Why Lukas went downhill

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

This is true. Heck even horses who have small chips removed rarely if ever come back to what they were before the chip.
Tendons? Well maybe if you give em 2-3 years they can be ok. Fractures? Well sometimes it works with the screws but most of the time it doesn't.
I still find it hysterical that the guy won yet another championship last year and that at his age people hold him up to scrutiny as if he were a spring chicken.
The bashers sure see something i don't see and I will cite two glaring reasons why.
1) Many breeders I know will not go to a new sire they feel was trained by a "juice guy". There are several trainers who have trained a lotta good horses and have yet to have trained a really good sire.
D Wayne has trained many great or good sires. Dynaformer, Carson City, Capote, Cat Thief, Gulch, Grand Slam, Honour and Glory, Jump Start, Is It True, Yes Its True, Mt Livermore, Orientate, Slew City Slew, Salt Lake, Thunder Gulch, etc.
If they were all moved up so much by his "mystery methods" why do they still produce in the shed unlike many other name trainers horses?
2) The guy obviously has been a tremendous teacher of horseman. Todd Pletcher, Mark Hennig, Randy Bradshaw, Bobby Barnett, Dallas Stewart, Mike Maker, Kiarin McLaughlin, all learned under him. What are the chances that he doesnt know horsemanship with a roster of pupils like that?

Guys trained so many champions and grade one winners its too long a list to name. Hes also 71 years old. I think I'll cut him some slack.

I'm not saying a horse will come back better than ever if they had a serious injury. I'm saying that they will often times come back better than ever if you turn them out before a problem gets serious.

If you look at many of the good trainers, their win percentage is just as high with a horse coming off a 6 month layoff as with a horse that just ran a month ago. I don't have Pletcher's stats in front of me for horses coming back from a 6 months to a 1 year layoff, but I know his win percenatge for horses that haven't run for somewhere between 45 days and 6 months is 26%.

If you think that Lukas taught any of those guys how to trainn, you are crazy. He only hired guys that were great horsemen.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not saying a horse will come back better than ever if they had a serious injury. I'm saying that they will often times come back better than ever if you turn them out before a problem gets serious.

If you look at many of the good trainers, their win percentage is just as high with a horse coming off a 6 month layoff as with a horse that just ran a month ago. I don't have Pletcher's stats in front of me for horses coming back from a 6 months to a 1 year layoff, but I know his win percenatge for horses that haven't run for somewhere between 45 days and 6 months is 26%.

If you think that Lukas taught any of those guys how to trainn, you are crazy. He only hired guys that were great horsemen.

Oh come on now Rup, thats an anti Lukas bias showing.
Those guys sure feel like he taught them something. They all use the white bridle as a tribute to their old boss, and none of them bash him.
I just don't buy that they were already good enough to go on their own and simply became paid slaves because they wanted the challenge.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Oh come on now Rup, thats an anti Lukas bias showing.
Those guys sure feel like he taught them something. They all use the white bridle as a tribute to their old boss, and none of them bash him.
I just don't buy that they were already good enough to go on their own and simply became paid slaves because they wanted the challenge.

None of those guys train anything like Lukas. If he was so good, you would think they would have a similar style. When they interviewed McLauglin about his days with Lukas, the only thing he said with regards to what he learned from Lukas was that "He teaches you how to get owners and stuff like that."

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not saying a horse will come back better than ever if they had a serious injury. I'm saying that they will often times come back better than ever if you turn them out before a problem gets serious.

If you look at many of the good trainers, their win percentage is just as high with a horse coming off a 6 month layoff as with a horse that just ran a month ago. I don't have Pletcher's stats in front of me for horses coming back from a 6 months to a 1 year layoff, but I know his win percenatge for horses that haven't run for somewhere between 45 days and 6 months is 26%.

If you think that Lukas taught any of those guys how to trainn, you are crazy. He only hired guys that were great horsemen.

Flower Alley must have overslept during that barn meeting and never read the memo.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Flower Alley must have overslept during that barn meeting and never read the memo.

