[V J Stauffer]

Originally Posted by Valento

I was part of a conversation elsewhere about the sensational win percentage by Wayne Catalano and Frank Calebrese at Arlington Park. For those of you not following it, Catalano is winning at a 72% clip to the start of the Arlington Meet (20 starters) and is winning at about 45% for the entire year.

What I find intriguing is how so many dedicated players rush to the defense of these "super" trainers when it is completely obvious to a rational person that they are doing something outside of the rules to obtain these percentages.

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. In 1980, the leading trainer won 25% of his starts. Bill Mott has never won more than 24% in a single season.

Somewhere around the early to mid '90's, the term, "supertrainer" emerged. Andy Beyer wrote..."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 a racing form would seem foolish. Analyzing generations of breeding in a horse's pedigree or whether the outside 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 horse racing (if you 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.

What a wonderful, well thought out, well written post.

I would box 2-4 and bet the 2 to win.