Wayne Catalano-Frank Calebrese

[Split Rock]

I've read this whole chain and it is clear that people have differing opinions on what is happening with these outrageously high percentages for Catalano/Calabrese.

I do agree that having a lot of stock, a lot of money and savvy condition book readers at their disposal is an advantage. However, there are hundreds of operations across the country with the same set up and they do not win at a 70% clip for such an extended period of time. In my opinion, given the uncontrollable variables (weather, horse showing up dull, disinterested, traffic problems, bad rides, on and on) it is highly unlikely someone could win at over 30% while being totally legitimate, not to mention winning over 70%.

I started handicapping in May of 1986 at the age of 17. By end of June I had read a lot of the required reading to be a handicapper. Over the next few years, I immerssed myself into the game. I probably read and analyzed most every days racing form from '87 to '92. I do not ever remember trainers winning at such high numbers.

Somewhere around the early to mid '90's, the term, "supertrainer" emerged. Andy Beyer wrote an article highlighting it (here is only place I could find it ---> http://www.majorwager.com/forums/rac...ng-em-up.html). Beyer makes a statement in the article..."We have to deal with the fact that certain trainers may become the central factor in a race and render irrelevant conventional handicapping methods". This is one of the most disturbing things about the game today and has pushed away many dedicated players I used to discuss horse racing with.

It would appear that we are far beyond the accusation standpoint. Because we rely so heavily on statistics, it is fairly easy to see a trend that is atypical. Because these supertrainers win with claimers, and often claimers they just purchased days earlier, it makes it impossible to believe their horsemanship had anything to do with their miraculous turnaround.

I understand the desire of dedicated horse players to defend such monumental training feats. The failure to do so would be accepting that rampant cheating occurs and the thousands of hours of pouring over the DRF would seem foolish. Trying to pick apart generations of breeding in a horse's pedigree or whether the 11 post hurt his chances in the previous start would mean very little if all that was needed was a simple injection or concoction for a horse to win at any distance, level or surface.

So, as horeplayers, what are our options?
1. Cover your ears and scream out loud "There is no cheating"

2. Accept the fact that cheating occurs and try to use it in your handicapping

3. Let it bother you and affect the person you are outside of the horse racing (if you even exist outside of horse racing)

4. Find every opportunity to bring to light the issue in hopes the faint chant will be heard by an organization that can hold horse racing accountable for their lack of governance

5. Walk away from the game

I don't know what the answers are. However, I can tell you that at one point or another, I've done all of the above. There might be a #6, though. That is to walk away from the game...for good. That one I obviously have not done yet. But if there was ever something that could force me from this game forever, it is this issue.

Supposedly every horse that won for Catalano the past two weeks towered over their competition on paper.

So you'll get nowhere with this bunch. It's better just to call them names.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Supposedly every horse that won for Catalano the past two weeks towered over their competition on paper.

So you'll get nowhere with this bunch. It's better just to call them names.

but you said it wasn't a black and white issue, but aren't you saying it's a black and white issue?

They are winning more than they should and therefore they must be running Mr Eds on crack.

right?

Originally Posted by GBBob

but you said it wasn't a black and white issue, but aren't you saying it's a black and white issue?

They are winning more than they should and therefore they must be running Mr Eds on crack.

right?

If they're doing this with no funny business attached it really makes no difference because what they're accomplishing is potentially damaging to the sport. It's a trend that will continue to escalate to the point that owners and trainers will leave the game and there will be nothing left but 20 bullies that will control 90% of the races. And this would be disastruous to a sport that is already in dire need of less tracks and larger fields.


It's nice that you guys are giving them the benefit of the doubt. But really can you blame others for being skeptical? Can someone tell me what the risk is of cheating? A six month suspension after a 4th offense that can be circumvented by letting the horses stay with the assistant? The rules are so weak that they actually encourage foul play.

And even if they get caught they face practically no risk of being charged criminally for their actions.

