Beyer pens post script after sit-down with Wolfson

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I wish I had Mending Fence's pp's to show.

He was running for 25K condition claiming races - and after going to Wolfson, within two months, he's running 2nd by 1 length to English Channel. Than winning a Graded stake race a few weeks later - than a few weeks later coming back in the Grade 2 Dixie and breaking down on the lead causing Albarado to fall off of Einstein.

The problem is that Wolfson never had any of this magic before 2006. His win percentage and ROI stats always looked the same - and he wasn't an elite form reversal guy to say the least.

It's like a baseball player hitting .280 with 25 hr's and 85 RBI's for 12 straight years .. than he goes .375 with 60 hr and 150 RBI's for the next three years in a row.

[CSC]

Regardless of the sport, no one is out from under the umbrella of suspicion of being clean these days if they are very successful in their sports. It's just the reality of sports today. Frankly I am more surprised no one even raised a doubt to whether wholesome good boy...Michael Phelps was indeed clean when he was winning all those gold medals in swimming. Ironically even if you were, many might question if you were, It's only natural to do so now.

[slotdirt]

I believe Einstein actually ended up running on pretty well in the 2007 Dixie, but couldn't chase down a loose Remarkable News.

[slotdirt]

It was Cosmonaut, not Einstein, who couldn't chase down Remarkable News. How could I have doubted DrugSy?

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I believe Einstein actually ended up running on pretty well in the 2007 Dixie, but couldn't chase down a loose Remarkable News.

Einstein was also the 5/2 favorite in the race where he lost the jock.

I like how he tried to bring up Onion beating Secretariat ... a race that happened way before he was even old enough to pose for Playgirl.

That race was long before I was born ... but ... the time of that race didn't seem so impressive ... and Rule By Reason finished 3rd beaten just 1 length. The same Rule by Reason that made 91 career starts and never won a single stake race.

Also ... wasn't Riva Ridge beaten by some 50/1 Witchita Oil horse on the turf that very same week? It feels like "Big Red" probably just didn't fire that day.... but like I said ... that was long before my time.

[the_fat_man]

I think cheating (whether actual or imagined) is part of every 'game'. 'Players' are looking for whatever edge they can get. I find it interesting, however, that the 'voices' in racing are primarily concerned with cheaters rather than, I would imagine, issues of lesser importance.

I mean, check out the way MLB did it: they, at least, made sure that their DATA was accurate, or that their games were easily available, seemingly lesser and thus 'correctable' issues, before turning to the problem of the cheaters.

WTF are we always focusing on what Wolfson, Dutrow, and the others, are doing rather than what EQUIBASE, with flawed data, or Gulfstream Park (with no video feed and the inability to accurately time their races) are up to?

I can handle a cheater or two in my handicapping. I certainly have more difficulty dealing with data full of errors, that ridiculous tax (30%+) on exotics, and other such issues.

Stop the cheating and you still have these issues. Doesn't Beyer want more accurate data and the racing industry to catch up with the times?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by CSC

Regardless of the sport, no one is out from under the umbrella of suspicion of being clean these days if they are very successful in their sports. It's just the reality of sports today. Frankly I am more surprised no one even raised a doubt to whether wholesome good boy...Michael Phelps was indeed clean when he was winning all those gold medals in swimming. Ironically even if you were, many might question if you were, It's only natural to do so now.

The Olympics have the best testing out there and in addition they freeze samples that they can test down the line. So if Phelps was on something we'll find out down the line. That makes me a lot more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to him. Horse racing has taken the first step towards doing this and it would be fantastic if it could be put in place universally so that anyone who is using something undetectable now can be caught if a test is found for it later.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

The Olympics have the best testing out there and in addition they freeze samples that they can test down the line. So if Phelps was on something we'll find out down the line. That makes me a lot more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to him. Horse racing has taken the first step towards doing this and it would be fantastic if it could be put in place universally so that anyone who is using something undetectable now can be caught if a test is found for it later.

I have very little confidence in anything the Olympics does when it comes to testing, even if they do not find something, the cheaters can always be one step ahead. The point I guess I am trying to make is no one is out from under the umbrella of suspicion, Which really isn't fair to the select few clean atheletes.

The thing about Phelps is he's been a world class swimmer throughout his career. He was tops in the world for his age group from 11 years old till now. He's more of a genetic freak than a cheat. Wouldn't shock me if he was taking something...but really he'd smoke his competition without it.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

The thing about Phelps is he's been a world class swimmer throughout his career. He was tops in the world for his age group from 11 years old till now. He's more of a genetic freak than a cheat. Wouldn't shock me if he was taking something...but really he'd smoke his competition without it.

Exactly... Tiger too. Was a freak at 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28.

Of course A-Rod was a freak as a junior baseball player in south Florida, and that turkey still found it necessary to take stuff (and lie about it)

[CSC]

Originally Posted by philcski

Exactly... Tiger too. Was a freak at 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28.

Of course A-Rod was a freak as a junior baseball player in south Florida, and that turkey still found it necessary to take stuff (and lie about it)

The thing is Tiger's trainer was ARod's also....umm...look at his physique and one has to atleast wonder. Both he and AROD got alot bigger when they got with this trainer.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

The thing about Phelps is he's been a world class swimmer throughout his career. He was tops in the world for his age group from 11 years old till now. He's more of a genetic freak than a cheat. Wouldn't shock me if he was taking something...but really he'd smoke his competition without it.

or other things.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

I wish I had Mending Fence's pp's to show.

