Like I said earlier in this thread, Nyra or whoever is running Saratoga better take a long hard look at this race this year and ask themselves " Is this what I want the future of this race to be?, One star and a gew G III's and allowance horses?" It's time for them to adapt to the times, it's all about the BC after the Triple Crown. They are going to have to make some changes. It's sad but true.

I don't see what NYRA could possibly do. They could shell out another $1 million and we'd still likely have the same field. Short of paying Monmouth to move the Haskell up one week or moving Travers back to the less desirable Labor Day Weekend (which trainers will then skip because it doesn't leave them enough time to get another start before the Classic) there is really nothing they can do. As long as the trainers are taking the attitude that running second in the Travers with an AGS or Rags is worse than not running at all nothing will change. Second in these big races should still be regarded as an achievement. This is where I think a point system to determine Eclipse Awards will help. Make it so that running second in the Travers is truly better than skipping the race from an Eclipse perspective. As it is now winning a few races and playing duck duck goose is the best way to win an Eclipse.

This whole thread is from the Trivial Pursuit "Who Gives A ****" Edition. Todd Pletcher isn't even a very good trainer. He just gets most of the top bloodstock.

Now, the real question is, with 35,000 foals per year, why can't we find enough decent ones to fill these classic races?

Answer, breeders have bred out almost all of the stamina and durability for Thoroughbreds.

The thread should ask why are there only ever five good horses per generation.

Of course it's sad, bit it doesn't have to be true. Yes, there are many drastic changes needed in our business and sport. However, this is not a NYRA issue -- it's an industry issue, and in this case, it's a Todd Pletcher issue. Sure, track management must look at how trainers, owners, etc. are viewing the BC, but that doesn't mean it's right and it doesn't mean the entire racing structure should fold to the BC, or because of a myopic view. There needs to be a more integrated and coordinated effort and view.

Bob Fox recently did a piece on ATR and he was saying how "these races" -- the Whitney, the Travers, and others, are not prep races -- they are great races on their own, on stand-alone basis. Look at the horses who raced in the Whitney and the Travers, let's look at the Invasor's and Bernardini's and the others as well. They are prestigeous races that will add value to a stallion's resume. Don't get me wrong, I am not inferring that either of these horses should get voted iron-horse of the year or anything of the like.

This is about Todd Pletcher wanting to get better results at the big dances. Don't get me wrong, I am not President of his fan club, however, he is going to manage his horses and his barn as he sees fit. It's about making what he views as the right decisions -- not about what people view as popular. Continue to think that Pletcher or anyone else will make decisions based upon popularity and you will continue to be not only naive but also very disappointed.

Eric

Another great revelation -- Pletcher isn't even a very good trainer, LOL.

Believe me, I am no fan of Todd Pletcher. However, to make a case that he isn't a good trainer is nonsense. If the guy came out of nowhere, didn't pay his dues, got lucky, picked up some strong backing from a client or maybe two, didn't have the background or credentials -- well, that would be one thing.

This is not the case here. And, everyone who has been around this game for a long time knows this as well. Like him or not, good for the business or not, and so on.

Eric

I could name at least ten trainers I think would do a better job with the same horses.

just because you may think it doesn't mean its true, just your opinion.

whatever you have to say about Pletcher, you can't argue that he's not a good trainer. There is no evidence for that.

he gets good horses becasue he does well with them.

The Haskell was attractive this year because the Breeder's Cup is at Monmouth. NYRA doesn't have to worry about competing with Monmouth races next year.

Of course you could. If you couldn't, you'd have no subsitantiation to your opinion, which is nothing more than a hypothetical. It's a fallacious arguement.

If I owned a top 2yo, or a top 3yo, and I was going to move the horse to a new trainer, Pletcher would not be my choice. But that doesn't mean that -- as you said -- "Todd Pletcher isn't even a very good trainer."

Eric

I would have to slightly disagree with you on that, maybe 5 to 10 years ago that would have been true But the Haskell is no longer considered a "prep" for the Travers. It has developed into a marque race all it's own now.
It being a Grade I $1 million race that is raced in the begining of August will always make it a very attractive race for the the top 3 yr olds that raced and preformed well on the Triple Crown races. These horse have been sitting in the barn unraced for the most part since May and June and the timing of the Haskell is very attractive.

The bottom line when it gets to this time of year trainers are going to be looking for more space between races now adays and it's time for NYRA to adapt.

This is not your father's Travers anymore. It's very sad.
Especially when the The PA Derby I am willing to bet will get a field of 8 to 10 horse for a race that has no history or prestige but will offer a $million.

Last year Pletcher sent Bluegrass Cat there to prep for the Travers so he did not have to race Bernardini in the Dandy. The rest of the field stunk.

I am not so sure that it was as much a prep for the Travers (and avoiding Bernardini) as it was getting the G1 win on his resume. It might have been an after the fact, but your point is valid.