Who knows what they did to FA to get that big effort out of him in the BC Classic. He had just gotten beat by 15 lengths. If you have a horse with an injury and inject them to get one more race out of them, there is a good chance that they will not come back 100%. That is always the risk if you try to get one or two moe races out of a horse that is showing the beginning of a minor injury.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Who knows what they did to FA to get that big effort out of him in the BC Classic. He had just gotten beat by 15 lengths. If you have a horse with an injury and inject them to get one more race out of them, there is a good chance that they will not come back 100%. That is always the risk if you try to get one or two moe races out of a horse that is showing the beginning of a minor injury.

He only got beat by 15 lengths prior to the BC because of Pletcher's poor use of a rabbit & Chantel Sutherland.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

He only got beat by 15 lengths prior to the BC because of Pletcher's poor use of a rabbit & Chantel Sutherland.

Oh that must have been why he lost by 15 lengths. Otherwise he would have been right there. LOL.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Oh that must have been why he lost by 15 lengths. Otherwise he would have been right there. LOL.

considering his past performances, yes he should have been:

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/06whitney.pdf

Your earlier post:
"Who knows what they did to FA to get that big effort out of him in the BC Classic. He had just gotten beat by 15 lengths. If you have a horse with an injury and inject them to get one more race out of them, there is a good chance that they will not come back 100%. That is always the risk if you try to get one or two moe races out of a horse that is showing the beginning of a minor injury."

Big effort? He performed that day the same as races prior to the rabbit, dumb jock and the gold cup performance. So are you implying that he was on something beforehand, went off in the Gold Cup and then was put back on for the Classic?

I think Pletcher made a mistake not starting FA sooner in the year. He never cited injury as the reason for not starting him in the spring, but the desire to have a fresh horse for the fall.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

considering his past performances, yes he should have been:

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/06whitney.pdf

Your earlier post:
"Who knows what they did to FA to get that big effort out of him in the BC Classic. He had just gotten beat by 15 lengths. If you have a horse with an injury and inject them to get one more race out of them, there is a good chance that they will not come back 100%. That is always the risk if you try to get one or two moe races out of a horse that is showing the beginning of a minor injury."

Big effort? He performed that day the same as races prior to the rabbit, dumb jock and the gold cup performance. So are you implying that he was on something beforehand, went off in the Gold Cup and then was put back on for the Classic?

I think Pletcher made a mistake not starting FA sooner in the year. He never cited injury as the reason for not starting him in the spring, but the desire to have a fresh horse for the fall.

I agree with you that he was too close to a pretty fast pace that day. I think that could have cost him 3-4 lengths but not 15.

I wasn't implying that the horse was on something in any of his races. I was saying that he probably had a minor issue such as a puffy ankle or that type of thing. They probably didn't think it was bothering him so they had no reason to treat it before the JCGC. When he ran so bad, they realized that it was bothering him so they injected the ankle for the BC Classic. I'm not saying that this is definitely waht happened. I am saying that this type of thing happens all the time and it is likely that this is the type of thing that happened with FA.

Trainers will never tell you about this type of thing. You will never heara trainer in an interview say, "The horse ran better today because we injected his ankle, knee, etc."

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

considering his past performances, yes he should have been:

http://www.drf.com/row/pps/06whitney.pdf

Your earlier post:
"Who knows what they did to FA to get that big effort out of him in the BC Classic. He had just gotten beat by 15 lengths. If you have a horse with an injury and inject them to get one more race out of them, there is a good chance that they will not come back 100%. That is always the risk if you try to get one or two moe races out of a horse that is showing the beginning of a minor injury."

Big effort? He performed that day the same as races prior to the rabbit, dumb jock and the gold cup performance. So are you implying that he was on something beforehand, went off in the Gold Cup and then was put back on for the Classic?

I think Pletcher made a mistake not starting FA sooner in the year. He never cited injury as the reason for not starting him in the spring, but the desire to have a fresh horse for the fall.

Sorry for imposing, but I'm sure that there was an injury. Late starts back usually always equate to illness or injury. That is why he has been running so poorly all year. The JCGC performance last year coupled with the BC performance, the late start back, and the poor racing performances this year are all indicators that something went amiss with FA. It's a shame too...

FA has had plenty of time to come back into form this year. Don't you think the reason that he hasn't is because of an injury? In this case, it is most likely a pretty significant injury, because most horses are running with minor ailments anyway and still manage to perform well. His performances have been horrible this year, except for the very first one. They are such fragile creatures...