[str]

Hi str. I mean the programs where you can pick winners by putting in information. Are they worthless? Alot tof them are sold to you. Mark

Again, Jake or someone else might have more insight on a particular program. Having not been involved for 10 years now, the info available then, was not what it is now.
Having said that, if it is solid information for you to use , then I would think that depending on what it was and how it was used, it would be helpful. But if it is a system or computer program that spits out winners then I would be quite skeptical.
Here is why.
I have never seen a "system" work. If one exists, fine, but I have never heard or seen one that does. And, I have seen many.
There could very well be a computer generated way to pick winners but the computer program is only as good as the information programmed into it and the amount of emphasis placed on each piece of information. There are people out there that really do " get it" in terms of betting the races. But, for every one of them there are hundreds that do not.
It would be my nature to think it would fail until I saw that it did not, but that is just me.
From what Jake has said in terms of the kind of info he uses, I would tend to think that his way of breaking down info is a solid model.
Hopefully he will see this and expound further.
Hope that helps.

[JakeLc]

I've currently used a program for 4 years. Before that I used Thorograph. I don't know what else to add without sounding like I'm trying to sell it.

[scratbandit]

Or you can always bet on the gray horse and cross your fingers..

[Dark Horse]

str, can you tell us something about jockey selection? Do you bring your favorite jockey for a certain horse, do you get to pick from the available ones at the track, or are they drawn from a hat? How does it work, and is a lot of attention put into this?

[marksinger]

I do that too, scrat!!

[str]

Or you can always bet on the gray horse and cross your fingers..

Works best on turf or muddy/sloppy track.

[str]

str, can you tell us something about jockey selection? Do you bring your favorite jockey for a certain horse, do you get to pick from the available ones at the track, or are they drawn from a hat? How does it work, and is a lot of attention put into this?

There is definitely a lot of attention paid to it. They are pulled out of a hat only if a horse was left open( no jock) or the jock named is riding another horse they were named on or unavailable and the trainer fails to call the "clerk of scales" by scratch time and not name another rider.
Every jock has an agent. ( 99% of them). The agents job is to get there rider on the best horse possible for each race. With that said, some jocks ride "first call" for certain outfits. That means that he rides all or 90% of all the horses for a particular trainer. Because they ride all, sometimes the rider might not be on the best horse they can for every race but it is usually for one of the leading trainers and they get many many winners from that trainer. So sometimes the jock will be forced to ride the lesser horse because of that particular commitment. That is a downside to riding first call for a trainer . Many good riders will not ride first call exclusively for one outfit, but choose instead to try and identify as many potential " best horses " out there for each category and ride for anyone that they can.
Lets say that Ramon Dominguez rides 1st call for someone. He won on that trainers horse for 35k last race. His first call outfit decides to run back in an " a other than allowance race". Now let's say that Ramon rode a horse of mine in the "a other than" race last time and finished 2nd. The jocks agent has talked to me and said that he wants to ride my horse back because he ran 2nd and will probably be the best horse next time . I say o.k. He opens up his condition book and puts my initials on that race coming up and tells me I have " the call". ( the commitment from him for Ramon's services in that race.) Now, there are 2 kinds of calls. A first call and a second call. A first call means that if I enter, I have Ramon. A second call means that I have Ramon unless whoever has the first call enters. That is why you see Ramon named on 2 or more horses in a race when the original race lineup comes out. ( The overnight ). So the question is, did I get a first call or a second call. Whoever has the first gets Ramon for that race.
If handicappers do not know how this works and see that Ramon won on both horses last time , they might think that Ramon chose to ride a certain horse because he thinks it is better. That might be true but he might not have had that choice. It depends on who had the first call.
I know that this can be confusing but lining jocks up for a race is a huge part of the game and a ton of work goes in to it. As a jocks agent, knowing what horse fits where and how the future races might shape up is the difference between a great agent and an ordinary agent. Agents are a BIG DEAL! Having the right one is key to being successful unless you are a dominant jockey. Because of the constant confusion over who is riding who, the agents job is to absorb ALL the anger of trainers that get screwed out of the best rider from time to time. The agent never wants the trainer to be mad at their rider. The agent does not want to lose the chance to ride for anyone so they will go to great lengths to make the trainer happy, especially if they have the leading rider and therefore find themselves disappointing trainers quite a bit along the way.
If the trainer has a lot of horses, they will spend most of the morning watching those horses train. As a result it was not uncommon for me( when I had a lot of horses) to be standing at the outside fence for a couple hours at a time as the 4-5 horses at a time would train each morning.Being a revolving door of horses coming and going , there was no time when I had no horses out there. Because I was stuck there ,smart agents would bring a hot cup of coffee or a cup of soup from the jocks room or a doughnut. Some guys would bring me a bacon and egg sandwich. In the winter it might be 10-15 degrees out there at 7 AM. They were hoping to get some business or stay in business with me. Bribery at it's finest!
There were times when I rode a jock first call but I liked it when I split it between 2 riders and maybe a bug rider or an odd rider here and there.I felt like I got the best of both worlds there. Not usually the leading rider but 2 guys in the top 6 or 8. Quality riders.( Always a spirited competition within that scenario.) What I tried to do was have one of those two that excelled as a speed rider and the other that was a patient sit still type. That allowed me to choose which rider fit any particular horse. That worked well but jockeys do not like to be labeled as speed riders. At least most do not. I never said that they were but in there competitive nature , it bothered most of them. In time, this usually became a problem. Not always but enough.
Trainer / jockey relationships rarely last forever. Things happen. Jocks get hurt, trainers go cold, whatever. It is a business for both sides so change is inevitable. More often than not, that is just fine. Remember, the owners have to stay happy also. If they are displeased with a rider you can only stick up for the rider but so much. I would not want to lose an owner because of the rider.
Trainers and agents spend a lot of time working on this. It is one of the many things that are behind the scenes to most horse players, yet an intricate part of the game.
Hope that helps.

[Dark Horse]

Great stuff, str. I can just see you standing for hours in the freezing cold with someone offering you a hot soup bribe. Stuff of movies. Some follow-up questions. Do jockeys not like to be characterized as speed riders because it suggests they lack more strategic skills? A little more out there, my research suggests that a jockey may be more important in the Kentucky Derby than in the Belmont Stakes. In the Belmont Stakes it's always 'horse first/jockey second'. But not so in the Derby, where it's often 'jockey first'. Does this make any sense from your background and experience? And a little more intuitive, do trainers consider the receptivity of a horse towards a certain jockey? Do they know when horse and jockey click, and when they don't?

[str]

Great stuff, str. I can just see you standing for hours in the freezing cold with someone offering you a hot soup bribe. Stuff of movies. Some follow-up questions. Do jockeys not like to be characterized as speed riders because it suggests they lack more strategic skills? A little more out there, my research suggests that a jockey may be more important in the Kentucky Derby than in the Belmont Stakes. In the Belmont Stakes it's always 'horse first/jockey second'. But not so in the Derby, where it's often 'jockey first'. Does this make any sense from your background and experience? And a little more intuitive, do trainers consider the receptivity of a horse towards a certain jockey? Do they know when horse and jockey click, and when they don't?

