John Ward

Cannon Shell · #1 01-23-2008, 02:13 PM

There have been many rumors floating around that Mr. Ward and Mr. Oxley are parting company. Dont know the validity of this but I was told by a pretty strong source. I happened to buy a horse off them in the most recent Jan sale and this person brought the subject up after seeing that I had bought the horse.

hurricanefrank · #2 01-23-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There have been many rumors floating around that Mr. Ward and Mr. Oxley are parting company. Dont know the validity of this but I was told by a pretty strong source. I happened to buy a horse off them in the most recent Jan sale and this person brought the subject up after seeing that I had bought the horse.

I know I was quite surprised when I recently saw a horse owned by Mr Oxley racing at GP not trained by Mr Ward but by Helen Pitts.

VOL JACK · #3 01-23-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There have been many rumors floating around that Mr. Ward and Mr. Oxley are parting company. Dont know the validity of this but I was told by a pretty strong source. I happened to buy a horse off them in the most recent Jan sale and this person brought the subject up after seeing that I had bought the horse.

I don't know how owners, like oxley, that put millions into the game can withstand not getting any real results.

Overbrook still gives horse to Lukas and D. stewart.
Ed Evans still gives Mark Hening plenty of stock. I don't get it.

blackthroatedwind · #4 01-23-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VOL JACK

I don't know how owners, like oxley, that put millions into the game can withstand not getting any real results.

Overbrook still gives horse to Lukas and D. stewart.
Ed Evans still gives Mark Hening plenty of stock. I don't get it.

Loyalty I guess. And, I respect loyalty, but the John Ward situation is a bit strange. He just never even seems to run any horses. I honestly think he has started like two 2YOs in Saratoga the entire last two meets. They have horses.....why don't they ever run? On the other hand, they had some real success just seven years ago.

Overbrook doesn't seem to even have any good horses....and Ned Evans finally pretty much got away from Hennig. That is one that I could never understand.

The Bid · #5 01-23-2008, 04:55 PM

Overbrook's racing program should certainly be much better than what it is.

blackthroatedwind · #6 01-23-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bid

Overbrook's racing program should certainly be much better than what it is.

I think we can guess at what the problem is there.

#7 01-23-2008, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I think we can guess at what the problem is there.

Nepotism?

blackthroatedwind · #8 01-23-2008, 05:04 PM

Seems like a good way of putting it.

Danzig · #9 01-23-2008, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I think we can guess at what the problem is there.

they probably have women there.

#10 01-23-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

they probably have women there.

They do.

hurricanefrank · #11 01-23-2008, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VOL JACK

I don't know how owners, like oxley, that put millions into the game can withstand not getting any real results.

Overbrook still gives horse to Lukas and D. stewart.
Ed Evans still gives Mark Hening plenty of stock. I don't get it.

On the other end of the spectrum, I think a guy like Ken McPeek is one who does alot with much less in terms of overall stock. He wins with $7500 claimers as well as stakes-placed horses. His stable has a good number of horses who were purchased for $50K or less at auction and they are productive on the track. He won races at two different tracks today (2 at GP & 1 at TP) and with Stratostar yesterday, a horse he has skillfully managed. He is very good at spotting his runners and they usually are ready to run.

blackthroatedwind · #12 01-23-2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurricanefrank

On the other end of the spectrum, I think a guy like Ken McPeek is one who does alot with much less in terms of overall stock. He wins with $7500 claimers as well as stakes-placed horses. His stable has a good number of horses who were purchased for $50K or less at auction and they are productive on the track. He won races at two different tracks today (2 at GP & 1 at TP) and with Stratostar yesterday, a horse he has skillfully managed. He is very good at spotting his runners and they usually are ready to run.

I don't know Ken McPeek at all, and you're right he does seem to win, but he may also have personality clashes with some owners. I seem to remember him losing a few owners before he briefly left the game.

It would be unfair to condemn anyone for this, as it's a two way street, and while sometimes ( I'm sure ) the trainer is to blame, but I am also sure that many owners are difficult to deal with. This is a primary reason that Todd Pletcher has been so successful ( along with having a great staff ). He has done a tremendous job of communicating well with owners.

hurricanefrank · #13 01-23-2008, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't know Ken McPeek at all, and you're right he does seem to win, but he may also have personality clashes with some owners. I seem to remember him losing a few owners before he briefly left the game.

