i read the article, but have yet to read any of the replies...perhaps beyers intent was to say that maybe we have to give benefit of the doubt unless/until we know otherwise? i thought it was hilarious when dutrow cried foul over that article a few weeks back. the self-righteous anger, the 'how dare beyer' bit....how many positives does dutrow have? horns holding up that halo for sure.
but like beyer said in this article, wolfson has never had an overage. so i guess until he does, all you can do is wonder. a lot.

No.

Apparently, this is the only mention I could find on a google search.

http://theglobalexpress.blogspot.com...-baseball.html

I suspect we may hear more in the future.

Ok, Sosa's increase was much more dramatic

Actually it was almost exactly what Drugs said.

Averaged in his first 7 seasons with 100+ games:

.257 with 27.8 HRs and 86.3 RBIs

Averaged in his next 4 seasons:

.310 with 60.8 HRs, and 149.3 RBIs

I'm not sure that it is...

Maybe a better comparison is to Mike Krzyzewski or Bobby Knight. Both coached at Army early on and both had winning records there.

Mike Krzyzewski was about 55% at Army. Knight was 59%.

Krzyzewski moved on to Duke where he's more like 77%. Knight went to Indiana University where he won around 73%.

They won at Army where they attracted the attention of bigger programs -- with more money and recruiting power. Plus, it's probably safe to assume that, like anything else, the more time you put in the more you learn about the process.

Sure, we shouldn't be naive and not at least question some of the numbers the so-called "super-trainers" put up -- but by the same token, we should also question our suspicions and be fair about painting with a broad brush.

I don't have year-by-year Wolfson stats in front of me in order to address the turnaround asserted by Indomitable -- but certainly Wolfson didn't just appear on the scene a couple of years back to make an impression. He's been around and training at a high-level for quite some time. For instance, Chaposa Springs was a prolific stakes winner (including a couple of G1s) for Wolfson in the mid-90s.

Unless there's something he knows that we don't, that guy is categorically incorrect. There is no print record of ARod using Kleven that I could find.

You're kidding me right?!?!?

Winning at 55% or 59% at ARMY is like winning at 90% at Duke!!! It's the most impossible program to coach in Division I Basketball!

From an earlier post of mine in a different thread ...

From a decade long span between 1996 through 2005 - Wolfson has year in and year out been very consistant. His win % was between 15-to-23% - and his yearly ROI had never once risen as high as $1.80 in any of those 10 years.

Basically, the guy was just your solid 20% trainer who placed horses in spots they could win - but who's horses typically were overbet.

From '96 to '05 he was 374-for-1,869 (20% wins) $1.54 ROI.

Now, the same consistant guy who shows a 23% loss on the betting dollar over an entire decade - and never once raises his ROI as high as $1.80 for 10 straight years does the following....

2006: 44-for-168 (26% wins) $2.89 ROI
2007: 52-for-191 (27% wins) $2.15 ROI
2008: 62-for-204 (30% wins) $1.98 ROI
2009: 4-for-23 (17% wins) $2.69 ROI

From '06 to '09 he is 162-for-586 (27% wins) $2.32 ROI

A solid seven percent spike in win percentage and an otherwordly $0.78 spike in ROI!!

You ought not be a genius to see that something happened precisely between 2005 and 2006 that shifted Marty Wolfson from a solid dependable trainer into an absolute super trainer who's stable yields huge win percentages and spectacular profits from a betting standpoint.

He's obviously one of the trainers out there who has a real edge right now. Is it something illegal? Who knows. Is it something detectable? .. who knows. It would be extremely irresponsible to pretend that he doesn't.

That was a pretty amusing comparison he made.

I didn't have the time to check the stats on it but I thought it was.

I just thought the topic was one-year juicers.

:)

It was really hilarious to see Sosa deflate in a matter of 3 months when everything went down.

Perhaps, I should have mentioned that I first heard of this on a national radio show. I highly doubt they would have blurted out something that could be so damaging without a little fact checking first. Look I am a big fan of Tiger's and I dearly hope it isn't true. However if it was proven true one day, I honestly wouldn't be surprised when you look at the way he is able to train, he's the hardest worker, most talented, smartest golfer I have seen. That coupled with the changes in his physique and you wonder? I would also like to stress the hardest worker part, you sound like a golfer Phil, so you know there are alot of aches and pains associated with golf, you also know the baseball swing and the golfswing are very identical motions. There are some simularities here, anyone who says hitting the ball farther without as much effort doesn't improve you as a golfer are kidding themselves.

Considering Army has an average record over the past 10 years of 6-20 having a winning percentage of 55% would be like getting Zippy Chippy to win the Kentucky Derby.