Not really sure why a few of those guys felt that way. I guess they thought that it was a back handed compliment to them because they thought that they were perceived as one dimensional riders.
There is nothing easy about being a good speed rider. A lot of jocks do not have a clock in there head( can tell you how fast they are going especially early on). The really good speed riders have that clock. They are worth there wait in gold. You give me a first quarter in 24/4 going a mile and 1/16 and a good front end rider that can relax my horse on the lead and I will see you in the winners circle more times than not. That same horse is aloud to go 24/1 and it can very well get beat.
More important in the Derby or Belmont:
Bud Delp would tell you the Belmont. His stable jock( Ronnie Franklin) made a very premature move in the Belmont that totally cost Spectacular Bid the Triple Crown. The Belmont is a distance that is run infrequently. That makes it tough to ride. But because the best riders in the world typically ride in that race there are few mistakes. Franklin was not a top rider and his lack of experience cost him.
So , I guess the Derby would be the answer( Franklin won it on Bid) but I do not think for a minute it is jockey first / horse second. While the jockey is very important, unless it is a total mismatch in talent , without the horse, you are not winning. I say a mismatch in talent because over the years, Md. was a bug boy paradise as well as a launching pad for many a great rider . McCarron, McHargue, Bracciale, Desormeaux, Prado, Dominguez are just several (I'm sure I missed some) guys that dominated Md. tracks while they were there. Some of those guys could win with the 4th or 5th best horse. But , short of that, the horse matters more.
Jocks for certain horses:
I can not speak for all trainers but I sure did. Every now and then I would have a horse that simply ran better for one jockey than he did for many other jockeys. They just " ran for them". Sometimes the jock that the horse ran for was not that great of a rider but just had a rapport with a horse.There was usually a reason that I could identify but not always. Also had a horse once that only liked girls. Girl groom, girl exercise rider, girl jockey . Horse did great after I figured it out. Did not do well at all before I did.
If there is a puzzle involved with your horse, the trainer must try to figure it out. They speak in body language and in the way they react to things. If you can find the key , they can improve drastically. Because race horses are bred to compete, if you can make an unhappy horse, happy , they will make you look like a genius, but get one sour minded and they will make you look like an idiot.

[AbeFroman]

Fantastic info.. Thanks str!

Tell me this.. What is the deal with apprentice jockeys? I notice some trainers use them frequently while others never do. Any reason?

[str]

Fantastic info.. Thanks str!

Tell me this.. What is the deal with apprentice jockeys? I notice some trainers use them frequently while others never do. Any reason?

Riding an apprentice can be very rewarding or frustrating. The frustration is simply that they make rookie mistakes. For that risk , you get weight off. There are some trainers that would rather carry the extra weight and not put up with the silly mistakes. Others, are O.K. with it. So it depends on what the trainer is comfortable with.
If there is an apprentice jockey with real talent and you get the best of both worlds , that is almost like stealing. McCarron with a 5 pound bug? Free money very often. Same with Desormeaux and MacHargue. While these guys did make mistakes sometimes, they won at such a high rate that it almost didn't matter. Steve Cauthen became famous while having the bug.
Owners are sometimes the driving force behind riding bug boys as well. Some prefer not to use them while some demand using them.
If memory serves me correctly, Len Ragozin ( founder of the sheets) used to have a bug boy ride every horse he owned. If I am mistaken about Len, it was another very high profile owner in N.Y., Md., Calif. and other places. They only rode bug boys. That was there philosophy .
I think a lot of how a trainer thinks comes from who they learned under. If they trainer that taught them did or did not, most likely they will do the same.
Because bug boys are hungry for mounts, especially early in there career, they will help trainers out in the morning getting on horses. It is a way to get there foot in the door. If a trainer chooses to use a bug boy in the morning quite a bit, they are compelled to use them on some horses in the afternoon as well.
A trainer might also have a solid relationship with the agent and is trying to help the agent out by riding his bug on a couple of horses.
There can be many reasons why a bug is used but from the pure handicapping side of things I do not think that "why" matters much. I can not stress the point enough that getting to know the tendencies of the riders and trainers at the track you play , is very helpful . Also, when you get a condition book, there will be a list of all the jockeys and there agents. Knowing who represents who, can shed some light on the "why" question as well.

[JakeLc]

I'll tell a quick story about rider selection.
Out of nowhere a guy gives my trainer ( 4 horse barn) an horse who had never raced before. For our barn getting a new owner etc was a big deal. The owner talked this horse up to no end. This horse had so much ability, the half-brothers and sisters were so good blah blah blah. The owner insisted on running the horse long on the grass for his debut. It was quickly apparent this horse had no ability and belonged in MCL 7500 or lower going short but you do what the owner wants.
For his debut we got Don Brumfield to ride for the sole purpose that he wouldn't BS you. A lot of riders tell you this or that after a race so they can ride the horse back, Brumfield tells you what he thinks like it or not.
The horse ran 6th in his debut, Brumfield came back to unsaddle got off the horse and said to my trainer " I hope you're not paying the bills on this one"

Later my trainer told the owner what he thought of the horse and what Brumfield said about the horse. The guy took his horse and gave him to another trainer. The horse never did break his maiden. not an exciting story but a story nonetheless.

[str]

I'll tell a quick story about rider selection.
Out of nowhere a guy gives my trainer ( 4 horse barn) an horse who had never raced before. For our barn getting a new owner etc was a big deal. The owner talked this horse up to no end. This horse had so much ability, the half-brothers and sisters were so good blah blah blah. The owner insisted on running the horse long on the grass for his debut. It was quickly apparent this horse had no ability and belonged in MCL 7500 or lower going short but you do what the owner wants.
For his debut we got Don Brumfield to ride for the sole purpose that he wouldn't BS you. A lot of riders tell you this or that after a race so they can ride the horse back, Brumfield tells you what he thinks like it or not.
The horse ran 6th in his debut, Brumfield came back to unsaddle got off the horse and said to my trainer " I hope you're not paying the bills on this one"

Later my trainer told the owner what he thought of the horse and what Brumfield said about the horse. The guy took his horse and gave him to another trainer. The horse never did break his maiden. not an exciting story but a story nonetheless.

Brumfield WAS exactly like that.

Larry Saumell and Rick Wilson were the same way.

Larry got off a firster of mine once that had run terrible and I asked him, " Do you think he will go long".He said " I know he is going to go long. I'm just not sure if it will be too Charles Town or all the way too Waterford!"
I loved that guy!

[JakeLc]

Waterford Park now there's a blast from the past.

[AbeFroman]

Tell me about post position selection.. Is it always out of a hat?

[Dark Horse]

str, on any given day, how quickly can one determine track bias, and what are the things you look for to recognize it quickly (while making sure not to imagine things).

[str]

Tell me about post position selection.. Is it always out of a hat?

