Printable View
Has anyone else noticed how in the last few weeks/month or so, that the stables that had been struggling for one reason or another seem to be competitive again lately.
I'm sure there is a reason for this, hopefully some of the better informed/connected members of this forum can help shed some light?
Cheers,
Dan
I am sure it has had nothing to do with the introduction in NSW of the tougher measures put in place last year ramping up disqualification periods for swabbing irregularities.
Nor would it have anything to do with the fact that samples are held in cold storage waiting for the day when testing procedures can accommodate the newest and latest cheats drug of choice.
Nor would it have anything to do with the fact that samples can currently be sent over to Hong Kong for stringent testing that may have some people thinking twice before crossing the line.
It has been noticeable Dan, just that nobody was saying it.
We give the stewards, the admin, the management stick all the time. But on this front they have made a lot of yards and they should be acknowledged for it. Keep up the good work. Public confidence in the product is paramount. But on this SMALL facet of integrity they can say they have actually done something...and there are some positive signs the work and cost involved is starting to yield dividends.
I have noticed it also Dan but more so in the medium to smaller sized stables...especially the seemingly lesser amount of HUGE runs that makes one scratch their head in bewilderment...
maybe just maybe that ideal of competing on a level playing field is getting closer..lets hope.
Maybe also because of the somewhat dwindling horse numbers & the tighter economic climate some people have finally worked out that their horses may be around a bit longer
if they are allowed to run within the limits of their bodies..
I am interested to know which stables you guys are referring to. The McCarthy stable is the biggest stable around and their results in recent times havent changed one bit( not that I would expect there to be any noticeable difference). Just in the last month they have had the following big wins:
Excel Stride - 3rd in ID, winning Easter Cup in 1.50.4
Our Sixpence - winning Ladyship Mile, Young Cup
All Black Stride - winning Bathurst Gold Crown, Rod Fitzpatrick
Baby Bling - winning Goulburn Cup
Bling It on - winning Sapling Stakes, Goulburn Sapling
Grand Stride - Gr 2 Carnival Stakes
Not too mention all the standard metro winners - I think they have had at least 2 winners at each Menangle meet and thats after they have sent a significant team up to QLD where they are winning races at every meet.
So lets forget the innuendo and give some real examples....
Gee Harvey, there was no innuendo...just an observation.
you want some facts,real examples...
I tallied the four metro meetings at Menangle in March...23/3/13 10 races won by 7 trainers.
15/3/13 8 races won by 7 trainers
9/3/13 8 races won by 8 trainers
3/3/13 10 races won by 8 trainers
totals 36 races won by 30 trainers
now I randomly selected another 4 meetings in January and Dec/Nov 12......15/12/12..22/12/12...12/1/13...10/11/12
totals 34 races won by 25 trainers.
can you see the difference now Harvey?
I noticed the difference lately and commented on it and as usual you jump to the conclusion I'm having a shot at your camp and I'm talking through my hat....once again wrong on both counts.
Cheers,
Dan
Hardly a siginificant difference at all - in fact it might be worse. Did you think for a second that the meet on 03/03 was the ID final where the winner was trained by Gary Hall from WA, the Chariots winner was trained by Cran Dalgety from NZ, the Oaks winner by Dean Braun from Vic and the Derby winner by John Justice from Vic.
Those 4 trainers would hardly have had a horse at Menangle outside that meet.
If we take those 4 winners out, you have 32 races won by 26 tainers as opposed to 34 races won by 25 trainers... Massive difference?? I dont think so...
As the saying goes, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Whilst I was in Syd a few weeks ago, i was being told daily about all these trainers that had positive swabs to all sorts of substances, including one well know trainer to snake venom. Supposedly there were up to 50 positive swabs. Well, almost 4 weeks on and absolutely none of the rumours have as yet been confirmed as true.
Is our industry totally clean? Absolutely not, but I genuinely do not believe that cheating is as widespread as rumoured. Further, I dont believe its the big stables that are the most likely cheaters. its more likely to be in the smaller stables, where significant improvers wont be identified as easily.
PS - I have horses with many trainers. Not all in one camp. Besides McCarthy, I have horses with Andy Gath, Maree Caldow, Jayne Davies, Wayne Potter, Russell Jack, Dean Braun...
Geez forgive me Harvey,Quote:
Originally Posted by mightymo
I must be dreaming again! I take 6 or 7 minutes to look at some results randomly to re-affirm an observation........and I get a response from you about the "most likely cheaters. its more likely to be in the smaller stables, where significant improvers wont be identified as easily"
and something to the effect ", i was being told daily about all these trainers that had positive swabs to all sorts of substances, including one well know trainer to snake venom."
Harvey, my observations were not just around Menangle, or NSW for that matter, there is ( like it or not) a current trend towards a widening gap in the trainers stakes, whereas in more recent times the winners were coming from a more compressed set of trainers.
an old wise man told me once... there are 3 types of intelligence,
1) those that are intelligent.
2) those that think they are.
3) and those that are so dumb they think they are more intelligent than those around them.
