The Career of D. Wayne Lukas

[Belinda Cubbage]

At seventy-seven years old the Coach took them to school today. He is a brilliant, brilliant man.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Belinda Cubbage

At seventy-seven years old the Coach took them to school today. He is a brilliant, brilliant man.

Two of my favorite brushes with greatness, back in the early '80s:

Joe B. Hall

D. Wayne Lucas.

Congrats, Wayne!

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by OldDog

D. Wayne Lucas.

Come on, man! Really?

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Come on, man! Really?

Really

[herkhorse]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Really

He's referring to your spelling, Lucas is the guy who made movies.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by herkhorse

He's referring to your spelling, Lucas is the guy who made movies.

He never could spell my name, either.

[King Glorious]

Rupert, you make some good points here. I won't sit here and pretend that I know the circumstances each time he enters a horse but I have always believe that stats like these were not the best way to judge Lukas. There are many times where he enters a horse in a race where winning is not the biggest objective for him. He's always been a guy that will use a race as a way of getting ready for the next one. Most trainers these days only send them out ready to win and don't use preps the way they used to. Even today, Wayne only went 1/3.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Even today, Wayne only went 1/3.

I assume you mean in the Preakness, not the whole day?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Rupert, you make some good points here. I won't sit here and pretend that I know the circumstances each time he enters a horse but I have always believe that stats like these were not the best way to judge Lukas. There are many times where he enters a horse in a race where winning is not the biggest objective for him. He's always been a guy that will use a race as a way of getting ready for the next one. Most trainers these days only send them out ready to win and don't use preps the way they used to. Even today, Wayne only went 1/3.

I think he actually went to 2 for 5 today in graded stakes races. He won the grade II Dixie in addition to the Preakness. He obviously had a great day today. I agree with what you're saying in regard to just normal win percentage. He usually doesn't have his horses totally cranked up for their debuts. He will often times give them a race. That might lower his overall win percentage by a point or two.

But I don't think you can use that argument in graded stakes races. Trainers don't normally prep horses in graded stakes races.

In terms of judging the way Lukas spots his horses, it's really just a matter of what an owner's personal preference is. If an owner's personal preference is to always take chances and run 20-1 shots in big races, then Lukas might be a good trainer for that owner. There is a risk with that strategy. Horses aren't machines. They usually don't stay in form for very long and they usually don't stay sound for very long. If you run your horse over his head, at the very least you are wasting a race. In addition, your horse may not come out of the race in one piece.

On the other hand, some trainers are way too conservative. I know some trainers who only want to run their horse in a stakes race if the horse is going to be 5-1 or less. I think that is ridiculous. You need to take chances sometimes. There are extremes on both sides. I like a trainer that is somewhere in between, a trainer that is willing to take chances occasionally but not a trainer who is constantly running his horses over their heads.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think he actually went to 2 for 5 today in graded stakes races. He won the grade II Dixie in addition to the Preakness. He obviously had a great day today. I agree with what you're saying in regard to just normal win percentage. He usually doesn't have his horses totally cranked up for their debuts. He will often times give them a race. That might lower his overall win percentage by a point or two.

But I don't think you can use that argument in graded stakes races. Trainers don't normally prep horses in graded stakes races.

In terms of judging the way Lukas spots his horses, it's really just a matter of what an owner's personal preference is. If an owner's personal preference is to always take chances and run 20-1 shots in big races, then Lukas might be a good trainer for that owner. There is a risk with that strategy. Horses aren't machines. They usually don't stay in form for very long and they usually don't stay sound for very long. If you run your horse over his head, at the very least you are wasting a race. In addition, your horse may not come out of the race in one piece.

On the other hand, some trainers are way too conservative. I know some trainers who only want to run their horse in a stakes race if the horse is going to be 5-1 or less. I think that is ridiculous. You need to take chances sometimes. There are extremes on both sides. I like a trainer that is somewhere in between, a trainer that is willing to take chances occasionally but not a trainer who is constantly running his horses over their heads.

As to your first bolded commentary, wouldn't Bill Mott be a perfect example of a trainer who has been brilliant at racing in graded stakes as preps for the big one? Isn't that the whole concept of the "Derby Preps" system? Look at the sweep Pletcher makes of Graded Stakes year round, but how does he perform on Breeder's Cup, Derby day, Travers etc.? Sure he has won a few, but he has lost a lot more at less than 5-1.

