Reality Check For the McCarthy Paranoia!!!

[racefair]

I've highlighted my opinion on that Ash in prior posts and the reasons why I have formed that opinion. They are based on fact.
I don't mean to be disrespectful to you, however I just know that you don't have a clue if you believe that factors such as swimming holes, tracks, scales, yardsticks, professionalism etc. can provide the improvement that LM gets.
Don't you think that other trainers have these facilities or knowledge as well?
I comment because some posts imply that LM is the only person in history that knows how to train a horse. That's wrong and disrespectful to all current trainers and those of the past.
So now I ask you... specifically highlight what LM could be doing to be able to improve horses by so much in the time that he can do it?

[Old Frank]

Please don't use the word 'fact' Racefair when you don't quote any such facts.

You cannot use the word 'fact' when your only casting an opinion, and in most cases when you've attempted to use facts, they merely are 'aspersion'.

None of us have facts to Luke's success, we can only quote only contributing factors helping him towards such success, however you and the guy's oppossed to that are only claiming opinion, or at times innuendo and casting aspersion to his success.

None of you have 'fact', that is a fact.

[Maorisidol]

Please don't use the word 'fact' Racefair when you don't quote any such facts.

You cannot use the word 'fact' when your only casting an opinion, and in most cases when you've attempted to use facts, they merely are 'aspersion'.

None of us have facts to Luke's success, we can only quote only contributing factors helping him towards such success, however you and the guy's oppossed to that are only claiming opinion, or at times innuendo and casting aspersion to his success.

None of you have 'fact', that is a fact.

Quite correct Old Frank well said.

[racefair]

Please don't use the word 'fact' Racefair when you don't quote any such facts.

You cannot use the word 'fact' when your only casting an opinion, and in most cases when you've attempted to use facts, they merely are 'aspersion'.

None of us have facts to Luke's success, we can only quote only contributing factors helping him towards such success, however you and the guy's oppossed to that are only claiming opinion, or at times innuendo and casting aspersion to his success.

None of you have 'fact', that is a fact.

Thanks for your reply Nathan. I was speaking of the facts and data that we have to work with. i.e. the percentage improvement, strike rate etc. And we can benchmark against those statistics of present and past trainers in Harness Racing. We can also benchmark against other sports such as Thoroughbred Racing, Human Athletics etc.
There are alot of facts that we can form an opinion from. One fact is that LM has made/is making improvements in horses of the magnitude that you would get if you were to use performance enhancing drugs/treatments. Read books on the subject of Drugs in Racehorses/Athletes and see what type of improvements they get. Then also read books on the subject on the different training methods of Racehorses/Athletes and see the progression of improvement they get in the time that they get it.
Another fact is that the contributing factors that you and some others are referring to, won’t exclusively or in combination, get the type of improvements/results that we are seeing. Show me facts to the contrary.
I've provided some references in prior posts, however I encourage you to do your own research.
So then the only question that I have, based on history, facts and alot of other things is whether LM’s improvements/results are through legal, illegal, and/or undetectable methods.
I’d love for someone to influence me otherwise with some facts on how else such improvements/results could be made. I’ve asked before and no one has even made up a reason.
Does this make sense or am I missing something?

[racefair]

Quite correct Old Frank well said.

So now I ask you... specifically highlight what LM could be doing to be able to improve horses by so much in the time that he can do it?

I've missed a few replies Ash. Anything on this one?

[aussiebreno]

Thanks for your reply Nathan. I was speaking of the facts and data that we have to work with. i.e. the percentage improvement Minor, strike rate Nobodies allowed to improve? Look at swimming suits world records left right and centre etc. And we can benchmark against those statistics of present and past trainers in Harness Racing. We can also benchmark against other sports such as Thoroughbred Racing Kerryn Manning 33%, Peter Moody 20% (or whatever it is) blows that theory, Human Athletics Sally Pearson 19/20 (or similar freakish strike rate) last year, Luke has a fair way to go etc.
There are alot of facts that we can form an opinion from. One fact is that LM has made/is making improvements in horses of the magnitude that you would get if you were to use performance enhancing drugs/treatments. Read books on the subject of Drugs in Racehorses/Athletes and see what type of improvements they get. Then also read books on the subject on the different training methods of Racehorses/Athletes and see the progression of improvement they get in the time that they get it.
Another fact is that the contributing factors that you and some others are referring to, won’t exclusively or in combination, get the type of improvements/results that we are seeing. Show me facts to the contrary.
I've provided some references in prior posts, however I encourage you to do your own research.
So then the only question that I have, based on history, facts and alot of other things is whether LM’s improvements/results are through legal, illegal, and/or undetectable methods.
I’d love for someone to influence me otherwise with some facts on how else such improvements/results could be made. I’ve asked before and no one has even made up a reason. You've chosen to ignore or debate. Reasons have still be presented
Does this make sense or am I missing something?