Yes. Almost always. Actually, it is done with balls marked 1-12 or as many horses are entered to run in each race. All of this is done in the racing secretary's office in full view of anyone interested( plenty of agents watching all the time).As one clerk pulls the entry card out of the holder , not being able to see the name on the entry, another clerk has deposited the number of balls required into what looks like a small milk jug that you can not see through and they pull out a ball. These two clerks will call out the number and the entry name in there hands a second apart. This is repeated until every number and every horse has been pulled for that race. They repeat the process for each race. The draw is totally random.
The only possible exception is if a trainer has requested NOT to get the way inside or the way outside of a race. The only way they can do this is if there particular horse has "refused to break" or badly "dwelt" causing the horse all chance of competing. When and if this ever happens ( it does, but not very often)for the first time in a horses carrier , the horse is put on the "schooling" list by the stewards. That means that the horse can not run until it has practiced at the gate often enough and broken from the gate well enough in the morning, that the starter gives the trainer a release from the list. This protects the public from losing money time and again if the horse will not break. If it is determined by the head starter of the gate that said horse should in all probability be fine unless they are breaking from the one hole or the far outside, than with the release from the starters list , the trainer will be allowed to enter saying " no one hole or no outside post" , whatever the case may be as determined by the starter, NOT the trainer. This is very rare but it has happened.
I could have just said yes but thought I would fully explain.
Hope all of that makes sense.

[AbeFroman]

Awesome, thanks STR!

[str]

str, on any given day, how quickly can one determine track bias, and what are the things you look for to recognize it quickly (while making sure not to imagine things).

Because you should always be looking for it, it can be tricky for a couple of races sometimes. What you can NOT do , is see they ran 1,2,3 and say " there it is". It is inside. Those might have been the 3 that figured to be there. If you look at the race and understand who is where in terms of what the entries have done and what is expected, then you have an idea of how the race is supposed to play out. From an earlier post, set the race up first in your mind, right? Three speeds three position and three closers for instance. When the race is over, you know already what kind of trips the field had. So, did the outside horse that was supposed to run well and laid 4th by himself in the garden spot behind a 3 horse duel, in perfect position , fire and run well or not? Did the solo inside speed that looked like it would stay if it was not pressed, get that easy early lead and stay? Did he quit for no reason? Where were these horses during the race?
These are the first questions you need to ask yourself. So, you should WATCH the replay! This is terribly important IMO. Then, watch the head on. This will show you the paths that the horses were in that might not be visible from the other angle.
The next thing to look for is if horses closed, where did they close from? The rail ? Way outside? Now this can be confusing if you are not paying attention , especially in longer races. Hear is why. Let's say a 1 1/16 mile race is run in 1:45 seconds. A horse runs up the rail to win. You think the rail is great. But... where did this horse run on the track for the 1:20 seconds before it turned for home? Was it 4 wide for more than 1/2 the race and then dropped over to the rail? If that is the case, why think that the rail is so great? The horse was outside wide more than it was on the rail. Same with a closer 4 wide through the lane. If he was outside the whole way, fine. Was it down on the fence for 1:20 and only got out for the last 1/4 of a mile? Depending on those answers, you know the rail is not souped up, or is, maybe it is deeper there and the outside is the better place too be or not. Of course , the horses individual trip and it's overall ability has plenty too do with this as well. Where the horse was for the majority of time is vitally important. If the horse was supposed to do what it did, the track was probably no help but if that is not the case, then perhaps the position on the track was the reason it ran so well, or so poorly.
The track is all graded at once. Not just the stretch or just the backside. All at once, or not at all. The only exception is the chute area.That is done separately. The main oval is always worked on at the same time. The graders go all the way around and move out at the end of each lap until they have reached the peak of the track surface. Known as the "Crown" of the track it is usually about 20 feet or so before the far outside fence .
Identifying a bias is sometimes easy and many times not. Also, there is nothing that says that a bias will stay all day if one exists, especially one that involves the rail. It can change. It will not change if the rail is dead and the outside is the place to be during the card in most cases but I have seen it happen as well. That is rare for it too change if the inside is deeper because there is no way to get that dirt redistributed evenly while the races are running. Grading a track usually take a couple of hours. Extra water from the water trucks can possibly do this though.
You should not feel that you must know the bias before you make a play. If you become consumed with finding a bias , it will warp your thinking and become a focal point . If one always existed, that might be fine. But they do not always exist, so you need to be aware in terms of looking for them, but not consumed by them. Be aware of there possible presence and watch for them. The race must be handicapped as if the track is even until proven during the card , that it is not.
Lets face it, if you see the first two races and the inside has won both, the closers had rail trips most or all the way and the favorites on the outside both ran poorly , it is pretty obvious what is going on. Same holds true for a ton of outside numbers running well all day. Chances are, it is better out there. The replays and the head on especially, will confirm this. Remember, it is not where the horses is at the wire but where it was for the whole race. Again, the 9 breaks and goes straight to the fence. Lays back saving ground, rallies up the rail and wins. If the 8 was four wide the whole way and finished second, and the exacta is 9-8, does that mean that the outside is necessarily good? Of course not, the 9 was inside the whole way.You need to figure it out. That particular scenario, might lead you to believe that the track is even and fair.
Too me, the best biases are the outside closers bias. That is because the public has a solid tendency to bet the inside as well as speed horses. You have heard about players favorite numbers to play. 1,2,5 or 2,3,5 or 3,5,7 but ever heard of someones favorite numbers being 8,9,10?, or 7,10,12? The best prices are usually towards the outside. Two even horses one having the one hole and one having the nine hole will most likely be bet somewhat unevenly by the public. If both would typically be 8-1 , the one horse might very well be but the nine probably will be more like 10 or 12-1.This is the public's tendencies as I have witnessed over the years. Not always, but typically IMO. Also, once a horse hits double digit odds, it is not uncommon to see there odds go from 12-1 to 18 -1 in the last minute or so.
Keeping a calender chart of biases is very important. This tool can bring you many winners. Writing down how the track played for each day and writing this next to the dates on the PPs is added info that most do not have. I used to do this for the whole card before I started looking at each race. This will enable you to better understand WHY a horse ran as well or as poorly as it did last time or 2 times ago. More info on YOUR racing form, in a betting pool where the opposition is the other players reading that same form = an edge( sometimes a huge one). All players have a dream of getting tomorrows newspaper today with all the results in it. Well, it's never quite that good but at a key time, it can be darn close.
Some of the bigger plays that you can catch can come from this. Throwing out favorites and confidently playing a 10-1 shot because of your private knowledge is not only self gratifying but it makes all the effort well worth it.
Grass races will also come with a bias but in most cases it is not inside outside as it is, speed or closers. Grass favors closers too begin with. It is much easier to close on turf than dirt. Why? The debris flying back at you is almost nil compared to dirt. Look at a jocks silks that was behind horses most of the way after a dirt race and then, after a turf race as they dismount. The difference in how clean or dirty the silks are is drastic. That debris is tough sometimes for a jock to deal with while riding. That's why they usually have 3-4 pair of goggles for each race. Watch a dirt race next time and watch for the closers jocks to pull down there goggles a couple of times when behind traffic usually starting around the 5/16 pole ( black and white stripped pole after the red and white 1/2 and before the green and white 3/8s pole going in to the far turn on a one mile track) in a 6 or 7 furlong race. Watch there hands only and you will see it. What people do not realize is that the horse does not have goggles and it is harder on them as well.(That sand flying back at them stings your face . Like being in a bit of a sand storm.) Blinkers are open for the dirt to fly into there eyes so for that, they do not help. Muddy tracks makes it harder still, to close . Many horses will do it, but sometimes a little more apprehensively than they might normally do it.That's not to say don't bet closers in the mud but these obstacles do exist. This is one reason why speed tends to want to hold better on an off track. When you see a jock go widest of all through the lane, avoiding mud or being out of clean goggles might be the reason why.
The length of the grass can also be a factor. Seeing that it was just mowed or unable to be mowed because it rained and might be too soft might be the difference between a speed favoring turf or not.There are many factors obviously, but trying to understand the surface and gaining the knowledge over time, beats the hell out of having no clue and not paying any attention, at least in my book.
Why do dirt biases exist: Because the tracks have a pitch to them. Some more than others. Look at the pitch of the track or tracks you play . The more the pitch, the more the dirt wants to go down hill towards the rail .Therefore, the more that dirt needs to be pushed back up the hill to keep it even.
In the summer months, the track can be harrowed for all the races and sealed or floated after the races and left alone all night. Under these circumstances, a track might only need to be graded once or twice a week.This is done with a road grader or two. Biases are not necessarily common in the summer time. Key times to look for these( although they can show up at any time) is the day before, the day of or the day after a major holiday like the 4th of July.Why? Because the maintenance crew might get a day off and therefore they don't have the man power necessary to grade the track at exactly the right moment. Or, there is a big race running on the 4th and they want the track perfect and faster than normal for that day. And because weather can play a factor, maybe they could not grade on time or had to grade earlier or whatever. Remember, you can not grade mud! Also, Saturdays when bigger races are running, opening days, closing days or first days if they only run 3-4 days a week. There are many reasons why a bias can be present. The important thing for you is to understand why they can exist and try to identify them as early as possible. Also, the track superintendent tries to stay on a schedule that best suits the track. That might mean that he wants to grade the track every Friday before a big weekend card and every Tuesday , a dark day. If weather or holidays disrupt that schedule, a bias can appear. His job is to have the track completely even and uniform at all times. Between human error and other factors that is damn near impossible 100% of the time.
In the colder months of the year, the track will need to be harrowed much more. Next time you are there, watch the teeth move the dirt ever so slightly down the pitch towards the rail with each pass. The movement is very small but multiply the 1/2 inch movement times harrowing the track every race and most of the night because the surface will freeze if they do not, and that is quite a lot of dirt collecting at the rail. The dirt will collect at the rail and the surface will become uneven in depth. It will need to be graded back up so as to be consistent all the way across. When it becomes deeper inside or outside, you have a bias. If I were allowed to race everyone here on SBR at the beach and I could run on the part of the beach that was wet and packed from the water at the edge of the shore line and everyone else had to run in the deep, loose, dry sand I would probably win but put us all on a fair surface and the result would be very different , I am sure. Would probably have to van me off after the race!
Lastly, you will need to give the track a grade for each day you observe. I used to use the following:
R+1, R+2,R+3. These would be the strength of bias for a good rail. A good rail would be for both speed and closers.The outside was NOT the place to be.Simply put, the best part of the track.R+1 = pretty solid advantage, R+2 very solid advantage, R+3 was an unbelievable advantage.
Out.-1, Out.-2, Out. -3 would be for the outside part of the track. This means that outside speed as well as outside closers would both be fine. This also meant that the rail was NOT the place to be.The outside was the best part of the track.
S+1,S+2,S+3 was when speed was dominate and it did not matter where you were on the track. Closers were struggling all day from all areas. Three horse duels were hanging tough all the way around( at varying degrees) and thus, defying typical logic.
Cl-1,Cl-2,Cl-3 were for a track that favored closers from anywhere on the track, both inside and outside.
Sometimes I would put R+2 1-6 because for whatever reason the track stopped favoring the inside from that point on. This needs full scrutiny after the fact in that, you must determine if the bias truly existed at all to begin with or the track stopped favoring a certain trend because it just changed. You will not be right every time with your grade so following how well a particular day did in the weeks to come will validate your assessment or not if you were in error.
Turf would usually be simply S. or Cl. Because the sample size is usually only a race or two each day, I was always careful not to give to much credit to any bias unless very sure of it.
Leaving after a bias filled card and not cashing in on that day might leave you feeling hollow in terms of the day but gaining knowledge that others do not have for future use is plenty valuable in itself. Because biases are a constant work in progress do not feel you must get it right every time. This is especially true when first starting out doing this.You will however get much better at this within six months or so.
Hopefully, I have explained this well enough for you guys to implement it. If not, let me know and I will try to clear up any further questions.
It is not easy to learn but if I did, you can.
Whew! That was long.

