Excellent Angle: D Wayne Off

Rupert Pupkin · #1 05-22-2010, 07:34 PM

Did you guys see the horse that just won the 7th race at Hollywood Park? D Wayne had been training the horse and even though the horse had a problem he just kept running the horse anyway. The horse runs 8th beaten by 23 lengths in her debut. Then Lukas runs her again 2 1/2 weeks later and she runs 10th beaten by 32 lengths. Then he brings her back a month later and she runs dead last beaten by 17 lengths. She had to basically ease 3 times in a row for him to figure out that she needed time off.

Anyway, they took the horse away from Lukas. They gave the horse a break and gave her to Baffert. Baffert brings her back today after a 9 month layoff and she wins easily in the 7th race at Hollywood Park. Her name is Rapport. She only improved by 25 lengths switching from Lukas to Baffert.

This isn't the first horse that Thoroughbred Legends took away from Lukas. There was one last week that they moved to Baffert and that horse ran a good 3rd. I don't know if they have taken all of their horses away from Lukas or just a few.

Indian Charlie · #2 05-22-2010, 07:59 PM

That reminds me of a filly, who's name escapes me, that ran about ten years ago or so for Lukas.

Claimboxx, over at the old AOL boards, told me this filly was a cripple and that if she wasn't scratched out of a race she was entered in, she'd probably be dead by the end of the race.

Sure enough, she ran, broke down, and was euthanized.

cakes44 · #3 05-23-2010, 09:49 PM

Check out New Madrid's PPs.

cakes44 · #4 05-23-2010, 09:59 PM

Who would you send your horse to?

1.Dallas Stewart
2.Mark Hennig
3.D. Wayne Lukas
4.Jamie Sanders (Teuflesburg)

declansharbor · #5 05-23-2010, 10:01 PM

Ut-ohhhhhh

VOL JACK · #6 05-23-2010, 10:22 PM

I think Tueflesberg would have been the best of that 2007 crop had he been with a competent trainer..and that is a mouth full.

Danzig · #7 05-23-2010, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cakes44

Who would you send your horse to?

1.Dallas Stewart
2.Mark Hennig
3.D. Wayne Lukas
4.Jamie Sanders (Teuflesburg)

hmmm. another interesting angle.

trackrat59 · #8 05-24-2010, 12:11 AM

I can't hold back on this Lukas thing. I recall when Union City broke down in the Preakness. I was told later that 'ole D. Wayne knew that horse was not 100%. I don't think he gives a darn about his horses as long as he has something to run in the big races. I would be affraid to give him a Shetland Pony to care for.

eajinabi · #9 05-24-2010, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trackrat59

I can't hold back on this Lukas thing. I recall when Union City broke down in the Preakness. I was told later that 'ole D. Wayne knew that horse was not 100%. I don't think he gives a darn about his horses as long as he has something to run in the big races. I would be affraid to give him a Shetland Pony to care for.

and yet any and every trainer in the country would trade thier resume for his anytime.

Rupert Pupkin · #10 05-24-2010, 01:59 AM

I just noticed D Wayne is having a rough time at Churchill this meet. He has the worst numbers of any trainer at the meet. He is 0 for 25.

Indian Charlie · #11 05-24-2010, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eajinabi

and yet any and every trainer in the country would trade thier resume for his anytime.

Yeah, that's real great if you don't give a crap about your horses.

I think that's the point, btw.

And yet, you don't seem to understand.

eajinabi · #12 05-24-2010, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Yeah, that's real great if you don't give a crap about your horses.

I think that's the point, btw.

And yet, you don't seem to understand.

Yeah you are right. I rather put those horses in the hands of a juicer and then present it as an illusion of a healthy horse.

Rupert Pupkin · #13 05-24-2010, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eajinabi

Yeah you are right. I rather put those horses in the hands of a juicer and then present it as an illusion of a healthy horse.

One of the main reasons Lukas did so well in the 80s was because he was one of the only guys using steroids. His 2 year olds were the size of 3 year olds. That's why he did so well with 2 year olds. And before you knew it, Lukas was spending $80-$100 million a year on horses while most other big trainers were spending $5 million a year. When you're one of the only guys using steroids and you're outspending everyone by 10x, it's no surprise that he won a ton of races.

After everyone else started using steroids, Lukas' edge was gone.

Indian Charlie · #14 05-24-2010, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eajinabi

Yeah you are right. I rather put those horses in the hands of a juicer and then present it as an illusion of a healthy horse.

