Letters to the Editor: Super Trainers Series

[Wandering Eyes]

In response to Bill Finley’s series regarding “Super Trainers” (Part I and Part II).

In response to Bill Finley’s article and Maggie Sweet’s rebuttal, Ms. Sweet presented a few “facts,” but provided no context that invalidate Mr. Finley’s point that “these trainers rarely participate in the claiming races that make up the bread and butter of our sport.” He said “rarely,” not “never,” so providing some counter-examples doesn’t mean he “failed to adhere to the facts.”

These are the facts: from 1/1/2016 thru 7/31/17, there were 488,830 total starters. Of these, 216,522 were in claiming races (non-maidens) with a purse under $25,000. This is 44.3%. During this time, Pletcher, Baffert, Brown and Mott collectively had 4,588 starters. Only 39 of them were in those low-level claiming races. That is 0.85%. For Baffert, it was two out of 563. For Brown, only two out of 1,150.

An examination of all their starters, not just a handful of entries, completely validates Mr. Finley’s assertion that these trainers “rarely participate” in the types of races that constitute the bulk of the races that are run.

Sincerely,

Steve Gazis

I read with heightened interest Bill Finley’s two-part article about the so-called super trainers. At last someone has the guts to at least ‘talk about’ a situation (in an open forum) that has been eroding our game for the last 20 years or so. I would like to relate (what I consider) an interesting and profound conversation I had many years ago with three Hall of Famers at Siro’s in Saratoga: John Nerud, Allen ‘The Chief’ Jerkens and Woody Stephens.

By shear happenstance, I was in Siro’s that night and the three Hall of Famers were in the front room at the next table. I finally entered into their conversation and guess what? They were talking about this very issue. They unanimously agreed that limits could/should be placed on the number of horses in training for ANY trainer. Woody proffered that “no trainer can legitimately train more than 40-50 with any diligence.” Even then the subject was at the forefront of these legendary trainers conversations.

I believe it was Allen Jerkens who said that The Jockey Club should administer the rules that would curtail ‘monopoly trainers,’ even mentioning appointing a national commissioner, such as Pete Rozelle, who at that time was NFL boss.

While I agree with Pletcher that capitalism is the way America works, and that no one should be denied the right to hire any trainer, Thoroughbred horse racing has always been considered a sport first, and a business second. And sports, for the most part, guarantee fair play and competitive equanimity (drafts, etc.).

Chad is right that the mega trainers should supplement the little guys (i.e. workers’ compensation). Reducing the mid- to lower-level trainers’ expenses would promote more competition. And in another way, as Finley notes, Ritvo is doing it in California via race conditions.

More trainers, more starters is a must in horse racing. Larger fields equal larger handle equals more revenue to owners, trainers, racing commissions and the respective state coffers. More opportunity for smaller outfits is the only way racing maintains its rather precarious position in America’s gambling hierarchy.

Thomas Mina

Saratoga Springs, NY

 

View the full article