Originally Posted by oracle80

What I don't understand is the Pletcher bashing, at least the "reasoning" behind it. I do understand why, because hes got so many horses that it seems unfair. That i get and understand, and I understand how bad it is for the business.
But heres the thing, when he runs two year olds who are good early people say well they will be broke down soon enough. WHen he doesnt push a bunch of them to make certain races, people say look at that, all those horses and he doesnt have on in.
Then they allude to his success being due to "magic vet work" without coming out and saying so. Well why doesn't he magic vet work help horses like Flower Alley who come back at age 4 and dont run worth a ****? I mean, if it was just this magic vet work that was responsible for the success, why wouldn't it work at age 4 as well? Seems to me if it was that easy, the horse would have jogged at age 4.
How come when a guy like Dutrow races a horse like St Liam all year long at age 5, starting in February and ending with the Breeders Cup, noone talks about what a "master horseman" he is, but when someone else does something like that, they are the next coming of Charlie Whittingham?
How come Dutrow or pletcher is accused of "magic methods" when they get a horse privately or off a trainer switch(Fleet Indian, St Liam, Silver Train, etc) yet when they get one like Lawyer Ron or Frost Giant(just got beat a city block by Showing Up at Hollywood off the private purchase for Dutrow) who runs like ****, noone says geez, I guess they don't have that magic?
The way I see it, when they have success, its due to magic methods. Yet when they get one who doesn't do anything at all, they aren't any good?
How come when they lay one up because it has issues they are "afrriad to run their horses" yet when if they race one back quick like Bluegrass Cat, who gets hurt, they are lousy horseman to push one back that quick and break it down?
I'm just not getting it, I'm truly not. This school of thought produces self fulfilling prophecies and leaves no room at all for doubt. You simply lable them "magic men" and when they win its the magic, and when they lose they are "exposed".
If different legal sports medicine(vet) techniques and training don't matter, they are saying that all trainers have the same ability and the horses should run equally for everyone. Yet these same folks do praise certain trainers and call them great. Thats where you lose me here, if some trainers are indeed lousy and some are indeed great, aren't you saying that the methods that these guys use DO MATTER and can move up or move down the form of a racehorse?

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I am going to be honest, if I was an owner of a horse that won the TC, that horse would not be racing after the Belmont. I love this game but I have to be honest.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I think there are owners that would run a Triple Crown winner through the end of the year. Not many but there are some. The few with tons of money that care more about racing would pay the large insurance premiums and race the horse the rest of the year to make back those premiums and possibly more. The horse would still stand stud at the same time and in the unfortunate event that it broke down they would still cash a huge insurance check so in no way would they be risking the money that the horse is worth. Adding a BC Classic win to the resume would make the horse even more valuable at stud and even if he didn't win the Classic it wouldn't effect his status as a Triple Crown winner. The real question is whether any owner out there would ever bring the horse back at 4. I highly doubt it but I'd like to think there are at least a couple in the game for the right reasons. I sure hope the next TC winner isn't retired after the Belmont because the next TC winner running through the end of the year is the one chance horse racing has to showcase to the public that there is more to the racing calendar than just the TC.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

The angst you displaying in defending Pletcher every time someone brings up a valid point concerning his stable is puzzling. It is as if the mere mention of his name brings assumptions to your mind that you feel a perverse need to defend him against. Yet, certainly in this case, you are as guilty as anyone of doing what you so regularly lambaste other posters for doing, and that is answering in a manner that implies you didn't even read the post.

First I responded to Rupert Pupkin's comments concerning the earnings of Todd's stable. While obviously earnings of $27 million are impressive, if one is going to compare them to the earnings of the second " best " stable, or really any stable, it is certainly relevent to discuss the numbers of horses involved in each relative instance. Perhaps in doing so Todd's numbers would be even more impressive, but without doing so, we are left in the comparative dark.

Next I veered slightly and expressed my amazement that Todd's stable has been virtually absent from the major 2YO stakes in this latter part of the year. Your response is an odd defense....he had three in the Juvenile and none of these owners would be interested in running at Delta. Yeah, and I say...." So what ". That was not my point. My point is that Todd received an ENORMOUS amount of well bred and high priced 2YOs for this year. God only knows what the actual number was. For him to be almost completely absent from these FIVE ( not just Delta as I referenced four other races ) is puzzling. I imagine Todd has quite a few owners that were NOT involved in the BC, and some of these have some high priced 2YOs in his barn, and I would imagine at least a few of these have wondered something similar to what I expressed. Perhaps if you weren't so busy scrambling to defend Todd against any perceived attack, and this is not an attack whatsoever but merely a reasonable question, then you would have at least had a response that stayed on topic.

