Ask a Trainer.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Whatever your opinion of steroids, it was a whole lot easier to bring a cheap one back over and over and do so quickly if you could pop it with a little Equipoise or Winstrol after a race. I never was much for it, but if you were claiming horses off of certain people and planned on actually running them after the claim, you almost had to be somewhat willing to meet the horse half way and not force him into competitive detox.

Of course, it's only been, what, five years since most places snuffed out overuse? So, as far as the 20 years ago question... I think that's probably a little different question and not sure that I think that horses were necessarily more consistent then when running more often. Maybe, but not sure. I tend to think the desire to not be inconsistent (aka keep that % up) is part of what drives the fewer starts for cheap horses since that era.

the horses I had that we ran back every ten to fourteen days were cheap claimers that were a bitch to train. meaning they ran off with you while galloping or they just didnt train hard enough in the mornings to get much out of it. The horses that I had running back quickly were very consistent. One mare maybe missed the board once a year.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by jpren37

trainer question:

How often does it happen that a trainer is not trying to win (I don't mean those situations where the trainer instructs the jock not to push but if the horse wants to run, let him go. I mean specific instructions to the jock not to win this time.) Perhaps he is pointing for another race or some other circumstance that necessitates just a workout today. Is there a way for a handicapper to spot this trainer's intention? Obviously horses win first time at a particular distance, first time at a certain class, first time off a particular length layoff etc. You can't just look to those factors and say the trainer is not entered to win today simply because the horse has never won with those factors. Are there any tell-tale signs to look for?

It happens but I never gave those instructions during my training career. I was always in it to win. However, with two year olds, especially first time starters, I have instructed to not beat the horse up if your not in it. If they're wanting to run up front go on with them but take care of them if they really don't have interest. I have had owners approach me about holding their horses for a couple races so they can cash some tickets. I didn't train for those owners very long.

[delayjf]

Question:
How do you feel about trainer stats that were attributed to you. Do you know of trainers who would buck their own stats or tendencies to get a price on their horse.

[Cannon shell]

Originally Posted by delayjf

Question:
How do you feel about trainer stats that were attributed to you. Do you know of trainers who would buck their own stats or tendencies to get a price on their horse.

I don't think for the most part most trainer stats outside of overall win % effect the price too much. Plus depending on the source of the stats the numbers may vary anyway. For instance trainer stats on T Graph and DRF are often not even close to each other because of a difference in time frames used.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by jpren37

trainer question:

How often does it happen that a trainer is not trying to win (I don't mean those situations where the trainer instructs the jock not to push but if the horse wants to run, let him go. I mean specific instructions to the jock not to win this time.) Perhaps he is pointing for another race or some other circumstance that necessitates just a workout today. Is there a way for a handicapper to spot this trainer's intention? Obviously horses win first time at a particular distance, first time at a certain class, first time off a particular length layoff etc. You can't just look to those factors and say the trainer is not entered to win today simply because the horse has never won with those factors. Are there any tell-tale signs to look for?

This is interesting that you brought this up, because i started thinking of trainers who "unintentionally" lose by not treating their horses with lasix until the 3rd, 4th or 5th lifetime start. There's a trainer currently at Belmont who is 'on a tear' with FTL which kind of irks me a little bit knowing that he is not really 'trying" first and 2nd time out...they want to make sure, i guess, to not have their horse run a HUGE "figure" until they have built up some stamina and bottom.

From an owner standpoint, this is a great idea, but bettors who bet on these non lasix horses are essentially being 'guinea pigs' when the horse is not fully cranked to win.

What can you do about it? I think this stuff is just part of handicapping and you have to take all the information you have. If a trainer feels that he or she wants to run a horse into shape before "firing the big shot" i sort of think that's actually good for the sport as this will just be one more horse who is "ready" to run huge and not have that huge figure be the beginning of the end for that runner. We need all the horses we can get who are healthy to run.

My favorite "handicapping angle" in the game is for there to be trainers who 'give' horses a race or 2 before having them ready to run their best possible race, i like the idea that i can sniff out a horse who is really 'nice' and i know is just being given an education race, to me, the best of both worlds is having a horse i can see on tape is really talented but at the same time, the PP line the horse will have next time isnt so great. I watch enough tape, including the back of the pack, that i say "stiff away" all you want, if a quality runner is being hidden, i'm going to see it, some of my best scores came on the heels of a jock hiding one in the back.

[completebill]

Many, many years ago, my Son trained a horse at Golden Gate Fields, named Howie's Choice, if I recall correctly. This horse was a huge "trier", had a high win percentage, and was the model of consistency.

Relevant to the issue of "trying", I think was the trainer's intent shown by selection of rest between races. If the horse came back in 10-14 days, it was a real contender @ $6500 to $8,000 (claiming price). However, if the horse was rested from about 15 to 21 days, it was a contender at between $8,000 and $10,000. If my son (and/or the owner) chose to rest the horse between races for about 4-5 weeks, the horse could contend for the win @ about $12,500, and, if a $16,000 race came up weak, the hose could possibly contend at up to $16,000.

In this case, although somewhat unusual, you could read the trainer's intent simply by looking at the layoff pattern.