It would be unfair to condemn anyone for this, as it's a two way street, and while sometimes ( I'm sure ) the trainer is to blame, but I am also sure that many owners are difficult to deal with. This is a primary reason that Todd Pletcher has been so successful ( along with having a great staff ). He has done a tremendous job of communicating well with owners.

You've raised an excellent point with which I totally agree. Communications with owners can never be underestimated in terms of importance. As far as Ken McPeek goes I remember in 2002 owner Jack Wolf fired him before the Belmont (which McPeek won with Sarava) taking Harlan's Holiday away from him after disappointments in the Derby and Preakness and gave that one to none other than Todd Pletcher.

Linny · #14 01-23-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't know Ken McPeek at all, and you're right he does seem to win, but he may also have personality clashes with some owners. I seem to remember him losing a few owners before he briefly left the game.

It would be unfair to condemn anyone for this, as it's a two way street, and while sometimes ( I'm sure ) the trainer is to blame, but I am also sure that many owners are difficult to deal with. This is a primary reason that Todd Pletcher has been so successful ( along with having a great staff ). He has done a tremendous job of communicating well with owners.

It is worth noting too that once a trainer reaches a certain level, "elite status" then he can essentially tell owners that they must play by "trainers rules." No owner is going to tell Todd or Bobby Frankel or the Chief what to do with his horses. If you want these guys training your stock you deal with their rules, to a certain extent. That said, Todd's operation is very good at communicating wit clients. All his assistants are trained to deal with owners etc. in the manner that they expect for the $$$ they spend.

JJP · #15 01-23-2008, 08:38 PM

Isn't Dr. Pleasure out of Beautiful Pleasure? Those "regal" bloodlines types seem to be habitually overbet.

Bobby Fischer · #16 01-23-2008, 08:44 PM

McPeek is a "solid" trainer. I am not scared of his horses suddenly showing dramatic improvement. Seems to run to form.

pace scenario: Will Portobello Road "inherit" the easy lead ?

Cornelio Velasquez will posture for the lead out of the gate with Dr. Pleasure, but I don't think he is going to go out in an early duel if Joe Bravo shows any initiative.
Portobello Road actually finished half-decent in his last two races at a mile.
Rene Douglas is not exactly a speed jockey, but he could have a chance to force the issue with Bullet Rain. The track condition will play a role as well.

Cannon Shell · #17 01-23-2008, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

McPeek is a "solid" trainer. I am not scared of his horses suddenly showing dramatic improvement. Seems to run to form.

This is a perfect example of the hypocracy of people trying to figure out who is "clean" and who isn't. Because you feel that his horses dont show "dramatic" improvement, he is a clean trainer. I am not implying that he is not but the evidence that some guys are cheating and some guys arent is not always readily apparent in past performance lines or speed figures. I'm not picking on you BF but just pointing out how some people are unfairly labeled as juicers and some guys are wrongly labeled as clean, and the fact that many times the opposite is true.

blackthroatedwind · #18 01-24-2008, 12:53 PM

Dr. Pleasure remains eligible for his NW1X condition.

The Bid · #19 01-24-2008, 01:33 PM

That may be Wards plan BDW. To keep placing in the 1x until he makes a hundred thousand or so.

VOL JACK · #20 01-23-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hurricanefrank

On the other end of the spectrum, I think a guy like Ken McPeek is one who does alot with much less in terms of overall stock. He wins with $7500 claimers as well as stakes-placed horses. His stable has a good number of horses who were purchased for $50K or less at auction and they are productive on the track. He won races at two different tracks today (2 at GP & 1 at TP) and with Stratostar yesterday, a horse he has skillfully managed. He is very good at spotting his runners and they usually are ready to run.

I think McPeek does a good job, across the board. He can get one to fire off any length of lay-off, which I consider an important trait in calling someone a good trainer.
However, nevermind my opinions from afar, just ask McPeek he'll tell you he is the best.