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

I agree with all of this, Mike.

Originally Posted by oracle80

BTW,
What I'm saying is that perhaps he didn't have one that fit the schedule or fitness level needed to perform in the race well.
He didn't have one in the Remsen or Demoiselle either, which was more suprising to me quite frankly.
My point is, if he jams one in there that doesn't belong, hes criticized for just running one thats no good. If he doesn't, hes failed as a trainer. Its a no win situation.
A lot of damn good trainers didn't have one in at Delta or the Remsen either.
Yet they aren't slammed.
I understand the criticisms against Pletcher, I really and truly do. And I also realize that this is very unhealthy for the long term of the game. Monopolies of any kind are dangerous for the sector they are in, whether its a department store or a horse trainer.
But if you read my last post, I understand WHY he gets horses, and I also think that in the future new trainers will challenge him.
One other thing, D Wayne suffered when guys like Todd and Hennig left him and took some clients with them. To this point I believe only George Weaver has left Todd and gone on his own, but at some point guys like Seth are gonna leave, and maybe take some with them. Its inevitable.
Frankel's dominance was criticized the same way not long ago, what did he win one year? 25 grade ones?
Believe it or not, Howard Johnson was the king back when he started up. But Marriott eventually blew by him and he said the reason that he did was because he had Howards mistakes and shortcomings to look at and avoid doing, while he could use the good things Howard did in his own business plan.
Nothing stays the same, it never does.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Ummmm, my initial post CLEARLY mentioned " Aqueduct ", and thus the Remsen and Demoiselle, and the fact that none of the races I mentioned " fit
the schedule " is what's puzzling as certainly when the season began I imagine Todd had penciled himself in, so to speak, as being an obvious participant in ALL these races.

I imagine Todd will survive the tsunami when " guys like Seth " leave ( that's assistant trainer Seth Benzal for those of you, ya know, not " in the know " ).

You say a lot about Pletcher, and it's obvious you adore him, which is fine, but that doesn't make ALL of it true. He is, however, a fine trainer who runs an immensely impressive operation.

Originally Posted by oracle80

I don't adore him, I admire him and what hes done and how he does it.
As someone in the business, I think thats normal.
I met him when he had just gone on his own, Ramsey was the 2nd guy to give him horses after he went public. Hes only one friggin year older than I am.
Hes a total pro, as a trainer and as a person. He conducts himself at the highest level most of the time, and hes incorporated business methods into the horse business.
I've also never heard of anyone who has anything bad to say about him as far as business dealings or people dealings, as you know at the racetrack this is very rare.
I think anyone in the business wants to succeed like he has.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I know him Mike....and you know that....so I don't know what you are trying to prove here. He's done a remarkable job, we all know that, and if we didn't you have reminded us many times. None of this detracts from some of the issues raised and every time someone raises one there is NOT a need for another one of your posts praising how wonderful he is in your eyes. It is irrelevent.

Originally Posted by oracle80

By the way BTW, a lotta people bash Beyer and Crist and I admire them just as much. They took their passion to a new level, and got rich doing so.
I fail to see the difference.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Some could say your defense of Beyer is the same.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

That is a pretty good point. However, Pletcher is able to back up his work...Beyer isnt.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Bull**** Euro.
Guy wrote the best books ever, books that educated many about what biases were, trainer intent, z patterns, speed figs, etc.
The DRF used to have archaic speed figures(if you wanna call them that) and now uses his figs.
He was also one of the first widely known guys to form syndicates that attacked big pools because he grasped it made the chances of hitting one better.
So much of what he has done is taken for granted now, that he no longer gets credit for it.
Hes backed up quite a lot in my opinion.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

His are theories and ideas that are much harder to prove.

Originally Posted by oracle80

In theory I suppose thats true, but hes got a "pretty good resume" in regards to what hes done.
He changed the way the game was viewed almost singlehandedly.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I agree...but it is all theory--it is darn good theory. My grandpa cannot stand beyer. He is like...we were using his ideas back in the 40's. Now if that is true or not, I do not know.