[Dark Horse]

Wow, str. This is going to take some absorbing... lol Thanks!

[andywend]

Str,
I owned horses on the West Coast for about 15 years in partnership with my father.

Over the 15 years, we started out with Bryan Webb, had a couple of horses with Steve Ippolito, one with Neil Drysdale, had horses with a couple of obscure trainers named Bob Free (Brad Free's father) and Tony Delia and used Paul Aguirre exclusively for the last 6 years or so until we both moved to Vegas.

We worked out special deals with all of them (except for Neil) whereby we would claim the horse and split the horse 50/50 with the trainer in exchange for no training bills. In order for a deal like this to work, we gave our trainers pretty much a blank check on where to run the horses.

Over the 15 year period, we broke about even and anybody who has owned horses for an extended period of time knows how well "breaking even" really is.

Do you currently own horses and if so, where do you race them and with which trainers?

[str]

Wow, str. This is going to take some absorbing... lol Thanks!

I know that it will. It is a lot. I felt that if I only gave you bits and pieces you would never fully understand how this can work.
Try to absorb this . It will take some time but I promise you it will bring you much more knowledge and understanding as you implement it.
Feel free to ask more about this as you go forward if needed.

[marksinger]

Wow. You mentioned Rick Wilson earlier. I remember Rick from Keystone racetrack back in the 70s. Later it became Philly Park and now that stupid name, Parx!!
How is he?
I also remember Anthony Black. I think he still races.
How about Rochelle Lee? Obviously I'm a Philly guy!! Great job on this forum str. Mark

[str]

Str,
I owned horses on the West Coast for about 15 years in partnership with my father.

Over the 15 years, we started out with Bryan Webb, had a couple of horses with Steve Ippolito, one with Neil Drysdale, had horses with a couple of obscure trainers named Bob Free (Brad Free's father) and Tony Delia and used Paul Aguirre exclusively for the last 6 years or so until we both moved to Vegas.

We worked out special deals with all of them (except for Neil) whereby we would claim the horse and split the horse 50/50 with the trainer in exchange for no training bills. In order for a deal like this to work, we gave our trainers pretty much a blank check on where to run the horses.

Over the 15 year period, we broke about even and anybody who has owned horses for an extended period of time knows how well "breaking even" really is.

Do you currently own horses and if so, where do you race them and with which trainers?

When I left the track , I made the break a clean one. It was the only way for me to do it. I had a couple of cheap young horses and sent them to Charles Town where I knew they could win and get claimed or sold. I did that prior to announcing my retirement. David Walters was the trainer I sent them to. As honest and good of a guy as you will ever meet.
Since then I have thought about owning a couple of horses or going in on a group of yearlings with a close friend who is a very successful trainer in N.Y. , Phila., Del. etc. but it has not happened yet. We still talk every couple of months. I've known him since he was about 14. I just have not been ready to deal with that yet. In time I am pretty sure I will. I guess that time is getting closer. We will see.
The deal that you worked is a fair deal to both parties and I actually did that a few times with guys that requested it. As you know, you the owner, need to really know the trainer that you are dealing with. As long as the trainer is honest, and there are plenty out there that are, it is fine for both parties.
While I only know a handful of people out on the west coast these days, if you ever consider doing this with someone else and would like me to offer any help with anything, please feel free to ask. I will be happy to help any way that I can.
Thanks for the question.

