Why would any of those guys bite the hand that fed them? Those guys owe a lot of their success to Lukas. We've talked about this many times on this board. These guys may not have similar training styles to Lukas, but they sure learned a heck of alot about the busines from him and made numerous contacts through him.

I remember when they were interviewing McLaughlin about what he learned working for Lukas, he simply said that Lukas teaches you how to get owners. He didn't say anything about Lukas teaching him to train.

It's not that I don't believe what you are saying . . . wait a minute, hang on . . . yes, it is that I don't believe what you are saying. LOL. Seriously, you are correct in that this is not a trial nor are you are prosecutor. However, you made some very specific claims, and in my opinion, if you want credibility -- at least with me -- very simply, prove it! Back up your claims. If not, then you should expect to get called out. You use the word "we're" referring to being full of it. In this case, I am not sure that I see anyone more than "you" but if I am wrong, I say the same thing to everyone -- prove it. Back up the claims.

As far as you providing insight, as far as I am concerned -- go right ahead. I would think many people would appreciate it. However, to me, it is not your motivation that I have a problem with -- it's your delivery. In this case, the way it landed with me was that you were doing whatever you were doing in a condescending way, with negativity, criticisms, and by making specific claims. All I said was back it up. I've been in this business my entire adult life. To me, it's got nothing to do with the # of posts one has, who knows who, how many trophies one may have, or anything like that. Opinion is opinion. Sometimes it's a qualified one, sometimes it's not. And, of course, facts are facts.

It's not about Lukas. I have no problem hearing anything negative -- if it is supported, and factual. I would have asked the same questions and asked for the same proof it this was about Pletcher as well. It is merely supposition and hypothetical that I or anyone would question the authenticity of your numbers. Reason being -- you don't have them!

Your claim about being presented with "more than enough information" -- of course you say that. You have to. Just because you and several others say the same thing -- that doesn't make it right. Same thing applies to anyone who agrees with you -- Prove it.

Now, if you want to say it's your opinion, or you think, or it appears to you, or anything along those lines -- that's great. I have no problem with that. I didn't see that here however.

Eric

PS -- your anology to Strawberry is superfluous. Documented facts, proof, evidence, and so many more thinks that you do not have.

You are truly missing the point. That's OK though.

Yes, he breaks down way more than any of those guys percetage wise.

What does it prove about the insurance companies? The insurance companies have all the numbers. They know the exact number of horses that he has insured and the exact number that have died and had to pay the policy on.

The owners buy the insurance policies but the insurance companies will ask you who your trainer is. If it's a trainer who is not profitable for them to insure, then they probably won't insure the horse.

Eric, I'm not sure what you want. I do not possess written documentation from the insurance companies with the specific numbers. I think I've made that pretty clear. I have told you what I do know. I do know that many of the big insurance companies will not insure his horses because his number of breakdowns is way out of whack. I don't know what else you want from me. If you really want the information, I'm sure you could get it. If you are friendly with anybody at any of the thoroughbred insurance companies, I'm sure you can get the information.

I'm not going to call them. They don't need to convince me. They've alreay told me. I just didn't get it in writing.

no, sir, i am no lukas fan. that's where you get it wrong. but i'm also a fan of people not just posting their opinion without any proof, and putting that opinion up as being a FACT. you don't like lukas, fine. i know posters have said they don't like his tactics, they think he's too hard on horses. THAT is OPINION-something everyone is entitled to. you cross the line in saying he breaks down a higher percentage of horses than other trainers, and that insurance co's won't cover him. if it's such a known fact, why nothing from you, his harshest critic, to back up something you are posting as proven, when you have never shown anything to prove it?!

and you have this study, right? or a link?

as for insurance co's--they'd cover your soul after you sold it to the devil as long as you could afford the premium. low risk, low premium, high risk-high premium.
funny, you're the only poster i've ever seen on here or elsewhere make these claims. funny also that i've never seen proof of it anywhere. you'd think that publications such as bloodhorse, who doesn't seem imo to shy away from touchy subjects, would be all over a story about a high profile, hall of fame trainer who can't get insurance coverage.

just seems to me that pletcher catches a lot of grief over not having yet won a classic, and days such as his 0-17 in the bcc this year. also see a lot of posts suggesting he isn't totally above board in his training tactics from many. he's achieved a lot of success in a relatively short time, and i feel that will continue in the years to come--and that the amount of detractors will rise with the purse money!! seems everyone enjoys a success--until that guy gets 'too' successful.
look at jerry bailey--he got a ton of grief the last few years, and everyone speculated who would take his place due to his retirement. note who's #1 in the standings, and #1 in the amount of threads started on this board (one example) bashing mr gomez's every awkward move.

I've given you proof. Several months ago, I even gave you the name of one of the biggest insurance companies that won't insure him. Did you call them? Of course not. You don't want to call them because if you called them then you wouldn't be able to argue with me any more. I know you too well Danzig.

you have given me proof? what was that?? as for giving me a name, i must have missed that one. maybe it was a same old tired thread i chose to ignore, as it never goes anywhere.
lol
oh boy, you 'know' me?! lol that's rich. lemme know when you find the #'s of breakdowns, %'s, etc....been waiting for that for some time.
i'd be happy to have that name again. a # would be great. so that way, i can go find your 'proof' for you....