He was running for 25K condition claiming races - and after going to Wolfson, within two months, he's running 2nd by 1 length to English Channel. Than winning a Graded stake race a few weeks later - than a few weeks later coming back in the Grade 2 Dixie and breaking down on the lead causing Albarado to fall off of Einstein.

The problem is that Wolfson never had any of this magic before 2006. His win percentage and ROI stats always looked the same - and he wasn't an elite form reversal guy to say the least.

It's like a baseball player hitting .280 with 25 hr's and 85 RBI's for 12 straight years .. than he goes .375 with 60 hr and 150 RBI's for the next three years in a row.

Great comparison.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by philcski

Great comparison.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2658023

[CSC]

In my opinion, clean atheletes are one's that can sucessfully avoid detection. I seriously doubt when strength and endurance are involved, there are very few atheletes that can get to the top of their sports without some sort of aid.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2658023

Never heard of the guy.

Originally Posted by CSC

In my opinion, clean atheletes are one's that can sucessfully avoid detection. I seriously doubt when strength and endurance are involved, there are very few atheletes that can get to the top of their sports without some sort of aid.

I refuse to believe Tiger ever has used anything, even if you wish to debate that strength and endurance play a role in golf.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by philcski

Never heard of the guy.



I refuse to believe Tiger ever has used anything, even if you wish to debate that strength and endurance play a role in golf.

Interesting you mention Tiger, I was listening to a sports talk show one day and even he was mentioned as possibly using droids, golf is a physically demanding game believe it or not, and droids would allow the muscles to recover quicker. I'm not accusing but I can't be sure either way, we've seen far too many bad eggs this decade that it would be foolhardy to atleast dismiss the possibility. It is Sad to paint everyone with a cloud of suspicion however.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by philcski

Great comparison.

Yeah, If only Bill Mott and his team could figure out how to shoe them properly.

Thanks ... and now I have a not so great comparison...


This is me trying to look gay in like September or Oct before I started hitting the gym everyday and supplamenting with ISO Mass X ...



Basically ... I'm kinda looking like that coke'd up fucl<er that comes on tv and tries to sell you the Sham-Wow towells. You know him ....



If I had Marty Wolfson training and shoeing me for a couple months - and Antonio Margorito's trainer wrapping my hands - I think I might be able to sweep the triple crown of badass and come away with the IBF Heavyweight Championship of the world in the boxing ring, the MMA heavyweight championship in the octogon, and WWF Intercont Championship in the squared circle.

[saratoga guy]

Originally Posted by philcski

Great comparison.

I'm not sure that it is...

Maybe a better comparison is to Mike Krzyzewski or Bobby Knight. Both coached at Army early on and both had winning records there.

Mike Krzyzewski was about 55% at Army. Knight was 59%.

Krzyzewski moved on to Duke where he's more like 77%. Knight went to Indiana University where he won around 73%.

They won at Army where they attracted the attention of bigger programs -- with more money and recruiting power. Plus, it's probably safe to assume that, like anything else, the more time you put in the more you learn about the process.

Sure, we shouldn't be naive and not at least question some of the numbers the so-called "super-trainers" put up -- but by the same token, we should also question our suspicions and be fair about painting with a broad brush.

I don't have year-by-year Wolfson stats in front of me in order to address the turnaround asserted by Indomitable -- but certainly Wolfson didn't just appear on the scene a couple of years back to make an impression. He's been around and training at a high-level for quite some time. For instance, Chaposa Springs was a prolific stakes winner (including a couple of G1s) for Wolfson in the mid-90s.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

I don't have year-by-year Wolfson stats in front of me in order to address the turnaround asserted by Indomitable

From an earlier post of mine in a different thread ...

From a decade long span between 1996 through 2005 - Wolfson has year in and year out been very consistant. His win % was between 15-to-23% - and his yearly ROI had never once risen as high as $1.80 in any of those 10 years.

Basically, the guy was just your solid 20% trainer who placed horses in spots they could win - but who's horses typically were overbet.

From '96 to '05 he was 374-for-1,869 (20% wins) $1.54 ROI.

Now, the same consistant guy who shows a 23% loss on the betting dollar over an entire decade - and never once raises his ROI as high as $1.80 for 10 straight years does the following....

2006: 44-for-168 (26% wins) $2.89 ROI
2007: 52-for-191 (27% wins) $2.15 ROI
2008: 62-for-204 (30% wins) $1.98 ROI
2009: 4-for-23 (17% wins) $2.69 ROI

From '06 to '09 he is 162-for-586 (27% wins) $2.32 ROI

A solid seven percent spike in win percentage and an otherwordly $0.78 spike in ROI!!

You ought not be a genius to see that something happened precisely between 2005 and 2006 that shifted Marty Wolfson from a solid dependable trainer into an absolute super trainer who's stable yields huge win percentages and spectacular profits from a betting standpoint.

He's obviously one of the trainers out there who has a real edge right now. Is it something illegal? Who knows. Is it something detectable? .. who knows. It would be extremely irresponsible to pretend that he doesn't.