Reliability of workout information

[TheSpokesman]

As someone who spends most of his mornings in the barns or on the rail watching horses train I would advise you that the only workout information really worth anything is proprietary information. By proprietary I mean workouts that you have timed yourself or obtained from a reputable clocking service. The track clockers simply have too much on their plate.

It is not uncommon for my wife, trainer Sharon Soileau, to work a set of two horses. One horse will outwork the other by a length but when the times are posted they are identical. I can also tell you that I know certain trainers who never show a workout faster than :40 and change or :53. These workouts are accomplished by means of a phone call to the clockers stand. So, don't give too much credence to workout times listed in the Form.

What I would suggest is that one look at the consistency of the work tab rather than the time in trying to assess current form. I personally look for regularly spaced works increasingly longer in distance, with perhaps a final 3f blow to sharpen speed. If a horse has been working every ten days he needs to remain on that pattern. A gap in the pattern can spell trouble.

What I want to stress (as I did in my post about jockeys) is that we are bound to have more success if we focus our attention on more quantifiable considerations, such as pace or speed. The secondary factors of handicapping are far more susceptible to a flawed interpretation than the fundamentals.

I am primarily a speed handicapper (although I have great respect for those who focus on pace, and am here in an effort to learn from their expertise). If I have determined that a horse is simply not fast enough to win today, secondary factors aren't likely to change my analysis. I would imagine it is the same among intelligent students of pace.

[Ted Craven]

Spokesman,

First, welcome to Pace and Cap!

You and I are about on the same page re workouts (and the other secondary, or tertiary factors), although I wonder if the mistiming (accidental or intentional) of workouts is any greater than the general accuracy/inaccuracy of chart callers internal beaten length observations? I have come to regularly consult workout patterns when other reliable information is scant - e.g. for First Timers, Foreigners or Layoffs, with timing of the work being the least interesting - though, for example, a RDSS recent work Speed Rating of 90+ (known in some parts as 'Razor Sharp') paired with regular intervals like 7 or 8 days uninterrupted (say 4 or 5 in a row), including some 5f ones, and a final short blowout tells me something at least about how serious a barn is. Like many metrics, allow (sometimes plenty) room for error, seek redundant evidence and a price which pays for error.

Good to have you aboard.

Ted

[gl45]

Spokesman,
I agree with spaced workouts. From long layoff I look for a series of workouts spaced within 7 t0 10 days from each workout. I don't use workout times unless the last workout did occur 7 days or less from today's race in a time that fell within my handicapping rules.
Question for you:
How can you anticipate the Trainer Intention by only reading the horse's pp.
Good post.

[Tim Y]

There are so many unreported variables in workouts as to make only their FREQUENCY the only really reliable factor: one doesn't know if they worked alone or in company, how far off the rail, the weight of the exercise riders (some are upward of 160), there are NO drug tests after work outs, there are many bits used in works that are not allowed in a race, many are incorrectly reported between the horse identifier and the clocker, some, while working in company are there just to teach another, usually inexperienced horse, how to handle working with, inside or behind an experienced horse.
many times a workout will be all about finishing up and the pace of that work will hide the intent in a slower final time, often the distance of the listed work was shorter than the horse really worked...etc etc.

Literally dozens and dozens of unknown variables

[TheSpokesman]

Originally Posted by gl45

Question for you:
How can you anticipate the Trainer Intention by only reading the horse's pp.
Good post.

This is an excellent question, gl.

First off, I must say that being on the backside every day helps me know which horses are well-meant at my local tracks. I have familiarized myself with trainer's methods, and sometimes this information can be gleaned from the past performances.

An example. Trainer Brian S. House is among the national leaders with first-time starters and horses off a layoff. He wins about 40% of those, an unbelievable percentage. When I see one of these horses who shows a gate drill--at Delta that will show up as 7f from the gate, but it is actually 7.5--as his last work before a race, I know that horse is well-meant. I have come to understand that House trains for stamina and fitness on a 7-10 day schedule with as many as ten published works before a race. But, in his case, that gate drill is the key. That tells me that all systems are go.

To answer your question, we can become familiar with specific trainer patterns but, once again, this is really speculation. I have enough on my handicapping plate without trying to read a trainer's mind so I basically ask myself if the horse's presence in today's race makes sense. If he's been laid off I want to see him return at the level he was at prior to the vacation and not take a drop. That could indicate a problem. A sharp class jump after a layoff could mean that we are simply out for exercise today and the trainer wants to knock the rust off without really trying to win. All of that is speculation, so I try to stick with the quantifiable factors--the workout pattern, etc.--when making a decision.

[TheSpokesman]

Thanks for the warm welcome, Ted!

[gl45]

Spokeman,
The magic word. Quote "I have familiarized myself with trainer's methods,...". Heck, everybody can see 40% winner with first time starters and coming off a layoff, but very few can see "a gate drill" or "7f from the gate, but it is actually 7.5--as his last work before a race". "that gate drill is the key." Thanks you Spokesman this is one of the many Trainer Intents that the late Ray Taulbot spoke of . Trainers knows their stock, and they used different patterns for different horses.

[Tim Y]

One aspect I find strange by its omission in this context is run up distance. Every one is always so so concerned (with good reason on the turf) of the amount of distance a horse runs before the timer starts.

That is a huge variable in a workout. I have seen some horses canter up to the point where the timer begins (unless it is a gate work, ALL workouts are timed from a running start) , others almost in a walk yet many others almost to top speed. That variability of run up is NEVER noted so that the variation of subsequent run can be huge.

One exercise rider often gets his mount almost to full speed about one 1/8th pole before the work starts. How would two works with the same final time be evaluated when one horse was barely on the go and another was full out when the clock began?

[For The Lead]

TheSpokesman

Real nice post RE: workouts.

[For The Lead]

The Spokesman:
RE: Jockeys

A really refreshing post. I couldn't agree with you more.

I'm sure you will remember Steve Cauthen. For those who may not, I copied the following from wikipedia.
"His rise to prominence was meteoric; he was the nation's leader in race wins in 1977 with 487. In only his second year of riding, he became the first jockey to win $6 million in a single season on the day in December, 1977 he rode Little Happiness (three-year-old filly) in the sixth race at Aqueduct Racetrack. After that, he was called "The Six Million Dollar Man," and "Stevie Wonder."

As a "bug boy" in New York, I can only imagine that it must have been hard for him to get started. Once he got the break he needed it seemed he was riding 5,6,7 winners a day, right up until he lost his "bug". The poor guy lost his "bug" and overnight it seemed he forgot how to ride as he couldn't win a race. But it occurred to me that the ONLY difference was that he was no longer getting on live mounts. No longer being able to get on good horses, he packed his tack and headed for Europe where he finished out his career.
According to wikipedia, as he matured, he was also having trouble making weight and since riders in Europe ride at higher weights it made sense that he make the move there.