 |
| Kentucky Downs |
Welcome friends to The Turk and the Little Turk. The weather has denied all lovers of turf racing the first day of the Kentucky Downs meet.
The entire first day of the card was moved in its entirety from Saturday 2 September to Wednesday 6 September. The move will set up a furious five days of racing, with September 6 and 7th, followed by Saturday/Sunday September 9 and 10, and ending with Thursday September 14.
The entire first day of the card was moved in its entirety from Saturday 2 September to Wednesday 6 September. The move will set up a furious five days of racing, with September 6 and 7th, followed by Saturday/Sunday September 9 and 10, and ending with Thursday September 14.
The weather delay should just be used to familiarize yourself with this unique and interesting course.
From the Kentucky Downs website you'll find buried some very good statistics and observations on how the course has played over past several years. My takeaway of the following is the track plays pretty fair when truly firm, producing winners with equal distributions from inside and outside posts, but produces abnormalities favoring inside and outside posts and speed versus closers depending on track condition and level of dryness near rail. The data was complied by Dick Downey of the Downey Profile.
POST POSITION / EARLY SPEED
The following focuses on on how post positions and early speed impact the outcomes of races at Kentucky Downs.
All statistics are from one-turn races with distances ranging from six furlongs to one mile 70 yards. Races going two turns (1 5/16 mile and 1 1/2 mile) are not included due to the small sample size.
For the most part, there is a recurring theme showing winners on firm ground having good early speed and coming, in many instances, from post positions in the inner half of the gate. The corollary is that on softer ground, early speed is not as effective, and outside posts produce a higher percentage of winners.
2016 Summary
In races going a mile and 70 yards or less, horses that started from the six inside posts won at double the rate of those who started from the six outside posts. There were 29 winners from 246 starters in posts 1 through 6 (11.8%), and there were 12 winners from 202 starters in posts 7 through 12 (5.9%).
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 41 | 41 | 41 | 41 | 41 | 41 | 40 | 39 | 39 | 34 | 31 | 19 |
| Winners | 7 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Win % | 17% | 5% | 15% | 12% | 10% | 12% | 13% | NA | 10% | 6% | NA | 5% |
Day 1 of 2016 -- Sept. 3 (Saturday)
The track was rated firm. The area took lots of rainfall in July and the first half of August but dried out afterward. By opening day the track had just a little bit of give to it and played fair.
From the inside half of the gate there were five winners from 54 starters (9.3%), and from the outside half of the gate there were four winners from 46 starters (10.9%), so the distribution could hardly have been more even.
From nine races, two were won by horses on the lead at each call, and five were won by horses either on the lead or stalking within 3 1/2 lengths of the lead after a half-mile. The other four winners closed from 5 1/4 to 6 1/2 lengths off the lead after the first half-mile.
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 5 |
| Winners | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Win % | 11% | NA | 22% | 44% | NA | 11% | 22% | NA | 13% | NA | NA | 20% |
Day 2 of 2016 -- Sept. 8 (Thursday)
The track was rated firm, and it was firmer than it was on Day 1.
From the inside half of the gate there were four winners from 48 starters (8.3%), and from the outside half of the gate there were four winners from 41 starters (9.6%), so the distribution was pretty much even like it was on day 1.
From eight races going less than 1 5/16 mile, two were won by horses on the lead at each call, two were won by horses only a head back after a half-mile, two were won by horses within two lengths of the lead after a half-mile, and two were won by horses that were 5 1/4 and 11 1/2 lengths off the lead after a half-mile.
One of those races kind of fell apart at the end. In two races going 1 5/16 mile, one winner led all the way and one was only a couple of lengths back after six furlongs.
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 5 |
| Winners | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Win % | 25% | NA | 13% | 13% | NA | NA | 13% | NA | 25% | 17% | NA | NA |
Day 3 of 2016 -- Sept. 10 (Saturday)
The track was rated firm, and it was firmer than it was on Days 1 or 2 -- until it rained after race 6. Afterward, the track was rated yielding.
From eight races going less than 1 5/16 mile, from the inside half of the gate there were six winners from 48 starters (12.6%), and from the outside half of the gate there were two winners from 32 starters (6.3%), so the distribution clearly favored the inside half of the gate.
This is mainly due to the fact that in the five races going less than 1 5/16 mile that were run before it rained, there were four winners from 30 starters (13.3%) from the inner half and 1 winner from 26 starters (3.8%) from the outer half.
Speed held up all day in the eight races going less than 1 5/16 mile. Two were won by horses on the lead at each call, and five were won by horses that were either on the lead or in second place after a half-mile. Only one of that group was more than 1 1/2 length off the pace at that point.
Oddly enough, the two marathon races, races typically won by horses that are near the front pace, were both won by horses that were in seventh place after a mile -- one of them was 6 1/2 lengths off the pace (race run after the rain) and one was 11 1/4 lengths off the pace (race run before the rain).
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 1 |
| Winners | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Win % | NA | 13% | 38% | NA | 13% | 13% | 14% | NA | NA | 20% | NA | NA |
Turf Cup
Day 4 of 2016 -- Sept. 11 (Sunday)
The track was rated good at the outset following rainfall the previous afternoon. There had been no rain prior to that day since mid-August, and it soon became clear that, for the most part, the track had absorbed the water and was firm.
From eight races going less than 1 5/16 mile, from the inside half of the gate there were seven winners from 48 starters (14.6%), and from the outside half of the gate there was one winner from 43 starters (2.3%), so the distribution heavily favored the inside half of the gate.
Speed held up almost all day in the eight races going less than 1 5/16 mile. Two were won by horses on the lead at each call, and five more were won by horses that were within 2 1/4 lengths of the lead after a half-mile. One winner was four lengths back after a half, and one was 8 1/2 lengths back.