[sammy the sage]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

The only accurate tell-tale sign I've ever discovered that a horse might not be in the race to win but might instead be pointed to some future race...is when the horse is leading by open lengths turning for home, but its rider looks as if he has been afflicted by rigor mortis...while all the other jockeys are giving their mounts at least a vigorous hand-ride.

Very true regardless of Lambo's comments to contrary...but how do you know BEFORE the race....

[chadk66]

this is a discussion my brother and I had at great length last week. He had a two year old first time starter running. He asked me if I thought he should run it on lasix. I said "why in the hell would you do that, does he bleed in the morning"? He said no but everybody runs their horses on lasix. I asked him why they would do that. He said it's performance enhancing. I laughed and told him he's full of crap. Lasix doesn't enhance horses performance, it only allows them to run to their full potential. And a two year old first time starter is either going to do that on his own or he isn't. I'm not really sure where this theory is coming from regarding lasix enhancing performance. If you have a horse that moves up on FTL there is no doubt the horse has been bleeding prior.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by sammy the sage

Very true regardless of Lambo's comments to contrary...but how do you know BEFORE the race....

i might do a lot of dumb things like place horses in wrong spots, run on dirt instead of turf, but i have never intentionally sent a horse into a boxing ring to get his head chopped off, and neither do 99.9% of all trainers.

[Magister Ludi]

Originally Posted by chadk66

this is a discussion my brother and I had at great length last week. He had a two year old first time starter running. He asked me if I thought he should run it on lasix. I said "why in the hell would you do that, does he bleed in the morning"? He said no but everybody runs their horses on lasix. I asked him why they would do that. He said it's performance enhancing. I laughed and told him he's full of crap. Lasix doesn't enhance horses performance, it only allows them to run to their full potential. And a two year old first time starter is either going to do that on his own or he isn't. I'm not really sure where this theory is coming from regarding lasix enhancing performance. If you have a horse that moves up on FTL there is no doubt the horse has been bleeding prior.

Furosemide (Lasix) inhibits divalent cation reabsorption and causes an increase in Mg and Ca excretion. A growing young thoroughbred horse who is administered Lasix before exercise will not have sufficient Ca for skeletal growth and repair. EIPH (bleeding) can be controlled with training only, though virtually all U.S. trainers want to take the easy way out. That’s one reason why thoroughbred breakdowns in the U.S. are about triple that of non-Lasix jurisdictions.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i might do a lot of dumb things like place horses in wrong spots, run on dirt instead of turf, but i have never intentionally sent a horse into a boxing ring to get his head chopped off, and neither do 99.9% of all trainers.

If this applies to 99.9% of the trainers...then how did the phrase "darkening the horse's form" gain such prominence?

[jpren37]

Quick thanks to the trainers in this tread for being so forthcoming with your comments. That said I have a question for all of you:

Can you give us your perspective on when a handicapper might be able to spot a horse that's not "well meant" for today's race. Is there something we might look for in the paddock, something stated in the condition book, something about owner/trainer/jockey connections, the past performances etc.

thanks

[OCF]

True or False: There's less chicanery at tracks with higher purses. (Or maybe a better way to say it would be there's an inverse relationship between chicanery and purse amount.)

The central rationale would be that if there is a sufficient amount of money to be made from competing in good faith, the temptation to "game the system" in order to also derive income from also cashing big tickets is minimized. By sufficient I mean enough to at least cover expenses and maybe even show a small profit.

I'm guessing True, but I'm much more interested in what trainers think.

Note that I'm not proposing no chicanery, just less.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by OCF

True or False: There's less chicanery at tracks with higher purses. (Or maybe a better way to say it would be there's an inverse relationship between chicanery and purse amount.)

The central rationale would be that if there is a sufficient amount of money to be made from competing in good faith, the temptation to "game the system" in order to also derive income from also cashing big tickets is minimized. By sufficient I mean enough to at least cover expenses and maybe even show a small profit.

I'm guessing True, but I'm much more interested in what trainers think.

Note that I'm not proposing no chicanery, just less.

I believe and, this is just my own personal opinion and could be wrong (wouldnt be the first time, certainly won't be the last) but owners who spend money on a yearling and upkeep for at least 1 full year before realizing any 'fruits' of their time and effort, almost feel "in their right" to "cash a bet" on their firster (or, seconder). Its like a right of passage. I believe that any "Stuff" that goes on with darkening form and putting horses in the wrong spots on purpose is just part of the game, its part of adding one more thing to think about in the handicapping process.

[Cannon shell]

Originally Posted by Magister Ludi

Furosemide (Lasix) inhibits divalent cation reabsorption and causes an increase in Mg and Ca excretion. A growing young thoroughbred horse who is administered Lasix before exercise will not have sufficient Ca for skeletal growth and repair. EIPH (bleeding) can be controlled with training only, though virtually all U.S. trainers want to take the easy way out. That’s one reason why thoroughbred breakdowns in the U.S. are about triple that of non-Lasix jurisdictions.

This is nonsense

The idea that 5cc's of lasix before a race will prevent a horse from having the proper amount of calcium for skelatal growth and repair is ludicrous.

EIPH can't be "controlled" in any way, shape or fashion. It is like saying that wearing a seat belt will help control the chance of getting in an car accident. Lasix is given in hope of preventing or lessening the occurrence of EIPH but there is no way to control EIPH through any means. The fact is that a horse can bleed for any number of reasons, many beyond the control of anything other than fate.