This One's for Phil goes nuts...

[Kasept]

Blistering column by Andy Beyer in DRF about work of Dutrow vis a vis the performance of 'Phil'. Indicts other 'supertrainers' as well.. Important read.

Latest supertrainer feat raises suspicion
http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do...9&subs=0&arc=0

Thoroughbred racing has become less a test of horses than it is a competition among trainers. The most successful have been dubbed "supertrainers" because they achieve results almost without precedent. They compile winning percentages that dwarf the records of horsemen enshrined in the Hall of Fame. They acquire horses and transform them in ways that history's greatest trainers never dreamed of. Accordingly, bettors disregard the normal logic of handicapping when they evaluate horses saddled by Rick Dutrow in New York, Bruce Levine or Jason Servis in New Jersey, Marty Wolfson in south Florida, Kirk Ziadie and Jamie Ness at Tampa Bay Downs, Jeff Mullins in California and countless other miracle workers.

[cmorioles]

He has written this basic article a few other times. I'm glad he writes them, and I hope he continues to do so until things change.

[Smooth Operator]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

He has written this basic article a few other times. I'm glad he writes them, and I hope he continues to do so until things change.

Me too



Such distrust has corroded the very foundation of the sport. Honest owners are reluctant to invest in the game when they believe they can't compete with the cheaters. Many bettors have lost enthusiasm because the art of handicapping has become an exercise in guessing who has the best "juice." The public at large is alienated when it suspects that drugs are tainting the sport's greatest events. This is what happened in last year's Triple Crown series, and it could happen again in 2009.


Yeah, you can put me in that group, Andy.


Seeing the re-breaking, pharmacologically-altered freak known as Curlin nose the likely 'roid-free Street Sense in that '07 Preakness was really the last straw for me. Been playing poker ever since.


Seeing the freak get absolutely trounced at the first-ever 'roid-free Breeders' Cup by those two young Euros will always be one of my fondest memories, though...

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Seeing the re-breaking, pharmacologically-altered freak known as Curlin nose the likely 'roid-free Street Sense in that '07 Preakness was really the last straw for me. Been playing poker ever since.


Seeing the freak get absolutely trounced at the first-ever 'roid-free Breeders' Cup by those two young Euros will always be one of my fondest memories, though...

uh-huh. and the surface and fact that Curlin was clearly tailing off at the end of the year had nothing to do with it.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Accordingly, bettors disregard the normal logic of handicapping when they evaluate horses saddled by Rick Dutrow in New York, Bruce Levine or Jason Servis in New Jersey, Marty Wolfson in south Florida, Kirk Ziadie and Jamie Ness at Tampa Bay Downs, Jeff Mullins in California and countless other miracle workers.

There's not a problem then. If everyone knows/assumes these guys are cheating, and adjusts their game accordingly, I don't see why this seems to be at top of the list for handicappers to bitch about.

Why, I wonder, do we continually focus on this issue, rather than others that actual DO have an affect on one's ROI? Like:

1) after the bell betting
2) lack of accurate data (this is the 21st century, right?)
3) availability of free (live) video
4) INCOMPETENT stewards
5) ridiculous TAXATION

I can easily account for a juicer: I just use his horse to cover my ass when I have an opinion in the race. I can't really compensate for the others, however. The powers that be, who, most of us think are idiots or incompetent, must get a kick out of horseplayers' obsessive focus on this lesser issue at the expense of the more important ones.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by the_fat_man

There's not a problem then. If everyone knows/assumes these guys are cheating, and adjusts their game accordingly, I don't see why this seems to be at top of the list for handicappers to bitch about.

Why, I wonder, do we continually focus on this issue, rather than others that actual DO have an affect on one's ROI? Like:

1) after the bell betting
2) lack of accurate data (this is the 21st century, right?)
3) availability of free (live) video
4) INCOMPETENT stewards
5) ridiculous TAXATION

I can easily account for a juicer: I just use his horse to cover my ass when I have an opinion in the race. I can't really compensate for the others, however. The powers that be, who, most of us think are idiots or incompetent, must get a kick out of horseplayers' obsessive focus on this lesser issue at the expense of the more important ones.

I agree to an extent, but how do you explain to a potential new bettor that some people cheat, but it is OK, just account for it when you handicap? Guys that have been around a while learn to adapt, but new people looking for a new hobby will probably find something else. It also makes for smaller fields which is not good for bettors either.

Further, we need owners and trainers to compete and make the game what it can be. Clowns like Dutrow drive potential owners/horsemen to other interests.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It also makes for smaller fields which is not good for bettors either.

This is debatable. Small fields are not good for bettors looking to make big scores. You know, the once in a while hit; the pick 4 horses in a race and see what happens crowd.

IMO, they're just what the doctor ordered for someone who can consistently pick winners and has strong (and singular) opinions. I've recently discovered GG. Hard to find many races with more than 6 going to the post there. YET, the track is a ****in goldmine.

[pweizer]

I think it is very unfair to include Marty Wolfson on that list.

Paul

Originally Posted by Kasept

Blistering column by Andy Beyer in DRF about work of Dutrow vis a vis the performance of 'Phil'. Indicts other 'supertrainers' as well.. Important read.