You've all but said you think McCarthy is using drugs. It's a dangerous accusation on such a public medium and one that is unfair on McCarthy imo. Even if he later produces positive swabs, I think people throwing around a guys name like this is pretty disrespectful.

[Old Frank]

Thanks for your reply Nathan. I was speaking of the facts and data that we have to work with. i.e. the percentage improvement, strike rate etc. And we can benchmark against those statistics of present and past trainers in Harness Racing. We can also benchmark against other sports such as Thoroughbred Racing, Human Athletics etc.
There are alot of facts that we can form an opinion from. One fact is that LM has made/is making improvements in horses of the magnitude that you would get if you were to use performance enhancing drugs/treatments. Read books on the subject of Drugs in Racehorses/Athletes and see what type of improvements they get. Then also read books on the subject on the different training methods of Racehorses/Athletes and see the progression of improvement they get in the time that they get it.
Another fact is that the contributing factors that you and some others are referring to, won’t exclusively or in combination, get the type of improvements/results that we are seeing. Show me facts to the contrary.
I've provided some references in prior posts, however I encourage you to do your own research.
So then the only question that I have, based on history, facts and alot of other things is whether LM’s improvements/results are through legal, illegal, and/or undetectable methods.
I’d love for someone to influence me otherwise with some facts on how else such improvements/results could be made. I’ve asked before and no one has even made up a reason.
Does this make sense or am I missing something?

Racefair,

Thanks for your comments.

I was going over my thoughts to a response, but first and foremost I'll note a few observations.

Post #31 you comment about being "disrespectful to all current trainers and those of the past", yet aren't you taking quite the hypocritical position yourself of disrespecting Luke by casting aspersion and innuendo on Luke's results from being anything but performance enhancing based?

Secondly, "innocent until proven guilty" is the age-old adage we have all grown up and is 'apparently' still what the law of society is based upon however listening to you and going by your position (and of others on here also), Luke is guilty until proven innocent.

You keep asking everyone for vinidication as to Luke's success, yet this is only a deflection from yourself for not having any 'fact' yourself in which to refute his success.

I have put forth numerous points in different threads I believe would help contribute to that success as producing winners takes numerous factors to come together consistently.

I personally am an unabashed McCarthy fan and haven't hidden the fact, however I don't think his success is anything I haven't seen before either here in NSW or in other states.

David Aiken (absolute champion bloke and one of my all-time favourite trainers) trained more city winners in his prime, the Fitzpatricks followed and yes, McCarthy appears to be on his way to beating them, however he's not there yet so we can't comment on "what if's" scenario's. The Dixon's in Brisbane appear to churn out hundreds of winners also.

For anything we say or write however, it all still comes back to the original point - McCarthy's winning races, running what appears to be a tip-top operation, has no positive swabs issues or driving suspensions and is not involved in any race-fixing issues, yet jealous mugs want to dismiss his success and yes, if you wish to dispel his success, this is your right, but don't claim to base it on 'fact' when you a.) have none and b.) can't provide any to dispel any issues as we all currently are aware, are none.

This is not meant for any argument, I am simply answering your comments, however don't deflect your stance with trying to have people justify Luke's innocence when their not the ones trying to dispel it in the first instance such as your doing.

[zipzap]

You've all but said you think McCarthy is using drugs. It's a dangerous accusation on such a public medium and one that is unfair on McCarthy imo. Even if he later produces positive swabs, I think people throwing around a guys name like this is pretty disrespectful.

What a incredible part of your post, i doubt they can be called disrespectful if what you say occurs.i am not going to buy into is he or not debate. one thing i will say is lukes team will in the near future start coming back to the field in a big hurry that is a no brainer.

[Old Frank]

Thanks for your reply Nathan. I was speaking of the facts and data that we have to work with. i.e. the percentage improvement, strike rate etc. And we can benchmark against those statistics of present and past trainers in Harness Racing. We can also benchmark against other sports such as Thoroughbred Racing, Human Athletics etc.
There are alot of facts that we can form an opinion from. One fact is that LM has made/is making improvements in horses of the magnitude that you would get if you were to use performance enhancing drugs/treatments. Read books on the subject of Drugs in Racehorses/Athletes and see what type of improvements they get. Then also read books on the subject on the different training methods of Racehorses/Athletes and see the progression of improvement they get in the time that they get it.
Another fact is that the contributing factors that you and some others are referring to, won’t exclusively or in combination, get the type of improvements/results that we are seeing. Show me facts to the contrary.
I've provided some references in prior posts, however I encourage you to do your own research.
So then the only question that I have, based on history, facts and alot of other things is whether LM’s improvements/results are through legal, illegal, and/or undetectable methods.
I’d love for someone to influence me otherwise with some facts on how else such improvements/results could be made. I’ve asked before and no one has even made up a reason.
Does this make sense or am I missing something?