Uh, yeah, that's kinda the point!

These guys didn't magically become "super-coaches" by "juicing" their players -- they were good coaches before but their circumstances changed. They moved on to schools with money and recruiting power.

(But, if you prefer -- you can use Rick Pitino at Boston University, a school that has won their conference a number of times. Pitino was 64% at BU, and a couple of years later moved to Kentucky where he won 81%)

You're mixing your analogies. Wolfson's ROI has also gone through the roof so you can't just say it was better stock. The better analogy would be a coach that is winning against the spread 49% of the time for a 10 year period suddenly goes on a 3 year run where he wins against the spread 59% of the time every year. Even though everyone knows his team keeps beating the spread and the spread adjusts he somehow maintains his percentage. Highly unlikely that would ever happen.

drugs it might be very simple , isn't he geting better horses now?

i'm sure if you did a stat check on d wayne he would probably show great stats in the mid 90's and then a big fall off during the last 5 yrs - becuase the good horses got taken away from him

"Doesn't" what?

That's the point: What changed? You seem to be implying that it's likely that what changed is something nefarious. Perhaps. But isn't it also possible that what changed in that 2005-2006 period was the impending introduction of slots to Florida -- which brought an influx of trainers and owners to the state to "cash-in"?

And if you're new to the Florida circuit and you're looking for a trainer -- wouldn't a 20% guy attract your attention.

So isn't it possible that Wolfson attracted new owners who perhaps had more money and better stock.

And -- in regard to the ROI -- with better stock, couldn't Wolfson be more competitive in some races that he wouldn't have had the stock to compete with before. And, particularly in the winter, isn't it possible that many bettors across the country would still ignore him when he's up against higher profile trainers and horses. So an It's a Bird wins at 11-1 -- which certainly skews the 2009 ROI...

To me he is the poster boy of steroid users. Had gap power most of his career, juiced and hit 50 homers, and went back to gap power. The Giles brothers are an example of family that juiced together, than drug testing started and there #'s get cut in half.

have an edge

Brady Anderson, 1996

What do you mean you didn't understand the pieces purpose. Beyer wanted to let Marty tell everyone where he buys his magic beans... Now we know its the same place where Jack buys his sheit...

Imagine Mott's face when he learned that Miesques Approval was wearing the wrong size shoes...Perhap he could sue the Blacksmith...How about Todd finding out that he was just racing a sore horse.. Like Benzel nor Pletcher and assistants have no fn clue what a sore horse looks like...lol funny stuff..


Marty hook me up brother I am in pain and feel your healing power!!!! What a Jack ASS...maybe Shug could give him a call what a joke

Beyer thinks he cheats.

If someone asks the guy off the record what
do you really believe...
You know he thinks Wolfson cheats.

lol
now, the doc told my husband he was in the wrong shoes...but he doesn't run faster with the larger size. matter of fact, i can't recall the last time he ran anywhere....

Your analogy would be correct if they got a bunch of junior college transfers and slow white guys to win. The troubling thing about Wolfson is the unimaginable improvement of horses with consistent records far below what he gets them to run. The stuff that he says he does to his horses is no different than most good trainers. Epsom salts, magnetic blankets, changing shoes, etc. Oscar used to say it was the shoes too.

Speaking of shoes either Beyer made a typo or Wolfson was misquoted because I have never heard of a racehorse wearing a size 3 shoe. It is impossible for a horse to go from size 3 to size 6, impossible.

Marty Wolfson now proves the wisdom of Cliff Claven's adage that the secret to a successful life is a pair of comfortable shoes: "Socrates wore sandals. Einstein [the scientist] loafers." And now Miesque's Approval a pair of size 6 horseshoes.

Getting better stock certainly isn't something that is to going improve ROI stats.

These are the stats for Larry Jones from 1997 through 2005 ...

246-for-1,193 (20% wins) $2.32 ROI


Here are his stats the last 3+ years ('06-to-present) when the much better stock came to him ..

273-for-1,261 (21% wins) $1.86 ROI


The win percentage did rise - but the ROI dropped 46 points from a GOD LIKE $2.32 down to a rock solid $1.86


Here are the stats for Kiaran McLaughlin from when he just was strating to go out on his own in 1996 through 2003.

176-for-891 (19% wins) $2.21 ROI

From 2004 until today McLaughlin's stats look like this...

496-for-2,459 (20% wins) $1.90 ROI

The win percentage did rise - but the ROI dropped 31 points from a GOD LIKE $2.21 to a rock solid $1.90.