In a game that involves BILLIONS of dollars there sure isn't enough severe penalties in force to curb cheating. In today's society why would people be naive enough to believe that isn't going on in horse racing? When you have numbers this high, it should be a wake up call to everyone.

You won't see track management step up security unless the public demands it. It'll be a cold day in hell when they would be proactive because that would burn too many bridges in an industry that thrives on a gang mentality.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

If they're doing this with no funny business attached it really makes no difference because what they're accomplishing is potentially damaging to the sport. It's a trend that will continue to escalate to the point that owners and trainers will leave the game and there will be nothing left but 20 bullies that will control 90% of the races. And this would be disastruous to a sport that is already in dire need of less tracks and larger fields.


It's nice that you guys are giving them the benefit of the doubt. But really can you blame others for being skeptical? Can someone tell me what the risk is of cheating? A six month suspension after a 4th offense that can be circumvented by letting the horses stay with the assistant? The rules are so weak that they actually encourage foul play.

And even if they get caught they face practically no risk of being charged criminally for their actions.

In a game that involves BILLIONS of dollars there sure isn't enough severe penalties in force to curb cheating. In today's society why would people be naive enough to believe that isn't going on in horse racing? When you have numbers this high, it should be a wake up call to everyone.

You won't see track management step up security unless the public demands it. It'll be a cold day in hell when they would be proactive because that would burn too many bridges in an industry that thrives on a gang mentality.

If Arlington lost Calabrese as an owner, their horses per race would drop by like 2 per day

I don't disagree with you, and trust me, I am all for tough testing, I believe people deserve a 2nd chance at things, so if you got one positive, ok, you get a 2nd chance, but a 2nd positive, and they would be banned, period....

Originally Posted by Scav

If Arlington lost Calabrese as an owner, their horses per race would drop by like 2 per day

I don't disagree with you, and trust me, I am all for tough testing, I believe people deserve a 2nd chance at things, so if you got one positive, ok, you get a 2nd chance, but a 2nd positive, and they would be banned, period....

Surely it wouldn't be that dramatic.

And wouldn't you think a few sharp people in the Chicagoland area would be interested in the sport when the playing field is equal? You take a guy with some serious money who is interested in buying a few horses and he takes a look at the track leaders he's more than likely going to be thinking twice about investing...especially knowing how hard it is to win without some a'hole knocking down 70% from the field.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Surely it wouldn't be that dramatic.

And wouldn't you think a few sharp people in the Chicagoland area would be interested in the sport when the playing field is equal? You take a guy with some serious money who is interested in buying a few horses and he takes a look at the track leaders he's more than likely going to be thinking twice about investing...especially knowing how hard it is to win without some a'hole knocking down 70% from the field.

You beat Illinois as an owner in the high level races, this group doesn't usually go above 25k

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

If they're doing this with no funny business attached it really makes no difference because what they're accomplishing is potentially damaging to the sport. It's a trend that will continue to escalate to the point that owners and trainers will leave the game and there will be nothing left but 20 bullies that will control 90% of the races. And this would be disastruous to a sport that is already in dire need of less tracks and larger fields.


It's nice that you guys are giving them the benefit of the doubt. But really can you blame others for being skeptical? Can someone tell me what the risk is of cheating? A six month suspension after a 4th offense that can be circumvented by letting the horses stay with the assistant? The rules are so weak that they actually encourage foul play.

And even if they get caught they face practically no risk of being charged criminally for their actions.

In a game that involves BILLIONS of dollars there sure isn't enough severe penalties in force to curb cheating. In today's society why would people be naive enough to believe that isn't going on in horse racing? When you have numbers this high, it should be a wake up call to everyone.

You won't see track management step up security unless the public demands it. It'll be a cold day in hell when they would be proactive because that would burn too many bridges in an industry that thrives on a gang mentality.

