Pletcher to have no horses in the Travers

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Riot

To get successful athletic performance (be it humans, horses, or the best flying monkeys), you need three things:

1) Genetic potential: Conformation, cardiovascular and physiologic capabilities, muscle type, mental attributes

2) Optimal health: Nutrition, disease prevention, maintaining soundness

3) Training and conditioning practices: Training to perform a specific task, conditioning to appropriate fitness, mental preparation

The trainer is responsible for all of the above. Pletcher may maximize #1 (which goes to his ability to select or accept stock with appropriate potential), but he's still responsible for #2 and #3, too.

So take the Barclay Tagg's of the world. What do you thing he might do with Pletcher's client list? Or how about Allen Jerkens? What do you think he would do with Pletcher's client list? I'm just tired of people making him to out to be some kind of superhero. Like he's reinvented horse training or something. He's a guy who trains horses. And most of the time they are the best horses.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

So take the Barclay Tagg's of the world. What do you thing he might do with Pletcher's client list? Or how about Allen Jerkens? What do you think he would do with Pletcher's client list? I'm just tired of people making him to out to be some kind of superhero. Like he's reinvented horse training or something. He's a guy who trains horses. And most of the time they are the best horses.

Speculation is just that - nobody knows. We don't know how many great horses never made it to our radar as they were with a lesser trainer at a lesser track.

I agree with you - he's a guy who trains horses. No superhero. But he does very well for himself, and his owners.

[NoLuvForPletch]

Originally Posted by Riot

Speculation is just that - nobody knows. We don't know how many great horses never made it to our radar as they were with a lesser trainer at a lesser track.

I agree with you - he's a guy who trains horses. No superhero. But he does very well for himself, and his owners.

Allen Jerkens is a "lesser trainer"? Wow!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by NoLuvForPletch

Allen Jerkens is a "lesser trainer"? Wow!

??? Heck no, where'd you get that from? ("We don't know how many great horses never made it to our radar as they were with a lesser trainer at a lesser track." was general, certainly no reference to Jerkens or Tagg!)

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo..._eclipsed.html

[Cannon Shell]

"Running him back in the Travers and then keeping him at that level for another 60 days is unrealistic, as opposed to backing off and targeting it directly."

This quote from Steve Assmussen is frightening. Now races in August are too stressful for races in November? If I was just a fan, I would probably find a new sport because this attitude is not only wrong historically, it is destructive for the sport of our sport. Not only are top horses going to be retired early, they are not even going to be campaigned much while running, just spotted randomly every 60 days or so.

I thought that Nafzger did the right thing by skipping the Belmont because of the grind of 3 races in 5 weeks without a chance for the Triple Crown. But this is entirely different. These are well rested horses that are at a point in their lives where they are maturing and getting stronger. Not running them is not only unsporting, it is disgraceful. And don't place all the blame on the trainers. The owners are as much to blame by captiulating and allowing this to happen. There is very little evidence that this style of training is sucessful in winning Breeders Cup races and as such is disheartening to see so many going down this path.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

"Running him back in the Travers and then keeping him at that level for another 60 days is unrealistic, as opposed to backing off and targeting it directly."

This quote from Steve Assmussen is frightening. Now races in August are too stressful for races in November? If I was just a fan, I would probably find a new sport because this attitude is not only wrong historically, it is destructive for the sport of our sport. Not only are top horses going to be retired early, they are not even going to be campaigned much while running, just spotted randomly every 60 days or so.

I thought that Nafzger did the right thing by skipping the Belmont because of the grind of 3 races in 5 weeks without a chance for the Triple Crown. But this is entirely different. These are well rested horses that are at a point in their lives where they are maturing and getting stronger. Not running them is not only unsporting, it is disgraceful. And don't place all the blame on the trainers. The owners are as much to blame by captiulating and allowing this to happen. There is very little evidence that this style of training is sucessful in winning Breeders Cup races and as such is disheartening to see so many going down this path.

Chuck, I think you made excellent points, and I agree with you on them. However, don't we need to look at the other aspects here as well? While I am not a trainer, and you are, with regard to Curlin -- in this specific case -- here is a colt who showed tremendous natural ability, and very early on. He did what he did in his 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th lifetime starts (after not racing as a 2yo). I agree that this type of mindset is very damaging and it's rampant in the industry, and it's ruining aspects of our industry and sport.

But in this case, isn't there more going on? Yes, he was getting bigger and stronger (I guess), and maturing. But he was asked to do a lot, as much as other horses who had more experience and seasoning. Doesn't that play a role? In an individual case? I guess what I am asking is that in this case -- can you possibly see that for this horse, especially after the Haskell (being that he didn't perform up to some expectation), is it possible that maybe skipping the Travers -- maybe it's possibly the right thing to do . . . a) for this horse in this situation, and b) keeping in mind that there is more than a/the purse at stake. You have 3yo horse of the year, horse of the year, a stallion career, and so on.

Thanks for the insight Chuck. I'll buy a few beers for us tomorrow and we can talk about it (actually, you can talk and I can listen, LOL).

Eric

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

"Running him back in the Travers and then keeping him at that level for another 60 days is unrealistic, as opposed to backing off and targeting it directly."

This quote from Steve Assmussen is frightening. Now races in August are too stressful for races in November? If I was just a fan, I would probably find a new sport because this attitude is not only wrong historically, it is destructive for the sport of our sport. Not only are top horses going to be retired early, they are not even going to be campaigned much while running, just spotted randomly every 60 days or so.

I thought that Nafzger did the right thing by skipping the Belmont because of the grind of 3 races in 5 weeks without a chance for the Triple Crown. But this is entirely different. These are well rested horses that are at a point in their lives where they are maturing and getting stronger. Not running them is not only unsporting, it is disgraceful. And don't place all the blame on the trainers. The owners are as much to blame by captiulating and allowing this to happen. There is very little evidence that this style of training is sucessful in winning Breeders Cup races and as such is disheartening to see so many going down this path.

Chuck....After huddling with my people...T-Pletch and C-Ass...I am advising against running Top Royelle at Saratoga Thursday. I know she's in great shape and I know you think the race fits, but if we are truly aiming for that 52k Alw NW 1 in Feb at The Fairgrounds, this race makes no sense.
Regards,
Bob

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Here is my question about the portion that I highlighted: if Street Sense had been a head better in the Preakness, he would have run in the Belmont Stakes, no questions asked.

Is it your contention that a trainer risks ruining or wearing out a horse for the summer by running him in the third leg of the crown only if he hasn't a chance to win the Triple Crown? Is it acceptable to subject a horse to that grind -- with the chance of ruining him -- if he has won the first two legs?

I never said that he would be ruined. But it is most certainly a risk vs reward thing. If you have the chance for the Triple Crown then you have to go for it unless there is a grave danger of the horse being incapicitated. My contention is that the Belmont is not that important unless you win the other legs and because of the timing of it there is risk that you may knock your horse out for the rest of the year. If you win the Triple Crown, do you really think the horse would continue to run anyway?