Better horses don't translate into higher ROI's ... but higher ROI's often do translate into evenually getting better horses because owners eventually take notice of the magic and respond to it by supplying said trainers with better stock. Just as bettors take note of the magic and bet there money on these trainers which drives there ROI downward.

And go ahead and just ignore all of the unlogical form reversals ... after all ... Bill Mott doesn't know how to shoe them. Todd Pletcher doesn't know when they're very sore.

Whether it's a success or failure as a a column is up to the individual reader... I find it complex because Beyer simultaneously acknowledges a grudging respect for Wolfson's overall career accomplishment while simultaneously insinuating that there just has to be some illegal explanations for his turnaround work with horses coming to him from elsewhere.

It is also complex as it features a curious, possibly inadvertant, attack on the Wolfson family that will alienate Beyer from the vast pool of admirers and friends of Marty's father, the late Louis Wolfson. In the column, Beyer has chosen to give a very one-sided view of the legendary businessman and philanthropist with this line: His father, Louis Wolfson, was a fabulously successful conglomerate builder and wheeler-dealer until he went to prison for securities fraud.

Beyer knows very well that the story of Affirmed's breeder-owner cannot be summarized, or tinted, as simply as that. It reads as a suggestion that the son should be viewed as summarily guilty of something by association with some kind of reprobate father. That is grossly unfair and frankly, outrageous. The Louis Wolfson 'securities fraud' story is exceedingly involved, and in hindsight has been widely billed, more appropriately, as a governmental persecution. I would imagine that Marty Wolfson will be more upset by this odd cheap shot at his father's legacy than by anything else Beyer has accused him of circuitously.

Drugs- can you breakdown the numbers for Kiaran further ? can you get the ROI for west point horses that he trains only , my guess is that the ROI is extemely lower than his avg as they way overbet their 1sters and don't play them as much in the gimmicks (pic 3's and 4's)

No... it's not actually. Wolfson uses that example, as he did when responsing to Beyer on ATR, in awe and appreciation of Mr. Jerkens whom he holds in the highest regard. His point is that years ago when a horse shocked a race or raised their performance level to new plateaus, there wasn't the disdain and suspicion we have now.

D. Wayne Lukas from '96 through '01 ....

810-for-4,661 (17% wins) $1.37 ROI


D. Wayne Lukas from '07 to present ...

104-for-914 (11% wins) $1.45 ROI


I would agree that the hit with the win percentage reflects a monumental dropoff in quality of stock.

I would also say that his 8 point rise in ROI reflects that he's not as overbet as he was because his reputation as a trainer isn't what it was at the time.

Sorry, but did someone say Rick Pitino coached at Boston University? If you're going to make a bad analogy, at least get the facts right. Pitino went from Providence College to an unbelievably bad stint as the Knicks coach and then took over a UK program on probation because nobody else really wanted the job.

the ROI % changed by 6% , and it could easily have fallen if you take out the 1 bomb he put over at toga last summer (i think it was)

His win % in the time you cover dropped a whopping 35%

rick pitino

Coaching career (HC unless noted)
1974–1976
1976 Hawaiʻi
Syracuse (asst.)
Boston University
New York Knicks (asst.)
Providence
New York Knicks
Kentucky
Boston Celtics
Louisville

1976–1978
1978–1983
1983–1985
1985–1987
1987–1989
1989–1997
1997–2001
2001–present Hawaiʻi (asst.)
Hawaiʻi
Syracuse (asst.)
Boston University
New York Knicks (asst.)
Providence
New York Knicks
Kentucky
Boston Celtics
Louisville

LOL. Ok, takeout his one 49/1 winner from one sample ... but leave in his MANY wins with bombs like Spain (56/1) Cat Thief, Charismatic, etc. etc. etc. from the other sample. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.

How many 50/1 madiens did he put over from '96 to '01 - come on drugs that point being his madiens were always heavily bet , he won with bombs in big stakes races

but again explain the 35% drop off in acutal win % , was he a magician in the mid 90's or did he simply just have better stock back then??

where beyer's article about him to explain these big % movements

or a grudging acknowledgement that people will question a big effort? or did anyone question it?

you're being so stupid I'm almost getting a headache.

In that '07-to- present sample - Lukas is 3-for-77 with first time starters and his ROI is $1.70 - he's a 15% loser (which is the win pool takeout) even with the one 49/1 shot winner included.

And why in the name of God would anyone mention Lukas' name in this thread? No one with an IQ above 50 has ever accused him of being a trainer with an edge.

If you want to think that guys ROI's improve sharply because they're getting better stock - your stupidity is your problem.