[andywend]

Our best claim was a horse by the named of Three Amigos who we claimed for $20,000. We ran him @ Fairplex and he won for $25,000 by 5 lengths sprinting going wire to wire.

We then entered him in a $62,500 claiming race on the turf at Santa Anita for straight 3 year olds going a mile. He got absolutely left, circled the field and won by 8 lengths. While it was an extremely weak field for the level, he earned a (-1) on the Thorograph sheets (lower number the better).

Since it was his first try on the turf with a (-1) being the par number for a Grade I stakes, we received offers as high as $200,000 for him immediately following the race. Since he ran for $25,000 just 2 races earlier, it became very clear to me that the big players really trust the Thorograph sheets.

The trainer really wanted us to sell the horse because under our deal, he would have gotten half the profit and he needed the money. However, we wound up NOT selling and we entered him in an overnight stake that came up incredibly tough and he still went off favored but ran fourth.

He came out of the race with a bone chip and we laid him off but he never came back anywhere near the same horse.

Horseracing is a game filled mainly with disappointments ESPECIALLY on the yearling side but there is no equivalent thrill of owning a horse and watching him win by large margins. Nothing in life really compares to it.

[str]

Wow. You mentioned Rick Wilson earlier. I remember Rick from Keystone racetrack back in the 70s. Later it became Philly Park and now that stupid name, Parx!!
How is he?
I also remember Anthony Black. I think he still races.
How about Rochelle Lee? Obviously I'm a Philly guy!! Great job on this forum str. Mark

Rick Wilson was in a near fatal spill at Pimlico in 2004. I had been gone for a few years by then. From what I know, he has recovered enough to have a full life, but he had a fractured skull , loss of sight in one eye and many other problems that lingered for quite a while. I certainly knew Rick, and rode Rick on plenty of horses but we were not real close. He was a very good rider that excelled on or near the lead. He was one of the only guys I watched ride that I was never sure how much horse he had left during the race. He looked like he was out of horse all the time turning for home but would still be in front at the wire. He was remarkable. A no nonsense, excellent rider who made horses run at a very high level.
Tony Black rode and won a few races for me, but I never knew him personally. He seems ageless. He was riding when I was a groom in 71 and 72.
Shelly and I go all the way back to her pony riding days at Bowie. Well before she rode she was a pony girl. We worked for the same trainer. She used to braid my horses manes when I was a groom and taught me how to braid as well. Never saw anyone do that so perfectly . I was so happy for her when her career took off. I know that I rode her on some of the horses that I ran up there but I would only run 4 or 5 a year up there. I will have to go back and look at my old win pictures( I have all of them) and see if we ever one together. I am thinking we did.
Being a Phiily guy , you will appreciate this. I taught Mark Reid how to put a knee bandage on. He and I worked for the same trainer as well. I taught him at Pimlico .His stalls were right next to mine. We called him "Heavy Reid". He was a huge guy. Not fat, huge. A really great trainer and even a greater person!
Thanks for the walk down memory lane.

[str]

Our best claim was a horse by the named of Three Amigos who we claimed for $20,000. We ran him @ Fairplex and he won for $25,000 by 5 lengths sprinting going wire to wire.

We then entered him in a $62,500 claiming race on the turf at Santa Anita for straight 3 year olds going a mile. He got absolutely left, circled the field and won by 8 lengths. While it was an extremely weak field for the level, he earned a (-1) on the Thorograph sheets (lower number the better).

Since it was his first try on the turf with a (-1) being the par number for a Grade I stakes, we received offers as high as $200,000 for him immediately following the race. Since he ran for $25,000 just 2 races earlier, it became very clear to me that the big players really trust the Thorograph sheets.

The trainer really wanted us to sell the horse because under our deal, he would have gotten half the profit and he needed the money. However, we wound up NOT selling and we entered him in an overnight stake that came up incredibly tough and he still went off favored but ran fourth.

He came out of the race with a bone chip and we laid him off but he never came back anywhere near the same horse.

Horseracing is a game filled mainly with disappointments ESPECIALLY on the yearling side but there is no equivalent thrill of owning a horse and watching him win by large margins. Nothing in life really compares to it.

Owners like Ed Wachtel and others were offering that kind of money for horses that did that sort of thing often out there as well as other places. They were sheets guys. While I understood the concept of the sheets , I never really went crazy for them but many did and still do.
Sorry you did not cash out but many people do not when the upside seems so high.
Yearlings are damn tough! I would NEVER consider doing that with anyone but this one guy. He is exceptional at what he does with young horses.
I've had plenty of owners say the same thing about " nothing really compares to it" when they win. It is indeed an unexplainable high!

[dugbug15]

thanks for all your knowledgable insights of all phase of the horse racing industry.i really enjoy reading it all.it's all very generous of you to share your knowledge and experiences with all of us at the forum.
good luck,stay happy.

[str]

It has been my stance as well as others that, for at least the last 30 years , horses are bred more and more for speed . This is not how it was back in the day. There used to be many more longer races then there currently are. Endurance was a very big deal. Over the last two decades speed has become more important than ever. Believe it or not, lasix has had a lot to do with that. Back before it was used, many speed horses were the more well known bleeders. When you are in front and stop, finding a reason is needed. But back then , when a horse ran towards the back it was" he just didn't fire today ". Trust me when I tell you, this mind set was everywhere in the 60s and 70s. That was one of many reasons I had such a good start to my career. I was fortunate to simply know more and understand more than many of my competitors. I thank my mentor for that.
So, because quite a few speed horses were seemingly prone to bleed, many of these types were not in demand to be sires . Who wanted a foal that was in all likelihood going to be a bleeder? No one wanted that. Lasix changed that. Now , speed was worth having because bleeding had a chance to be controlled. This mindset has evolved to the point where if you look real closely, you will notice in the coming years that medication rules, distances of races, etc. will start to try to revert back to more of a stamina based theme. The industry is going to try and get rid of lasix. They have to do something and for a lot of reasons. One reason is that image is everything and most bettors would say that lasix can mask other drugs and that promotes cheating. While that is incorrect, again, image is everything and I guarantee you this is the avenue they will try to go down. At the end of the day, weeding bleeders out of the bloodlines can only make the offspring better for generations to come.
This is a subject that I could go in to great depth about and maybe I will soon but I thought being Belmont day, it was appropriate to at least touch on.

Next: The Belmont.

