Derby Trail Forums
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 34 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   CD studying races (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15055)

Cannon Shell 07-13-2007 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by philcski
Competitive, balanced, and large allowance/stakes fields draw the best handle. You don't have to be a quantitative statistical modeler to determine that.

I've got a suggestion for increasing field size... have a penalty assessed to the trainer for scratching with no physical reason (of course if the horse is hurt or sick, and vets out as such, no penalty would be assessed.) The Bobby Frankels of the world are killing the field size in New York and elsewhere. They draw 75 for a 9 race card and there's 15 scratches.

Chuck, since I know you don't pull this kind of mularkey, what would you think of this policy?
I admit to some mularkey on occasion.

But to answer your question it is very easy to obtain a vet scratch and you open up a whole can of worms if you start having state vets try to overrule calls made by the private vets.

Sightseek 07-13-2007 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
I admit to some mularkey on occasion.

But to answer your question it is very easy to obtain a vet scratch and you open up a whole can of worms if you start having state vets try to overrule calls made by the private vets.
In the case of a developing horse coming off a layoff, like First Defence, would you say most horses (If you can even generalize like this) are better off having one or two 'lighter' races up to the big one, and scratching if it comes up tough, or is the horse not getting as much benefit off the easy wins?

Cannon Shell 07-13-2007 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sightseek
In the case of a developing horse coming off a layoff, like First Defence, would you say most horses (If you can even generalize like this) are better off having one or two 'lighter' races up to the big one, and scratching if it comes up tough, or is the horse not getting as much benefit off the easy wins?
Really depends on the horse, type of race, distance, etc. Too many variables to come to any conclusions

Sightseek 07-13-2007 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Really depends on the horse, type of race, distance, etc. Too many variables to come to any conclusions
Thanks. :)

Sorry to pester you with more questions, but in the case that too many horses are entered in a race, how does the Secretary determine who gets in and who doesn't?

Cannon Shell 07-13-2007 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sightseek
Thanks. :)

Sorry to pester you with more questions, but in the case that too many horses are entered in a race, how does the Secretary determine who gets in and who doesn't?
Most tracks use a 'date' system meaning that the horse with the most recent race has the least preference.

MisterB 07-13-2007 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHoss9698
I never asked for a number, I just asked your opinion. I think he scratches more than anyone I have ever seen. You can make excuses for it, fine. But it ultimately hurts racing by having reduced fields. You do decide to use a number when saying he makes at least 17 million a year. Shouldn't he be doing this? Does he not get great stock? When you get horses from Stronach, Juddmonte, etc you better be making money or you won't be getting those horses.
Pletcher has great stock too, but neither one has a Derby under their belt. Great Stock can go down just as fast as any other horse if poorly trained. If you think short fields are caused by Bobby Frankel, we are in trouble. Frankel doesn't even race allot in NY to make a difference in the field size. Most races in NY are for State breds now. AQU has the shortest fields in the country, and Frankel doesn't run their. Believe me, I hear this about Bobby all the time, it's normally someone who wanted to bet his horse that was scratched. What is his win percentage, that's what counts.

Coach Pants 07-13-2007 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterB
Pletcher has great stock too, but neither one has a Derby under their belt. Great Stock can go down just as fast as any other horse if poorly trained. If you think short fields are caused by Bobby Frankel, we are in trouble. Frankel doesn't even race allot in NY to make a difference in the field size. Most races in NY are for State breds now. AQU has the shortest fields in the country, and Frankel doesn't run their. Believe me, I hear this about Bobby all the time, it's normally someone who wanted to bet his horse that was scratched. What is his win percentage, that's what counts.
I.....














































THUD

MisterB 07-13-2007 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHoss9698
I never said Frankel is the only reason for small fields. But, with his obnoxious scratching, he doesn't help. You are right, he doesn't race a lot in NY, but he has plenty of stalls. For what? Other than trolling for a fight, what is your point here? That Frankel doesn't scratch a lot? Well, you are wrong.
What ever dude

philcski 07-13-2007 01:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
I admit to some mularkey on occasion.

But to answer your question it is very easy to obtain a vet scratch and you open up a whole can of worms if you start having state vets try to overrule calls made by the private vets.
...which brings me to my point that there should be a state vet system overseeing ALL trainers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterB
You should have more horsemen like Bobby. He doesn't run lame horse, or ones that are sick just to run. You guys crack me up with your arm chair training licences.
:rolleyes:
Yeah, for very recent examples First Defence and Saint Anddan were really sick or lame on July 4th. Come on! :rolleyes: He's got a ton of stalls and hardly runs his horses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterB
Pletcher has great stock too, but neither one has a Derby under their belt. Great Stock can go down just as fast as any other horse if poorly trained. If you think short fields are caused by Bobby Frankel, we are in trouble. Frankel doesn't even race allot in NY to make a difference in the field size. Most races in NY are for State breds now. AQU has the shortest fields in the country, and Frankel doesn't run their. Believe me, I hear this about Bobby all the time, it's normally someone who wanted to bet his horse that was scratched. What is his win percentage, that's what counts.
Try again, he ran 13 horses at the AQU fall meet last year.

But took away stalls from someone who would have run twice as much.

JJP 07-13-2007 01:18 PM
First off, I don't believe for a minute that Frankel scratches the same percentage of horses that the rest of the trainers do. Not even close. And because who he is, he gets preferential treatment.

How about Dale Romans saying on HRTV last week that he scratched a horse because he drew the rail. I hope the rail was a concrete highway that day and I hope he cost himself a win.

philcski 07-13-2007 01:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHoss9698
I've asked before and I'll ask again. Does anyone know anyway to check on statistics of scratching? Do they even keep such a stat? I am just curious, especially after this discussion here.
DRF has them, but you'd have to go through stacks of old editions to collate the data

philcski 07-13-2007 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHoss9698
Ehhh. not that interested, but I think it would be interesting. I contend Frankel has scratched more than he has run, which is probably wrong, but I think it's closer than you think.
He has 4 entered this week, 1 Wednesday and 3 tomorrow.

He's 1 for 1 on the week scratching (Argentina as the 6/5 favorite. Nice.)

Coach Pants 07-13-2007 01:30 PM
Gosh dernit it dont mater if boobie scraches er not. whut matturs is de winds ann de monay.

ArlJim78 07-13-2007 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHoss9698
Ehhh. not that interested, but I think it would be interesting. I contend Frankel has scratched more than he has run, which is probably wrong, but I think it's closer than you think.
i never paid that much attention to it until I saw people talking about it on here, and yeah I'd have to agree, he seems to scratch a lot in places that you wouldn't expect a scratch. If this is all for the welfare of the horse, fine. However it seems odd that he would have that many high profile horses with issues that are discovered so late.

I know he is also pretty sensitive about weights in handicaps, and a few pounds can set him off.

MisterB 07-13-2007 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArlJim78
I know he is also pretty sensitive about weights in handicaps, and a few pounds can set him off.
Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 PM.
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 34 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.