[mrginandtonic]

I watched the 9 minute version of this on DRF.

Where do I start.

First of all, while these people in PETA have plenty of passion for what they do, like most over the top organizations, they are filled with people that are so bent on what they feel, they can't see the forest for the trees.

I could spend an hour or two on that video and go point by point but I won't. If anyone has a particular question about something they saw or heard, I will explain what was going on.

PETA took hours of video and chopped it up to promote there agenda. There are IMO a couple of things in there that are worthy of a track investigation. No question about it. But the vast amount of all that was garbage. Not my opinion, but fact.

One thing that caught my ear was they put in a quick conversation about how "no pulse was felt in one foot, and barely felt in the other foot". That would seem to most people that the horse is near death and is doing terribly wouldn't it? Well, when you feel a horses legs and feel for a pulse in the two veins running down behind the ankle of each front leg, you do NOT want to feel any pulse. Someone at PETA should have consulted someone that actually knows before putting that in there video. What that did IMO was to cheapen the entire video.
When you feel for a pulse, of course they have one, but it is so subtle going to the feet that you really do not detect it from just putting your fingers on the veins. When a pulse is active, it means that the blood is trying to get to the foot, meaning, that the body is trying to supply more blood than normal to the area to fight off infection. So having NO PULSE is telling you that the foot is doing much better than it was when a heavier pulse was detected. I hope that makes sense because that is the truth.
So when I hear that, too me, the video loses a ton of credibility.

Lasix is a performance enhancer? Of course it is, so is aspirin. I think I spoke to that 2 years ago in here.

Freeze firing legs? It's been accepted by the entire veterinary medicine colony for probably 100 years. And while the horse is uncomfortable for roughly 48 hours afterwards, the daily discomfort from chronic sore shins or splints is far worse.

So, the vast majority of this video is simply propaganda .

However, there are some things that if proven to be true, should be acted upon immediately.

The stuff about the electrical devise needs to be looked at. If found to be true, that jock and asst. trainer should be held accountable IMO.

The illegal immigrant stuff should absolutely be looked into.

The minimum wage stuff, is hard to comment on because I do not know how they pay people and for what. In my day, you were paid by the job, not by the hour. If done properly, and in due time, it was a 40 hour week for grooms and less for hot walkers. You could make extra money doing other jobs on off hours. So, it's hard to comment on that without knowing what is going on.

As for the change your name stuff, it looks like that guy has a lot of explaining to do. Never happened on my watch. Not even close.

The asst. trainer seems to talk a big game around his employees. Some of that stuff sounded like I was watching King of the hill or Hee Haw. Again, none of my asst. trainers ever spoke like that and if they had of, they would have been looking for a new job.

I guess it's good that this stuff comes out in that it helps clean things up .

It is a shame though, that shock TV, slanted coverage and instant outrage is the way people choose to do it.

I guess there are three sides to every story though.

Peta's , the horseman, and the truth.

Thanks for posting your take on this story. After watching the video, what comes to my mine is that there is and there will always be people who are willing to do anything to gain an edge on the game. Even if it is illegal. I am not surprised by this. What I found was disappointing is that jockey Gary Stevens was involved. I had a lot of respect for him for he had accomplished. Also, I remember years back when he roded in Hong Kong. I have heard rumors that he was winning at high percentage and that he was asked to "tank" some races and he refused. As a result, he returned to the states abruptly. Be it a rumor, but I thought that was very noble. Now, after watching the video, it is just very disappointing.

[str]

Thanks for posting your take on this story. After watching the video, what comes to my mine is that there is and there will always be people who are willing to do anything to gain an edge on the game. Even if it is illegal. I am not surprised by this. What I found was disappointing is that jockey Gary Stevens was involved. I had a lot of respect for him for he had accomplished. Also, I remember years back when he roded in Hong Kong. I have heard rumors that he was winning at high percentage and that he was asked to "tank" some races and he refused. As a result, he returned to the states abruptly. Be it a rumor, but I thought that was very noble. Now, after watching the video, it is just very disappointing.

It is impossible for me to fairly comment on the Lukas and Stevens dinner table conversation without assuming a lot. Having said that, Stevens seemed to talk about carrying a joint early in his career, at least that is what I assume. He said something like, I reached over to take it out of my hand and shocked the heck out of himself. Or something to that effect. Well, he seemingly did incriminate himself by saying that and by no means is that something to condone. I am left to wonder though why he would say that if it were really true. I sure would love to hear the entire dinner table conversation leading up to that to get a true idea of what everyone was saying. Also, Lukas jumps in right after Stevens says what he did and says that behind the gate it sounded like an orchestra saying that everyone had one. That sounded to me like Lukas trying to un ring the bell that Stevens had just rung. And was he talking about 30 years ago ? Like everybody did it back in the day? Because they all did not.

I find it incredible that Stevens would say that if plenty of people had common knowledge of it. As a stand alone comment, it makes no sense. Too me, hearing the entire conversation at the dinner table is a must to fully understand what was being said. I have to think that investigators will have that privilege. Hopefully, they will truly understand what is being said, by that I mean people like Stewards that were Jockeys or something like that. People that can read between the lines when and if needed.

Having stood behind the gate for at least a thousand races before I was an asst. trainer or foreman, I never saw any of that. My witnessing of behind the gate was Md, Del. and N.J. mainly.

I guess the real shame is that a ton of people will assume this stuff is all common place. It is anything but that. But it's tuff to defend without all the details.

Last thing is, that blacksmith talks about " a little tiny nub" of Nehro's foot. No horse can run on a little tiny nub. That's ridiculous. With all the editing, I don't even know if they were talking about Nehro's foot. The conversation is just all over the place. I had hundreds of conversations with my blacksmith in a stall while looking at a horses foot and what was said just makes no sense. There is no flow to the conversation. So who the hell knows.