[str]

A handicapping tool that I have always used in betting or claiming horses is when I see a horse run in what I have always called an " accordion race". That is a race where somewhere in the middle calls on the chart or past performance a horse will make up lengths but fall back in running order or pass horses and move up from 7th to 4th but actually drop back in lengths from the leader. If this happens and the leader is drawing away from all others, that is excusable because it is happening to everyone. But when the leader is not really moving away from all others or is starting to quit and it happens , it is like the race is shrinking in lengths of difference but the horses gaining in lengths are not doing anything to make that happen, it is just happening. Either of those scenarios gives handicappers the illusion that the horse is moving forward when indeed they are not. Horses like that get a false value placed on them. And further, when it happens and most of the field does this, the few that actually made up lengths in the call split and passed horses while doing so DO NOT get the full credit deserved by most. This has been a huge positive for me while picking and choosing how good a horse might be for a long time.
( Hope that makes sense.) This is what happened in this years Derby. Traffic or trouble can absolutely cause this sometimes so it is important to check for that but rarely will traffic affect the whole field. If you look at the PP's of all the Derby runners you will see what I am talking about. With that said and not going into a full length analysis, I see that Master of Hounds did not lose lengths between call 3 and 4. I also see that Animal Kingdom did not.They both made up 1/2 to 1 1/4 lengths respectively. Many others lost 3-4 lengths between these calls.( Nehro lost 1/2 a length).That alone leads me straight towards those two. The leader , Shackleford, opened up 1/2 a length during that call. This means that Master of Hounds was staying even with Shackleford and Animal Kingdom was 3/4 of one length superior within that call.
From my previous post , more than any of the other triple crown races, pedigree bites more horses in the ass in the Belmont than any of the other races. Because Nehro and Shackleford are so weak in the stamina department, there is no way I would ever select either of those horses.They could win, but all logic says no and that is good enough for me.
I am a big "pace makes the race" guy. The reason for that is that it does. Simple.
As I put the race together it seems to me that if Prime Cut wants the early lead , it is right there for him.And if allowed, he can steal this race. Shackleford looks like he will get a perfect stalking position on the outside very similar to his position in the Preakness or , if Prime Cut does not want the lead and no other horse tries to change form drastically and gun for it, the pace should be quite slow early and suit a front runner or a horse with a stalking 5-6 length off the lead position. I would say that the race looks like it is taylor made for Shackleford to win. It has the potential to set up perfectly for him. I think it will. I just cannot think that he will win, perfect trip or not , because of his pedigree. ( I love perfect trips and love finding horses that will get one but the Belmont distance wipes that away for me).
Master of Hounds has that Lemon Drop Kid angle working for him( bloodline angle) and I think that it is a very solid thought process within that angle. His trainer is one of the worlds finest.
I have a huge rooting interest in Animal Kingdom because of Graham and Anita Motion. I have stated that I knew those two when they first started out together and two nicer, classier, honest and hard working a couple along with there assistant Adrian , one could never find. I sure hope they win!
So my exacta will be a Animal Kingdom and Master of Hounds box with enough on Animal Kingdom on top of Master of Hounds so the payouts are the same( 3.00 or 4.00 with AK on top, 2.00 with MOH on top, something like that). I do think either horse can win. Might also stick Prime Cut in there as well.
Best of Luck everyone!

[Dark Horse]

Thanks again for the insight. The Belmont mud feast. I'm a little perplexed that a race of this importance can't be postponed by a day. I spent about 20 hours handicapping this thing, and none of that meant anything when it became a mud bath. How do trainers and owners feel about these type of races? And how would you analyze this race (start, bias, etc)? # 1 Master of Hounds had a bad start, but 2,3 and 5 seemed in a zone, and stayed ahead of the three ML favorites who finished 4th, 5th, and 6th.

[str]

Thanks again for the insight. The Belmont mud feast. I'm a little perplexed that a race of this importance can't be postponed by a day. I spent about 20 hours handicapping this thing, and none of that meant anything when it became a mud bath. How do trainers and owners feel about these type of races? And how would you analyze this race (start, bias, etc)? # 1 Master of Hounds had a bad start, but 2,3 and 5 seemed in a zone, and stayed ahead of the three ML favorites who finished 4th, 5th, and 6th.

Races can not be postponed by one or two days. If races have to be rescheduled usually they are pushed back one week. The medication issue is the main reason. Horses have been treated with this date in mind and retreating them again for the next day would lead to all sorts of confusion with regard to positives( too much bute or lasix) or negatives ( if the medication stated as given is NOT in their system, that is also a medication violation) of drugs such as lasix and bute. Also, lasix is a diuretic. Giving lasix two days in a row and running would lead to all sorts of dehydration problems as well as electrolyte imbalances. You simply can not do it.
Also, it is no accident that horses work out 5 days or 4 days or 3 days before a race and they do so for specific reasons. Bringing a horse up to a race is difficult enough without not knowing exactly what day the race is going to be run. That was what always drove me nuts with all the extra races that were written or brought back several days in a row before finally being used. A trainer can wind up breezing a horse 3/8s twice in 23 days for a distance race because he planned on the race being run nine days sooner but it kept being written back every friggin day and the trainer never could breeze the horse the proper distance at the proper time because they never knew what that time was. When it is all said and done a chicken could have trained the horse up to the race better than I did when that happened. Scenarios like that made me crazy!
Spending time prior to the event only to have it all for naught ?
Now you have just scratched the surface of what a trainer goes through every time anything goes wrong with the program. Graham Motion saw weeks of preparation and effort go right down the tubes at the break. For him , Animal Kingdom and all involved , the race was over after two seconds.
Imagine waking up at 4:30 this morning ( if you slept at all) and going to the barn to start to sort that out this morning. I doubt many have thought about that angle.
Owners and trainers realize that mud, fog, snow, biases etc. are just part of the game. I don't think many like it. It is darn tough but it is what it is and you must deal with it as best you can.
A handicapper should always be ready to adjust on the fly. You try to figure out the race but you continue to collect information right up to the end. If you were trying to work out yesterdays card, and if you were used to doing something along the lines of what I had posted earlier, you would have watched the 2nd race replays( head on as well) ( 1st race was turf) and observed that the 4 horses that broke and dueled through the 1st quarter in 22 and change were also the 4 horses that finished 1,2,3,4. I have previously stated that when you see a 4 horse duel at a rapid pace early on , and they stay pretty much that way all the way around, either the other horses were grossly over matched or speed must have an edge. While that race did not ice the fact that it was a speed biased track , it certainly should have raised an eyebrow that a speed bias might exist.(If you have not read the charts from yesterday , go back and read them.) So you watch the 3rd race and the speed does very well again. You watch the replays and see that the top 4 horses at the 1/8th pole draw away from the field by 3-4 lengths in the last 1/8th.These horses were 1,3,4,6 early on . The 2,5 position horses early quit and were 39-1 and 57-1. Now you say, hmmm, looks like speed for sure but let's be sure. The 4th race has the early speed run first and 3rd. The favorite closes to be 2nd. We also see that these speed horses are NOT rail speed but outside or at least 2-3 path speed. On to the 6th( 5th is turf). With the thought process that speed is doing quite well and the outside speed is doing the best, you set up the 6th race.
Had you been able to conclude that the outside speed was going to be It's Tricky , that conclusion paid you a 10-1 dividend. Now I am not going to say that coming to that conclusion was necessarily easy but given your choice of horses after 25 seconds of the race which horse would you have chosen? Would you have been looking for the closer on the rail? The closer anywhere? The speed on the rail? No! You would have been of the mindset by now that you were trying to identify the horse that was going to get to that spot. Trying to set the race up beforehand would have had you looking for a specific style and placement.
Moving on, the 7th was won by a horse never more than 3 lengths off the lead. The 8th was wire to wire from the 2 path after an early duel. The next dirt race was the Belmont.
So let's bet a closer right? Hell no! Let's find the horse that can get a very long and odd distance that might be in at least the 2-3 path or further out. Well, anyone that figured out that the 2 horse would be gunned to the early pace and be the horse to lay well off the rail in 2nd in the prime spot of the day, is deserving of all they won. I did not.
After the race , the trainer was asked about the early position his horse had been asked to get. He said that it was his plan to do this. I think that his decision was the driving force behind the victory. Typically blinkers on will enhance speed and that , in hindsight, helped as well. It was a great call by the trainer! I felt that Neil Howard's horse could have been put in that spot but the connections did not attempt to get involved early. He was roughly 7 lengths back at the first call and had never been that far back early in his life except for his first start where he was left at the gate. It is very unfair of me to say what I would have done. I used to hate being second guessed . Looking prior to the race, I felt that Prime Cut could have been put in that spot. Does that mean he would have won. Of course not. I thought he had a chance to try and do that. We will never know what would have happened if that had been attempted. I will say that I tried to alter my horses running style when applicable, when it was obvious that running the normal race was in all probability going to be a disaster. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it did not. But... I ALWAYS had a plan before the race. Always! Not that Neil Howard did not. However, if his plan was well executed by Prado and he was happy with his early position, that plan was not a very good one.
The start was unfortunate for Animal Kingdom. He lost all chance. Master of Hounds did not get off real well but I did not see it costing him much. Altering a style like his is almost impossible. It can be done with tactical speed but not with horses like him. I am thinking , again with that clear 20-20 hindsight, that having never been hit with mud before and I would assume not training on it much , if at all , that it could have been a legit excuse but I did not think of that angle before hand. He was bred to like it and assumed he would. Wrong!
The 2 and 3 were prominent early and I feel that it was that prominence that helped them run well. Brilliant Speed ran very well and I did not like him at all. I saw 3 dirt races and 3 beat downs. Not my kind of pick.
Shackleford got a perfect trip and faded. No surprise there. Nehro ran evenly. No surprise there either.
Lastly, for those that care, I would have graded yesterday's track in my bias sheet as S+3, outside S+2. Meaning that speed dominated the day and outside speed was better than inside speed. I would then plug in that information in the coming weeks when horses that ran on that day run back. If I see a horse that ran better or worse than they should have yesterday, I will be more informed than my opponents. No horse came from further back than 3 lengths ALL DAY to win. That is great information for next time.

