Defend it, accept it or fight it?

[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.

[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.

[irishnip]

Originally Posted by V J Stauffer

bet the 2 to win.

sharp post....

[cre8flow]

some people tried to say that it didnt exist

if you say there is cheating in the game then you were a loser and a malcontent

those people would rather keep it hush hush

its all hilarious

like nba games arent influenced by the refs

or listening to chris matthews try to blame the long drawn out democratic primary on hillary and that she could have won this election had she sided against the war-begging for the women to vote-that she needs to bring back the others into the fold

too many people insiders have self interest and are phonies and cover up the truth with lies

[scratch1]

Number two.

But if I thought everybody was cheating and everything is fixed,
I'd walk away in a second.

Nice post, BTW.

[Breakage]

6. get a trainer's license invest in some chinese chemists and win every big race in a year.



No professional denies what is going on,
I may have been the last one in denial.


I know you used the word dedicated and not professional,
this kind of stuff is part of the difference.


Professional cannot afford to deny reality,
I just finished reading some crap by a physics/finance guy on model building,

his ultimate conclusion-genius he is (rolls eyes)-is to make the model resemble real life and keep it simple.

how can you possibly be successful if your means and methods are not reflective of what is going on?

[cre8flow]

baffert came out of the blue

he had the magical edge

suddenly he had these triple crown horses when he was a quarter horse man

yeah right


pletcher early on had a magical edge-balto star invisible ink at huge odds


mullins won a couple of santa anita derbies-buddy gill was a trainer change-all bombs away stuff

this cat came from the land of magic

here is my handicapping advice that would suffice for any book or any theme


find the guys who come from out of the blue-get on them quickly and unload

because what they have now will be illegal in 5 years

[Breakage]

quote fr the model guy:

So you've got to be a little bit pragmatic. You've got to take your model really seriously and build a consistent model that captures the biggest effect or maybe some of the smallest effects that affect the value of the thing you're pricing.

You want to be very mathematically consistent, but then at the end you want to step back and say, "Is this the way the world really works?"

The answer with horseracing,
is everything is irrelevant if they using the super juice,

their animals defy biases, trips, getting left a dozen lengths,
nothing else matters but the trainer name some times,
and that is how "our world really works".

[tpt1111]

So what's so great about winning 70%? It means he was losing 3 out of 10...

I decided a while back that when I had to factor into my handicapping whether or not a horse saw the vet/chemist before a race, that race, and more and more, the game, is unplayable..
No excuses or sour grapes here.. Having been an owner, I understand the business of the sport..
However, when horses and trainers start to do the seemingly impossible, and it continues, that's when I get off the merry go round...
I can accept a bad or suspicious ride once in a while.. The race looks different on a horses back than it does on a TV screen and guys make mistakes..
I cannot accept a formerly "nobody" trainer jumping up and winning 30 % + of his races and having ordinary horses overcome extraordinary circumstances...

[Ralph the Cat]

Im not going to comment on the drug factor to much... you know that I think most handicappers think illegal drugs are used more than they are... but one thing that I think some of you guys really need to consider is where these guys came from, they just didnt come out of the blue... If you were to learn more about some of these names you wouldnt have the same view... These guys then hook up with the right owners and money poors into their stable... Another thing I had to laugh at, in the thoroughbred times they listed how many horses certain trainers didnt win with... did you know guys like pletcher and Asmussen had over 100 horses that they didnt even get to win last year... over a hundred... why didnt these juices work on those 100 horses (per trainer) these guys cant win with each year... ever think they weed out their bad horses and keep the best?

My answer, since you asked, get over it, wager on horses that you think can win, with or without drugs, the concept is somewhat easy... if you think your being cheated by illegal meds then stop playing, dont let it get to you... these jockeys give us all 100% solid rides, you never have to worry about jockeys cheating the public... so if you are convinced your being cheated by illegal drugs, and its bothering you, walk, walk, walk away... lol, oh boy...

[cre8flow]

YouTube - Neil Diamond - Both Sides Now

[cre8flow]

on the idea that there arent that many drug cheaters in the sport

YouTube - Candy Man- Sammy Davis Jr.

[Mairzy]

For perspective on another angle, here is an interview with another highish percentage trainer on the Chicago circuit:

From drf.com

By MARCUS HERSH

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, Ill. - Christine Janks grew up around horses, rode horses as a young woman, and when she moved from the world of show horses to the racetrack about 35 years ago, Janks did so with a firm knowledge of horses.

