your getting there too big guy.....

oh yeah it is....I wouldn't be caught dead in a cowboy hat

Born: Nov. 4, 1928, Chicago

This Nick the Kid story sounds fascinating. Tell me more.

Damn, good ole Calabrese is turning 80 this year....doesn't look it...

I have never met Nick the Kid, but he is one the racetrack characters at Arlington, along with Illini Shorts (same Illini shortS daily)

I think I read at Barn to Wire that he was kicked out of Arlington for harassing a security guard for one year. He is well known to all Arlington locals. I think he might even be allowed back into trackside now.

his classic attire, when he is in a good mood, is his cowboy hat, slick skinny tie and if we are real lucky, the boots come a walkin

Sounds hot

slightly better so then 35-40% is normal, i gotta get a new trainer

frank passero at gulfstream park 13-13

Well that's a different conversation, which I mentioned earlier. If anyone wants to say that no way, no how, does a trainer win at 35% without cheating regardless of class/form/stock, that's one thing, and a conversation that seems totally worth entertaining.

But using this isolated 70+% hot streak as evidence of cheating just doesn't work, because it happens at some point every year when he gets like this, and it's going to level off. It's a statistical outlier, albeit one with plenty of logical explanations that are just as, if not more valid than the knee-jerk cry of cheating. That's all I'm saying, and all I've been saying.

I know youve been saying they are place where they can win and that is true I notice they are not afraid to claim for 10-15000 and run for 5000 but are they also jumping way up in there figs off the claim. thats when you wonder. we all know the guys who claim a horse running a 40-50 beyer then all of a sudden 80s or 90s. has that been happening too in this streak?

I'm going to guess no. I don't know how the races have been coming back, but the vast (and I'm talking probably 8 to 10) majority of his 12 wins have come with horses who were much the best on paper, from a class and figs perspective, and who had previous form and figs more than good enough to beat the average field that shows up for that level. Most of them just needed to run to their regular race (ie, no big jump up needed) to be good enough to win. That's why I think it's brash to jump to conclusions based on his percentage early in the meet when there are so many intangibles that are very well factoring into it.

There are so many things to track about this topic, figs the horses run first time for Cat, figs they run first time away from him factoring in any change in class, etc. It will be interesting to see how the next six weeks play out, for sure.

one other thing that may come in handy no matter who the trainers are, havent some of these horse been coming up straight from races at tampa bay downs and dont these type usually run very well over the course?

And then there's this Simon guy, Chuck Simon who's doing even better. He's hitting at 100%. I think he's the one that started it and must have taught C all his secrets. Taking 20,000 claimers and winning way over their head.

Why just yesterday he had a horse some 15 lengths back with no shot come out of the clouds. Unreal. Someone ought to check that guy out for sure. I think he uses something very few do....damn good horse training!

Spyder

No takers on my comments?

He can't count to 17?

now you have to add the slomkowski-calabrese combo
seems like calabrese, catalano, slomkowski won all the races yesterday

Well, now we know that there is certainly something going on, LOL. I saw this and thought it would add fuel to the fire.

This has nothing to do with "just reading a condition book" or "just placing horses aggressively" or "just dropping" or "just stepping up horses" -- it has to do with everything. If you are myopic about this, you won't get it.

I have a trainer who often starts off a meet -- within the first 20 starts or so -- at scary #'s, often shooting 50%. Then the #'s level off. It doesn't happen as often as the barn has gotten bigger, as he gears up less for certain meets, etc., but it happens.

In this case, they will most probably end up the meet where they tend to.

Eric

73% winners in 3 weeks. It'll level off thus making it OK. Love that logic.

It's simple..he's the World's greatest trainer..Owners should be flocking..

seriously...it's getting ridiculous..there were a few actually booing yesterday

john frank?

I'm preparing my recant post

I am sure there were, and will continue to be. So, here's a simple question -- what should be done? Yes, we all know the discussion, but you are not going to throw someone out of the business and deprive them of their livelihood because "you just know" or because "it is not possible" and so on. Throw someone out for proof, evidence and facts.

Eric

In the old days the stewards would 'lean' on them a little.

And you know what Chuck -- I am all for that. Zero tolerence, level playing field, uniform medication policy and rules . . . all for it. Pass it and we are all set. Until then, let's not make this the Salem witch trials regardless of what "we know".

