Lukas down to 40 horses

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm not sure I would agree with that. Overall it seems that Pletcher is beloved on message boards and his defenders well outnumber his detracters. Do you honestly disagree with that?

Maybe I'm wrong.

just seems to me that pletcher catches a lot of grief over not having yet won a classic, and days such as his 0-17 in the bcc this year. also see a lot of posts suggesting he isn't totally above board in his training tactics from many. he's achieved a lot of success in a relatively short time, and i feel that will continue in the years to come--and that the amount of detractors will rise with the purse money!! seems everyone enjoys a success--until that guy gets 'too' successful.
look at jerry bailey--he got a ton of grief the last few years, and everyone speculated who would take his place due to his retirement. note who's #1 in the standings, and #1 in the amount of threads started on this board (one example) bashing mr gomez's every awkward move.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

just seems to me that pletcher catches a lot of grief over not having yet won a classic, and days such as his 0-17 in the bcc this year. also see a lot of posts suggesting he isn't totally above board in his training tactics from many. he's achieved a lot of success in a relatively short time, and i feel that will continue in the years to come--and that the amount of detractors will rise with the purse money!! seems everyone enjoys a success--until that guy gets 'too' successful.
look at jerry bailey--he got a ton of grief the last few years, and everyone speculated who would take his place due to his retirement. note who's #1 in the standings, and #1 in the amount of threads started on this board (one example) bashing mr gomez's every awkward move.

I guess I can see your point but he seems to have more defenders than detracters.

Personally I think there is some legitimacy to knocking his TC performance in that he not only gets an enormous amount of well bred and high priced young horses but has also won an abundance of 2YO races in the past and it is somewhat baffling how poorly his horses have progressed. On the other hand, he has only been on his own for 11 seasons, and really only a strong factor for five or six, so it's hard to be TOO critical. It's hardly as though he has been anything close to a failure.

As for the BC failure, well to me he is a trainer who points for the whole year, unlike a lot of people who do seem to race with the BC too much in mind. I would rather have Pletcher's resume of success in stakes races throughout the season than one BC win. Perhaps someone COULD say he squeezes the lemon dry, so to speak, before the BC but he certainly wins a LOT of big races while doing that. He gets a lot of good horses....but he does win a lot of races. Does he underperform? Hard to say but on the surface it's hard to say he does.

My criticisms are different, and not even necessarily about his training, but more about the damage to the game of one trainer controlling too many horses. Plus, I don't like the list of horses that have flashed brilliance only to fizzle out way too quickly. He seems to train for the moment rather than the long haul. On the other hand, who am I to tell someone he is doing it wrong when every owner on Earth seems to want to give him horses.

Let's face it, it's hard to not be somewhat cynical about the game these days, and anyone achieving huge success falls under suspicion. Is it always fair? Absolutely not. However, when a trainer faces drug related suspensions it doesn't exactly bolster any claims of purity.

[ELA]

Andy, 11 seasons? I know he had a couple of horses on his own and all, but when exactly was it that he opened a public stable? 1998? 1999?

I agree with you. There is legitimacy to the TC performance, results, etc. The numbers are the numbers. I don't play the game at that level of course, but I have friends and clients who do. Perhaps I am wrong, but the people I know who play at that level care more about getting to the big dance than they do about contributing to winning a training title. Sure, grade 1's are important of course and the proof is in the big pudding. How long before his barn hits $30 million in earnings? Big numbers there.

The BC is also enigmatic IMO. I mean Bobby Frankel -- like him or not, personally, professionally, etc. -- produces and gets results. The guy is a great horseman in my opinion. He doesn't get the monster purchases, yearlings, 2 year olds, etc. that say a Pletcher gets. He has a different type of operation. But he produces. Now, a few years ago -- he was what, 0 for 30 something in the BC? And, I think his first victory was with a horse he owned -- wasn't it?

I don't know what his 0 for 30 something records means exactly, but does that take away from his accomplishments? I don't think so. I am sure some do however. I tend to look beyond the stats and #'s.

Eric

[ELA]

Yeah, now that you mention it, I vaguely remember that as well. Was he full blown on his own then and operating a public stable? If so, then you guys got it -- 11. I think I remember he had a couple for JJ or a family friend.

Funny thing how you remember oh so well a nice horse you hit huh? LOL.