Latest supertrainer feat raises suspicion
http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do...9&subs=0&arc=0

Thoroughbred racing has become less a test of horses than it is a competition among trainers. The most successful have been dubbed "supertrainers" because they achieve results almost without precedent. They compile winning percentages that dwarf the records of horsemen enshrined in the Hall of Fame. They acquire horses and transform them in ways that history's greatest trainers never dreamed of. Accordingly, bettors disregard the normal logic of handicapping when they evaluate horses saddled by Rick Dutrow in New York, Bruce Levine or Jason Servis in New Jersey, Marty Wolfson in south Florida, Kirk Ziadie and Jamie Ness at Tampa Bay Downs, Jeff Mullins in California and countless other miracle workers.

[pweizer]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Really? Why? Who has had more dramatic move ups (off very good trainers I might add) than he?

Is that a serious question? You really lump Wolfson with the Dutrow's and Ness' s of the world? The man is a great trainer. He doesn't ever have 45% winners at a meet like the above and that says alot.

Paul

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by pweizer

Is that a serious question? You really lump Wolfson with the Dutrow's and Ness' s of the world? The man is a great trainer. He doesn't ever have 45% winners at a meet like the above and that says alot.

Paul

Yeah, he was just 53-for-131 (40% wins) with a $2.38 ROI with all starters in 2008 at high takeout Calder.

He was a mere 46-for-90 (51% wins) with a $2.96 ROI with all dirt starters at Calder in '08.

But you are right - anyone who takes washed up old claimers from Bill Mott and gets them to draw off in the Breeders Cup Mile should never be grouped with those others.

[MISTERGEE]

hahahahahahah, i laughed my ass off

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by pweizer

Is that a serious question? You really lump Wolfson with the Dutrow's and Ness' s of the world? The man is a great trainer. He doesn't ever have 45% winners at a meet like the above and that says alot.

Paul

He did take a 6yo Meisques Approval, who was an Overnight Stake horse for BILL MOTT and turn him into a Breeders Cup Champ. He crushed a good group of horses that day. Had he faced the same group the year before, he wouldve been drowned.

[MISTERGEE]

long range problem is the owners who dont win the 30% of races with these guys will be knocked out of the game and for example in fla we will have a 3 horse stakes field with entries from maybe wesley ward, kirk ziadie and wolfson

[pweizer]

Originally Posted by VOL JACK

He did take a 6yo Meisques Approval, who was an Overnight Stake horse for BILL MOTT and turn him into a Breeders Cup Champ. He crushed a good group of horses that day. Had he faced the same group the year before, he wouldve been drowned.

Miesque's Approval had won several stakes that year leading up to the Breeder's Cup starting with the Sunshine Millions Turf in January. He won the Eclipse that year because of the whole campaign. It is not like that win came from no where.

Paul

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by pweizer

Miesque's Approval had won several stakes that year leading up to the Breeder's Cup starting with the Sunshine Millions Turf in January. He won the Eclipse that year because of the whole campaign. It is not like that win came from no where.

Paul

You're correct. Marty Wolfson did not just turn him around for a miracle win in the BC Mile. He also turned this 7YO claimer around for several wins in stakes. Just mentioning the BC doesn't do this particular miracle justice.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

You're correct. Marty Wolfson did not just turn him around for a miracle win in the BC Mile. He also turned this 7YO claimer around for several wins in stakes. Just mentioning the BC doesn't do this particular miracle justice.

One of my great disappointments as a fan is not having had the chance to see what Wolfson could have done with horses like Theatrical and Cigar. He could have straightened out the mistakes that Mott was making and really made them special.

[VOL JACK]

Originally Posted by pweizer

Miesque's Approval had won several stakes that year leading up to the Breeder's Cup starting with the Sunshine Millions Turf in January. He won the Eclipse that year because of the whole campaign. It is not like that win came from no where.

Paul

I never said the BC Mile win came from nowhere. He had a very solid campaign.
I was drawing the comparsion from the previous year. What the horse would have done in the same race 12 months earlier. ( before Marty Miracle)

[Linny]

Originally Posted by VOL JACK

He did take a 6yo Meisques Approval, who was an Overnight Stake horse for BILL MOTT and turn him into a Breeders Cup Champ. He crushed a good group of horses that day. Had he faced the same group the year before, he wouldve been drowned.

MA was a very good 3yo grasser but had tailed off by the time Wolfson got him. He was offered for a $50k tag in the late fall of the year prior to his Mile win. I think it was his only race for a tag. That hardly makes him a "claimer" in the usual sense. Like how when Charismatic won the Derby and was hailed as a "former claimer." That said, I do agree that Wolfson overall, belongs in this category.

[MISTERGEE]

dont forget Ikigai, who is also now a world beater that he took over, as far as This ones for Phil, Kathleen O connell has been training for about 30 years and is a very adequate horsewomen. there probably nothing she doesnt know about horses and their training. but now her and the likes of her are either idiots or the rest is as obvious as we all know it is, and even though we may all be bothered by it i guess for now as some have said just use it in your handicapping and hope for the best

[The Indomitable DrugS]

As for the 117 figure... it looks pretty cut and dry.

I think CJ pretty much covered the straight forward obvious way to look at it. Here's more of an esoteric way...

When Lost in the Fog won the '05 Sunshine Million Dash at GP - he ran 0.44 seconds faster than Alix M did in the F & M dirt sprint at the same distance 30 minutes later.

By comparison, This Ones for Phil ran 1.45 seconds faster than High Resolve did in the F & M dirt sprint one hour later.

Both Alix M. and High Resolve got 96 Beyers for those wins. LITF got a 102 and TOfP got a 117 .. as one full second at 6fs equals 15 Beyer points.

If you want to try and make a case that the track got much slower after TOfP ran ... well, thats a hard case to make, because the previous dirt races earlier on in the card all could have been timed with a sundial.