Lean and keep leaning. I hope it makes the game exactly what it should and could be.

Eric

They could put the barn under surveillance. They do that out here in California in rare instances. The problem is that it is very expensive. In addition, they don't have any real incentive to nail a top trainer. It is actually very bad "PR" when a top trainer gets caught cheating.

Is it bad publicty/PR when, let's say Scott Lake or Cole Norman gets caught? Or Todd Pletcher?

Eric

They do it in Kentucky as well.

Yes, it is very bad publicity but that's not going to stop them from nailing a guy if he has a positive test.

I agree. I just think we are still seeing a double standard so to speak.

Eric

I heard something interesting several years ago. I can't confirm for a fact that this is true, but I would have no reason not to believe it. I heard that when the racing board finds a way to detect some new illegal drug, they will post a warning telling everyone that they are now able to detect this drug. In other words, they don't want people to cheat. They will try to stop people from cheating, but they would rather warn people and get them to stop, as oppose to sending out no warning and catching a bunch of people.

I'll say this, if they win the 6th or 8th today, I am on everyone else's bandwagon, I would be surprised if Dreaming of Liz cracked half the field, and the other one might suck up for 4th......

I don't know that this is the case in every case, but it certainly is true in some cases. The Meadowlands in NJ announced in advance when the "black box" was going into effect -- it was on all the condition sheets/books, BB's, etc. I think the same might have been true to EPO, but I don't remember. I would think the motivation is to avoid 50 positive tests -- which really speaks to what % of people are not hay and water.

Wasn't this the case recently (in the last few years) in NY as well?

Eric

They dont anymore. Everybody lawyers up and the stews cant be bothered. Back in the day they would simply call the guy in, tell him he is winning too much and either slow down or hit the road.

Surveillance only works when they know what they are surveilling for. Otherwise it is just a nuisance.

Lots of states put out the word that they had an EPO test and were going to start testing as of November 1 or something like that. Of course they didnt either have a test or it didnt work because there were no positives and EPO is something that should be able to be found for quite a while. I still think they were just scaring guys into stopping.

Back in the ol' days, yeah, I know. Today, yes, different issue. I also think the racing comissions have less power today. More and more it seems like a lot of bark and little bite.

I do however like some of what I see in the harness industry though. I understand it's different, however, some of the measures are working and making progress.

Eric

Superstar Trainer 2008 Update as of today

Brian Lynch...can't find info. Off the map!!!
Thomas M. Amoss $3,879,602 29%
W. Bret Calhoun $3,711,716 28%
Jamie Ness $2,179,160 32%
Stephanie S. Beattie $2,009,486 36%

Wayne M. Catalano 2,002,543 39%

All had drops in percentage.

Calhoun and Amoss brought home some serious coin.

Catalano was 34.9% after the hot streak at Arlington...38.5% for the meet....56% wp percentage. Still a ridiculous number yet not as damning.

What I'd like to know is how many trainers with over 200 runners in a year have held a winning percentage that high.

I have to admit that I had to throw up the white flag from this thread back in May. What really changed my opinion ( besides Coach calling me a dupe and an idiot) was the ridiculous 1) lack of people who would claim off them because 2) Horses rarely, if ever won, let alone finished in the coin first off the claim. And if you were smart enough to run them right back off the claim and run decently, then the second time out you were really screwed.

This was a fascinating thread, I don't know what to make of these guys professionally but I know I don't like them, especially after his comments on Million Day.

[quote=Coach Pants]Superstar Trainer 2008 Update as of today

Brian Lynch...can't find info. Off the map!!!
Thomas M. Amoss $3,879,602 29%
W. Bret Calhoun $3,711,716 28%
Jamie Ness $2,179,160 32%
Stephanie S. Beattie $2,009,486 36%

Wayne M. Catalano 2,002,543 39%

All had drops in percentage.

Calhoun and Amoss brought home some serious coin.

Catalano was 34.9% after the hot streak at Arlington...38.5% for the meet....56% wp percentage. Still a ridiculous number yet not as damning.

What I'd like to know is how many trainers with over 200 runners in a year have held a winning percentage that high.[/QUOTE]

NONE