"I'd been around horses all my life, so I think my horsemanship was pretty good right away," Janks said.

Still, the passing of 3 1/2 decades has not seen Janks treading water. Far from it.

"At the time, when I first started, I thought I was doing okay, but I probably knew a hundredth of what I know now," she said.

The Janks operation has morphed into a pillar of Illinois racing, and Janks - swimming upstream in a male-dominated business - has proved herself a sharp horsewoman. Those who might doubt the fact are free to try their hand claiming a horse Janks drops in for a tag: The long-term results of such ventures are not often lucrative.

Janks won 40 races at a 16 percent strike rate in 2007, a solid figure, but a decline from her excellent 2006, during which Janks won at a 21-percent clip and had a powerhouse Arlington meet. In 2007, she won eight stakes races, down from 13 stakes wins the year before.

The 21 percent win rate is high considering that the Janks stable, which races almost exclusively in Chicago, is not built to churn out masses of victories. A great majority of the horses she trains, Janks bred herself, and owns either alone or in partnerships. She does not claim and drop, or try to get a hold of an animal for a quick win, at which point it becomes someone else's charge. Janks trains, breeds, and thinks in big-picture terms.

Janks said she did plenty of claiming during her first stint as a Chicago trainer, but after moving east for a time, she returned here in the early 1980s and began building the business that now exists. She bought Emerald Ridge Farm, and started acquiring mares. She now has 10, and they have thrown Illinois-bred stakes horses at a remarkable rate.

"I breed to mares that I think were sound racehorses, and stallions I think were sound," Janks said. "I really breed for soundness and longevity. I look for stallions that started at 2 and raced at least until they were 4."

It's no surprise, then, that Janks sends out a limited number of 2-year-olds - just eight in the most recent Daily Racing Form trainer stats sample.

"In order for a 2-year-old to run in my stable, it kind of has to drag me kicking and screaming into it," Janks said. "Any little setback, they go to the farm."

However, a young horse in the Janks system that doesn't race isn't waiting idly in a field.

"We train all the horses as 2-year-olds so they develop, but we just don't push them to race," said Janks.

Janks has a presence at Hawthorne meets both fall and spring, but Arlington is her bread and butter. Beginning in early autumn, her horses start finding their way to winter quarters at her Florida farm, and all the better stock spend a couple months living easy in the countryside. Janks legs them up in the Florida warmth before sending stock north in late winter and early spring. This year, she ran more horses than normal at the Hawthorne spring meet, but did not win at a high percentage.

Janks's layoff numbers are decent, if unspectacular: She wins more often and is more profitable with horses making their second start after a layoff. But most Janks-trained horses are at least capable of firing in their first race back.

"Actually, I rarely run a horse that I don't believe is fit enough to really run," she said. "Once in a while I'll run one that's a lazy horse, or there's a race this week, but not for three weeks. But pretty much, I train them until I think they're ready to run their best race."

Janks continued: "One thing I don't do is drill the hell out of babies and 3-year-old first-timers. I don't want them to have a bad experience, so they need to have a chance to run, but not get stressed to their limits."

Janks pays close attention to how a horse runs first time out. She may have a general idea of what a horse wants to do, but puts the particular animal on a career track based on what he actually shows out on the track.

"I try to learn from that what they really want to do," she said.

Sometimes sooner, sometimes later, the horse will find its niche and progress. Janks shows a 19-percent win rate, but a high $2.75 return on investment in allowance races, suggesting that in general her stock shows steady improvement. And once a horse hits his peak, the animal tends to stay there. Janks has under her care at the moment four 6-year-olds - Pretty Jenny, Modjadji, High Expectations, and Stop a Train - who have been regular stakes fixtures for three or four years. Mighty Rule just came into his own last year at 4.

"The one advantage I know the horses have is that they're on the same program their whole life," said Janks. "I don't think horses do well when they keep changing the program. I really know my horses - I watch them grow up, I pay a lot of attention to each individual

[bullring]

Catalano eats a breakfast of strawberries and egg whites every day, he also gets lots of sleep. That's why he clicks at over 70%. This has been documented already.

