A streak for the ages broken today

[Grits]

R2, you simply aced this one!

And GTh, thank you, you're right, we don't know her exact situation. I have, like each of you, the understanding she could of had ITM finishes, etc. etc. Just getting by.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Valuist

I'd like to find out the numbers on a guy named William Davis who used to train in Chicago in the 90s. I think there's another William Davis who may be at Mnr or in that area. This was a different guy. It was a miracle when he'd run 4th. His horses were hardly ever below 30-1. Many times well over 100-1.

William F. Davis perhaps? According to Equibase, from 1990 to 1996 he won 7 out of 186 races.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by Valuist

I'd like to find out the numbers on a guy named William Davis who used to train in Chicago in the 90s. I think there's another William Davis who may be at Mnr or in that area. This was a different guy. It was a miracle when he'd run 4th. His horses were hardly ever below 30-1. Many times well over 100-1.

if i remember right he was a doctor......once in a blue moon one of his horses would finish 4th... which brings to mind that Mnr thread that Game Theory mentioned earlier.

[Maximillion]

Originally Posted by castaway01

William F. Davis perhaps? According to Equibase, from 1990 to 1996 he won 7 out of 186 races.

I dont think thats him.He may not have ever won a race...he would lose by double digits, then raise the horse in class,lose badly again and then follow that up with another rise in class.
Funny how you remember certain things....i can remember laughing about his entries with my circle of friends at the time.

[appistappis]

why do these 0 for trainers always pop up to cost me a nice exactor.

[whodoyoulike]

If this is the same Brenda Wilson, her training record from Equibase website. I would think she earned a living from other sources besides training horses.

http://www.equibase.com/profiles/Res...ype=T&eID=3040

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Grits

If you're meaning hobby? No, absolutely not. I have no idea how you gleaned this out of my response to ESide's post. Anyone who can lose for 5 years is powerful and determined. I like anyone who doesn't give up. Brenda Wilson included. ..... And they don't belong in the game? Wow.

SRU, I agree with you, 100%

I know it isn't the same thing, but anyone else remember Steve Cauthen's downswing in early 1979, coming off the Triple Crown? There's a ton of variance in horse racing. Nobody should ever assume that relatively small samples of statistics are conclusive proof of things.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Originally Posted by Milkshaker

Wow, a Leroy Moyers reference.

His heyday was in the 1960s.

Last I recall he was suspended an entire year in the 1980s for failure to extend his best effort on a 50-1 shot.

Wow. That's a nominee for the tough beat thread.

No, wait. What about being married to a trainer that's 1 for 150 over five years?

I don't know about "streak for the ages" though. Didn't one of the books by Beyer or Davidowitz indicate something like 20 percent of trainers fail to win a single race every season?

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

The way you put it, it seems like a very expensive hobby for her

IMHO this kind of horsemen and horsewomen do not belong to the game,,

Well racing has room for all, i myself am gonna run a one horse stable when i retire from my corp job.

I bet an o for 2014-15 trainer recently atTampa msw 17-1,fts, hell the horse hasnt been tainted by losing yet. Good pedigree for distance/surface. Jiggy jogs, bet the trainer thinks he has got a stakes winner onhis hands and puts him over his head next out. Thats the way it is with a bad trainer.

Allan

[tophatmert]

Originally Posted by castaway01

William F. Davis perhaps? According to Equibase, from 1990 to 1996 he won 7 out of 186 races.

I think he was a dentist. I would have guessed 3 or 4 wins. He had a horse named Khafji who always encountered some trouble and always seemed bettable at long odds and always encountered trouble when you bet him and so on and so on.

[DeltaLover]

Most of you disagree with me, but in my opinion, horse racing is a professional sport that depends on betting to survive thus it should try to eliminate the less capable professionals and horses and reward the most capable.

This does not mean that I favour super trainers or super owners.

Hell no...

I think that there should be a balance in the number of horses a trainer has in train and they way the perform as well..

For example I would like to see a rule restricting the size of a trainer's stable to X number of horses and Y of colts (like in Japan for example) and also to force any horse who fails to run a good race for a specific period, to a mandatory layoff or even in some cases retirement..

[Grits]

Most of you disagree with me, but in my opinion, horse racing is a professional sport that depends on betting to survive thus it should try to eliminate the less capable professionals and horses and reward the most capable.

Do you hold the same opinion about the stock market? It, too, calls for trust in the best professionals with one's investments. Of those professionals, some, of course, are better than others.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Grits

Do you hold the same opinion about the stock market? It, too, calls for trust in the best professionals with one's investments. Of those professionals, some, of course, are better than others.

You know I love your humanistic approach and direct style. But just for fun, I'll toss in a different perspective here: The hardships some trainers will endure to avoid 9-5 civilian work sometimes astonish me.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

Most of you disagree with me, but in my opinion, horse racing is a professional sport that depends on betting to survive thus it should try to eliminate the less capable professionals and horses and reward the most capable.

This does not mean that I favour super trainers or super owners.

Hell no...

I think that there should be a balance in the number of horses a trainer has in train and they way the perform as well..

For example I would like to see a rule restricting the size of a trainer's stable to X number of horses and Y of colts (like in Japan for example) and also to force any horse who fails to run a good race for a specific period, to a mandatory layoff or even in some cases retirement..

Let's say that I am an independently wealthy person with a love for horse racing (oxymoron, I know )...and I want to retire from the "straight world" and train my own two-horse stable. I love my two horses, and wouldn't even think of medicating them in any way...nor do I care much if they never win a race. They are my "pets"...and my joy comes exclusively from caring for them...and watching them run in a group.

There should be no spot for me in this sport?

[Milkshaker]

Originally Posted by DeltaLover

horse racing is a professional sport...thus it should try to eliminate the less capable professionals and horses and reward the most capable.

I have a news flash for you: The "professional" stables (and bettors) at the top of the totem pole REQUIRE the presence of less-capable participants for the profit equation to work. A top trainer doesn't make money by seeking out other top outfits to race against. Profitable whale bettors feast on the minnows--they don't nibble on other whales.