Wayne Catalano-Frank Calebrese

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

I am sure there were, and will continue to be. So, here's a simple question -- what should be done? Yes, we all know the discussion, but you are not going to throw someone out of the business and deprive them of their livelihood because "you just know" or because "it is not possible" and so on. Throw someone out for proof, evidence and facts.

Eric

In the old days the stewards would 'lean' on them a little.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

In the old days the stewards would 'lean' on them a little.

And you know what Chuck -- I am all for that. Zero tolerence, level playing field, uniform medication policy and rules . . . all for it. Pass it and we are all set. Until then, let's not make this the Salem witch trials regardless of what "we know".

Lean and keep leaning. I hope it makes the game exactly what it should and could be.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

In the old days the stewards would 'lean' on them a little.

They could put the barn under surveillance. They do that out here in California in rare instances. The problem is that it is very expensive. In addition, they don't have any real incentive to nail a top trainer. It is actually very bad "PR" when a top trainer gets caught cheating.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

They could put the barn under surveillance. They do that out here in California in rare instances. The problem is that it is very expensive. In addition, they don't have any real incentive to nail a top trainer. It is actually very bad "PR" when a top trainer gets caught cheating.

Is it bad publicty/PR when, let's say Scott Lake or Cole Norman gets caught? Or Todd Pletcher?

Eric

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

They could put the barn under surveillance. They do that out here in California in rare instances. The problem is that it is very expensive. In addition, they don't have any real incentive to nail a top trainer. It is actually very bad "PR" when a top trainer gets caught cheating.

They do it in Kentucky as well.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

Is it bad publicty/PR when, let's say Scott Lake or Cole Norman gets caught? Or Todd Pletcher?

Eric

Yes, it is very bad publicity but that's not going to stop them from nailing a guy if he has a positive test.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, it is very bad publicity but that's not going to stop them from nailing a guy if he has a positive test.

I agree. I just think we are still seeing a double standard so to speak.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

I heard something interesting several years ago. I can't confirm for a fact that this is true, but I would have no reason not to believe it. I heard that when the racing board finds a way to detect some new illegal drug, they will post a warning telling everyone that they are now able to detect this drug. In other words, they don't want people to cheat. They will try to stop people from cheating, but they would rather warn people and get them to stop, as oppose to sending out no warning and catching a bunch of people.

[Scav]

I'll say this, if they win the 6th or 8th today, I am on everyone else's bandwagon, I would be surprised if Dreaming of Liz cracked half the field, and the other one might suck up for 4th......

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I heard something interesting several years ago. I can't confirm for a fact that this is true, but I would have no reason not to believe it. I heard that when the racing board finds a way to detect some new illegal drug, they will post a warning telling everyone that they are now able to detect this drug. In other words, they don't want people to cheat. They will try to stop people from cheating, but they would rather warn people and get them to stop, as oppose to sending out no warning and catching a bunch of people.

I don't know that this is the case in every case, but it certainly is true in some cases. The Meadowlands in NJ announced in advance when the "black box" was going into effect -- it was on all the condition sheets/books, BB's, etc. I think the same might have been true to EPO, but I don't remember. I would think the motivation is to avoid 50 positive tests -- which really speaks to what % of people are not hay and water.

Wasn't this the case recently (in the last few years) in NY as well?

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

And you know what Chuck -- I am all for that. Zero tolerence, level playing field, uniform medication policy and rules . . . all for it. Pass it and we are all set. Until then, let's not make this the Salem witch trials regardless of what "we know".

Lean and keep leaning. I hope it makes the game exactly what it should and could be.

Eric

They dont anymore. Everybody lawyers up and the stews cant be bothered. Back in the day they would simply call the guy in, tell him he is winning too much and either slow down or hit the road.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

They could put the barn under surveillance. They do that out here in California in rare instances. The problem is that it is very expensive. In addition, they don't have any real incentive to nail a top trainer. It is actually very bad "PR" when a top trainer gets caught cheating.

Surveillance only works when they know what they are surveilling for. Otherwise it is just a nuisance.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

I don't know that this is the case in every case, but it certainly is true in some cases. The Meadowlands in NJ announced in advance when the "black box" was going into effect -- it was on all the condition sheets/books, BB's, etc. I think the same might have been true to EPO, but I don't remember. I would think the motivation is to avoid 50 positive tests -- which really speaks to what % of people are not hay and water.

Wasn't this the case recently (in the last few years) in NY as well?

Eric

Lots of states put out the word that they had an EPO test and were going to start testing as of November 1 or something like that. Of course they didnt either have a test or it didnt work because there were no positives and EPO is something that should be able to be found for quite a while. I still think they were just scaring guys into stopping.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

They dont anymore. Everybody lawyers up and the stews cant be bothered. Back in the day they would simply call the guy in, tell him he is winning too much and either slow down or hit the road.

