high rates with claimers simply by dropping them well below their true level. It is about performance and the horse showing capability for raw speed and/or endurance that the horse has not shown before and never does again once it has left that trainer.

[Imriledup]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I don't buy this part of your logic. Get rid of a trainer like this and the horses are distributed to other trainers.

Until a trainer is caught, he's only a suspect. It is surprising that other trainers don't rebel and scratch out of races that these super trainers are in. Also these wise guys seem to stay ahead of the curve so to speak. Drug testing costs money. Many small venues cannot afford the tests on a continuous basis. However, if I where a steward at Arlington or wherever, I'd be going over these super trainers horses with a fine tooth comb.

In the meanwhile, I play the super trainer horses, like golf. Play them as they lie. It's not my job to out them. It's my role to play the ponies. If I'm going to make money then I have to use the supertrainers in my predictions. Unfortunately, their presence in a race often leads to very poor payouts so one has to often increase the amount of the bet as well. If you can find out the races that they are vulnerable in, you can get some pretty good hits.

Personally, i would be willing to foot the bill for the drug tests on the trainers that i want tested. If my large bet gets beat by a horse i feel was drugged, i should have the option of paying the bill to have that horse supertested. I bet there are players and owners and other people in the game that would foot the bill to have certain people tested for every chemical known within the industry to be used.

If its about money, why doesn't the racing commission say, "it costs X dollars to run a successful test of a winning horse. Send in a money order and the name of the winning horse and we'll go forward with the test".

They can't complain about money if they don't ask for 'donations' to do these tests.

I'd be glad to foot the bill on a test or two on one of these 45% trainers that never seem to lose a race.

[john del riccio]

Originally Posted by Tom Barrister

I've done this already. To put it mildly, the percentage goes way down when the horse moves away from such as Catalano to the barn of Joe Mediocre.

Not all of that can be inferred to drugs. While some of the super-trainers might use drugs, the ones with tons of horses also must know how to handle their charges. Catalano didn't get the legions of horses that he has simply because he's supposedly clever at injecting something that the labs can't detect. He also knows how to train and place his horses. While it's pretty plain that drugs are in rampant misuse in the industry, crying foul every time an illogical horse wins is going too far in the other direction, in my opinion. The game does need to be cleaned up, but that's not the only reason (and possibly not a reason at all in some instances) that the good trainers win at the rate that they do.

Tom,

I completely agree. The point I was trying to make and get some help in proving empirically is that horses should not fall apart after leaving a suspicious barn. If they are sound they shoul dbe able to compete at a level below what they have been or even two levels below, but I see many cases where they are well below that. Also, an older horse (6 yo & up) that run an
all time best at a distance and over a surface that they have competed over their whole careers is almost always a dead give away that the barn is playing games. This is less so WRT grass horses.

John