Dan
You made the initial comments about "big stables being less dominant". I said I disagreed. You attempted to provide evidence, but that was actually shown to not prove your statement.
Show me some facts and I will be happy to say Im wrong, but the bottom line is that in recent times the majority of trainers outed for drug offences are not big stables. McCarthy, Fitzpatrick, Turnbull etc were not the ones involved. Rather it was the smaller trainers.
Harvey,
I am not going to waste any more of my time,
you must be right, I must therefore be an idiot
totals 36 races won by 30 trainers
totals 34 races won by 25 trainers.
Many years ago I worked with a "white" south african bloke, he was a smart bloke except for when you disagreed with him..... and then he became a different bloke altogether he was then a "my way or the highway" fella to deal with.
Cheers,
Dan
It's an interesting topic. I agree it does appear that a greater mixture of trainers are earning the win dollars...good for the sport.
I looked at the stats for the 5 Metro meeting in March 2012, before the heat was turned up on swabs.
Races 42........Winning trainers 25.
I dont know how else to spell this out. If (and i have shown that I disagree) we take your stats on face value, that still doesnt show that "BIG stables are less dominant". What I have tried to show you is that I believe its the smaller stables who may have had 2 or 3 winners, that may now have had only 1 winner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
I genuinely dont believe that there have been any"big stables that have been less dominant"
Feel free to provide any evidence...
PS - how do you define "big" stables?I can only think of a handful of trainers(at best), so it shouldnt be too hard for you to bring up the evidence:):)
I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe for one second that this "statistic" could arouse any sort of suspicion.The two periods you have chosen are not representative (in statistical terms) of anything and even if we were to ignore that major flaw in your "theory" the difference is so small as to be insignificant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
G'day Harvey We can make the numbers do what we like, I am sure we could make them do some pretty interesting aerobatics if we choose. I am perplexed as to why you appear to be so thin-skinned when the question arises as to why the more dominant stables may not be doing so well. There could be a myriad of reasons as to why, such as spelling, injuries, illness, animal movements, programming, stable quality, stable support etc. Or they just might not have the cattle. It was you that raised the McCarthy name on this thread. As a healthy supporter of that stable one would expect you to spring to their defence, but you are jumping at shadows. There have been numerous attacks on this stable since I have been on this forum and I have no intention of revisiting any of them, it has been done to death.
There is no doubt that this stable since it has set up shop in Sydney has set the bar very high with some astoundingly successful results. The question raised in this thread was "Big Stables less dominant at present". To give some type of illustration for you, here is a quick run down of some of the more successful stables (NSW) in the last few years using the State Premierships as a resource. You can pick these apart if you choose and cite reasons for changes in figures for various reasons but I cannot find a better way to make any sort of fairer comparison. Question the figures if you choose, but don't pick it apart with your uninhibited fondness for the McCarthy camp. To make the figures resemble some sense I have combined the John/Belinda stables for the current year and Luke for previous years. Remember these are State figures. Cannot find State numbers for Thorn so have used his Metropolitan Premiership figures for 2012/2013
2012/13 McCarthys 555 Runners 121 Winners 21.8% Strike Rate
" Turnbull, S 581 " 101 " 17% "
Thorn 104 " 11 " 10.5% " (Metrop)
" Fitzpatrick, P 278 " 50 " 18%
2011/12 McCarthy, L 667 " 214 " 32% "
" Thorn 374 " 79 " 21% " (State)
" Turnbull, S 973 " 145 " 15% "
" Fitzpatrick, P 529 " 104 " 20% "
2010/11 Fitzpatrick, P 603 " 128 " 21% "
" Turnbull, S 789 " 125 " 16% "
" McCarthy, L 251 " 251 " 33% "
" Thorn 332 " 81 " 24% "
There are two stables here, on these figures alone that are under-performing on previous strike rates. One of them is the stable that you are once again defending even though nobody has made one assertion in that regard one way or another.
Gee Harvey, from my perspective if a stable that is knocking out a consistent 33% strike rate winners to runners ratio, then in my book a stable that has now amassed more family support through regulatory intervention drops down to a paltry 22%, I would be entitled as an observer outside that particular stable to ponder the reasons for such a slump in performances on track.
I am sure you will enlighten me in my errors with rubbery figures, personally I don't enjoy scrutinising every little fact and figure to make a case, it is a waste of my time. However, in regard to the larger/more successful stables figures in decline, I note year in year out Captain Steve Turnbull hits consistent figures ad nauseum. Go figure!
Just read the above post which looks like gooblydegook but to make sense of above figures, read them as follows...
Premiership Year Trainers Name Runners Winners Strike Rate %
Hope that helps. F#@! I hate computers sometimes!
This is the last post i am making on the subject.
From the HRA site:http://www.harness.org.au/ausbreed/r...tttrainers.htm
Belinda in 2012/13: 238 starters for 73 wins - 30.7%
Luke in 2011/12: 683 starters for 216 wins - 31.6%
John in 2012/13 - 480 starters for 85 wins - 20.5%
John in 2011/2012 - 910 starters for 160 wins - 17.6%
Combined totals in 2012/2013: 718 starters for 158 wins - 22%
Combined totals in 2011/2012: 1593 starters for 376 wins - 23.6%
If that's a significant difference, then i just give up!