As to what you said, yes Mr. G and T, there are plenty of bad guys that will do anything to gain an edge in the game. Any game for that matter. If there is money in it, corruption is soon to follow unfortunately. That goes for everything.

If Stevens was asked to tank and abruptly returned to the states, yes, that was noble and fans want to like Stevens. But after saying what he said, without the entire conversation, it paints a sad picture. Can't blame you for being disappointed. If true, I am as well. I watched that Chris Antley documentary and he and Stevens were very close in California. I lost track of Chris when he went out there and he got caught up in the drugs which eventually killed him. In that accounting of Antleys life, Stevens was so sincere. Without knowing Stevens, he seemed like a guy I wanted to root for. But now, like you, I too am disappointed.

I have quoted an old groom that was friendly to me when I was a hot walker, named John Berry, several times but it is worth repeating. He always told me, The games on the level, it's a few of the people in it that aren't. Oh well. I guess I will continue to root for the honest guys that I know for a fact are 100% honest and some of the finest people I ever had the pleasure of meeting or working with. I think that's all we can do Mr. G and T.

[jamesbetfix]

You bet a total of 6.00 .

3 to win and 3 to place.

The win bet lost.

The place bet paid 6.40 ( no odds are ever posted on place because the pool is split after the takeout with the other horse that placed, in this case, the winner. Without knowing who is going to be part of the split, there is no way of knowing what the exact odds will be beforehand.

So you got back 6.40 and 3.20 for a total of 9.60

If you take out of that your original risk amount of 6.00, it will leave you with a profit on the race of 3.60.

If the horse that you bet was 4.20-1 , if that horse had won, it would have paid 10.40 to win. 4.20 X 2 and the 2.00 you bet , so 8.40 +2.00 = 10.40.

It seems confusing but you will get the hang of it.

Hope that helps.

Genius. Thanks a lot man. That makes perfect sense.

You da'man!

[mrginandtonic]

It is impossible for me to fairly comment on the Lukas and Stevens dinner table conversation without assuming a lot. Having said that, Stevens seemed to talk about carrying a joint early in his career, at least that is what I assume. He said something like, I reached over to take it out of my hand and shocked the heck out of himself. Or something to that effect. Well, he seemingly did incriminate himself by saying that and by no means is that something to condone. I am left to wonder though why he would say that if it were really true. I sure would love to hear the entire dinner table conversation leading up to that to get a true idea of what everyone was saying. Also, Lukas jumps in right after Stevens says what he did and says that behind the gate it sounded like an orchestra saying that everyone had one. That sounded to me like Lukas trying to un ring the bell that Stevens had just rung. And was he talking about 30 years ago ? Like everybody did it back in the day? Because they all did not.

I find it incredible that Stevens would say that if plenty of people had common knowledge of it. As a stand alone comment, it makes no sense. Too me, hearing the entire conversation at the dinner table is a must to fully understand what was being said. I have to think that investigators will have that privilege. Hopefully, they will truly understand what is being said, by that I mean people like Stewards that were Jockeys or something like that. People that can read between the lines when and if needed.

Having stood behind the gate for at least a thousand races before I was an asst. trainer or foreman, I never saw any of that. My witnessing of behind the gate was Md, Del. and N.J. mainly.

I guess the real shame is that a ton of people will assume this stuff is all common place. It is anything but that. But it's tuff to defend without all the details.

Last thing is, that blacksmith talks about " a little tiny nub" of Nehro's foot. No horse can run on a little tiny nub. That's ridiculous. With all the editing, I don't even know if they were talking about Nehro's foot. The conversation is just all over the place. I had hundreds of conversations with my blacksmith in a stall while looking at a horses foot and what was said just makes no sense. There is no flow to the conversation. So who the hell knows.

As to what you said, yes Mr. G and T, there are plenty of bad guys that will do anything to gain an edge in the game. Any game for that matter. If there is money in it, corruption is soon to follow unfortunately. That goes for everything.

If Stevens was asked to tank and abruptly returned to the states, yes, that was noble and fans want to like Stevens. But after saying what he said, without the entire conversation, it paints a sad picture. Can't blame you for being disappointed. If true, I am as well. I watched that Chris Antley documentary and he and Stevens were very close in California. I lost track of Chris when he went out there and he got caught up in the drugs which eventually killed him. In that accounting of Antleys life, Stevens was so sincere. Without knowing Stevens, he seemed like a guy I wanted to root for. But now, like you, I too am disappointed.

I have quoted an old groom that was friendly to me when I was a hot walker, named John Berry, several times but it is worth repeating. He always told me, The games on the level, it's a few of the people in it that aren't. Oh well. I guess I will continue to root for the honest guys that I know for a fact are 100% honest and some of the finest people I ever had the pleasure of meeting or working with. I think that's all we can do Mr. G and T.

like you, without knowing the details, I'm not going to judge. Yet, Steven's demeanor during the conversation leads me to think otherwise. While there will always be a dark side to horse racing (in my opinion because there is so much money involved), I have assumed that everyone is doing the right thing when I look at the racing form and place my bet. That will not change for me. I do believe there are good people out there and the truth does come to this.

[JBEX]

I am pretty sure but not positive that riders must be named at the time of entry. Each track has their own set of entry rules. It was not like that years ago. You could enter NB or no boy and name a rider at scratch time, which gave you a chance to see who was available. Just don't know about Gulfstream but many tracks have gone to trying to get the riders named asap for the public as well as the printer.

