re: Smarty Jones...here we "spin" again...hmmm

[chiggins6]

TEXAS - I gotta tell ya - You are no slouch. You may be slouching towards Bethlehem - but at least you are reading the signposts along the way. I like what you are paying attention to.

[EK]

Hi Texas,

Not to diminish your great posts, but I do believe that Gato Del Sol was a gray horse who won the derby.

Sincerely EK

[EK]

Hi Texas,

Sorry I see now where you put the grays.

EK

[bcassidy]

FOS== I have been out of town, hence the late response.
IMHO-GHOSTZAPPER is one of the fastest horses to have ever run a race, therefore I would make him horse of the year. The Frankel affect aside ( the sheets' guys believe Frankel. is using something illegal, therefore they term the issue the Frankel Affect)
FOS- the reason why I appeared to have been undecided about the winner is because it is unfair, IMO, to compare a 3 yr old to an older older horse in straight performance criteria, but that is what this award is all about, comparing horses. I would love to have seen SJ run as an older horse, I do think he was something special. BTW- Brown gave Ghostzapper a negative 6 for the 2 races leading up to this year's BC Classic; Brown gave SJ a negative 3 for a few of his races leading up to the Belmont, I am quite confident that SJ didn't run a new top in the Belmont, which would make his fastest race a negative 3, really an unbelievable number for a young 3 yr old. So there you have it, Ghostzapper a negative 6 or maybe even better and SJ a negative 3, about a two lenght difference if they were to run head to head under ideal but equal circumstances, as we know an impossible scenario. As a rule I always take a 4 yr old and older against a 3 yr old, I just don't think it is usually a fair fight. That's why Ouija Board's win was so impressive.

[FOS]

Hi bcassidy

As always...valuable insight and commentary.

Thanks bc.

Re: the so-called "Frankel affect"...I submit that it's unfair and arguably irresponsible for anyone (including "the sheets guys") to diminish a horse's spectacular performance(s) with innuendo, rumor or an unsubstantiated accusation that raises the spectre that some form of foul play (by the trainer) may have enhanced such performance.

"The sheets guys" (and others) could certainly plant seeds of doubt and/or suggest possible improprieties that could potentially adversely affect the reputation (or taint the accomplishments) of an equine athlete...and/or his/her trainer. In this case, such a negative could affect Horse of the Year and Trainer of the Year voting.

Unless and until some credible source can substantiate some form of foul play...I accept Ghostzapper as a racing "freak"...a rare specimen of versatility and excellence in the breed.

There's nothing new about Ghostzapper's brilliance...other than now he's proven he can carry it a mile and a quarter.

When you think about it...today's technology can expose "stuff" that might never have been uncovered years ago. hmmm.

No agency, authority or individual has requested or instigated an investigation (to my knowledge) nor has an accusation or challenge or gauntlet been thrown down (by any racing authority, or the press, owners, trainers etc) to investigate the possibility that something (outside the realm of acceptable and legal) has enhanced Ghostzapper's brilliant performance(s).

Sounds to me that if "...the sheets' guys believe Frankel is using something illegal..." (as you wrote) to enhance Ghostzapper's performance(s)...and if in fact that is not true (apparently there is no evidence to support such a claim)...doesn't that really highlight how incredible a race horse Ghostzapper is...and how talented a trainer Frankel must be?

Best to you always bc.

Respectfully

[bcassidy]

FOS- I certainly wasn't trying to cast any doubt about the racing ability of Ghostzapper or for that matter the integrity of Frankel. I have no knowledge of such things. I was only pointing out what the sheets guys think. I might be able to shed some light on why they think that but again I am not trying to make any accusations toward Frankel or any other of what the sheets guys refer to as the Super Trainers. If you are familiar with the sheets and how they work, every race is calculated down to a single number with the lower the number being the better, therefore a negative 6 is better than a negative 3 ( as in the Ghostzapper to SJ comparison above ). A one point difference equals different lengths at different distances, etc. But the really interesting fact about the sheets is that they chart these numbers on a graph which allows you to visually see a horse coming into or out of form. Some horses have a very definite form cycle and it is easy to see when a horse is ready for a huge effort or maybe even a bounce. Most horses cannot keep their peak cycle for more than 60 days without regressing. The interesting thing about the super trainers and I won't mention their names in this post but most tracks have at least one in this catagory, is that a horse that they are given ( in Frankel's case or claimed by in most other cases ) that horse jumps to a new life time top effort when being trained by the new, super trainer. Sometimes the effect is extremely noticeable and sometimes in record time, ( in under 2 weeks) and then that horse will regress immediately when that same horse goes to a new trainer, again because the owner makes a trainer change due to track changes or is claimed away from one of the super trainers. This is just a simple example of why the sheets guys believe there is another "affect" going on. Sometimes it just jumps off the page at you. There are many other examples but this is the easiest one for me to explain in text.