[cre8flow]

the key is sliced strawberries-no sugar

plus a 20 minute swim in the pool right after coming home from the barn

[doctrot]

Originally Posted by Ralph the Cat

Im not going to comment on the drug factor to much... you know that I think most handicappers think illegal drugs are used more than they are... but one thing that I think some of you guys really need to consider is where these guys came from, they just didnt come out of the blue... If you were to learn more about some of these names you wouldnt have the same view... These guys then hook up with the right owners and money poors into their stable... Another thing I had to laugh at, in the thoroughbred times they listed how many horses certain trainers didnt win with... did you know guys like pletcher and Asmussen had over 100 horses that they didnt even get to win last year... over a hundred... why didnt these juices work on those 100 horses (per trainer) these guys cant win with each year... ever think they weed out their bad horses and keep the best?

My answer, since you asked, get over it, wager on horses that you think can win, with or without drugs, the concept is somewhat easy...

your wasting your breath ....these people will never understand the point you are trying to make .......

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Ralph the Cat

Im not going to comment on the drug factor to much... you know that I think most handicappers think illegal drugs are used more than they are... but one thing that I think some of you guys really need to consider is where these guys came from, they just didnt come out of the blue... If you were to learn more about some of these names you wouldnt have the same view... These guys then hook up with the right owners and money poors into their stable... Another thing I had to laugh at, in the thoroughbred times they listed how many horses certain trainers didnt win with... did you know guys like pletcher and Asmussen had over 100 horses that they didnt even get to win last year... over a hundred... why didnt these juices work on those 100 horses (per trainer) these guys cant win with each year... ever think they weed out their bad horses and keep the best?

My answer, since you asked, get over it, wager on horses that you think can win, with or without drugs, the concept is somewhat easy... if you think your being cheated by illegal meds then stop playing, dont let it get to you... these jockeys give us all 100% solid rides, you never have to worry about jockeys cheating the public... so if you are convinced your being cheated by illegal drugs, and its bothering you, walk, walk, walk away... lol, oh boy...

Horseplayers never change ralph, the only thing that changes is the subject of their bitsching....currently it's juicing,polycrap and striking horsemen...and it's all designed to limit our capping skills....but the next day we show up at postime and pound till our arms fall off....it's the nature of the beast....no one can walk away....we are hooked...better than drugs...

[Slew]

Sorry guys. I don't subscribe to the old school addict's mentality of bending over and betting no matter what. They raise takeout, they let drugs rule the sport and then blame the dirt for lack of durability, and they shut players out in the cold......I guess I should just shut up and play. Yeah ****ing right. Too many other avenues in which to make money.

[cre8flow]

for the first time in several years i cant wait for college football to start up

[KNOWCLEW]

This thread, like many, has quickly gone in many directions.

Going back to the original post...Valento, well done. Your passion for the sport
is obvious. You have received interesting responses from many different angles.

By the way, I reluctantly fall in t the #2 category.


Clew

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Slew

Sorry guys. I don't subscribe to the old school addict's mentality of bending over and betting no matter what. They raise takeout, they let drugs rule the sport and then blame the dirt for lack of durability, and they shut players out in the cold......I guess I should just shut up and play. Yeah ****ing right. Too many other avenues to make money in.

Anyways, who do you like at Mnr tonite?......

[Slew]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Anyways, who do you like at Mnr tonite?......

Playing a lot of baseball tonight, BR. Don't tempt me

[Slew]

Originally Posted by KNOWCLEW

This thread, like many, has quickly gone in many directions.

Going back to the original post...Valento, well done. Your passion for the sport
is obvious. You have received interesting responses from many different angles.

By the way, I reluctantly fall in t the #2 category.


Clew

KC,

I think I would fall into a mix of #2 and #5. My action is like 10% horses now -- at best. Yet when I do play I try my best to use what I know about the high profile trainers to make decisions. I only bitch because as a customer, these things truly affect the amount I play. Poly, drugs, field sizes, ADW issues, takeout. I know that isn't true for a lot of recreational players. I can't afford to just shrug my shoulders and keep firing if my betting is adversely affected by what is going on.