I looked at Fridays entries at Gulfstream and all riders have been named and no duplicate riders in any race except for a main track only horse, who will scratch unless they are off the turf. That leads me to believe that Gulfstream makes you name the rider at the time of entry. But not positive.

You are right, he could sit this one out with no problem but my guess is that maybe Castellano was in the race, and maybe had a hand, in getting the horse in a switch before, or saw it happen , did not have a mount for the race and it all worked out. Then, he draws the fence and that catches your eye.

Sounds like a very promising entry if it can take the right shape if the horse gets a trip, which will probably happen with that jock.

It's these types of scenarios that I was referring too when I talked about following a certain circuit as well as the top rider. jumping on at exactly the right time.

Great catch . I hope it works out. It sure sounds promising so far. You know he would not waste his time unless he had a positive opinion at that claiming price. If nothing else, the jock goes in optimistic and expecting a solid effort. Nothing worse than a jock that doesn't want to be on the horse and ho humming it when they are riding the entire card. Certainly worth a long look IMO.

Believe that jockeys do have to be named at the time of entry but like you I'm not certain of it. Probably just
a coincidence that Castellano hops aboard and the horse draws the rail. He's listed at 12-1 but with the good
races 4-5 back and #1 rider aboard think it'll be more like 7-1..

Two races ahead GP R5 I think Mott has one fit and well placed for
a good effort #2 EDGE OF MIDNIGHT (5-2)

[stefan084]

i have a question. when i look at odds (on 5d for ex.) right up to the minute of the race, they don't change. during the 2-3 times i ever went to penn national the odds are changing constantly right up until the race. why is this? sorry if already addressed

[cutchemist42]

As a trainer, would you ever look at the ods of your horse and wondered what people were seeing? I ask because we've all seen races where a heavy favourite (1, 4/5) simply doesn't run, even with a clean trouble free trip and wondered what happened.

[str]

i have a question. when i look at odds (on 5d for ex.) right up to the minute of the race, they don't change. during the 2-3 times i ever went to penn national the odds are changing constantly right up until the race. why is this? sorry if already addressed

Quite often all you get is a morning line on 5D, etc. websites. They just don't update the odds.

Your best bet is to go to the tracks website that you are playing and in almost all cases they will provide a live feed. That gives you the view of the TV monitor that will show odds, exacta payoffs, etc.

Without knowing the true odds, you are really betting blindly from a value standpoint.

Hope that helps.

[str]

As a trainer, would you ever look at the ods of your horse and wondered what people were seeing? I ask because we've all seen races where a heavy favourite (1, 4/5) simply doesn't run, even with a clean trouble free trip and wondered what happened.

If I glanced at the odds while in the paddock waiting to saddle the horse for instance, I was rarely surprised with the odds being low but I would be surprised every now and then if they were not betting on my horse. That is when I would say to myself, whats up with that, if it applied.?

Often is was because someone had made an early plunge on some horse and the entire board was skewed, but now and then my horse was just cold on the board. I always got a kick out of that and sometimes wondered why.

4-5 shots that run poorly usually have a visable excuse. It might be something that a weekend player might not recognize or a subtlety that affects that particular horse, like not liking to be pinned inside for instance, ( remember Orb? ). Those types of excuses are tough to understand if you don't follow that closely. Another is a strong bias where a horse is 4 wide at 4-5 and never fires on a great rail. You do not have to go to the track every day to identify that. Go to DRF .com and click on results and PDF charts. If you were not at the track that day, you can read where most horses were like on the rail, in the 2 path, etc. and get an understanding of who was where . If there was a variety of differing winners styles( speed, closers, etc) that won and from different spots on the track, it was probably a fair and even track. But... if every horse was inside for the majority of the race( not just the stretch but second wise, the majority of the timed race ) you might want to go to the tracks website and watch the replays from that day.

I have written a ton of answers about this within this thread and if you or anyone is not very familiar with this I urge you to wander through here and read about it. Once you understand it, the game, on certain days becomes very understandable and honestly, it's the closest thing to having tomorrows paper with the results in it today.( a dream of every bettor, right?) Doesn't always work out but when it does, you feel like a cat with a canary feather hanging out of your mouth when you cash your ticket on a horse or an exacta that otherwise did not figure on paper. Knowledge is power and understanding something that others you compete against do not is a huge edge.

Hope that helps.

[harthebar]

Hello str, i'm sure you watched the races yesterday, what was your thoughts, what do you think the big difference in ..the tracks like santa anita where calif. Chrome kick butt , going to churchill, how much do you think that will effect him, or wicked strong, new york to churchill. ...this group of 3 year olds is so confussing to me, nothing pops out at me i love, wicked storm, looked great, but his other few were , not, mike was telling me he had gulfstream races, and thats a tough place at that distanmce if you dont have speed, ..i wonder if there is still a horse out there , that will shock us, sata anita track thats made for speed, right, do you think he will struggle, i heard a stat yesterday that a horse that won the wood mem. They are like 3/77 can that be possible in the derby, fill me in,
besides that how are you, heard from nanvy on april1st...my birthday ..lol she was in fla. Getting a lot of work this time of year, well if you every come up to atlantic city, make sure you look me, or if you need a place to stay,,, i got a house again ...pletny of room.....lol after all , your are almost family, ..lol

[str]