[str]

So I see that Nehro has a chip in his ankle and will have surgery. Most fans thought process is that it happened in the race and it probably cost him any chance. I doubt it had much effect on his performance in the race. As for the chip let me try to give some insight.
We do not know if the ankle had any slight changes leading up to the race or not. Horses do not go from totally perfect ankle to chip in the ankle very often. As a horse trainer , you check every horses legs every day. You get down in the straw and run your hands down there legs so often that you know there legs better than you know your own legs. Maybe the horse was showing some signs of slight filling or degenerative changes in the ankle. Maybe not. But these are the things that trainers look for all the time. This does not imply at all that he should not have run or anything close to that. The horses are athletes that use there legs daily to train and compete.
Just because a horse has some minor filling in his ankle does not mean you need to stop him and turn him out. Athletes get slight filling from miss steps or bumps and bruises all the time. A trainers job is to recognize anything different asap and use sound judgment in regards to it. Maybe the horse had a slight filling after the Derby. Maybe he jogged sound , his x rays were clean but they thought the best thing to do was to skip the Preakness , make sure he was perfect for the Belmont and if he was, run him there. Then after his works leading up to the race, he remained perfect, so they ran him. That sounds logical to me. Because balance within a stride is so important to a horse, maybe it was an imbalance from another part of the horses body that helped lend a hand to too much imbalance on that area. We do not know .
Did they know he was going to chip his ankle or felt that there was a chance he could? Absolutely not! And maybe he really did " just happen to chip his ankle in the Belmont". We do not know but the connections do. Either way, I am sure they did a fine job in preparing him to run.
The size and location of the chip will determine how much time the horse will need off before returning to training. Without that info, it is impossible for us to know a real timetable. However, if a timetable is announced, we can then deduce from that the size and location in most cases.

[Dark Horse]

Thanks for the Belmont analysis, str. Developing the ability to recognize things quickly, as they unfold at race speed, sounds like one of the bigger challenges ahead of the untrained eye. In my research of TC races, I inevitable came across Big Brown in the Belmont (2008). You mentioned earlier that on a few occasions you were angry with a jockey. I was wondering if this would have been such a time. Dutrow certainly didn't seem too happy. Can you comment on this race, particularly the start (Desormeaux later blamed the start), and the highly controversial easing. There is a picture of the horse with a loose shoe during the race (not on the video), but he didn't have a loose shoe afterwards. Is that possible? I don't think the race was fixed, and the start looked very difficult for the horse, but I can't appreciate the decision of the jockey to ease the horse. May as well rip up every single exotic bet on the race.

[str]

Thanks for the Belmont analysis, str. Developing the ability to recognize things quickly, as they unfold at race speed, sounds like one of the bigger challenges ahead of the untrained eye. In my research of TC races, I inevitable came across Big Brown in the Belmont (2008). You mentioned earlier that on a few occasions you were angry with a jockey. I was wondering if this would have been such a time. Dutrow certainly didn't seem too happy. Can you comment on this race, particularly the start (Desormeaux later blamed the start), and the highly controversial easing. There is a picture of the horse with a loose shoe during the race (not on the video), but he didn't have a loose shoe afterwards. Is that possible? I don't think the race was fixed, and the start looked very difficult for the horse, but I can't appreciate the decision of the jockey to ease the horse. May as well rip up every single exotic bet on the race.

Great question!
I hope my explanation does not seem too technical. This is indeed how I saw it.

Without ever consulting with Ricky about Big Brown after the race, I will tell you all I saw and assumed. There are things that I am not aware of that could have lent a hand in the outcome but let's go with what we know.

