Are these Trainers bad for the game?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Todd and Stephanie Beattie might be low-profile names right now, but they are as skilled as any trainers in the country at the fine art of improving horses dramatically.

* Todd might be most famous for the job he did with Fabulous Strike. A horse who was soundly beaten in a Tampa MSW race last winter. In his first start for Beattie, he impressively won a Penn National MSW race. It wasn't long until he was a stakes winner at Belmont. He would run a competitive 3rd to Songster and Too Much Bling by June, on the Belmont Stakes undercard. Before years end, Fabulous Strike would run a 119 Beyer, Beattie made this gelding the fastest figure 3-year-old in a strong crop that included Discreet Cat, Bernardini, and Barbaro.

Here's a closer work at the early stages of this surely fine piece of training.



Also note the trainer stats of his I underlined. He was 40-for-100 (40% wins) on the year, at the time. Sadly, he only managed to win at a 32% clip by years end, while making over 300 starts.

* Now we get to my favorite, Stephanie Beattie! Her statistical profile defies all logic---and the more I look at it, the more I wonder if she posses magical powers...or, perhaps possibly might be the female Jesus.

She also only managed to win at a 32% clip last year, BUT, she did so at Charles Town...meaning she did so racing almost exclusively against 10 horse fields. No easy task!

As you can clearly see, the last 949 horses to run for this lady have produced a truly MIND-BOGGLING 21% profit on the betting dollar. When you consider the sample size and the profit...it's beyond remarkable..it's almost impossible.



And it's not like a few 70/1 shots made the ROI stats misleading. She shows a flat bet profit in all three ranges of odds. With short priced horses, with mid-priced horses, and with longshots.

Now, I'm no fool. I've seen these stats a while ago and was excited about the oppertunity to profit from them. However, They bet these Beattie horses off-the-board and I just can't bring myself to betting on a horse who looks to be GROSSLY overbet on form....and yet the beat goes on for them.

Not only do they sharply improve new horses...but their horses often seem to improve with each subsequent start until something physically goes wrong. It's truly incredible.

Todd is winning at a 36% clip and showing a 16% flat bet profit over the last 90 days. Steph is winning at a 38% clip and showing a 21% flat bet profit over the last 90 days...and you just can't bring yourself to betting their horses because they appear so over-bet.

And it's not like you can just single them in P3's and clean up that way, they run at tracks that don't offer attractive multi-win exotics with big enough pools sizes.

Unless you are the kind of bettor who can back a seemingly overbet horse, solely on the basis of a trainers last name, the Beatties can't help you make money from a betting standpoint.

However, Todd and Steph have been polite enough to stay out of the spotlight...and not go to a major circuit and make genuinely good horseman look like pure incompetents in comparison to them. They are also both listed as reps for the Pennsylvania HBPA. I'm sure they are related in some way, perhaps husband and wife.

However, even as we know so little about these two, as they have kept such a low-profile, I think we still have to ask and answer the following question: Are these two really good for the sport?

I personally don't think so. Don't get me wrong, for all I know, they may be great people who've never had a bad test...however, what they are doing defies all logic.

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Also maybe you or someone else knows, but I noticed that when Scott Lake is suspended some of his horses run under Ryan Beattie's name. Relation??

They were lab partners in their high school chemistry class.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

They were lab partners in their high school chemistry class.

and from the looks of things they got an A

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Pretty spot on. I guess my question is what is the difference between these two and Shuman, Lake, Dutrow, etc.

Answer: Shuman saws legs off horses?

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Well yeah there's that, but other than that is there anything?

it's like DrugS pointed out...these 2 have been under the radar...whatever game they are playing they seem content to do it at 2nd tier tracks (unlike the one's you mentioned)...but winning at 40% at 2 slot driven tracks must pay quite well...

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Answer: Shuman saws legs off horses?

In all honesty.....IMO, these two are doing a far, far, far more impressive job than Shuman ever did.

Shuman did get his share of big jumps, but he also had a lot that never improved or went backwards. Shuman's statistical profile from a betting standpoint also was dramatically less impressive.

I agree that Gill?Shuman were also probably bad for the game---but for different reasons than why I feel the Beattie sensations are.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Also maybe you or someone else knows, but I noticed that when Scott Lake is suspended some of his horses run under Ryan Beattie's name. Relation??

That's a good point---Lake's horses ran under his name at GP while he was under suspension last year.

Lake was also based solely at Penn National back in the day (Like '98 or '99)---and really rose from their quickly in meteoric like fashion.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

In all honesty.....IMO, these two are doing a far, far, far more impressive job than Shuman ever did.