Hello str, i'm sure you watched the races yesterday, what was your thoughts, what do you think the big difference in ..the tracks like santa anita where calif. Chrome kick butt , going to churchill, how much do you think that will effect him, or wicked strong, new york to churchill. ...this group of 3 year olds is so confussing to me, nothing pops out at me i love, wicked storm, looked great, but his other few were , not, mike was telling me he had gulfstream races, and thats a tough place at that distanmce if you dont have speed, ..i wonder if there is still a horse out there , that will shock us, sata anita track thats made for speed, right, do you think he will struggle, i heard a stat yesterday that a horse that won the wood mem. They are like 3/77 can that be possible in the derby, fill me in,
besides that how are you, heard from nanvy on april1st...my birthday ..lol she was in fla. Getting a lot of work this time of year, well if you every come up to atlantic city, make sure you look me, or if you need a place to stay,,, i got a house again ...pletny of room.....lol after all , your are almost family, ..lol

Santa Anita is like running down the highway. Speed just keeps going and going and going. That is why I have never cared for it. The tough thing though is that the winners are typically legit as to being a quality horse and this guy laughed at the competition. He did get a perfect trip but part of that is because he went when asked. Mike is spot on IMO. Calif. going to Churchill is darn tough and being a speed horse from what has shown so far is also tough as there is a potential for a very hot pace. Gulfstream is also typically a speed bias place especially with the funky start near a turn and short stretch. Very weird configuration down there these days.

The Wood the last 10 years has been terrible at producing Derby runners. Was not always that way but it is lately. Can't really say why except that many take refuge from NY down in Fla. to train for the winter and don't ship up .

So, is there still a horse that might shock you out there? Absolutely. I think that you need to take all things into consideration once the field is set. I will say this. Social Inclusion went from a pull to a drive in the Wood . He was home , jock was looking under his legs, the race was over, and then he ran out of wind. That horse has a TON of talent but... probably the wrong year to try and win the Derby on the front end. We will just have to see. Too me, he was almost as impressive until he ran out of gas as the Calif. horse was in that he was in total control of the race.

Too hot a pace and we might see a long shot burst through from the clouds. Might be muddy, might not. The post position might be key. So we have to wait and see what happens. We really need to see how the race draws and takes shape. Pace will make this race, as it usually does.

Thanks for the invite. Glad to hear you are getting plenty of work and Nancy is doing well.

I hope to do a write up once the Derby form is out and hope it helps someone .

Best of luck and thanks for checking in.

[harthebar]

Str ,,,hey how are ya,
blinker question... Im listening to tvg, they were talking about blinkers, i remember what you told me with a young horse, when the horse has speed, they dont like anyone on the inside of them,
but when do you use blinkers or take them off, it seemed like the guy said , take them off when the horse is going long, its really confusing, sometimes they hurt a horse ..yes no ? When you see blinkers on, for the first time, what would you read into it....need help on this...........i want to get you back in the bull pen, lol

[harthebar]

I REMEMBER LAST YEAR I BELIEVE YOU DID A RIGHT UP ON THE ILL. DERBY, THERE WAS A SHIPPER FROM MARYLAND, YOU KNEW THE TRAINERS HOW HE THINKS, I THINK IT WAS ORGANS GURILLA ANDSOMEONE ELSE, BUT WHO EVER YOU CALLED IT 1-2, THING THIS WAS IT DONE TALKING

http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbP...try=USA&race=9

Santa Anita is like running down the highway. Speed just keeps going and going and going. That is why I have never cared for it. The tough thing though is that the winners are typically legit as to being a quality horse and this guy laughed at the competition. He did get a perfect trip but part of that is because he went when asked. Mike is spot on IMO. Calif. going to Churchill is darn tough and being a speed horse from what has shown so far is also tough as there is a potential for a very hot pace. Gulfstream is also typically a speed bias place especially with the funky start near a turn and short stretch. Very weird configuration down there these days.

The Wood the last 10 years has been terrible at producing Derby runners. Was not always that way but it is lately. Can't really say why except that many take refuge from NY down in Fla. to train for the winter and don't ship up .

So, is there still a horse that might shock you out there? Absolutely. I think that you need to take all things into consideration once the field is set. I will say this. Social Inclusion went from a pull to a drive in the Wood . He was home , jock was looking under his legs, the race was over, and then he ran out of wind. That horse has a TON of talent but... probably the wrong year to try and win the Derby on the front end. We will just have to see. Too me, he was almost as impressive until he ran out of gas as the Calif. horse was in that he was in total control of the race.

Too hot a pace and we might see a long shot burst through from the clouds. Might be muddy, might not. The post position might be key. So we have to wait and see what happens. We really need to see how the race draws and takes shape. Pace will make this race, as it usually does.

Thanks for the invite. Glad to hear you are getting plenty of work and Nancy is doing well.

I hope to do a write up once the Derby form is out and hope it helps someone .

Best of luck and thanks for checking in.

[str]

Str ,,,hey how are ya,
blinker question... Im listening to tvg, they were talking about blinkers, i remember what you told me with a young horse, when the horse has speed, they dont like anyone on the inside of them,
but when do you use blinkers or take them off, it seemed like the guy said , take them off when the horse is going long, its really confusing, sometimes they hurt a horse ..yes no ? When you see blinkers on, for the first time, what would you read into it....need help on this...........i want to get you back in the bull pen, lol

You have that backwards. Typically a speed type does not want a horse on their OUTSIDE covering up their right eye. They are ok if they are in front but if you get the outside horse a head or a neck in front, the outside horse can move over slightly and put a claustrophobic type pressure on the inside speed horse making that horse feel uncomfortable pinned inside, thus, they are more prone to not stride out as far and it seems like they are quitting, which they pretty much are. Not all speed horses are like that but more are than not.

Putting Blks. on is to get the horse to focus on going forward and not looking around and losing concentration which makes the horse lose focus and they slow down. As for going long, the idea is that if you are a speed horse and you go long, the trainer wants them to relax on the lead. Sometimes blinkers can get a horse hyped up and they tend to NOT relax as much. But each horse is different. So no, you would not take the blinkers off just because the horse goes long.

