He's an Eastern based trainer and his 2009 record in dirt races was 4-for-34.

2 of his 4 dirt wins came at Penn National .. and one at Delaware.

He also stunk up the joint at the 2009 GP meet (29-0-2-2) like he does at Gulfstream almost every year since forever.

In a year end champion trainer discussion...once those facts have been stated...to ask if he had a great year with turf horses, synthetic horses, and hurdle horses ... is to ask 'Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?'

Wasn't the other a Grade I sprint on the Derby undercard? We should probably mention all the facts, not just selective ones.

DrugS I think at this stage in his life it seems Sheppard does things the way HE wants. I am sure he could have 2 year olds sharp as a tack and bustin thru the gates in March IF he wanted. I never saw him run but I am told Storm Cat was a beast. As for him being Trainer of the year uhm NO. Doesnt mean he isnt a better trainer then the guy who should win this year.

All the facts?

Such as his 3-for-26 record at Delaware Park ... or his 1-for-23 record at Colonial ... or his 0-for-9 record at Monmouth Park .. on top of his 0-for-29 GP duck.

Those facts?


But Yeah, Informed Decisions did have a 3/4 length win over the dime claimer Temple Street in a "Gr 1" race so slow it could have been timed with a sundial.

A really interesting read. Nice to see someone treating horses like horses.

I'm sure if we dissected any trainer's record closely enough, we could come up with some inane statistics to bolster an argument. If you don't think Sheppard had an outstanding year given what he has to work with, that's your prerogative.

I hear ya Freddy.

It's a pretty pointless award ... but if you're based in the East and you only win four dirt races all year and post poor numbers at a few meets ... you're toast.

The best trainers are the ones who markedly improve almost everything they get... and train horses who consistantly out perform expectations. AKA the Alchemistsic Super Trainers.

It's not about what I think .... it's about how they've voted in the past.

Which is why he was a stone cold cinch to not win - and unlikely to even get nominated ... which he didn't.

One could say that your alchemist supertrainers also fail to hold up their numbers on synthetic and turf and therefore are just as much of a specialist as you are implying that Sheppard is. Sheppard's horses performed big in sprinting, turf, steeplechasing and marathon -- that is pretty good.

I kind of agree with the person who said that if a trainer has had a positive they shouldn't be eligible for the award.

The difference is that Sheppard is based in the East...and the vast majority of important races run in the East are run on dirt.

Also, most people in California barely even realize that racing exists outside of California. You think he's getting many votes from them?

I get your point, but this year only 2 of the awards will go to horses who actually won on dirt in alleged dirt categories (possibly Kodiak Kowboy too), so I don't think that had anything to do with it.

I don't think the average Eclipse voter is dissecting Sheppard's record at tracks like Colonial or Delaware any more than they are looking at Asmussen's record on synthetic surfaces. The fact is that the votes in these human categories is superficial, at best, and only a handful of trainers with large numbers of horses really have a chance to win the award.

Not that I'd expect you to be able to understand.... but...

Parisxfarm just noted that one of Sheppard's 4 dirt wins came in a Grade 1 ... and I mocked the quality of the performance by the horse.

In narrow victory, over a laughable former 10K claimer, the winner ran well below her synthetic form.

I obviously agree.

But based on all of that ... did you really think Sheppard had a chance at winning - or even being nominated?

No, I never thought Sheppard was going to win the award, although I think he probably should.

Shirreffs won two of the most important of the original Breeders Cup races and was 11-for-26 in Graded Stakes races with a $3.25 ROI.

Baffert managed to win a Grade 1 stake race with 6 different horses and his horses posted a $2.70 ROI with 78 starts in Graded Stakes races.

They both had huge years - their horses greatly exceeded expectations in the big races - and surely dominated the west coast portion of the vote.

If they gave an Eclipse Award for trainer of only synthetic, turf, and hurdle horses... Sheppard wins easy despite his typical 0-for-29 Gulfstream duck.

I don't have have all the PPs or numbers in front of me, but using ROI to state that a trainer had a good year doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Baffert's three highest-profile horses during the year were Zensational, Pioneer of the Nile and Lookin at Lucky, and none of them paid a big price (maybe with the exception of Zensational in the Triple Bend). It suggests that a few big prices likely skewed the results.

It's like saying that the partnership in which I'm involved had a great year because our ROI from 29 starters (4 wins) was $4.05. We had a horse that won at Belmont and paid $97.00.

But if we're going to use that analysis, what was Sheppard's ROI for his graded stakes starters?

$2.50

Baffert won the Pacific Classic with that absolute no-talent disgraceful Maryland pig Richard's Kid. That was one of his 6 different Grade 1 winners last year.

You can argue that RK helped Bafferts ROI numbers in Graded Stakes - and put them totally through the roof in Grade 1 stakes - but it also is a great training accomplishment to win such an important race with such a poorly thought of rat of a race horse.