At the same time, just because Pletcher had this view, with this horse, etc., doesn't mean it's constant or an absolute.

All of this is on a horse by horse, individual basis -- period. I think we'll see some trainers and horses do it, and others won't.

Eric

But I remember after The Haskell he was on the fence for a bit saying he is going to have to rush BGC to make the Travers and wasn't comfortable with that.

Actually, you don't feel the 2 for 41 (5%) in BC races is any sort of indicator of his abilities? I think we are in agreement that you'd be hard pressed to find someone on the earth with better stock for American racing, correct?

Here are a list of names of those with more BC wins to their credit, with number of starters in parentheses, and winning percentage.

Lukas 18 (146) 12%
McGaughey 9 (49) 18%
Mandella 6 (28) 21%
Drysdale 6 (33) 18%
Mott 5 (48) 10%
McAnally 4 (27) 15%
Frankel 4 (68) 6%
Byrne 3 (8) 38%
Bary 3 (8) 38%
Canani 3 (12) 25%
Boutin 3 (19) 16%
Stoute 3 (26) 12%
A O'Brien 3 (39) 8%
Baffert 3 (44) 7%

There are also 13 trainers that have won as many BC races as Todd (2), with none of them having started more than 26 horses. The list includes training icons like Janine Sahadi and Joe Orseno. Todd's 2 wins were with Ashado in 2004, who was favored, and Speightstown, who was 2nd choice by a dime to Midas Eyes. How many of his 39 other starters do you think were either 1st or 2nd choice? I'm guessing (because I'm not counting) quite a few.

Anyhow, IMO you can see how someone can state that maybe Todd is not a VERY good trainer, which may just be his way of saying the guy is VERY overrated, which is a statement I would agree with.

I know there are those that disagree and are awestruck by his overall numbers, but he's got a lot of the richest, active owners, who supply him with the best possible stock (and a lot of it) and has one of the top jocks riding for him almost all of the time, shouldn't he be that good numbers wise by default?

The horses don't train themselves.

Do you have the stats for the classics?

True, but he's like a New York bred, he "starts with an advantage". A really, really BIG advantage. Especially when you factor in that he has so much good stock and he prevents them from running into each other that his numbers and the numbers of his animals are a bit inflated.

Actually, no, a one dimensional view of "data" -- your data in this case -- which is a very myopic view -- is not an indicator of his abilities . . . and you know that . . . oh no you don't . . . look at your handle, LOL.

Was BC day results an indicator of Bobby Frankel's training abilities, when he was 0 for 30 plus? It didn't keep him out of the Hall of Fame. Sure, there were his critics and their opinion counted for crap then, just like it does now. People who are in this business, who have been in this game a long time, who have paid their dues -- some of them know who good trainers are. Not someone who picks one stat and says "Hey, look what I found, and now my opinion counts".

We all know what they say -- Statistics don't lie, only statisticians do.

Listen, I am not a fan of Todd Pletcher. I have often said that in his position, and in his situation, going 0 for whatever in TC races can be an issue, especially for the critics. However, his owners don't seem to mind. That's neither here nor there. It's their issues -- not mine. I've often said -- do those owners spend that kind of money to win training titles, maiden specials, and "A other thans" or do they spend that kind of money to win the big dance? It's easy to be a critic, but that doesn't make Todd Pletcher "not a very good trainer" so to speak. Regardless, that one piece of data, is not an indication of his abilities.

Anyway, that is just one of the reasons he wouldn't be my choice to train a top 2yo or 3yo. I've never been a fan of corporate training per se. Although I have a trainer who has 200 or so horses, however, I view it as a different operation, set-up, different mindset, requirements, etc. I've spoke with several trainers, well respected horsemen, who question his operation, methodolgies, ability to manage an operation with that size and scope, and so on. Some think he does an excellent job, others think he's more of a CEO than a trainer. Still, others think he is not a good horseman and things must slip through the cracks. And still others think that the assembly line is not a way to train horses, and so on and so on. One of these opinions comes from a Hall of Fame trainer, one who I respect. When those opinions start being thrown around here, I'll listen to them -- not to one piece of myopic and one dimensional information.

In addition, I have also said, that aside from shooting incredible #'s, which has it's substance and it's distortions, and winning record #'s of Grade 1's -- if you look at the truly prestigeous big dance races, the most prestigeous G'1s, it was not often that Pletcher truly came over with "the horse to beat" so to speak. Ashado was of course, and there might have been another instance or two. However, it's not like he strolled into every prestigeous G1 -- the ones that count on a stallion's or mare's resume -- and was even money or 3-5. I get all that and have said that often. That might of changed the past year or so, but prior, even Pletcher said in an interview, this was the case.

However, to say that "Pletcher is not a very good trainer" or to look at one piece of data and make that statement -- well, I guess there is not only plenty of horse manure at the track, but here as well, LOL.

I'll leave the rest to the critics and the training icons.

Eric