The handicappers on TV are for the most part clueless when it comes to the exacts of blinkers IMO. Richard Migliore is not, he is very good, but the pure handicapper types can tend to be. Because each horse is different, there is no one answer. The person on TV might have been talking about Palace Malice? I don't know. But... in that horses case, blks. on in the Derby last year got him all fired up and with the noise and large crowd he ran super fast early and never relaxed. Then, going a mile and a half in the Belmont, and blinkers off, he made an easy lead on the stretch out, relaxed and went wire to wire. But although that Belmont was fairly predictable IMO, it is not a given that it's always like that. Again, each horse is different so there is no such thing as a single answer.

Taking Blks. off works sometimes and sometimes it does not. I wrote not too long ago about this in here. It's not very far back so maybe take a look. I rarely if ever took them off. What I would do is simply change the cup and cut it back to a sliver of plastic instead of a big full cup. It opens the horses vision up to about 95% . In my avatar, you can see Kindest Cut with a sliver of blinker. They are called cheaters. It's barely a cup at all. He sprinted when I claimed him and wore a full cup. Stretching him out and cutting back to cheaters made him a new horse. He got the lead, relaxed and when challenged, fought back and beat them a lot. Not every horse will do that, but for him, it made him a new and happy horse. If they were all that easy, I might still be training. Lol.

When I see blks. on, and again, I have written plenty on this subject in here, I really respect it. I think it is very important to give the horse a second and even a third look before the race. It can change a horse from nothing to something in one race. If you see a recent gate work and blks. on and if that work is quicker than the horse typically works, use the horse. In more cases than not, you will be glad you did.

Hope that helps but follow up if you are still not fully understanding.

[str]

I REMEMBER LAST YEAR I BELIEVE YOU DID A RIGHT UP ON THE ILL. DERBY, THERE WAS A SHIPPER FROM MARYLAND, YOU KNEW THE TRAINERS HOW HE THINKS, I THINK IT WAS ORGANS GURILLA ANDSOMEONE ELSE, BUT WHO EVER YOU CALLED IT 1-2, THING THIS WAS IT DONE TALKING

http://www.equibase.com/premium/eqbP...try=USA&race=9

It was 2 years ago and it WAS Done Talking. The trainer was Hamilton Smith and yes, because I knew how Hambone trains and his strengths and weaknesses, it was not hard for me to see that the horse was well meant for that race. Was not sure he was going to win but I was sure he was going to run well.

If you follow one circuit, getting to know the strengths and weaknesses of some of the larger trainers is an edge that most others you are betting against will not have. As primarily a claiming trainer, I had to know those things about trainers I might claim a horse off of. They were friends, but I had a business to run so that edge hopefully found a horse or two that I could claim and improve now and then.

[harthebar]

i never notced a horse in workouts with blinkers off or on, i lkie that concept, to tell you the truth, most of my capping comes from watching a race and looking at replays, of how he finished up the race or had any excuses., i really dont care what a horse did 3-4 back, so much can change in that time, i will look at the class of the race also, and then i watch the money on first time starters or money bet in the first odds,,,i just think its so important ,,replays, and watching,

You have that backwards. Typically a speed type does not want a horse on their OUTSIDE covering up their right eye. They are ok if they are in front but if you get the outside horse a head or a neck in front, the outside horse can move over slightly and put a claustrophobic type pressure on the inside speed horse making that horse feel uncomfortable pinned inside, thus, they are more prone to not stride out as far and it seems like they are quitting, which they pretty much are. Not all speed horses are like that but more are than not.

Putting Blks. on is to get the horse to focus on going forward and not looking around and losing concentration which makes the horse lose focus and they slow down. As for going long, the idea is that if you are a speed horse and you go long, the trainer wants them to relax on the lead. Sometimes blinkers can get a horse hyped up and they tend to NOT relax as much. But each horse is different. So no, you would not take the blinkers off just because the horse goes long.

The handicappers on TV are for the most part clueless when it comes to the exacts of blinkers IMO. Richard Migliore is not, he is very good, but the pure handicapper types can tend to be. Because each horse is different, there is no one answer. The person on TV might have been talking about Palace Malice? I don't know. But... in that horses case, blks. on in the Derby last year got him all fired up and with the noise and large crowd he ran super fast early and never relaxed. Then, going a mile and a half in the Belmont, and blinkers off, he made an easy lead on the stretch out, relaxed and went wire to wire. But although that Belmont was fairly predictable IMO, it is not a given that it's always like that. Again, each horse is different so there is no such thing as a single answer.

Taking Blks. off works sometimes and sometimes it does not. I wrote not too long ago about this in here. It's not very far back so maybe take a look. I rarely if ever took them off. What I would do is simply change the cup and cut it back to a sliver of plastic instead of a big full cup. It opens the horses vision up to about 95% . In my avatar, you can see Kindest Cut with a sliver of blinker. They are called cheaters. It's barely a cup at all. He sprinted when I claimed him and wore a full cup. Stretching him out and cutting back to cheaters made him a new horse. He got the lead, relaxed and when challenged, fought back and beat them a lot. Not every horse will do that, but for him, it made him a new and happy horse. If they were all that easy, I might still be training. Lol.

When I see blks. on, and again, I have written plenty on this subject in here, I really respect it. I think it is very important to give the horse a second and even a third look before the race. It can change a horse from nothing to something in one race. If you see a recent gate work and blks. on and if that work is quicker than the horse typically works, use the horse. In more cases than not, you will be glad you did.

Hope that helps but follow up if you are still not fully understanding.

