Wednesday Show

[analyizethis]

At the end of the show on Wednesday there was a caller who was trying to make a point applauding AK and the way he was handled by contesting it to Big Brown.

I think that the relevant question to be asked is "Would the industry rather celebrate a Triple Crown won by a horse trained by a G. Motion/M. Matz type or by Rick Dutrow?"

To me the answer is clearly that we are better off today than in 2008 but maybe others don't agree. Also is it possible that the elimination of the wide spread use of steroids has leveled the playing field and allowed a trainer like Graham to shine?

[blackthroatedwind]

No ( on the steroids part ).

[slotdirt]

Motion has been a pretty darn good trainer for a number of years now. It's like people forget that Graham Motion was the trainer of record for Better Talk Now, Film Maker, and many others before he ever laid a hand on Animal Kingdom. I doubt the steroid conversation has suddenly thrust Motion into a different echelon because he's been one of the best and most well respected Mid-Atlantic trainers for the last decade anyway.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Motion has been a pretty darn good trainer for a number of years now. It's like people forget that Graham Motion was the trainer of record for Better Talk Now, Film Maker, and many others before he ever laid a hand on Animal Kingdom. I doubt the steroid conversation has suddenly thrust Motion into a different echelon because he's been one of the best and most well respected Mid-Atlantic trainers for the last decade anyway.

He also held Bullsbay together for a long time and won the Whitney with him, so it's not like he's turf only.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

He also held Bullsbay together for a long time and won the Whitney with him, so it's not like he's turf only.

Bullsbay as well. Forgot about him.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by analyizethis

At the end of the show on Wednesday there was a caller who was trying to make a point applauding AK and the way he was handled by contesting it to Big Brown.

I think that the relevant question to be asked is "Would the industry rather celebrate a Triple Crown won by a horse trained by a G. Motion/M. Matz type or by Rick Dutrow?"

To me the answer is clearly that we are better off today than in 2008 but maybe others don't agree. Also is it possible that the elimination of the wide spread use of steroids has leveled the playing field and allowed a trainer like Graham to shine?

There's a lot to talk about regarding that call, and I'll state as an opening salvo that I feel Bonnie was erroneous with much of her rhetoric. For starters, let's address Graham Motion's career up to now:

Career Thoroughbred Racing Summary:

Starts Firsts Seconds Thirds Earnings
7,897 1,502 1,207 1,103 $ 64,002,284

Summary by Year:

Year Starts Firsts Seconds Thirds Earnings

2011 160 32 31 25 $ 4,066,359
2010 525 97 80 80 $ 5,310,273
2009 644 102 108 99 $ 5,389,192
2008 674 115 120 104 $ 6,659,959
2007 645 145 94 81 $ 6,561,404
2006 519 90 81 66 $ 5,161,890
2005 551 100 73 67 $ 4,900,801
2004 424 81 65 43 $ 4,358,674
2003 318 55 47 53 $ 2,822,266
2002 350 66 57 43 $ 2,772,473
2001 447 86 75 61 $ 3,162,005
2000 517 97 82 78 $ 2,942,732
1999 500 95 68 61 $ 2,559,845
1998 350 76 51 64 $ 2,202,748
1997 316 74 47 40 $ 1,811,848
1996 393 74 51 54 $ 1,508,426
1995 276 60 38 38 $ 965,706
1994 175 36 27 20 $ 448,959
1993 113 21 12 26 $ 396,724

He's on his way to his best year in earnings obviously with the big Derby bump, but based on wins and earnings previous to '11, his biggest years came smack dab in the middle of the 'steroid awareness' era. Mainstream America might not have been aware, but let's not pretend Graham Motion wasn't highly effective or a big training success before Saturday.

The myriad of misunderstandings demonstrated in that call Wednesday were eye-opening, and displayed a basic premise that seems to tinge every discussion in this area: If someone has a likeable personality they are automatically elevated above reproach, and those with personas perceived as worthy of disdain are conversely impuned without due process.

I didn't have time to get to it, but I assume Bonnie would have been shocked to learn that Motion and Matz most certainly employed steroids where they thought appropriate for their horses, as did any trainer in the game for more than 40 years. And why wouldn't they? As an FYI, Big Brown wasn't the first horse to win the Derby and Preakness while utilizing a steroid regimine. He may have been the 25th. (That would make Barbaro perhaps the 23rd.)

The idea that Animal Kingdom is a more admirable Triple Crown candidate than Big Brown because Motion trains Animal Kingdom is silly. Had Big Brown been able to win the Belmont, he'd have been just as deserving of the laurels that go with the achievement as those that came before or those that will follow.

[ateamstupid]

Motion could train circles around Matz.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Motion could train circles around Matz.

Without a doubt.

[philcski]

Great post Steve. Motion was and always will be a great trainer.