Back in the ol' days, yeah, I know. Today, yes, different issue. I also think the racing comissions have less power today. More and more it seems like a lot of bark and little bite.

I do however like some of what I see in the harness industry though. I understand it's different, however, some of the measures are working and making progress.

Eric

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Thomas M. Amoss $2,018,748 32%
Basically did at FG what Catalano does in Chicago.
W. Bret Calhoun $1,745,865 30%
This guy has always been suspect
Jamie Ness $1,129,774 35%
Same with this one
Stephanie S. Beattie $941,075 37%
Don't get me started
Brian A. Lynch $903,821 33%
Stronach's b.itch. Check the win percentage at non-Magna tracks.

The others have ridiculously high win percentages and he SMOKES them. It's not even close. It's outlandish. It's like Jesus is his co-pilot.



Wayne M. Catalano $849,249 43%

Superstar Trainer 2008 Update as of today

Brian Lynch...can't find info. Off the map!!!
Thomas M. Amoss $3,879,602 29%
W. Bret Calhoun $3,711,716 28%
Jamie Ness $2,179,160 32%
Stephanie S. Beattie $2,009,486 36%

Wayne M. Catalano 2,002,543 39%

All had drops in percentage.

Calhoun and Amoss brought home some serious coin.

Catalano was 34.9% after the hot streak at Arlington...38.5% for the meet....56% wp percentage. Still a ridiculous number yet not as damning.

What I'd like to know is how many trainers with over 200 runners in a year have held a winning percentage that high.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Superstar Trainer 2008 Update as of today

Brian Lynch...can't find info. Off the map!!!
Thomas M. Amoss $3,879,602 29%
W. Bret Calhoun $3,711,716 28%
Jamie Ness $2,179,160 32%
Stephanie S. Beattie $2,009,486 36%

Wayne M. Catalano 2,002,543 39%

All had drops in percentage.

Calhoun and Amoss brought home some serious coin.

Catalano was 34.9% after the hot streak at Arlington...38.5% for the meet....56% wp percentage. Still a ridiculous number yet not as damning.
What I'd like to know is how many trainers with over 200 runners in a year have held a winning percentage that high.

I have to admit that I had to throw up the white flag from this thread back in May. What really changed my opinion ( besides Coach calling me a dupe and an idiot) was the ridiculous 1) lack of people who would claim off them because 2) Horses rarely, if ever won, let alone finished in the coin first off the claim. And if you were smart enough to run them right back off the claim and run decently, then the second time out you were really screwed.

[philcski]

This was a fascinating thread, I don't know what to make of these guys professionally but I know I don't like them, especially after his comments on Million Day.

[Split Rock]

[quote=Coach Pants]Superstar Trainer 2008 Update as of today

Brian Lynch...can't find info. Off the map!!!
Thomas M. Amoss $3,879,602 29%
W. Bret Calhoun $3,711,716 28%
Jamie Ness $2,179,160 32%
Stephanie S. Beattie $2,009,486 36%

Wayne M. Catalano 2,002,543 39%

All had drops in percentage.

Calhoun and Amoss brought home some serious coin.

Catalano was 34.9% after the hot streak at Arlington...38.5% for the meet....56% wp percentage. Still a ridiculous number yet not as damning.

What I'd like to know is how many trainers with over 200 runners in a year have held a winning percentage that high.[/QUOTE]

NONE

[reese]

Originally Posted by ELA

I was going to stay out of this one, but I just wanted to clarify one item. The results should not be justified by statistical data like the above. I am not saying they are saints, and I am not saying they are sinners. I am not saying either, although plenty of people absent of facts seem to be willing to do so.

The statistics are distorted, and if you need someone to explain why, then this is a futile discussion. Pick up a condition book and you can read why.

By the way -- does anyone know when was the last time Catalano got a positive test? What about a "high" test?

Eric

Clearly,you feel strongly all ways Thanks for clarifying that.

Who can definitively say that Arl tests all horses vigorously for all drugs and CO2 levels. Do they have a detention barn like nyra?

I think the before and after stats tell the REAL story. Reminds me of Lake and Shumen. Lake USED to have gaudy win % in NY UNTIL nyra instituted the detention barn and began testing all. Lake had one runner in NY this year that I can remember...gee wonder why

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by reese

Clearly,you feel strongly all ways Thanks for clarifying that.

Who can definitively say that Arl tests all horses vigorously for all drugs and CO2 levels. Do they have a detention barn like nyra?

I think the before and after stats tell the REAL story. Reminds me of Lake and Shumen. Lake USED to have gaudy win % in NY UNTIL nyra instituted the detention barn and began testing all. Lake had one runner in NY this year that I can remember...gee wonder why

Maybe because he can run at Philly park, Delaware and Presque isle for similar money and less competition? The detention barn is far from the answer. Do you think NY test all horses vigorously for all drugs?