[str]

i never notced a horse in workouts with blinkers off or on, i lkie that concept, to tell you the truth, most of my capping comes from watching a race and looking at replays, of how he finished up the race or had any excuses., i really dont care what a horse did 3-4 back, so much can change in that time, i will look at the class of the race also, and then i watch the money on first time starters or money bet in the first odds,,,i just think its so important ,,replays, and watching,

You will not see as blks. on or off in the workouts but... when a trainer goes blks. on and you see a gate work since it's last race when it ran without blks., you can rest assured that the horse was at the gate to get a blks. on card which is necessary in order to enter with blks. on. All horses entered in the USA must have this card in order to enter with blks. on. If that work is significantly quicker than previous works shown it is a huge signal that the horse will show marked improvement.

[harthebar]

did anyone one really impress you yesterdat..how about the lightly races bravo s horse danzo

[str]

did anyone one really impress you yesterdat..how about the lightly races bravo s horse danzo

I am always somewhat skeptical of a long shot that comes up the rail with a perfect trip and wins. Unless bad weather was recently present and there was no opportunity to maintain the track, the rail on big race days is never a bad place to be.

As for the time of the race and that it was about the same as Will Take Charge, I am also skeptical of that when a perfect trip on the fence comes into play.

[BigdaddyQH]

I am always somewhat skeptical of a long shot that comes up the rail with a perfect trip and wins. Unless bad weather was recently present and there was no opportunity to maintain the track, the rail on big race days is never a bad place to be.

As for the time of the race and that it was about the same as Will Take Charge, I am also skeptical of that when a perfect trip on the fence comes into play.

Thye rail is the death warrant for horses in the Derby. A guaranteed loss, no matter who the horse is. There has not been a winner from Post 1 since 1988, and there were only 17 horses entered then.

Remember, a trainer must get permission from the Stewards to make an equipment change on a horse who had won his previous race, or at least that is the way it is in California.

As far as announcers go, there are good ones and bad ones. Former Jockeys normally bode well, as do former trainers, especially if those trainers had a successful career. Idiots like Gino Buccolo (who at age 27 thinks he is God's gift to wagering) have no clue, and do nothing but lose money for the poor suckers who follow them, seeing as they rarely wagers themselves. The guys on TVG MUST use their own money to wager, but do NOT have to wager on the pickes they give the public, and rarely do. Schrupp and Perlolff both gave out big pick 4 and 6 winners but had no money on those picks themselves. Give them credit. They admitted to that.

[str]

Thye rail is the death warrant for horses in the Derby. A guaranteed loss, no matter who the horse is. There has not been a winner from Post 1 since 1988, and there were only 17 horses entered then.

Remember, a trainer must get permission from the Stewards to make an equipment change on a horse who had won his previous race, or at least that is the way it is in California.

As far as announcers go, there are good ones and bad ones. Former Jockeys normally bode well, as do former trainers, especially if those trainers had a successful career. Idiots like Gino Buccolo (who at age 27 thinks he is God's gift to wagering) have no clue, and do nothing but lose money for the poor suckers who follow them, seeing as they rarely wagers themselves. The guys on TVG MUST use their own money to wager, but do NOT have to wager on the pickes they give the public, and rarely do. Schrupp and Perlolff both gave out big pick 4 and 6 winners but had no money on those picks themselves. Give them credit. They admitted to that.

Although if given the chance to select a post for just about any horse in the Derby, I would never choose the one post unless forced too, I would disagree with a guaranteed loss no matter who it is, because IMO it is all about WHO and WHAT the one horse is, that is, their style, along with the makeup of the rest of the field. I realize that the one post has not won in more recent history but it is still tied with the 5 post for the most wins in Derby history with 12 I think .

In Calif., a trainer talks to the Stewards about a week or longer before they want to enter and requests permission to change equipment off a win. That gives the Stewards time to watch the replay of the horses last effort and see what the trainer is seeing. Once permission is granted, the horse must go to the gate with the equipment he wants to run in and load, stand, and come out the front of the gate. That will get the horse the change of equipment gate card that has to be on file when the trainer enters the horse.

Not having that rule in Md. cost me a Stake race once. It drove me nuts because my horse was waiting once in front against lesser and I was going to need blks. on to have a chance to win the race in which I was favored. My horse hung, got beat a nose and a head at even money. Very frustrating rule. Calif. has this rule right. I wish Md. had of.

There are plenty of good people on TVG and others that do anywhere from a decent to great job. No doubt about that. But when I listen to some arrogant blowhard that tries to explain something that they really have no idea about it is a different story. I am not talking about opinion. I am talking about people that phony it up trying to impress someone that does not know the real answer but is starving for the information. And rather than say that IMO or I think but am not sure or I simply do not know the answer, they arrogantly spew some crap while dancing around the actual question, confusing the issue and ultimately talking down to those listening. They never explain why. And why is the key to fully understanding something IMO. I find that no matter what the occupation, you will always run into that type of person. Arrogance and ignorance is a toxic mix. I would love to buy those types for what they are worth and sell them for what they THINK they are worth.

[harthebar]

quote form gino

“I want to make everyone realize how fun the racetrack is. When I got the job at TVG, I told my friends that I was hoping to be the voice of horse racing for the next generation.”

Thye rail is the death warrant for horses in the Derby. A guaranteed loss, no matter who the horse is. There has not been a winner from Post 1 since 1988, and there were only 17 horses entered then.

Remember, a trainer must get permission from the Stewards to make an equipment change on a horse who had won his previous race, or at least that is the way it is in California.

