New poll- best juice

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There may be a bit of truth to this but not in the way West describes. A trainer friend of mine who has a medium sized stable (30 horses) got 3 horses from a owner who had the horses with a big name trainer. He asked the owner to send him the last few vet bills for the horse to see what they had been doing with the horses so he had a little bit of a history. Each horse had between a $1200 and $2000 per month vet bill. This is on horses that were not winning or even running well. There wasnt anything unusual but these horses are getting every possible thing that can be given. A large portion of the bill was gastrogard but they were getting clembuterol, adequan, lubrysn, etc. It obviously wasnt doing much for these three but they werent really any good for my friend either at lower level tracks. I guess the point of the story is that the big trainers are casting a wide net in terms of doing everything possible to keep their horses healthy at a high cost which their owners seem to be willing to pay. In some cases it may be an advantage simply because some of those things may help an individual horse to compete at it's highest level though much may simply be overkill. But there are very few owners that can afford a $2000 a month vet bill especially on horses not earning.

Chuck, while you understand this, most people (fans, bettors, others) don't understand that this cuts both ways. What I mean by that is that you have various points along an entire spectrum. I've used many trainers, across the country -- of course in my opinion, good trainers. I've used top trainers, high % trainers, trainers who win races and produce results -- and in the case of two have been at two ends of "my extreme" so to speak. As a point of reference, I've never used any of the trainers, and I know who they are, where the vet bill is regulary $1200 to $2000 per month, so that's not my extreme, LOL.

So, I have one trainer where the vet bill is regularly de minimis, maybe $200 or so a month -- and again, this guy produces for me. Yes, certain months are higher, some are lower, but around here was the #. He might have put a horse on a program of something and then, sure, it's higher, but that was more the rare exception.

I have another trainer who before I sent him a horse -- right up front, first words out of his mouth were -- "hey, I know you have horses with __________ -- you get vet bills on the low end, right?, at least that's what I heard . . . well, you need to know that . . . my vet bills average $600 to $800 a month . . . I treat my horses with such and such, they are on a program of this and that . . ."

And, they did average that, LOL. A few months lower, on a rare occasion, sure, higher; and this guy produced as well. For me, he was good with a certain kind of horse and fit into my business model. Point being -- it's at both ends of the spectrum, and many point in between. Now, while you know this, there are other elements as well. This is where I was referring to the "save face" aspect. That has nothing to do with medication or drugs. It also could be a trainer who just might not be competitive.

Eric

[Bobby Fischer]

some of the guys over at delaware have a good thing going.

Some rumors are that somehow amicar can mask certain drugs. That doesn't make any sense to me, and i haven't heard of a logical scientific explanation.

Some pretty amazing trainer stats over at delaware park. Some of these guys are not only winning a high%, but moving up animals with bad past performance at other tracks in their first start at del.

Surprising it may be, but Scott Lake is one of the few good% winners who doesn't always use amicar. Nunley is the other i've noticed, although i never heard of a reputation for him.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

some of the guys over at delaware have a good thing going.

Some rumors are that somehow amicar can mask certain drugs. That doesn't make any sense to me, and i haven't heard of a logical scientific explanation.

Some pretty amazing trainer stats over at delaware park. Some of these guys are not only winning a high%, but moving up animals with bad past performance at other tracks in their first start at del.

Surprising it may be, but Scott Lake is one of the few good% winners who doesn't always use amicar. Nunley is the other i've noticed, although i never heard of a reputation for him.

You do realize that most rumors are not true and those concerning medications in racehorses are almost always untrue. Amicar does help bad bleeders to an extent and is hardly a powerful drug.

It is a lot easier to win at a high % when you are always in 5 horse fields.

[Bobby Fischer]

hey Larry Jones is one of my favorite trainers. I like most of his barn. I am not saying that he and a few others have some a medication edge.

I was merely defending my man Scott Lake from the allegations

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

hey Larry Jones is one of my favorite trainers. I like most of his barn. I am not saying that he and a few others have some a medication edge.

I was merely defending my man Scott Lake from the allegations

Saying that a trainer (not necessarily Scott Lake) is defensible because he doesnt use amicar is like saying that Saddam Hussien wasnt a bad guy because there were no weapons of mass destruction found.

[Bobby Fischer]

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Saying that a trainer (not necessarily Scott Lake) is defensible because he doesnt use amicar is like saying that Saddam Hussien wasnt a bad guy because there were no weapons of mass destruction found.

Excellent point -- absolutely excellent.

Eric

[ELA]

Very, very true about Oscar. For those of you who don't know, Oscar used to train for the Triple Fox Stables, one of the very early versions of partnerships, syndications, etc. -- founded by none other than our own Bob Fox.

Also, I wonder when, where, how, etc. a trainer joins the "we just know he's cheating club" so to speak. We have the Lake's, Asmussen's, Norman's, Dutrow's, et al -- those who have numerous positive tests. What % of these were for exotic, designer, etc. type of drugs and what % was for clenbuterol overages, legal everyday drugs, etc. Regardless, it doesn't matter. However, is it those positive tests that get the guy membership into the "juice trainer" or "super trainer" club?

My point being is that it can be subjective, objective and very much based upon interpretation, understanding, etc.

Anyway, great thread.

Eric