I was going to say this earlier, but it is very hard to be "defending" Cat/Cal on any level. They aren't easy to stomach whether you are a bettor, handicapper, trainer or owner. But the only smoking gun we have here is that they have started the first 7 racing days with a crazy win % that I really think has some logical reasons behind it. If that is "sticking my head in the sand", then so be it, although I think that accusation is flat wrong. No one has come out and said they aren't cheating and I doubt anyone disagrees with your points on cheating and how it should be handled. But if a career .200 hitter hits .500 for April and jacks 12 homers, I'm going to be waiting for a little more of the season to play out before insisting he's on steroids. And Cat/Cal aren't .200 hitters.

Originally Posted by GBBob

I was going to say this earlier, but it is very hard to be "defending" Cat/Cal on any level. They aren't easy to stomach whether you are a bettor, handicapper, trainer or owner. But the only smoking gun we have here is that they have started the first 7 racing days with a crazy win % that I really think has some logical reasons behind it. If that is "sticking my head in the sand", then so be it, although I think that accusation is flat wrong. No one has come out and said they aren't cheating and I doubt anyone disagrees with your points on cheating and how it should be handled. But if a career .200 hitter hits .500 for April and jacks 12 homers, I'm going to be waiting for a little more of the season to play out before insisting he's on steroids. And Cat/Cal aren't .200 hitters.

It's very rare to have a streak like the one they're having. I don't think in my 15+ years of gambling on this sport that I can recall where an owner/trainer has won at this strong of a clip over a two week span.

It very well could be that all they've done is drop horses in class and had some extreme racing luck. Even so, it's far from sporting and it's borderline confrontational to other owners and trainers. It's like they're flaunting their success and wealth at everyone. And really it makes me wish bad things would happen to them.

[MISTERGEE]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

It's very rare to have a streak like the one they're having. I don't think in my 15+ years of gambling on this sport that I can recall where an owner/trainer has won at this strong of a clip over a two week span.

It very well could be that all they've done is drop horses in class and had some extreme racing luck. Even so, it's far from sporting and it's borderline confrontational to other owners and trainers. It's like they're flaunting their success and wealth at everyone. And really it makes me wish bad things would happen to them.

frank passero at gulfstream park 13-13

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Split Rock

I do agree that having a lot of stock, a lot of money and savvy condition book readers at their disposal is an advantage. However, there are hundreds of operations across the country with the same set up and they do not win at a 70% clip for such an extended period of time. In my opinion, given the uncontrollable variables (weather, horse showing up dull, disinterested, traffic problems, bad rides, on and on) it is highly unlikely someone could win at over 30% while being totally legitimate, not to mention winning over 70%.

I guess this is where I keep finding myself disconnected from your side. He started on average 20 horses per month through the beginning of the Arlington meet, right, and has started 17 so far at that meet. I don't understand the hand wringing over him winning over 70% for "such an extended period of time," when the meet has been ongoing for seven racing days and the stock lining up against him is inarguably cheaper than it will be at any point this entire summer. Add to that the fact that he's largely winning in fairly cheap claiming races, where the stock in Chicago is even weaker than the general horse population at Arlington.

He's winning at a high clip overall this year, because his hot streak at the beginning of Arlington is obviously contributing greatly, because he didn't start a huge number of horses prior to the meet. In two weeks, he's started about 20% of his runners for 2008 so far.

If he won at 70% for the entire meet, I'd obviously be joining on your side in this. But he goes through this streak every summer, just like he goes through the cold streak every summer. It's only painfully obvious because it's the beginning of the meet, so his winning percentage looks outrageous. So I guess my problem is that if we're going to harp on his win percentage, let's say that you cannot win with 35% of your starters in a year, no way. Let's not say that you can't win with 70% of your starters, because his hot streak at the meet opening is an anamoly, and it will level off considerably. If you look back at this thread six weeks from now, the 70% number will be long, long, long gone, and the focusing on that number will seem silly.

But if 35% is a number that you don't think can be honestly acheived, then that's a different story and what I'd consider to be an honest debate.