She's a fighter, Pupkin. She'll never quit. Ever.

D. Wayne has trained probably a billion dollars in horse flesh. Nobody can take away his accomplishments nor can they take away his failures. However, law of averages says he's going to have more failure than success.

pillow, i just want him to show where he's coming from. i don't think that's too much to ask. it's hilarious that i find myself in this position, as i've never cared much for dwl. he always seemed rather pompous to me.
like i said, you don't like the guys methods, that's one thing.
hey, if he's right, great. i won't lose sleep over it. but i'd love to see something concrete showing that lukas is indeed a bigger breaker down of horses. now, if rupe perceives that lukas breaks down more, fine. but to state it as fact, then you should back it up imo.

Well i'm sure he's got more breakdowns than most trainers due to the fact he's trained 1000's of horses. Percentage wise he might not be number 1 but I bet he's close.

I guess I can see your point but he seems to have more defenders than detracters.

Personally I think there is some legitimacy to knocking his TC performance in that he not only gets an enormous amount of well bred and high priced young horses but has also won an abundance of 2YO races in the past and it is somewhat baffling how poorly his horses have progressed. On the other hand, he has only been on his own for 11 seasons, and really only a strong factor for five or six, so it's hard to be TOO critical. It's hardly as though he has been anything close to a failure.

As for the BC failure, well to me he is a trainer who points for the whole year, unlike a lot of people who do seem to race with the BC too much in mind. I would rather have Pletcher's resume of success in stakes races throughout the season than one BC win. Perhaps someone COULD say he squeezes the lemon dry, so to speak, before the BC but he certainly wins a LOT of big races while doing that. He gets a lot of good horses....but he does win a lot of races. Does he underperform? Hard to say but on the surface it's hard to say he does.

My criticisms are different, and not even necessarily about his training, but more about the damage to the game of one trainer controlling too many horses. Plus, I don't like the list of horses that have flashed brilliance only to fizzle out way too quickly. He seems to train for the moment rather than the long haul. On the other hand, who am I to tell someone he is doing it wrong when every owner on Earth seems to want to give him horses.

Let's face it, it's hard to not be somewhat cynical about the game these days, and anyone achieving huge success falls under suspicion. Is it always fair? Absolutely not. However, when a trainer faces drug related suspensions it doesn't exactly bolster any claims of purity.

I think Pletcher does take a lot of heat for having not won a Classic. Being in the "infancy" of his career (on his own), and being young (relatively speaking) I would think this is somewhat of a temporary thing. I guess we will soon see.

However, and I am not defending him in any way, he has run second and third a few times. The depth of his barn is just incredible. It's not like he is getting homebreds from one or more premier breeding operations and that makes up his barn. Nor is there one owner who fills the stalls with 7 (and in one case, 8) digit purchases.

This year, I read in either the DRF, BH or TT, perhaps all of them, that he started out the year with some staggering number of Classic eligibles. The Derby is an enigmatic race to target, train for, peak for and ultimately win.

I think there is a lot more to the statistics and numbers than just the # of training titles.

Eric

Not only is it just breakdowns, but he has an incredibly high number of horses that don't finish the race. This would include any horse that broke down in the race, was eased in the race, was pulled up in the race, or who lost by over 30 lengths. I don't remember the exact number but he had around 4x more than the average trainer in terms of percentages of horses that don't finish a race.

The only thing that matters is percentages. You would expect a guy with 150 horses to have 5x the amount of breakdowns as a guy with 30 horses. The absolute number of breakdows is not important. It's the percentage that is important.

Andy, 11 seasons? I know he had a couple of horses on his own and all, but when exactly was it that he opened a public stable? 1998? 1999?

I agree with you. There is legitimacy to the TC performance, results, etc. The numbers are the numbers. I don't play the game at that level of course, but I have friends and clients who do. Perhaps I am wrong, but the people I know who play at that level care more about getting to the big dance than they do about contributing to winning a training title. Sure, grade 1's are important of course and the proof is in the big pudding. How long before his barn hits $30 million in earnings? Big numbers there.

The BC is also enigmatic IMO. I mean Bobby Frankel -- like him or not, personally, professionally, etc. -- produces and gets results. The guy is a great horseman in my opinion. He doesn't get the monster purchases, yearlings, 2 year olds, etc. that say a Pletcher gets. He has a different type of operation. But he produces. Now, a few years ago -- he was what, 0 for 30 something in the BC? And, I think his first victory was with a horse he owned -- wasn't it?

I don't know what his 0 for 30 something records means exactly, but does that take away from his accomplishments? I don't think so. I am sure some do however. I tend to look beyond the stats and #'s.

Eric

Yeah, now that you mention it, I vaguely remember that as well. Was he full blown on his own then and operating a public stable? If so, then you guys got it -- 11. I think I remember he had a couple for JJ or a family friend.

Funny thing how you remember oh so well a nice horse you hit huh? LOL.

Eric