Clearly.

Rupert Pupkin · #15 05-24-2010, 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eajinabi

and yet any and every trainer in the country would trade thier resume for his anytime.

What good is a resume if you don't have a reputation to go with it? His reputation is about as poor as it gets and his peers do not respect his ability as a trainer.

When all is said and done I think Baffert and Pletcher will have more Derby wins and Triple crown wins than Lukas. But I don't think that Triple Crown wins are necessarily the most important thing. Frankel never won a Derby but he was still a great trainer. Frankel is 100x more respected than Lukas. There is no comparison.

How many times did Charlie Whittingham win the Kentucky Derby? He won it twice but he hardly ever ran horses in the Derby. He wanted his horses to last. He wouldn't run an injured horse and risk their career just to take a shot at the Derby. Whittingham's Derby record is more impressive than Lukas IMO. He won it twice and he barely ever ran horses in it.

3kings · #16 05-24-2010, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eajinabi

and yet any and every trainer in the country would trade thier resume for his anytime.

In the last 8-10 years almost everyone would trade their resumes. He hasn't done much except run horses in wrong spots in the major races so he could be in the spotlight. Most of these horses probably would have been better served being developed slowly than rushed so that Lukas could still seem relevant.

Kasept · #17 05-24-2010, 06:17 AM

When he's gone from the business, it will be interesting to see how his legacy is ultimately written. Going unmentioned in this very fair discussion is that in addition to the well-documented litany of horses he's destroyed, Lukas also is well known for having pillaged the bank accounts of several owners. His methods have successfully driven many well-heeled parties from the sport.

pucknut · #18 05-24-2010, 07:42 AM

blinkers were taken off that horse as well
anyone have any info why shug mcgauhey has gone so sour
that man was great at one time
now whenever he has a fav its a toss out

Rupert Pupkin · #19 05-24-2010, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3kings

In the last 8-10 years almost everyone would trade their resumes. He hasn't done much except run horses in wrong spots in the major races so he could be in the spotlight. Most of these horses probably would have been better served being developed slowly than rushed so that Lukas could still seem relevant.

Yes, that is exactly right. That is what I admire about guys like Whittingham. Whittingham knew that most of his horses would be better served being developed slowly so that they would last. But by the same token, when Whittingham had a great horse that was sound, that he knew could handle the rigors of the Derby, he would run.

That is what separates the good trainers from the bad trainers. The good trainers listen to their horses and let the horse tell them what they're ready to do. The good trainers don't simply run in the big race no matter what simply because the horse is eligible.

A good example is Todd Pletcher. He could have run Rule, Interactiff, and Aikenite in the Derby. These horses were all in the top 20 but Todd didn't run them because he knew the Derby was not a good spot for those horses. He wasn't going to run just for the sake of running. He's knows that these horses are good horses and will be very useful in other spots.

If D Wayne trained those horses, I'm sure he would have run them all.

eajinabi · #20 05-24-2010, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, that is exactly right. That is what I admire about guys like Whittingham. Whittingham knew that most of his horses would be better served being developed slowly so that they would last. But by the same token, when Whittingham had a great horse that was sound, that he knew could handle the rigors of the Derby, he would run.

That is what separates the good trainers from the bad trainers. The good trainers listen to their horses and let the horse tell them what they're ready to do. The good trainers don't simply run in the big race no matter what simply because the horse is eligible.

A good example is Todd Pletcher. He could have run Rule, Interactiff, and Aikenite in the Derby. These horses were all in the top 20 but Todd didn't run them because he knew the Derby was not a good spot for those horses. He wasn't going to run just for the sake of running. He's knows that these horses are good horses and will be very useful in other spots.

If D Wayne trained those horses, I'm sure he would have run them all.

I agree Whitingham was a trainer with great talent. Trainers today give thier horses long layoffs and juice thier horses but it does nothing to extend thier careers. How many top horses have you seen run past 10 lifetime starts in thier career nowadays.

Lukas method of training did not involve lightly racing and long extended layoffs. He liked to run horses in races (often races they did not belong in) into form. Spain is a good example of that. So If he is 0 for 25 at CD meet does this attribute to him juicing his horses too much or not at all?

How does trainers like Steve Asmussen, Rudy Rodriguez, Mike Mitchell, Jeff Mullins etc get a pass while Lukas is singled-out like a criminal.