Race to breed or breed to race?
 

The question of whether or not the tail wags the dog was addressed today in Arizona by one of the lead dogs on our mushing squad.
http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/tod...68135&subsec=1


Every year when people say they are hoping for a TC winner, I look like scrooge and say "I hope not." I want to see our stars on the track and I agree with Todd, no TC winning colt will ever run again.

breeding
 

my question would be as the the low opinion i have of anything pletcher says or does. the ignorance can be seen in the thoroughbred time piece. what if he--that great trainer-- had developed flower alley as a four year old. what would the horse be worth then. it is when you have idiots like this being listened to that the sport suffers. you will soon be able to write it down. even the wealthy will shortly stop paying millions for horses that win a couple of races. that what pletcher says is even happening is a question. most of these good horse fail to go because they are hurt, by trainers like pletcher.

Love him or hate him, he's certainly doing something right at the present time. His horses have earned over $27 million in purses this year. The next closest guy is at $11 million. Pletcher has a $16 million lead in the trainer standings. That is incredible. He's doing something right.

What would be your main criticism of Pletcher as compared to other trainers?

Not complimenting or criticizing Todd but what do you think the value of all his horses ( and I am including every multi-million dollar baby ) is compared to the value of " the next closest guy's " stable?

Considering all the expensive young horses Pletcher gets don't you find it a little amazing that between the Delta Jackpot and the 4 2YO Stakes at Aqueduct and Churchill Thanksgiving weekend that Todd had only one total entrant?

Anyhow, sorry Linny for deviating from your topic, and I agree with Todd's statement. Hell, if they win one TC race these days we never see them again....unless they're bums like Jazil or Giacomo.

He may well get the best horses by far, but that's part of a trainer's job. As I've posted many times, it takes a lot to be a really successful trainer. There's a lot more to it than just being a good trainer. They need to have good people skills, they need to be well organized, they need to hire good help, they need to know how to best utilize their vets, they need to be able to attract big owners, etc. Todd appears to do all these things incredibly well. I assume that he is an extremely bright guy.

I can't knock him for not winning any particular race. The guy wins practically everything. How many stakes races has he won this year? How many graded stakes races has he won? He's won an incredible number of them. He's probably won 100 stakes races. I can't knock him for not winning any particular race. I think his overall numbers are the best by far.

The way he does it is another question. I have no idea how he does it. But when someone's performance is too good to be true(such as Barry Bonds), you do have to wonder how they do it. I'm not saying that he's doing anything wrong. I have no idea. I admit that I do wonder about it though.

I think we will see a TC horse at some point in time. It doesn't matter if a horse wins one leg of the TC or all three....if the horse isnt gelded then their career is over after the Breeders Cup. Now there are the excpetions like Giacomo. What I hope is that a gelding wins the TC. Now that would be amazing. But I think the lure of the TC is important to the sport.

When it comes to Pletcher, it would real interesting to see what his numbers are compared to the next trainer when it comes to number of starters in a stakes race, what is the value of his horses in his barn etc etc. I think if you find that information out and do a comparative analysis then we will find that he is doing about average. What I mean is that he should be where he is based on what he has and gets. For example, Todd has had 1127 starters and has made $26,276,724 or $23,315 per starter. Albertrani has had 180 starters and has made $5,243,236 or $29,129 per starter (I think my math is right). Lets say you give Albertrani 1127 with an avg return of $29,129 per starter...that is earnings of $32,828,383. So it is all relative.

In the article, Todd had a quote about a subject that has been debated on this board many times. Here is Pletcher's quote: "Horses consistently perform better with more time between races."

As you all know, I share that view.

That's a good point. I would be curious to see where the other trainers rank in terms of average earnings per starter. I would have to think that very few can match Todd. But even the average amount earned per starter can be a very misleadin figure for a number of reasons. There are several things that can distort the results in either direction. If a guy has a really small barn but happened to win one really big race, that could make his average earnings per starter be very high, and possibly higher than Pletcher's.

