3-166:are you kidding?
 

I know this is getting old and I am way late on the Jamie Sanders bashing parade but this is getting to be pathetic. It was actually pathetic long ago, but I was just looking at the FORM and see she has 2 horses going today. One in the 2nd and another in the 4th. Oddly enough they are both listed at 30-1 M/L and chosen last by Artie G in the Graded section. If I was successful at my job 1.8% of the time I'm pretty sure my employer would have removed me not so nicely from my duties long ago. Maybe she's training at 1.8% because of things like this. Her charge in the 4th, Willbegolden, was thrashed at nearly 27-1 by 14 lengths in a 50k mcl last time out. Logically she's running for 75k today. Brilliant!!!

Now watch, after this glowing post, her 2YO Smart Strike in the 2nd will take to the grass and make me look foolish. Speaking of this animal, you'd think she would've thought twice about purchasing a horse at auction that was going for less than half of his sire's stud fee? That's how she rolls.

Yeah but that is also how she landed the only successful horse she has trained.

Aka, the "3."

Yes, the $9,000 that just keeps giving.

Is she really going to run Teufelsburg on the grass tomorrow?

3-168...the good news is her percentage only dropped 2/100ths of a percent.

If this were a rule to live by, then I guess it would be impossible to buy a nice horse at a bargain price, many times horses sell at auction for a loss for the seller for any number of reasons, many of which DO NOT materially affect their future racing ability. A truly competent horseman is able to make that call. Many "flawed" horses perform quite successfully. A current example is the 2007 Preakness winner.

Okay seriously now. This thread is about Jamie Sanders, not Bob Baffert buying Real Quiet for 16K. While you are correct that "bargains can be had", I would prefer to buy an animal that the owners aren't willing to take a loss on. Curlin was purchased for 18K less than Smart Stike's stud fee, this horse was bought for 45K less.

Amazingly, Jamie Sanders is not 3-for-166 because she has poor "horsemanship skills" --- quite the opposite, I've seen her do a lot of things that have impressed me.

However, she has shown breathtaking incompetence with her placement and management of so many of her horses.

By the way, when I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was someone profiling my betting of this years Saratoga meet so far. Ok, so I'm not doing that bad.....but it sure feels like I am.

actually, smart strike went to 75k this year. a few years ago, i believe he was in the neighborhood of 20k or so.

DaHoss, I agree. The Amsterdam wasn't a very tough field. However, I don't blame any trainer for trying the turf. You never know what the outcome might be.

That happens when you approach 0%... you dont lose much ground.

Does anyone remember the word asymptotes and limits from High School? Getting closer and closer to 0 but she will never quite reach it cause she has won.

Sad. Appears to have a bit of trouble placing horses at their class level. Sam Houston and Retama also have tracks.

The reason Teuf is entered on the turf is because his "trainer" says he's peaking now and needs a race before the King's Bishop. . .

jaimie is the best trainer in the world....................

The only way it makes any sense is if they want to see how he takes to the turf to have the BC Mile as a potential option. If he likes the turf he could be one heck of a useful horse the next couple years if they let him stick around.

She reminds me of Hugh Jackman. He's got this incredible role (Wolverine) that can solidify him as a Hollywood tough guy and instead of milking it for all it's worth...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXstcQh5ngI

Right but both would work as a prep for the King's Bishop but only one would work to not only prep but to also find out how he likes the turf. She must have a nice sugar daddy cause winning money doesn't seem to be much of a priority for her.