Do you know Racefair, I genuinally don't believe Luke is improving horses to the level you or others are insinuating. In a generalised view, your all insinuating he has sent these horses off the charts, yet in my view, it's simply a case of a stable in a 'purple patch'.

How come he doesn't win every race? He had no winners Tuesday just gone, so where's the improvement?

I don't know you from a bar of soap, but I assume your an industry man and if not, you've still probably heard the term on race coverage at times 'hit their mark', well maybe the majority of McCarthy's team through the first part of the stables season success may be ready 'to hit their mark' and not carry on their winning percentages in the back half of the season?

Horses transfer from trainer to trainer, always have, always will and like all situations, some acheive success and some don't, that's life. I've seen horses leave 'top trainers' and do a great job elsewhere as much as I've seen them leave top trainers and go no good. I've asked this question before, maybe the horses that have left 'top trainers' to come to Luke are only running up to the ability potential they showed elsewhere, yet because the horse transferred to him at the right time he's enjoying the benefits of the horse on the right mark and at the right time and the horse is now running to it's maximum ability. Improvement could come with Luke's better driving as in my opinion, he's got the lot covered at Menangle by a long way.

Some smart ass on here the other day tried to insinuate Luke's success using and comparing to the 'Lou Pena' scenario yet that's vastly different (and bullshit!), Luke isn't taking 1.52 and 1.53 type claimers and within 1-2 weeks having them back at the Meadowlands winning in 1.48 and change in better class company!!! That is a complete and utter farce and that simply isn't the case here with McCarthy's results.

Comments made on here also have referred to the times they are running. Gentleman as a whole, get with the program, it's 2012, not 1967 Robin Dundee 2.00 Miracle Miles. Menangle has changed the dimension of racing and our thought process has to completely about face and accept that if you have a horse now and it can't go 1.53 for a mile at Menangle, it won't do the job for you.

I am only generalising again, but the majority of racing at HP used to be 2100m so acceptable mile rates of 1.58/1.59 were considered good going. Now a 2300m event goes a lot quicker so it's only logical that a 1600m event will be quicker again. From what I see and I could be wrong, mile racing is more dominant than ever at Menangle so our base platform for assessment is vastly different.

You made dismissive comments about Luke's facilities and the contribution they would have to his success. Well Bart Cummings always said a "happy horse is a good horse" so if Luke makes the horses feel better through great facilities, both in training and for resting well it can only help I would assume? You further questioned as to don't all trainers have access to all this? Well in actual fact, no they don't.

I know a stack of trainers that train out of shit facilities, not worthy of training a dog to sit and generally complented with shit staff (stacked with weekend warriors!) and most of the time, have shit stock in the first instance that wouldn't be able to compete with quality stock that Luke receives and subsequently turns out. I would also hazard a guess that Luke cull's them at home pretty quickly or with maybe only a trial or very limited starts if he feels that won't stack up to his requirements, hence his percentages of winners / place getters should always be strong. (What's the old adage, how do you make a slow horse fast - put it on the float!)

Smaller trainers will punch around their stock all the time as they need the training fees, (I have personally heard some say these very comments) so fundamentally their pinching money from their owners, yet the horse is limited in ability or already have hit it's mark. Trainers using this methodology only play into the hands of guy's like McCarthy or a Fitzpatricks also who have horses consistently on the 'up' or 'improve'. They have a big galloping trainers mentaility to a degree and overall very happy owners as they don't abuse the owners trust by wasting their money on a slow one, they sack it and allow the owner the opportunity to source a new one. Slow horses and bullshit trainers are what driver owners away, not winning trainers such as Luke. There wouldn't be an owner in Luke's barn upset one iota I could safely assume!

I think everyone's got carried away with Luke's so-called 'improvement', yet I actually feel his success is down to numerous contributing factors (methods, feed, training facilities, quality staff working towards the common goal, quality/right horses / right mark / driving, etc, etc) all coming together for him and now consistently working well.

[M.John]

Of course some of lukes horse are going to start coming back to the field. They will get up to high in their grades, but guess what will happen than? He's put a lot of extra cash in a lot of good owners pockets so they will duly go out and buy him another horse just as good on a low mark and he will more than likely do the same job as before. The success he's had already will ensure that he has a good turnover of stock regulary and as I've said before, he's not stupid, if they can't go thru their grades he won't hold onto them foe long, that's probably the biggest reason in my opinion why he's so fa ahead is because he is a great judge of a horse. All you whinging whining sooks out there that hate to see someone succeed don't see the behind the scenes were luke may have a horse that doesn't go an good and he simply sacks it. A lot of other stables will keep them horses because at the end of every month they get a nice cheque. Yes a lot of trainers bull shit owners and farm horses for the fees. In my opinion that's were Luke is so far ahead, he's smarter.