In the same vein, our resident horse trainer is far from a cheat but he used to use steroids when appropriate. It's far from the biggest drug problem in the game, which is why it's kind of laughable that it was such a witch hunt (versus guys like Dutrow who will employ anything under the sun, then when they get caught they just run the horses in their assistants' names.)

[Cannon Shell]

The idea that Motion doesn't medicate his horses the same way that most trainers do is laughable.

If you didn't know any better and you read the stories post-Derby you would think that Animal Kingdom was some sort of organic horse. I especially liked the part where his breeding was lauded while ignoring the fact his sire was trained by a guy who many thought at the time was in the midst of the greatest juicing display in history. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't but since perception now trumps reality in this sport he actually may be a perfect example of what the agenda driven call a sire who got a far better opportunity because of medication. It's all bs either way, what medication the horse received has no bearing on his genetic makeup.

I think Motion is a terrific trainer with a great set up at Fairhill. He did a super job getting this horse ready. But the idea that sport is somehow better off because he won the Derby as opposed to a different trainer is silly. But like most others things associated with the game, if people repeat it long enough, most will eventually take it as fact despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Kasept

There's a lot to talk about regarding that call, and I'll state as an opening salvo that I feel Bonnie was erroneous with much of her rhetoric. For starters, let's address Graham Motion's career up to now:

Career Thoroughbred Racing Summary:

Starts Firsts Seconds Thirds Earnings
7,897 1,502 1,207 1,103 $ 64,002,284

Summary by Year:

Year Starts Firsts Seconds Thirds Earnings

2011 160 32 31 25 $ 4,066,359
2010 525 97 80 80 $ 5,310,273
2009 644 102 108 99 $ 5,389,192
2008 674 115 120 104 $ 6,659,959
2007 645 145 94 81 $ 6,561,404
2006 519 90 81 66 $ 5,161,890
2005 551 100 73 67 $ 4,900,801
2004 424 81 65 43 $ 4,358,674
2003 318 55 47 53 $ 2,822,266
2002 350 66 57 43 $ 2,772,473
2001 447 86 75 61 $ 3,162,005
2000 517 97 82 78 $ 2,942,732
1999 500 95 68 61 $ 2,559,845
1998 350 76 51 64 $ 2,202,748
1997 316 74 47 40 $ 1,811,848
1996 393 74 51 54 $ 1,508,426
1995 276 60 38 38 $ 965,706
1994 175 36 27 20 $ 448,959
1993 113 21 12 26 $ 396,724

He's on his way to his best year in earnings obviously with the big Derby bump, but based on wins and earnings previous to '11, his biggest years came smack dab in the middle of the 'steroid awareness' era. Mainstream America might not have been aware, but let's not pretend Graham Motion wasn't highly effective or a big training success before Saturday.

The myriad of misunderstandings demonstrated in that call Wednesday were eye-opening, and displayed a basic premise that seems to tinge every discussion in this area: If someone has a likeable personality they are automatically elevated above reproach, and those with personas perceived as worthy of disdain are conversely impuned without due process.

I didn't have time to get to it, but I assume Bonnie would have been shocked to learn that Motion and Matz most certainly employed steroids where they thought appropriate for their horses, as did any trainer in the game for more than 40 years. And why wouldn't they? As an FYI, Big Brown wasn't the first horse to win the Derby and Preakness while utilizing a steroid regimine. He may have been the 25th. (That would make Barbaro perhaps the 23rd.)

The idea that Animal Kingdom is a more admirable Triple Crown candidate than Big Brown because Motion trains Animal Kingdom is silly. Had Big Brown been able to win the Belmont, he'd have been just as deserving of the laurels that go with the achievement as those that came before or those that will follow.

Wouldn't this be far more applicable if the extent of the public distaste for Dutrow stemmed JUST from his supposed steroid use on his horses? The whole steroid debate was ridiculous because the average sports fan equates equine steroid usage to human and they couldn't be more different.

The public perception of Rick Dutrow is awful. There's no reason for it not to be either. Motion is a far more embraceable figure than Dutrow, and whether that's right or not, it is a fact.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Wouldn't this be far more applicable if the extent of the public distaste for Dutrow stemmed JUST from his supposed steroid use on his horses? The whole steroid debate was ridiculous because the average sports fan equates equine steroid usage to human and they couldn't be more different.

The public perception of Rick Dutrow is awful. There's no reason for it not to be either. Motion is a far more embraceable figure than Dutrow, and whether that's right or not, it is a fact.

You are absolutely correct that Motion is a far more palatable winner than Dutrow. But what gets me is the idea that somehow this horse is proof that the anti-medication people are right. It is though he was playing by different rules than others when he most certainly wasn't.

The point could be made that the current rules aren't evil and Motion is proof that if you are careful and don't push the envelope and stay within the limits our medication rules are fine. The biggest problem in regards to medication is the lack of penalty for repeat offenders and finding a solution to the 40% trainer issue.