Eric

[blackthroatedwind]

1996 was definitely his first year on his own. It was my last full winter at Gulfstream and it's when I spoke to him quite often.

[ELA]

Got it. Thanks.

So, 1996 was your last full winter at Gulfstream huh Andy? There is no doubt our paths crossed. We both might have been a bit preoccupied or inebriated to realize it. LOL.

Eric

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by ELA

Got it. Thanks.

So, 1996 was your last full winter at Gulfstream huh Andy? There is no doubt our paths crossed. We both might have been a bit preoccupied or inebriated to realize it. LOL.

Eric

I was serious then and almost always sober.

I watched the races on the TV in the corner on the second floor of the Clubhouse straight after getting off the escalator. Or else I was hanging around the outside seats around the walking ring on the clubhouse side.

I hung out with the usual suspects.

[ELA]

I was kidding -- to an extent. LOL.

Eric

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I guess I can see your point but he seems to have more defenders than detracters.

Personally I think there is some legitimacy to knocking his TC performance in that he not only gets an enormous amount of well bred and high priced young horses but has also won an abundance of 2YO races in the past and it is somewhat baffling how poorly his horses have progressed. On the other hand, he has only been on his own for 11 seasons, and really only a strong factor for five or six, so it's hard to be TOO critical. It's hardly as though he has been anything close to a failure.

As for the BC failure, well to me he is a trainer who points for the whole year, unlike a lot of people who do seem to race with the BC too much in mind. I would rather have Pletcher's resume of success in stakes races throughout the season than one BC win. Perhaps someone COULD say he squeezes the lemon dry, so to speak, before the BC but he certainly wins a LOT of big races while doing that. He gets a lot of good horses....but he does win a lot of races. Does he underperform? Hard to say but on the surface it's hard to say he does.

My criticisms are different, and not even necessarily about his training, but more about the damage to the game of one trainer controlling too many horses. Plus, I don't like the list of horses that have flashed brilliance only to fizzle out way too quickly. He seems to train for the moment rather than the long haul. On the other hand, who am I to tell someone he is doing it wrong when every owner on Earth seems to want to give him horses.

Let's face it, it's hard to not be somewhat cynical about the game these days, and anyone achieving huge success falls under suspicion. Is it always fair? Absolutely not. However, when a trainer faces drug related suspensions it doesn't exactly bolster any claims of purity.

at this point i don't think pletcher takes too much heat, but he's still got a long career ahead of him...i don't think he will ever get as much criticism as lukas because of the differences in personality. lukas has always been viewed as ****y and smug, certainly not things i've ever seen anyone say about pletcher.
as for the drug violations--like the writer wrote the other day, what do the top three trainers have in common? they're all suspended due to drug violations. and then pletcher gets to serve his suspension at the slowest time of the year. this tiger has no teeth! the drug policies in racing need work. they need to set a workable standard, but then they need to have the right policies in place, and correct punishments that fit the bill and are tough enough that a trainer would truly hesitate before attempting to get around the system ever again. i feel they got asmussens attention. but this suspension for pletcher is probably going to be considered no more than a nuisance or minor inconvenience for him.

[cakes44]

I don't need a trainer's license to know that every time I bet one of his horses(or even just watch), the horse runs like a scalded dog either on the lead or pressing for most of the race, then folds up like a cheap suit at the quarter pole. His horses are rarely in the shape they need to be in order to win whatever races they are entered, and almost none of them know how to relax, whether they are trained that way, or the jockey is instructed that way by DWL.

I got into a group who owned part of a Lukas horse three years ago and we had absolutely no problem finding insurance for the horse. There is much more that goes into insuring a horse than just who the trainer is. I am neutral on Lukas. He has done some good for the sport and he has done some bad for the sport.

When a big time owner buys a horse and sends it to Lukas, they expect the horse to compete at the top. That is why you see so many of his horses in over their head. I think it is a combination of Lukas and the owner's expectations.

As far as breakdowns....well you can make numbers say what you want. The more horses you have in training the more that are going to breakdown. You also have to keep in mind that Lukas was the main trainer for Overbrooke who race offspring of Storm Cat. Everyone knows you cant keep them healthy no matter what. What would be interesting is to see how many of his breakdowns came from the Storm Cat family.

As far as Lukas not turning horses out, well that is semi-right. He is old school and there is nothing wrong with that.