I think that it all started to go wrong for Big Brown when they drew the post positions. He drew the one hole. It was obvious that Kent did not want, and was not going to be forced to move to soon, as the inside speed can be forced to do ( see my previous posts when I speak about speed duels and how the inside will take the worst of it in most cases). So, the decision was made to get off the fence. That decision led to all sorts of problems early. If you go back to watch the tape again you will see that at :12 seconds of the tape , Kent decides to go for the hole between the leader and the two horses outside laying second and third. He starts to point Big Brown towards that hole and starts to move off the fence. This was a split second decision that Kent made. If Kent was going to try and get to the outside early, his chance was right there. So, having decided to do that ,the timing of that move was right now or wait. He knew that he had about 10 seconds before that hole would be gone even if the outside jock did not try to close it on purpose. Why? If you watch the replay, pay very close attention to the horse laying 2nd at the :18 second mark of the video. ( not the race time but the video replay time that starts before the race does). Look at his leg action and you will notice that he is on his right lead.( His right front leg is the leg reaching out the furthest).( The horse laying 3rd outside of the second horse starts off on his left lead leaving the gate. That is most visible from the starting angle before they switch to the head on shot.) Horses are taught to use there right legs as the lead leg on straightaways and there left leg on turns. When they switch leads they move over by about three feet while they run.( The area between the outer most parts of each front leg plus the riders irons where his feet are.) It might take you several tries to see but the outside horse is on his right lead from :18 until he switches to his left leg at :25. Watch it until you see it. Once the outside horse switched to his left leg, the hole would be gone in all probability. (No rider should be trying to get in to a hole when the outside horse switches from right to left . It is too late then. That is why you see often times a horse get checked going into a turn at that same spot and to a greater extent , just as the horses approach the far turn. That happens more often over there. Switching leads is the reason for that). So , Kent makes a move to get outside of the leader when he does, so as to be there before the outside horse drops in from switching leads, knowing that if he does , he can probably park the two outside horses out and get them back by his hip at least thus having a perfect stalking , laying second, outside position with his right eye( outside eye) clear of pressure. ( Ruler On Ice position last week).(His other choice would have been to sit in there and deal with getting out around mid turn or later as they started down the backside . That choice was huge in hindsight. Too me, Big Brown got all geared up right when Kent tried to get that position. He never really relaxed after that. Big Brown's racing inexperience really showed at that point . Had he settled inside and got the horse to relax I am confident that it would have been a completely different story. I am also confident that had the outside jock not seen Kent try for that hole and not moved over on purpose to slam the door on Kent when he did , it also would have been a different story. But Big Brown got jammed up. His button was pushed and the energy began to flow from that point on.) The rider of the horse laying second DID see Kent trying to do this and quickly comes over at the :14-:15 second mark of the tape to close that hole and jam Big Brown up on to heels . I think that it was that move that cost Big Brown the race. From that point until : 29 of the tape, Big Brown is all jammed up and is confused as well as running off( out of control and exerting full energy while trying to be restrained) by Kent. If you watch Big Brown's eyes at the :18 second mark and follow them until they switch back to the side shot, this is quite apparent. Also, one ear is pinned back and the other is half up. This is showing that Big Brown is confused IMO. He checks and even looks to clip heels slightly with the horse in front of him at the :27 second mark( either a slight clip or Kent being all in his mouth checking to prevent that from happening) and eventually gets there but at a terrible cost.
Once there, things seem to settle down until the 1:40 point of the tape. But horses that are in the mental state Big Brown was in early, rarely settle down as quickly energy usage wise, as it might appear. At that point, Kent starts to move his hands on Big Brown and there is no response. Kent probably knew this before that point but it became obvious to all then. Kent proceeded to ask Big Brown until the 2:06 point in the tape when he gets floated out further and is hopelessly beaten. At 2:08 he starts to ease Big Brown up.
Your questions are would I have been mad at Kent? If we had both concluded that Kent's strategy was what we were going to do, then no. I would have been mad at the situation , not the problems that occurred while trying to execute the strategy. However, letting Big Brown get all fired up so early in a race like that was certain defeat. Had Kent known that this would happen , he never would have done what he attempted to do. But those early actions by Kent caused Big Brown to expend his energy way too early.
Ricky was upset and for plenty of reasons. No trainer wants to see his horse melt down like Big Brown did in any race let alone going for the triple crown. Let's face it, Kent did not mean for Big Brown to get all fired up but that early problem absolutely caused him to get that way and it ultimately cost him any chance of winning . If it was me, I think I would have been pretty pissed at the time about the easing up. I realize that Kent 's excuse was that he was trying to protect the horse. And it was 100 degrees and Barbaro's saga had played out in the past year in a half. But easing a horse up with so much on the line and in plain view of the whole world was not necessarily the right thing to do. Of course, that is easy to say now. Let's face it, the whole race was a mess from the start. I had jocks ease my horse up for no apparent reason on a couple of occasions and I will be the first to admit that it did not sit very well with me. And none of those races were in any way, as pressure packed as that race was.
The loose shoe question.
I do not know how a picture could show a loose shoe on a moving horse so it would be best if I was able to see it but if indeed it was loose , than yes , it can become NOT loose anymore but that would be VERY detrimental to the horses well being. In almost all cases the shoe is thrown off because of the leg action. The reason it can be stuck back on is that the nails are almost always still in the shoe when it is thrown. So if a shoe became sprung or partially off and twisted and the horse continually stepped back on to the loose shoe, the nails could reattach themselves to a part of the foot and the shoe stay on. But only a small area of the wall of the foot is built to handle nails in it so with the nails going in other parts of the foot, that could be a disaster for the horse. Also, because the legs miss one another from front to back by less than an inch, any shoe protruding out from the foot could and most likely would slice up the other leg while running. Maybe only a little or maybe quite a bit. Either way, it is not a good thing to have to deal with.
There is no way that the race was fixed. That would be nonsense.You are right about that. And while easing the horse the last 1/4 was not the way to go in my mind , it cost no one any money that had bet Big Brown anywhere on any ticket. By the time Kent did that , he was next to last and had been out of gas for at least 3/8s of a mile and in all probability much more than that.
Hope that was not to confusing.


I also wanted to comment on the Animal Kingdom injury :

Having heard the news of Animal Kingdom just today, it probably becomes more apparent to fans that the gate area is a problematic place for events to occur. Many a bump , bruise , cut or worse has happened there. And before I get started, doesn't the Barbaro incident seem to make more sense all of the sudden? He broke prematurely, had to be yanked up , was looked at for soundness, which he was, moments afterwords, reloaded, broke a second time and sustained a catastrophic injury. Maybe the injury happened during the first break but any lameness had yet to show. That is in all probability exactly what happened buthindsight is 20-20 and there was no way on earth that anyone could have possibly known that beforehand.
I copied what was too me the most important paragraph in the announcement of the Animal Kingdom article. Here it is:

"He lit up pretty good on the nuclear scan," Bramlage said. "Normally, no matter how hard a horse hits his leg on the ground in an accident, there is not enough force to show this type of uptake on the scan for a period of at least 10 days. This tells me that, like a lot of racehorses, he probably had a little something going on in there that he was dealing with. But when he hit the ground with such force in the accident, he overloaded the bone and this is the result.

(For clarity, a nuclear scan is when they can see heat throughout the body and find " hot spots" that are there , due to a fracture, crack, or abnormality. This is done at New Bolton Center in Pennsylvania among other places. I have been there several times. A very cool place to see this stuff happen but you are not there because you want to be so it is never fun while doing it.) Also, it is important to understand that some injuries sometimes take 3-10 days or longer to START to show up on an x ray as well as on the track as stated by Dr. Bramlage. Typically after a race the horse will walk the shed for 3 days, jog the wrong way on the outside portion of the track for 1-2 days and then start to gallop the right way a mile or mile and a half. This is done to give the horses time to recover from their last race as well as to be evaluated slowly but surely in case something shows itself in the days after a race.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my last post in regards to dealing with problems that exist with these athletes. It was a problem that Graham, along with vets, the exercise rider, the groom nor anyone else was able to notice . It is the trainers job to identify any problems that might exist asap. They ( Graham and all the others) were unable to see any problem. It was not because they were not looking and not because they don't know what they are doing. Graham is a solid horseman and I would never think that. It just never was enough of a problem to show itself . The horse knew it was there in all probability but he did not have to compensate on balance during movement which would have shown it to the connections.
Trainer's are always on the prowl for new problems. That is their job. But try as you might, sometimes they just don't show up.