In recent years, we've seen high profile horses like Lure, A P Valentine, Saarland, Songster, and George Washington have fertility problems, and Lost in the Fog died of cancer. Are we implying, by logical extenstion, that Shug, Zito, Albertrani, O'Brien and Gilchrist aren't "hay, oats, and water" either?

Precisionist was sterile or nearly so. If these stallions are sterile then why are others trained by the same men (especially O'Brien, those Coolmore horses breed like rabbits) showing similar problems. If a trainer was send horse after horse into the shed and they were proving sterile, I can understand looking for connections but none of those leading trainers has shown a trend, that I know of.

I'm not sure what the infertility rate of the breed is, and I'm not sure it could be determined. Since a significant percentage of males are gelded and I'm sure that some "unknowns" are retired, bred, prove sterile and return to the races with no fanfare. When the horse is Georg Washington or Cigar, it's a headline. When it's a non entity, he just shows up in the entries and no one is the wiser.

A couple of thoughts on Grening's article:

1. Dutrow claims that training for a prolonged period of time over the Calder surface tends to screw a horse up. If that's the case, then what Wolfson is doing is even more remarkable.

2. Sallusto is correct in saying that "not all trainers are created equal." However, the PPs above in this thread, as well as the work Dutrow did with horses like Saint Liam and Silver Train (amid countless others), each of whom were with pretty respectable horsemen before they went into his barn, force one to reach either one of two conclusions: (a) Dutrow, Wolfson and the like are either 10-15 lengths better than any other trainer on the backstretch; or (b) they have some "edge" that no one else does, which causes their horses to run that much better than everyone else's.

Obviously, the biggest "transformation" with Cigar was that he wanted to run on dirt. He showed that early in his career, but his connections were very stubborn or very stupid.

Exactly CJ... which is part of my point. Generally, since few know the details of what went on with horses before they moved, it's impossible to know why or how they responded better in the care of others. We can analyze PP's till the cows come home, but won't know what was going on to unlock potential or restore lustre in specific horses.

Cigar made his first two career starts on dirt for Hassinger and I believe his Beyer figs were 90 and 95 ( or something close ). It doesn't feel like Mott performed any miracle other than transfering him to his preferred surface.....finally.

I think one thing that is being overlooked in all this is that a lot of these guys, and Dutrow definitely, bet, and they bet a lot.

If they are cheating, they are stealing from everyone, whether you bet on him or against him.

how do we know rick beat on sat though?

also didn't he have a horse in the next race that was the favorite and was off the board?

didn't know they overturned it. Thanks Steve.

Right...and when do you think he would bet? A favorite or an 8 to 1 shot? Who would he be more likely to juice? A favorite, or an 8 to 1 shot?

again explain to me how you know Rick bet this race?

I don't. But I know he bets, he says so. I really don't care if he bet on this particular race. What does it matter?

That said, I'd be shocked if he didn't bet on the race. What makes you, oh wise sage, think he did not?

we all know he bet St Liam in the BCC at a short price in the BCC , so why do you think he didn't bet the favroite in the next race?

i don't think you or i know when any trainer makes a bet on a particular horse or doesn't bet a particular horse , that's all i'm saying

I never said I did. I'm just saying they have the ability to bet or not bet, and also control whether a horse is at its best. Of course, all trainers do this, but those that move horses up suspiciously are probably more likely to bet when they perform whatever "miracle" cure it is they are using.

Dutrow (and others like him) steal from us when they bet their (assumed to be) juiced horses.

Whales steal from us when they're allowed to bet after the race has started. AND
Stewards steal from us with their poor/inconsistent decisions.


I can do something about the former: by looking for patterns. In this sense, cheating trainers are not unlike flawed (or limited availability) data. (For an example of an attempt at 'cheating' the public, take a look at the chart for yesterday's 9th at AQU. A slight misrepresentation of the facts. )

The betting after the fact, and steward issues, are something completely different, however. There's no defense.

Everyone is up in arms that the tracks don't test more stringently for drugs; in order to make the game 'fairer'.

The tracks don't want a 'fair' game.

The focus needs to come off the cheating trainers and on to more significant issues that impact the bettor.

if that was the case and ricky was so sure it was a lock , why didn't he mail it in and hammer the horse more , surely his bankroll is large eneough to have made the horse a lot lower than than 8/1 no?

He wasn't sure if his juice could beat Wolfson's juice head up?

now he knows other trainers are juicing and what races those other trainers will be juicing in ...