Shuman did get his share of big jumps, but he also had a lot that never improved or went backwards. Shuman's statistical profile from a betting standpoint also was dramatically less impressive.

I agree that Gill?Shuman were also probably bad for the game---but for different reasons than why I feel the Beattie sensations are.

You seem to have missed that one winter at GP. Once he was caught on to he was never the same. Simply being a "hop up" trainer won't be enough if you are also a crummy trainer.

[The Bid]

They have the magic fairy dust.

I wish I knew what they used because Ive always wanted to run a 4.4 40, and slamdunk a basketball.

[MisterB]

Who knows why. Like chuck said, he could win at 40 -50 percent if he brought his stock to Washington, but doesn't make him a better trainer, just better stock.

[The Bid]

Look at some of the out of form crows the beattie clan turn around. It takes more than Great horsemanship to win with some of the plugs they gallop with.

Yeah I kinda agree with MisterB. These two could really be honest, outstanding, hall of fame-esque trainers. In fact....




wait...


you'll have to excuse me. There's a talking dodo bird at the door trying to sell its eggs.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

That's a good point---Lake's horses ran under his name at GP while he was under suspension last year.

Lake was also based solely at Penn National back in the day (Like '98 or '99)---and really rose from their quickly in meteoric like fashion.

Thanks for your post. It's interesting reading. I watched the Fabulous Strike race at Mountaineer and he did look very fast and I look forward to seeing if he can step up. Personally, I don't put too much emphasis on his Tampa loss or his 119 speed figure.

It sure seems there is a lot of smoke here. I guess the thing to do is wait for one of Stephanie's to go off at 6-1+.

[MisterB]

Originally Posted by Pillow Pants

Yeah I kinda agree with MisterB. These two could really be honest, outstanding, hall of fame-esque trainers. In fact....




wait...


you'll have to excuse me. There's a talking dodo bird at the door trying to sell its eggs.

so if Chuck went there, he is a druggy?

or sells eggs?

[The Bid]

Who said chuck would hit at 40 percent?

I bet if you gave Chuck Beattie's stock noway in the world is he 40 percent, and thats no knock on Chuck. Its just those horses seem to be proactively treated. There is noway you can get crows to run on the steady. They take horses that are totally hopeless and they run out of their minds. Can it be a coincidence Beattie and Lake are good friends, Beatties kin are winning at the same clip him and Mr Lake win at, sure. Are most of us dumb enough to believe that? I hope not.

Originally Posted by MisterB

so if Chuck went there, he is a druggy?

or sells eggs?

Chuck was talking about Portland Meadows. Charles Town is a couple notches above that dump.

[mark2061mn]

i like how he fabulous strike was 40/1 in his debut and ran about like a 40/1 shot should.

he switches trainers and goes off at 3/2 in PA, and romps.

then again, i am fairly new to watching east coast racing, and maybe tampa is a much better track than anything in PA. doesnt seem likely, but who knows.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by The Bid

Look at some of the out of form crows the beattie clan turn around. It takes more than Great horsemanship to win with some of the plugs they gallop with.

I totally agree.

They constantly move horses up dramatically.

It's hard to say how someone like a Mullins or Dutrow would do with the horses they get---but I'd be absolutley shocked if they'd do better, and I'm not even convinced they'd do as good.

[cmorioles]

DrugS,

Thanks for keeping the other two names under wraps!

As for the Beattie horses, they may appear overbet on paper, but they are obviously underbet. I keep sending it in on them, don't even look at the form.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

As you can clearly see, the last 949 horses to run for this lady have produced a truly MIND-BOGGLING 21% profit on the betting dollar. When you consider the sample size and the profit...it's beyond remarkable..it's almost impossible.



And it's not like a few 70/1 shots made the ROI stats misleading. She shows a flat bet profit in all three ranges of odds. With short priced horses, with mid-priced horses, and with longshots.

Great post, DrugS.

I would point out, though, that even though she shows a flat bet profit across the board, she is basically breaking even on the horses 4-1 or less. The 21% ROI is largely due to her success in bringing home the medium- and longshots. Making 4% ROI on the favs is fairly outstanding in its own right, considering there were over 500 starts in that group. I can only be wistful about adding in the 4-7% Pinnacle rebate to that ROI.

I thought the "under 11 days" fig was pretty amazing, too. Interesting that she does much better with the quick return or the longish layoff than with more "normal" spacing. That may be a function of the bettors giving those factors too much weight, at least where her horses are concerned.

Thanks for posting the data.

--Dunbar