As far as announcers go, there are good ones and bad ones. Former Jockeys normally bode well, as do former trainers, especially if those trainers had a successful career. Idiots like Gino Buccolo (who at age 27 thinks he is God's gift to wagering) have no clue, and do nothing but lose money for the poor suckers who follow them, seeing as they rarely wagers themselves. The guys on TVG MUST use their own money to wager, but do NOT have to wager on the pickes they give the public, and rarely do. Schrupp and Perlolff both gave out big pick 4 and 6 winners but had no money on those picks themselves. Give them credit. They admitted to that.

[str]

quote form gino

“I want to make everyone realize how fun the racetrack is. When I got the job at TVG, I told my friends that I was hoping to be the voice of horse racing for the next generation.”

When I went on my rant about certain TV or DRF analysts it certainly was not directed at this kid. He might not be that smooth or that knowledgeable quite yet but he is so young that he could not possibly be IMO. He is there to help attract a younger audience and hopefully he is doing so. From what little I have seen or heard from him, he has a real passion for the game and too me, that is a great start. I have no problem with him and cut him a ton of slack for being 27 in a job filled with 40+ to 65 year olds .

[cutchemist42]

Str, any thoughts on Keeneland's switch to dirt, or just the track surface in general? I personally dislike Keeneland because of the short meet combined with the surface, whereas I can consistently handicap GG and Woodbine featuring longer meets.

[str]

Str, any thoughts on Keeneland's switch to dirt, or just the track surface in general? I personally dislike Keeneland because of the short meet combined with the surface, whereas I can consistently handicap GG and Woodbine featuring longer meets.

As an old school guy, I am glad they are switching back to dirt.

For plenty of handicappers, Keenland has seemingly been tricky while others could not wait for it to open, short meet and all. I guess that goes for all plenty of tracks but that one seemed to have a love, hate following.

I never ran a horse there, but was there for the yearling sales often enough. It's an incredible atmosphere on the backside, I can tell you that.

[JBEX]

Hey str.. picked a horse in the last at mnr tonight. She is 3rd
race off an 80 day layoff with the first two races being 11 days
apart. Here are the running lines (lengths rounded off)

4/1.. 9(9) 10(10) 9(13) 9(14).. 6f..clm 5kn3l.. 10 horse field
4/12.. 5(5) 6(5) 4(7) 5(10)..6f.. same class.. 10 horse field

worked 4f once at hawthorne 3/30 (16/41)..Inexpensive
Illinois bred who's trained, owned and bred by the same
person and has run well here in the past many times. I'm
thinking those 2 races might have been conditioners to
get her ready for tonight.. no excuses either race... possibility
you think?

[str]

Hey str.. picked a horse in the last at mnr tonight. She is 3rd
race off an 80 day layoff with the first two races being 11 days
apart. Here are the running lines (lengths rounded off)

4/1.. 9(9) 10(10) 9(13) 9(14).. 6f..clm 5kn3l.. 10 horse field
4/12.. 5(5) 6(5) 4(7) 5(10)..6f.. same class.. 10 horse field

worked 4f once at hawthorne 3/30 (16/41)..Inexpensive
Illinois bred who's trained, owned and bred by the same
person and has run well here in the past many times. I'm
thinking those 2 races might have been conditioners to
get her ready for tonight.. no excuses either race... possibility
you think?

If she is stretching out to a longer distance than yes, she very well could be sitting on a solid improvement but if the race is the same distance, I don't see it. While I like 3rd of the layoff at most tracks if it fits the trainers profile, I LOVE 3rd of a layoff at cheaper tracks because very often, the trainer can't afford the cost associated with getting a horse ready without the benefit of racing . My favorite scenario is at Charles Town when you see a horse running 4 1/2F. The 3rd time is usually a much improved race when the horse has shown nothing the 1st time, and a slight improvement the 2nd time. Staying at 4 1/2 is a key there though because many of those 4 1/2 horses could not get 6 1/2F. if they had a hurricane behind them.

But at a 6 F. race at Mnr., and coming back at the same distance and with no speed and a fade in lengths both times, I am not feeling it. Stretch this horse out though and I am looking seriously at her, especially if she has won at a longer distance before or has that type of pedigree. Even if she did not have either of those two added components, I would still consider chasing at a nice price. Lastly, checking the Daily Double payoffs if applicable, or the exacta payoffs with 10 minutes to post time will also lend a hand in the decision. Those smaller track guys that like to bet are usually not the sharpest pencils in the drawer when it comes to being discreet when placing wagers .

Hope that helps.

[Heppy10]

Hey str.. picked a horse in the last at mnr tonight. She is 3rd
race off an 80 day layoff with the first two races being 11 days
apart. Here are the running lines (lengths rounded off)

4/1.. 9(9) 10(10) 9(13) 9(14).. 6f..clm 5kn3l.. 10 horse field
4/12.. 5(5) 6(5) 4(7) 5(10)..6f.. same class.. 10 horse field

worked 4f once at hawthorne 3/30 (16/41)..Inexpensive
Illinois bred who's trained, owned and bred by the same
person and has run well here in the past many times. I'm
thinking those 2 races might have been conditioners to
get her ready for tonight.. no excuses either race... possibility
you think?

Did it win?

[cutchemist42]

Here was the PP for that race. I think I would have avoided that horse. While I too like third of a layoff, the horse didn't seem to be capable of improving enough.

