After every Derby there is the standard quote from the trainer. "a trainer does not make the horse.... the horse makes the trainer" Now can a trainer screw up a good horse... sure! But I assure you Pletcher does not screw up good horses... I have seen his operation first hand.... UNBELIEVABLE! Now if other trainers could get the day rate that he does... then all of our operations would be as good... there should be a minimum day rate for trainers so that you don't have owners going on the cheap which translates into less for the horses... Pletcher just didn't have the winner yet.... Look at the trainers that have won but only once. What conclusions would you all draw from that? That for only one time they had what it takes or for that one time they had the perfect horse at the perfect time. You also must remember that horses can and will "cycle" that's why you pray that you catch them at their peek in the spring and that it lasts thru the triple crown. Horse training is one day at a time... even down to one minute at a time. So until you have given every day of every year to a string of horses.... don't be so judgemental. Only the racing gods know for sure! :p
I don't know of one trainer that is out to screw the bettors!

Maybe if Pletcher runs 20 in the derby next year he'll win.

It's looking more and more that way.... from what I've heard.

You say, "You've got to show something on those days." He has to show something on those days, or else what? Or else the press will get on him? Or else people on this board will criticize him? Those are about the only ramifications I can think of. I doubt he will lose any owners. He really does not need to win any of these races right now. He will continue to make millions of dollars a year regardless and he will continue to be the leading trainer in the country.

I agree that he needs to win some of these races by the end of his career if he wants to go down in history as one of the all-time greats. As long as he wins one by the end of his career, he will be fine. I think time is on his side. All he has to do is win one in the next 30 years. In the meantime, the Pletcher Machine will continue to dominate, with or without a Derby win or a BC Classic win.

Pletcher! Pletcher! He's our man!! If he can't do it? No one can....err.

That's why he needs to show something. Dan Marino is in the Hall of Fame, and no one denies that he's a great quarterback, but he's got that "but..." in his legend. That's what Pletcher will continue to have if he doesn't start showing up on racing's big days. "A great trainer, but..."

It's just like the situation with Alex Rodriguez. He's obviously a great player, but until he shows up in the clutch in October, none of his astronomical regular season numbers matter. Does that mean there won't be 29 teams falling over themselves to sign him if he fails with the Yankees? Of course not. But it'll always be part of his legend that he couldn't produce when it counted. Same thing with Pletcher. He'll continue to win his stakes and get his clients, but it'll be in his legend that he can't win the big race for whatever reason.

Just like Tiger Woods.

I agree with you about that. But as long as he wins one eventually, even if it's in 15 years from now, he will be fine. Time is on his side. John Elway did it eventually.

Except Tiger Woods wins majors. Pletcher can't train the boys. He's always been top notch with the ladies though.

I doubt he ever wins a derby. His operation is too set in its ways to produce a kentucky derby winner. All of that website nonsense and 200 horses is fine and dandy but it doesn't equal true greatness.

I think that Pletcher will win a Derby. But even if he doesn't, what Pletcher has done proves much more than winning a Kentucky Derby proves. Plenty of below average trainers have won Kentucky Derbies. Guys like Cam Gambilotti and David Cross have won Kentucky Derbies. What does it prove? It doesn't prove anything. They got lucky and happened to get one really good horse.

Charlie Whittingham finally won a Derby towards the end of his career with Ferdinand. What if the rail didn't open for Shoemaker and Ferdinand in that race? Then Whittingham would have never won a Derby. That wouldn't make him any less of a trainer.

If you take a look at all of Pletcher's Derby horses, they all seem to have run the best races of their lives 2nd off the layoff. Maybe that's Todd's key- one prep then the Derby.;)

Wouldn't that be great for racing?

NT

That's ridiculous. What you're implying is that the derby is meaningless to a trainer's legacy. That's completely false. It is the most coveted race for any trainer and legacies are enhanced when a trainer wins the race. Whittingham's legacy would've suffered without the derby win.

By the way, I don't think there is anything that Pletcher could have done in 2006 or 2007 to win the Derby. I don't think he had a horse in 2006 that could have beaten Barbaro. I don't think he had a horse in 2007 that could have beaten Street Sense.

If Pletcher would have had a horse ready to run big on Derby day in 2005, he might have been able to win. It's not as if Giacomo was unbeatable. If Pletcher could have gotten Flower Alley to peak on Derby day, I don't see any reason why he couldn't have beaten Giacomo. I'm not saying that Pletcher did anything wrong in 2005. I'm simply saying that you could at least make an argument that 2005 was a year that Pletcher could have won the race if one of his horses ran big that day. But in 2006 and 2007, Pletcher did not have a horse that could have beaten Barbaro or Street Sense.

While you may be correct about this year, I believe that he had to have had at least ONE horse out of the 5 that could have at least hit the board. Street Sense was the best horse in the Derby, but he's also a horse for the course with CD. TP had to be disappointed knowing that he didn't even hit the board with one of his 5 starters.

No one's saying he should've beaten Street Sense.. But with five horses, you probably should run better than sixth..

I agree with you that the Derby is considered extremely important for a person's legacy. I was simply saying that I think too much emphasis is put on it. I was saying that my personal opinion of Whittingham would not be any less if he never won a Derby. The media and the fans may have thought less of him if he never won a Derby but I wouldn't have thought any less of him.

I agree with you there. His horses certainly did not perform well. But even if one of his horses did hit the board, I think you guys would still be giving him just as hard of a time.

The main criticism I have been hearing here is that he didn't win. I don't think that criticism is fair because I don't think he could have won. If you want to criticize him for not having a single horse run well, then that is a fair criticism.

My criticism is that he did no better than sixth. Had he run third and/or fourth, I would not have created this thread.

I think it's also a little more telling than being said that the last couple of Derby winners have been homebreds, by operations that were breeding for the track rather than the shed, hence the individuals were being bred for ability, not a fancy pedigree page.
Charlie Whittingham is not at all like Todd Pletcher , in his day Charlie was more known for turf and older horses, he hardly ran any colts in the Triple Crown, he wasn't obsessed with that goal like Todd is.
I love the fact the homebred horses from small trainers are winning, who would really like to see the Derby dominated by conglomerate operations fueled by multi-million dollar sale yearlings being trained by a handful of the same old trainer every year? I sure wouldn't! ;)

I have a question for you guys. If you were a trainer, what would be more important to you? Winning the Kentucky Derby or being the leading trainer every year. Would you rather be a John Shirreffs or a Michale Matz, guys that do fairly well and have won a Derby? Or would you rather be a Todd Pletcher or Bobby Frankel, guys that win $20 million a year in purses but have never won a Derby?