You can't compare season to season for the fact that each stable has different horse's than the last season raced.A lot of the smaller stables are also getting better quality horse's to race in town so evening up the field so to speak is happening.You also can't add 2 stables to get 1 result they are 2 different entities. If your going to add different stables together to get a result then add Blake Fitz with Paul and Jack Butler with Steve Turnbull as well.
Harvey, you are a little bit hard to keep pinned down to the line the thread alludes to and the moment someone validates an opinion you (a) attempt to alter the evidence provided that you requested and (b) do a Shane Watson, spit the dummy, grab your bat and ball and head home because you do not like the way the pitch is playing. I would have expected more from someone so well connected within the sport as you. Best that you have chosen not to respond to this thread anymore.
For anyone else that was interested in the topic, I would like to point out that on the figures I provided on comment #13 and to make any type of comparison in the terms of a McCarthy stable influence, I illustrated ONLY the NSW state premierships. Harvey has chosen to introduce the National Premiership figures. Chalk and cheese. As we all know there was a period in that time that none of us (except stable clients) had any idea who was training what horses when Luke was sidelined. To give a clear picture of comparisons, I had to combine the 2012/13 stable of Belinda and John simply because Luke was no longer the official trainer. This is where Harvey attempts to change my representation of the true figures in regard to the decrease in strike rate of the McCarthy camp. In the year 2011/12 John McCarthy did not have enough starters in NSW to make it into the top 10 and Belinda had none. Luke topped the State that year. This year (from zero to hero), John is running 2nd, Belinda 8th. Yes Greg, you make a fair point that you can't just add the 2 stables to get one result, but prior to this year neither John or Belinda were set up in NSW, just Luke. Surely you would agree that to illustrate some semblance of a baseline to enable comparisons to previous years there is no other alternative.
Like I said Harvey, pick the figures apart if you choose, but don't distort what I am trying to fairly represent. I am specifically addressing the NSW figures.
Harvey...not all of us are Luke haters. Not all of us sit on the sidelines green-eyed with envy of such a successful stable. Mate, I love the sport to death. I love it in its purest form. I find it a bit difficult to understand how precious and protective you are of one particular stable (McCarthy). You don't need to be.
I have to chuckle at this thread after the last 2 weeks. McArthy has won 5 races at each of the last 2 metro meets and just about all the other races won by bigger stables.
Me thinks the thread should be changed to "Big stables continue to dominate!"
Gotta say I've had a chuckle myself "roosters", more so about the defensive line run by some contributors than the statistics.
Cheers,
Dan
From the stats supplied, Belinda Mac as good a trainer as Luke and better than any other trainer in NSW. I wonder who decides who gets what horses to train. Would Luke and Belinda swap notes or train from their own ideas?
On 'Super' Sunday the name McCarthy wins 6/10 - 60% (including a Trif in one of the Super races). They finish 2nd in two of the others and 3rd in another - only bombed in 1 race (finishing 4th, 5th and 6th). It AINT Healthy
Face it. Luke and Belinda Mc are far superior trainers than all others in the State. Maybe you should not bother nominating
Why is it that there is no comment about the driving tactics of Miracle Mile horses, given that they are presently under scrutiny?.
Is it because of the stable involved?
Go figure
Lee, I think if you read the Gaius Caesar thread, you will see it has not been missed, however there is not much anyone can say whilst the inquiry continues.
http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=105617
What would you suggest? We all sit back and fling shit willy nilly at the McCarthy stable because it is so obvious to you that they have done something that has breached the rules? If you have got something to say then say it. If you don't then wouldn't you think it more prudent to wait for the outcome of the inquiry which has been adjourned so more evidence may be presented. For mine, there has been a flagrant breach of the COT rules that makes their very existence questionable. The funny thing is if Mach Alert had not adopted the tactics it did, the MM would have been a ho hum affair. In reality the drive changed the complexion of the whole race. Did J Mc adopt the tactics he did in the BEST INTERESTS OF HIS OWN HORSE? Was the 3rd elect in the stable driven in the manner it was because Mat knew of what J Mc was going to do? Who really knew what? I don't pretend to know, nor is it not my place to pass judgement. The stipes are doing their job (now) to get to the bottom of it. What more do you want Lee?
Have I missed something, why hasn't this inquiry had it's results published, it,s been a while?
Belinda slugged $1,500
[VVV] Jealousy is a curse Lee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lethal
I would say that going through life with only the one eye would be a not only a massive disadvantage in trying to compete with your peers/contempories to the point where it could well be descibed as "a curse".
It also appears that there are many who suffer this disability unbeknowingly.
Don't be so hard on yourself Dan.
If only your Mum could have bought you a mirror Jamie, your world might look so different!
It appears I mistakenly believed pontificating & moralising had met its demise with the passing of Bryce Courtenay.
???????????????????you were wrong??????????????????????
don't believe it myself!