As to the second bolded commentary, are the horses of winning percentage obsessed trainers really lasting any longer? Some will argue (and very effectively) that less racing is actually making horses less sound. Can you absolutely say that Normandy Invasion's career is going to last longer because despite reports of him acting and feeling great, he stayed in his stall yesterday? Itsmyluckyday got trounced in the Derby, but ran back to a solid second yesterday. Sure, there is no harm in him staying in his stall and waiting for the Haskell, but thankfully, there are still trainers out there taking a shot and that is what makes racing more interesting and stronger as a sport.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

As to your first bolded commentary, wouldn't Bill Mott be a perfect example of a trainer who has been brilliant at racing in graded stakes as preps for the big one? Isn't that the whole concept of the "Derby Preps" system? Look at the sweep Pletcher makes of Graded Stakes year round, but how does he perform on Breeder's Cup, Derby day, Travers etc.? Sure he has won a few, but he has lost a lot more at less than 5-1.

As to the second bolded commentary, are the horses of winning percentage obsessed trainers really lasting any longer? Some will argue (and very effectively) that less racing is actually making horses less sound. Can you absolutely say that Normandy Invasion's career is going to last longer because despite reports of him acting and feeling great, he stayed in his stall yesterday? Itsmyluckyday got trounced in the Derby, but ran back to a solid second yesterday. Sure, there is no harm in him staying in his stall and waiting for the Haskell, but thankfully, there are still trainers out there taking a shot and that is what makes racing more interesting and stronger as a sport.

Excellent post.

[Cannon Shell]

Wayne does a lot of things that are easily criticized. However as a whole his eagerness to actually race his horses as opposed to mapping out of schedules like a marketing campaign like many of the other high profile trainers is amazingly refreshing. The sport would be in much better shape if more owners would encourage trainers to take a chance now and then and not just wait for an 4 horse overnight stake at Belmont with a graded stakes quality horse.

Let's not forget that the "best trainer in America" as his vet calls him rarely can find even a 7th stringer from his massive arsenal of 3 year olds to enter in one of America's classic races.

Am I anxious to bet his horses very often? Not really but I can respect that he enjoys racing them more than he enjoys training them.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

As to your first bolded commentary, wouldn't Bill Mott be a perfect example of a trainer who has been brilliant at racing in graded stakes as preps for the big one? Isn't that the whole concept of the "Derby Preps" system? Look at the sweep Pletcher makes of Graded Stakes year round, but how does he perform on Breeder's Cup, Derby day, Travers etc.? Sure he has won a few, but he has lost a lot more at less than 5-1.

As to the second bolded commentary, are the horses of winning percentage obsessed trainers really lasting any longer? Some will argue (and very effectively) that less racing is actually making horses less sound. Can you absolutely say that Normandy Invasion's career is going to last longer because despite reports of him acting and feeling great, he stayed in his stall yesterday? Itsmyluckyday got trounced in the Derby, but ran back to a solid second yesterday. Sure, there is no harm in him staying in his stall and waiting for the Haskell, but thankfully, there are still trainers out there taking a shot and that is what makes racing more interesting and stronger as a sport.

Bill Mott has a very high win percentage in graded stakes races. He wins them at a 21% clip. I don't think he's using them as preps too often. I'm defining "prep" as giving a horse a race. It will happen occasionally that a trainer may use a graded stakes race as a prep. If a good horse is coming off an 8 month layoff and there is only time to get one race into the horse before some really big race, in that situation a trainer may use a graded stakes as a prep. That happens occasionally but it doesn't happen often enough to really make a difference in a trainer's win percentage in graded stakes races.

With regard to your question as to whether horses who race sparingly will last longer, I would definitely say "yes". However, nothing is absolute. It's not a perfect science. There are some hard-knocking claiming horses out there who are not very sound that stay in shape by racing. They don't train much between races. They rarely have workouts and they jog more than they gallop. If you're jogging your horse every day (instead of galloping him), he's going to need to race more often to stay fit.

None of this stuff is an exact science. Every horse is an individual. In general though, most horses don't stay sound for very long. If you give me a fresh, sound horse (either a first-time starter or a horse coming off a layoff) and we can run that horse once every 4-5 weeks, I would be thrilled to death if that horse lasts for 7-8 races before coming up with some type of issue that will require time off. The over/under is usually more like 5 races. That is just reality. I don't believe in injecting ankles. If you start injecting ankles, you may get a few more races out of a horse, but there is a good chance that the horse will be ruined forever.