On the other hand, you would expect Pletcher's earning per starter to be very high compared to other trainers since his horses are much more expensive than most trainers. There are so many factors to consider.

I will tell you one thing. Pletcher has an excellent win percenatge for any size barn, but especially for a large barn. He is winning with 25% of his starters. This is an incredible number. On the other hand, you could argue that his win percentage should be much higher than most guys because he has better horses. But even when you consider that he has the best horses, I still think his win percenatge is very impressive.

You know, thats pretty funny, I heard Steve use the same line on the radio and didn't understand its relevance at all.
I think too many people have way too much Todd on their mind and time on their hands if thats the biggest knock you can raise about a guy.
He just ran 3 of them in the BC juvy, and none of those owners would be particularly interested in running back at delta, as all have garded stakes earnings sufficient that should they stay on the Crown road, that they will be ok.
In looking over the rest of the two year olds he has, who exactly fit the mode of a horse who should have been in that race?
I find it hysterical that the best folks can do now is find reasons to nitpic Todd as a fulltime job.
I find nothing "amazing" about it.

As do guys like Mott, Frankel, etc.
Its not exactly a controversial subject.

I dont think anyone should be knocking any of these "top" trainers. Frankel, Pletcher, Mott etc etc are very very good. They are some of the best we have. For them to be able to do what they do year in and year out is amazing to me. Any trainer winning at a 20% clip or higher is doing something right. So, just sit back and enjoy their craft.

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?

What gets me is that people say he should win because he gets the top flesh. Then he goes out and wins and then they call him the "magic man." That is what I don't get. If he is suppose to win, then why are you knocking him when he wins. For top trainers, it is dam*n if you do, dam*n if you dont.

Thats pretty much how it works. If they win, its the magic or expensive horses, if they lose they arent any good.
There simply isn't any room with this philosophy to ever give them credit.

What gets me is that these owners who send their horses to Pletcher, Frankel, Mott etc etc are rich people. They aren't rich by doing dumb things. There is a reason why they choose these trainers to train their horses.

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.

They send horses to these guys because they wanna win.
Quite frankly, its always been like this, its just the circumstances that have changed.
Steve and I both have written about the tax laws that were changed in the 80's that wrecked racing as we knew it. Prior to these changes owners could use racing operating losses as a loss against their other business ventures. meant they could play the game for free and spend as much as they wanted.
Funny thing happened after that, the sporting robber barons and their kids turned out not to be so sporting.
In the old days some damn fine trainers trained privately with a salary(ususally very good ones!!) for guys like Mellon, Tartan, etc etc etc.
But noone ever griped about the fact that every year they were sent the very finest bred horses and had a huge edge over the trainers who didn't have a private gig. How was anyone gonan compete with those guys exactly?
Yet we revere Mack Miller, Whitely, Nerud, etc. as we should!!! The fact that they had an edge with the bloodstock they got doesnt mean they werent great trainers. The difference then was that everyone couldnt just send these guys horse, they were private trainers. It kept some parity in the game because there were 10-20 of these top guys who basically battled it out with each other and all had their ups and downs. Noone ever "owned" the game like Todd does now or like Lukas did in the 80's or Frankel for a while very recently. Its because these guys were public trainers and could take as many horses as they wanted.
Owners like Todd not only because of his success, but because of his demeanor as a person. A family guy with a great wife and kids, never seen out carousing and acting with bad manners. Up every day early and always at the barn, sends em daily emails and faxes about the progress of their horses, a website that the owners can log into with a password to get all the info they need, etc.
Hes built a better mousetrap and its my theory that hes shown that being a horse trainer is about more than training, its about professionalism and salemanship as well. Its my theory that in coming years more trainers will pop up in his mode, and eventually some redistribution of wealth will occur. Hes raised the bar in terms of performance and job description, but its going to cause more guys to raise the level of their game and new trainers coming in will emulate Todd.
Its not gonna stay this tilted forever.

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.

I agree with all of this, Mike.

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.