[cre8flow]

all the people betting the #2 angle

i wonder how many times they get a serious price on these magic trainers

how many had the bc F&M turf winner at 12-1 and prior to that 20-1


because betting a lot of these trainers IS OFTEN a long term losing prop

[Ralph the Cat]

Catalanos name has been brought up in lots of threads recently... this one too... everyone keeps commenting on how these trainers come out of no where.... I mentioned that catalano worked for a "nobody" trainer a while back... I was being sarcastic... yet nobody commented on my remarks about him... lol... so I guess no one really did know anything about the catalano...???...

anyways... heres a piece I found on him I meant to add a while back... for those that dont have a clue about Catalano... theres way more to the story than this... but heres a run down...

Racing Background: As a teenager, an uncle took notice of his diminutive size and suggested he go to the racetrack to become a jockey … Hooked up with Hall of Fame trainer Jack Van Berg at Fair Grounds and “learned the game from the ground up.” … Eventually began exercising horses for Van Berg and then riding competitively, scoring his first victory on May 20, 1974, at Churchill Downs on a horse named Hellfire … Ranked as North America’s second-leading rider by wins in 1977 … Enjoyed a streak of at least 41 consecutive riding days with at least one win in 1977 … Won 1,792 races during a nine-year riding career before chronic knee injuries forced his retirement in 1983 ... Stayed involved with Van Berg’s barn even after his riding career was over, recalling, “I always knew I wanted to become a trainer after I gave up riding.” … Still gets on many of his own horses today ... Catalano has no hobbies outside of racing, "I don't golf or fish, I live and breathe horses."


Racing Career: Won training titles at Sportsman’s Park in 1988 and 1989 and at Hawthorne in 1987 and 1989 ... His first major stakes success wins came with the Darrell and Evelyn Yates-owned Crypto Star, who captured the 1997 Louisiana Derby and Arkansas Derby en route to a fifth-place finish in the Kentucky Derby … His initial Breeders’ Cup starter, Tamweel, finished fourth in the 2004 Distaff... Based in Chicago, Catalano earned his seventh training title in the past nine years at Arlington Park in 2007 following 2000, ’02, ’03, ’05 and ’06 ... Set an Arlington Park record with 74 wins in 2007 and ranks fourth in all time victories at Arlington with 623 …

"he came out of nowhere"... its just not true...

theres some more stuff on him at:
Wayne Catalano - NTRA

[Ralph the Cat]

Originally Posted by KNOWCLEW

This thread, like many, has quickly gone in many directions.

Going back to the original post...Valento, well done. Your passion for the sport
is obvious. You have received interesting responses from many different angles.

By the way, I reluctantly fall in t the #2 category.


Clew

I answered the question and expanded... 2 or 5... play or walk away... depends how bad someone is losing... lol

[Mairzy]

Originally Posted by Slew

Playing a lot of baseball tonight, BR. Don't tempt me

They've got a horse who went off at 20-1 at RD as the mlf in the 2nd tonight. Good 'ol Marshall Rooster is in there, beware. A 50-1 MI-bred bomb won the the first. : )

[KNOWCLEW]

Originally Posted by Slew

KC,

I think I would fall into a mix of #2 and #5. My action is like 10% horses now -- at best. Yet when I do play I try my best to use what I know about the high profile trainers to make decisions. I only bitch because as a customer, these things truly affect the amount I play. Poly, drugs, field sizes, ADW issues, takeout. I know that isn't true for a lot of recreational players. I can't afford to just shrug my shoulders and keep firing if my betting is adversely affected by what is going on.

Slew, I actually think I fall in a mix of 2 & 5 as well, without really realizing it.
I definitely have accepted it as reality, although I still hate to admit that.
That being said, I do play FAR less than I once did. I have not "walked away" from the game,
but it has become more recreation than in the past. I get enough "action" from poker these days, so the urge to play under these conditions has diminished.

[Valento]

Originally Posted by KNOWCLEW

I have not "walked away" from the game,
but it has become more recreation than in the past. I get enough "action" from poker these days, so the urge to play under these conditions has diminished.

If this is true....you should be a case study for the game of horse racing and those interested in growing and keeping their fanbase. Quite honestly, I don't think your story is unique.

[cre8flow]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Horseplayers never change ralph, the only thing that changes is the subject of their bitsching....currently it's juicing,polycrap and striking horsemen...and it's all designed to limit our capping skills....but the next day we show up at postime and pound till our arms fall off....it's the nature of the beast....no one can walk away....we are hooked...better than drugs...

YouTube - "This is the business we have chosen"