Lukas was the mentor for the top trainers in the game today. I would say that he was doing something correct.

Again, I think it is good he is back with a small stable that he is personally supervising. I guess we will wait for the Oaklawn stats to decide this.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I got into a group who owned part of a Lukas horse three years ago and we had absolutely no problem finding insurance for the horse. There is much more that goes into insuring a horse than just who the trainer is. I am neutral on Lukas. He has done some good for the sport and he has done some bad for the sport.

When a big time owner buys a horse and sends it to Lukas, they expect the horse to compete at the top. That is why you see so many of his horses in over their head. I think it is a combination of Lukas and the owner's expectations.

As far as breakdowns....well you can make numbers say what you want. The more horses you have in training the more that are going to breakdown. You also have to keep in mind that Lukas was the main trainer for Overbrooke who race offspring of Storm Cat. Everyone knows you cant keep them healthy no matter what. What would be interesting is to see how many of his breakdowns came from the Storm Cat family.

As far as Lukas not turning horses out, well that is semi-right. He is old school and there is nothing wrong with that.

Lukas was the mentor for the top trainers in the game today. I would say that he was doing something correct.

Again, I think it is good he is back with a small stable that he is personally supervising. I guess we will wait for the Oaklawn stats to decide this.

Pletcher's owners have high expectations. You don't see him constantly running horses way over their heads.

We all know that the more horses a trainer has, the more horses he will have breakdown. We all know that. The number of absolute breakdown is not relevant. It's the percentages that matter.

With regard to young assistant trainers, you're not going to have much of a chance to make it on your own unless you worked for a big-time trainer. If you work for a no-name trainer, how are you going to get any decent owners? It's only if you work for a big trainer that you will make contacts with big owners. Not only that, but the big trainers get the best assistants. The best young talent is obviously going to want to work for a big trainer. If Scott Blasi ends up going on his own and is a successful trainer, how would you explain his success? I would not explain his success as a result of Asmussen teaching him. The most obvious answer would be a combination of things. First, I would say that he was very talented to begin with and that is why Asmussen hired him. Then I would say that he made a lot of contacts while working for Asmussen.

You say that the reason Lukas doesn't turn out horses is because he is old-school? I wasn't talking about turning a horse just to give the horse a break. I was talking about turning a horse out that is hurt. If a horse has a minor injury that requires 60 days at the farm, most guys will turn the horse out. Lukas will not. He will just keep running the horse. I don't know how you can defend that.

You say that Lukas will now be personally supervising the training of his horses. For years, the joke was always that his horses would do much better when he wasn't around because his assitants were much better trainers than he was.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Pletcher's owners have high expectations. You don't see him constantly running horses way over their heads.

We all know that the more horses a trainer has, the more horses he will have breakdown. We all know that. The number of absolute breakdown is not relevant. It's the percentages that matter.

With regard to young assistant trainers, you're not going to have much of a chance to make it on your own unless you worked for a big-time trainer. If you work for a no-name trainer, how are you going to get any decent owners? It's only if you work for a big trainer that you will make contacts with big owners. Not only that, but the big trainers get the best assistants. The best young talent is obviously going to want to work for a big trainer. If Scott Blasi ends up going on his own and is a successful trainer, how would you explain his success? I would not explain his success as a result of Asmussen teaching him. The most obvious answer would be a combination of things. First, I would say that he was very talented to begin with and that is why Asmussen hired him. Then I would say that he made a lot of contacts while working for Asmussen.

You say that the reason Lukas doesn't turn out horses is because he is old-school? I wasn't talking about turning a horse just to give the horse a break. I was talking about turning a horse out that is hurt. If a horse has a minor injury that requires 60 days at the farm, most guys will turn the horse out. Lukas will not. He will just keep running the horse. I don't know how you can defend that.

You say that Lukas will now be personally supervising the training of his horses. For years, the joke was always that his horses would do much better when he wasn't around because his assitants were much better trainers than he was.

Does a horse named Keyed Entry come to mind as a horse than was put in spots that were over his head. And I am sure I can name more. I just dont feel like doing the research. Every top trainer has horses that run in races above their head.

And percentages DO NOT MATTER. It is the whole number that matters. If you have 10 horses and one breaks down then you are at 10%. If you have 200 horses and 20 breakdown then you are at 10%. You can make numbers say whatever you want. That is why you need to know the number of horses trained compared to the number that broke down. You look at the whole number.