[henthorn]

Brendan, I know there are trainers that use hidden methods unethically or illegally to boost the performances of horses they acquire through claiming, but the longer they have them, the more their performance reflects true ability.

A big part of why the high profile trainers have success is their work ethic, good horses, steady personnel, and the best of nutrition and care. Usually they can afford their own exercise riders, get first call on the best jockeys, and they don't cut corners to save money.

[FOS]

Hi bcassidy

I appreciate your commentary always...I was in no way challenging you...maybe the "sheets guys."

Basically the sheets guys are observers of performance level and I can appreciate that...and to that extent they may figure that something must be going on (for better or for worse...explicably or inexplicably) if and when performance levels vary (particularly when a horse moves from one trainer to another).

But every once in a while it seems that a horse (and possibly even a trainer) comes along that actually breaks the mold.

I get a sense that Ghostzapper is one of those horses and Frankel may be one of those trainers. The Frankel affect may be a good description.

Again...I always appreciate your insight and commentary.

Best to you.

Respectfully

[Sysonby]

With regards to the Frankel effect, I can speak to what I see at the track. Every Frankel horse I've ever seen looks marvelous in the paddock. If there is an illegal substance that does this, they should bottle it and sell it to the world.

Seriously, a lot of Frankel's success, in my opinion anyway, is that he is a completely dedicated horseman with the best stock in the world to play with and complete freedom to run anywhere and at anytime he desires. By design, he has some of the most hands off owners around--and if they aren't, they leave. One of his owners once told a friend of mine that he only knew his horse was in when he got the overnight by fax from Bobby. He never spoke to Frankel much less told him where to run or how to train.

That may be why Frankel does worse on the high visibility days. It's one thing to train a horse essentially in a vacuum, hone the animal and then look around for an appropriate race. Quite another to point to particular races.

[bcassidy]

FOS- I agree with your comments and quite frankly even the super trainers can get a horse that is inherently fast without any outside help at all. I definitely think Ghostzapper is that kind of horse.

Seasonby- I have noticed the same thing with D Wayne Lukas' horses. They always look the same in the paddock but they don't always run good. If any of the top trainers has a horse in their care for any length of time they are going to look fabulous. There probably isn't a supplement or treatment available they are not getting, but the affect that the sheets guys are talking about is when a horse changes trainers and runs within two weeks of the trainer change and the horse runs a new top, hard to believe better training, etc will have that kind of effect in such a short time. I think if you were a sheet player some of this would make more sense, it is very difficult to discuss with out the graphs in front of you. You can believe it is a result of better care, nutrition, what ever you want to attribute the improvement to, but some other people are going to believe it could also be something elsle.

[Sysonby]

Lukas' horses do often look good but he has never shown the talent for spotting them the way Frankel has. That's how debacles like Azeri's Classic happen--sometimes he seems to just throw things against the wall and see if they work out. When they do, you see things like the $40 horses at the BC.

[bcassidy]

Frankel is a big user of the sheets and he often uses this tool to spot his horses where he knows he is the most competitive. I think this is the single greatest skill a trainer must possess- where to spot his horses. Placing a horse in a race where he or she will be the best horse in the race gives you the highest probablity of success. Some trainers are just not realistic enough---IMO--Winning percentage is a key stat for a trainer, it they win often they know how to spot their horses. There are plenty of very good trainers that are great hands on a horse but don't spot their horses well and their winning percentage suffers dramatically. These trainers while being very competent with a horse will cost an owner a lot of money. I have learned this the hard way.

[BJ]

Part of being a good horseman is the ability to read a conditions book and place each horse well. Lukas used to be really good at that, OR, maybe he just had so many high-priced horses, with an operation that ran just about anywhere, N.Y., KY, CA, etc., that it just seemed he knew right where to place them. He seems to not be doing so well now that he doesn't have the horses/owners to play with.

On a level playing field, it would be indeed interesting to see WHO would lead the pack in winners, and well kept together (sound) horses, with the same amount and level of quality horses in their barns. It seems to me, so many are better smoozer's at getting high rolling owners, than they are good horseman.

[bcassidy]

BJ---I agree with you 100%.