I handicapped this on paper and felt comfortable in writing him off before watching the replay

http://www.brisnet.com/php/bw_pdf_vi...param3=1395702

[JBEX]

If she is stretching out to a longer distance than yes, she very well could be sitting on a solid improvement but if the race is the same distance, I don't see it. While I like 3rd of the layoff at most tracks if it fits the trainers profile, I LOVE 3rd of a layoff at cheaper tracks because very often, the trainer can't afford the cost associated with getting a horse ready without the benefit of racing . My favorite scenario is at Charles Town when you see a horse running 4 1/2F. The 3rd time is usually a much improved race when the horse has shown nothing the 1st time, and a slight improvement the 2nd time. Staying at 4 1/2 is a key there though because many of those 4 1/2 horses could not get 6 1/2F. if they had a hurricane behind them.

But at a 6 F. race at Mnr., and coming back at the same distance and with no speed and a fade in lengths both times, I am not feeling it. Stretch this horse out though and I am looking seriously at her, especially if she has won at a longer distance before or has that type of pedigree. Even if she did not have either of those two added components, I would still consider chasing at a nice price. Lastly, checking the Daily Double payoffs if applicable, or the exacta payoffs with 10 minutes to post time will also lend a hand in the decision. Those smaller track guys that like to bet are usually not the sharpest pencils in the drawer when it comes to being discreet when placing wagers .

Hope that helps.

Apologize for not giving the distance of the race as obviously important
part of the equation. Can understand this having him more ready
for a route vs a sprint. I like to try to spot when a trainer is using races
rather than works to prep a horse. You take the 4/12 line in a 35k open
claimer at 6f and bring the horse back in a month at 8.5f in a 25k n3l is
the type of move I like to see.. I'm assuming the 35k is run around par for
that level of course. I feel stuff like this is not really covered well in the
books but is a valuable handicapping tool if used judiciously

[str]

Did it win?

No. Did not run very well.

[str]

Apologize for not giving the distance of the race as obviously important
part of the equation. Can understand this having him more ready
for a route vs a sprint. I like to try to spot when a trainer is using races
rather than works to prep a horse. You take the 4/12 line in a 35k open
claimer at 6f and bring the horse back in a month at 8.5f in a 25k n3l is
the type of move I like to see.. I'm assuming the 35k is run around par for
that level of course. I feel stuff like this is not really covered well in the
books but is a valuable handicapping tool if used judiciously

No problem. I wanted to cover both scenarios because I did not know.

It is indeed a valuable handicapping tool.

Knowing the players and tendencies is a solid edge as plenty of bettors do not do so IMO, especially at lesser venues.

[cutchemist42]

Kind of related to the past few posts, but have you ever covered trainer intentions when distance switches happen? I tried the search feature a few times but didn't find anything really.

Thanks!

[str]

Kind of related to the past few posts, but have you ever covered trainer intentions when distance switches happen? I tried the search feature a few times but didn't find anything really.

Thanks!

I have not specifically.

I guess the reason is because there can be so many different reasons it is probably best to go case by case but with that said, let's give it a shot.

We all understand about certain horses being bred for a longer distance so that part is understood. But when a horse is not really bred for a longer distance, not by and out of 2 speed balls, but you know what I mean, a trainer can still try to stretch out because of the following. Or a sibling has had success running longer. I will miss a few but these are off the top of my head.

Some horses want to be near the lead. But some horses are just not fast enough to get there early. So... a trainer might try to go 2 turns because the slower pace will allow that horse to get up on or with the lead. I did this often when claiming and running older, slower horses that had a higher turn of foot when they were younger but lost a step along the way. It either really works or it doesn't. If it fails, you always have the turn back angle that can also wake some horses up.

Another is simply that the horse is weak in the hind end . It was just not born with the structure or able to develop the muscle tone that faster horses have and just does not have the same force of push that others might have.

Staying with that, horses that have a conformation that is lacking in the hind end dept. tend to have a muscle soreness over time , in that weaker area. Because all horses have to push off leaving the gate, as well as every day when they gallop, it makes sense that the horses with a bigger and stronger hind end will out push those that have less back there and those that are lacking can have muscle soreness from over exertion. As a result, they can get muscle sore. People will say, just give them time off, and sometimes, if it is a pull of some sort, that would be right. But if it is just a weak area back there, by the time you would get them fit to run again, they are right back to being muscle sore, so you try to work through it by jogging a lot to build the area up as well as therapy.
There are plenty of things that a trainer can do to help, but when it comes to the lesser tracks, this is where money gets involved. A trainer that does not have the money or resources to buy expensive equipment like an electric pulsating blanket and pay someone to put it on and sit with the horse daily, or pay for acupuncture treatments, or give therapeutic legal drugs to help alleviate the problem falls short of the trainers that do. If you have the resources and claim these types away from trainers that don't and over time, do what is needed to get the horse right, you look good with that claim. Actually all you did was spend the money or identify the problem or both. Of course if you do this too often, you get accused of cheating. Not really, but I had to get my digs in because nothing frustrated me more in that business than running a squeaky clean outfit, out thinking or out working another trainer and have someone accuse me of cheating. I took it way to personal. I tried to please everyone and you just can't it seems.

Still,another way to help behind is corrective shoeing. Putting a set of hind shoes on a horse that helped it break over easier or not allow them to jar so much. Plenty of thing you can do there.

I guess lastly, trainers try horses long because short is just not working or because the horse just won't break well from the gate, or is very big and, or clumsy or not very athletic. It can be any or all of those reasons. That's why it is a case by case decision most times and there is no one reason a trainer might do it.

Great question.

[harthebar]

Went acrc yesterday going again today, it was real nice to see such a great and exciting crownd at a track again, its been a while, since i heard a roar of a crownd as horses coming to the stretch, must of been 10-12000 there, I FIGURED YOU WOULD LKE TO HERE THAT....THATS WHERE D.B. PAID 50 IN A STAKE RACE.....

IMAG7200.jpgIMAG7201.jpg
IMAG7202.jpg
IMAG7197.jpg