I think assistant trainers learn a great deal from their mentor. That is how it is. U will get no argument from me that Lukas was blessed with talented assistant that may or may not be better trainers than him.

And again, we will see how well Lukas does down at Oaklawn. I don't care either way, but the man has won everything but the Triple Crown. I don't see how you can see he isnt any good.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

leading breeders cup trainers by money won

no 1 d wayne lukas starters 145 1st 18 2nd 20 3rd 15 4th 9 5th 12 6th 12

total moneys won up to 2006 19,645,520

hes in front by 16 wins and 9,000.000...id say hes done a good job..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cakes44

I don't need a trainer's license to know that every time I bet one of his horses(or even just watch), the horse runs like a scalded dog either on the lead or pressing for most of the race, then folds up like a cheap suit at the quarter pole. His horses are rarely in the shape they need to be in order to win whatever races they are entered, and almost none of them know how to relax, whether they are trained that way, or the jockey is instructed that way by DWL.

every time?! that's a sweeping generalization, isn't it? the man has won everything you can win, some races many times over...he was at the top of this game for many many years. no one can sustain a career at the very top for ever. he set the bar incredibly high-so high that even he couldn't sustain that pace. but then, who can?

Time has mellowed me toward Mr. Lukas. I prefer to think of him as the trainer of one of my all-time favorites Serena's Song, and keep it at that. DWL kept her racing at the highest level as one of the best distaffers in recent memory. He had to be doing something right.

If the media followed Cole Norman or Steve Assmussen around (as much as they did Lukas in his prime), and reported/or kept track of all the horses they break down AND give heart attacks to, their rate would exceed Mr. Lukas' tenfold. They make Wayne look like a saint.

Originally Posted by Cardus

And earlier in this thread, someone -- or perhaps a few people -- mentioned that Lukas places his horse's over their heads.

Do you remember when EVERYONE panned Lukas for running Serena's Song -- one of my favorites, too -- in the Black-Eyed Susan after she was scorched in the Derby after setting grueling fractions? NO ONE thought it was a good idea.

She rolled by nine.

Yes, I remember that. How about running Surfside against the boys in the Clark, thus her winning the Eclipse as best three-year-old filly! I think he has been particularly strong with fillies.

[GinaIsWild]

Wayne Lukas is the best thing to ever happen to thoroughbred Racing. He revolutionized the business.

His single greatest accomplishment however was taking a bowed mare and winning a Grade 1 with her off a layoff, after her previous trainer demonized him for even attempting a comeback with a horse she classified as finished. He made her eat those words, and silenced the critics.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

every time?! that's a sweeping generalization, isn't it? the man has won everything you can win, some races many times over...he was at the top of this game for many many years. no one can sustain a career at the very top for ever. he set the bar incredibly high-so high that even he couldn't sustain that pace. but then, who can?

In another post you compared him to an athlete such as Michael Jordan. The proper comparison would be to a coach, not an athlete. Trainers and coaches don't lose their skills when they turn 70. I don't think his downfall has anything to do with his age.

As I've said a number of times before, Lukas was way ahead of his time when it came to pharmacology. He was one of the only guys that had all of his horses on steroids back in the 1980s. Now all trainers pretty much use steroids. Do you have any idea what a huge advantage you would have if you were the only one using steroids? All of Lukas' 2 year olds were as big and strong as 3 year olds. His 3 year olds were physically as mature as 4 year olds. That's why he was winning everything in sight. Before you knew it, he had all the biggest owners. He was outspending everyone by 10x.

But once all the other trainers got caught up in terms of pharmacology, Lukas no longer had an advantage. He's been slowing going downhill ever since.

You keep saying that nobody can stay on top forever. We know that. Nobody expects someone to stay on top forever. But this isn't just a case of someone no longer being on top. This is a case of someone going from the top to the bottom. His win percentage is under 10%. And he still gets very good horses. He gets better stock than 99% of the guys out there. For the stock he gets, he does terrible.

Anyway, he has a terrible reputation for a reason. If you bring up his name around other trainers, they just shake their head in disgust. And it's certainly not out of jealousy. If they were going to be jealous, they would be jealous of the guys who are successful today such as Frankel, Mott, Pletcher, etc. If you bring up any of these names, people don't shake their heads in disgust.