In two races going 1 5/16 mile, one winner was second by two lengths after six furlongs and the other was sixth, 3 1/2 lengths back after six furlongs.
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 |
| Winners | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Win % | 25% | NA | NA | 38% | 13% | 13% | NA | NA | 13% | NA | NA | NA |
Day 5 of 2016 -- Sept. 15 (Thursday)
The track rated as firm. From eight races going less than 1 5/16 mile, from the inside half of the gate there were seven winners from 48 starters (14.6%), and from the outside half of the gate there was one winner from 40 starters (2.5%), so the distribution again heavily favored the inside half of the gate.
Speed held up in five of the eight races going less than 1 5/16 mile, and three of those races were won by deep closers, so the day was a bit unusual in that respect.
Horses either on the lead at each call or within 2 1/2 lengths of the lead after a half-mile won five times. Three other winners were 7 1/2 or more lengths back after a half-mile.
In two races going 1 5/16 and 1 1/2 mile, one winner was second by one length after a mile, and the other was sixth, 4 1/2 lengths back after a mile.
In two races going 1 5/16 and 1 1/2 mile, one winner was second by one length after a mile, and the other was sixth, 4 1/2 lengths back after a mile.
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 3 |
| Winners | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Win % | 25% | 13% | NA | NA | 25% | 25% | 13% | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Day 1 of 2015 -- Sept. 5 (Saturday)
The track was rated firm, but it's been firmer, and that's because it had been watered. The grass was green and lush. It was a hot, sunny day with a good breeze most of the time, and the track tightened up as the day progressed. Twice as many winners broke from from posts 1-6 as from posts 7-12, and the inner posts won at a higher percentage of starters as well.
Early speed was dominant. From nine races going less than 1 5/16 mile, six were won by horses that were no worse than third, 2 1/2 lengths off the lead, after the first half-mile. However, only one of those six winners led at each call.
Posts 1 - 6: There were six winners from 54 starters = 9.25%
Posts 7-12: There were three winners from 39 starters = 7.7%
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 3 |
| Winners | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Win % | 11% | NA | NA | 44% | 11% | NA | NA | 25% | NA | NA | NA | 33% |
Day 2 of 2015 -- Sept. 10 (Thursday)
The track was rated yielding. Races 3-10 were cancelled. Both winners came from inside posts but were well off the pace in the early going. One was sixth, 5 1/2 lengths back, and one was 11th, 8 1/4 lengths back after the first half-mile.
Posts 1 - 6: There were two winners from 12 starters = 16%
Posts 7-12: There were no winners from nine starters = 0%
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Winners | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Win % | 50% | 50% | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Day 3 of 2015 -- Sept. 14 (Monday)
The track was rated good. It had dried out some from Sept. 10 but still had noticeable moisture in it. Consistent with previous findings under this circumstance, most winners came from outside posts and from well off the early pace.
From 10 races, six winners were from 4 3/4 to 8 1/4 lengths off the pace after the first half-mile, and they were positioned anywhere from seventh to 10th. Only one winner led at each call.
Posts 1 - 6: There were four winners from 60 starters = 8%
Posts 7-12: There were six winners from 49 starters = 12%
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 4 |
| Winners | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Win % | 10% | 10% | 10% | NA | 10% | NA | 10% | NA | 20% | 11% | 33% | NA |
Day 4 of 2015 -- Sept. 16 (Wednesday)
The track was rated firm. Although it still had a bit of moisture in it, It had dried out and continued to do so as the day progressed. Winners coming from inside posts were equal to those from outside posts, but early speed played well. From 10 races, while only one winner led after a half-mile, seven more winners were within 2 1/2 lengths of the lead after a half-mile, and six of those seven were positioned anywhere from second to fourth.
Posts 1 - 6: There were five winners from 60 starters = 8.3%
Posts 7-12: There were five winners from 47 starters = 10.6%
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 5 | 3 |
| Winners | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Win % | 10% | NA | 20% | 10% | 10% | NA | 10% | 30% | NA | 11% | NA | NA |
Day 5 of 2015 -- Sept. 19 (Saturday)
The track was rated firm, and times were relatively fast. A track record was set in one race, and we got pretty close in a couple of others. However, the day was an anomaly in our study because, despite these conditions, winners came from outside posts at almost double the rate of inside posts.
In terms of early speed, from 10 races no winners led after a half-mile, but eight winners were within three lengths of the lead after a half-mile.
Posts 1 - 6: There were four winners from 60 starters = 6.7%
Posts 7-12: There were six winners from 45 starters = 13.3%
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 5 | 3 |
| Winners | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Win % | NA | NA | NA | NA | 30% | 10% | NA | 11% | NA | 44% | 20% | NA |
Day 1 of 2014 -- Sept. 6 (Saturday)
The first day of the 2014 meet was pretty much the polar opposite of its 2013 counterpart. While the track was rated firm both days, it was very dry on the first day of the 2013 meet but had considerable moisture in it on opening day 2014. Early speed won a hefty part of the time on opening day 2013. On opening day 2014, in races going a mile and 70 yards or less, not one horse that led after a half-mile won. Five of the eight winners at those distances were anywhere from 3 1/2 lengths to 7 1/4 lengths off the pace after the first half-mile.
In addition, outside posts produced winners at a much higher rate than inside posts on this year's opening day -- the opposite of 2013. The portion of the track next to the rail was softer than it was in the middle.
Posts 1 - 6: There was one winner from 48 starters = 2.1%
Posts 7-12: There were seven winners from 34 starters = 34%
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 3 |
| Winners | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Win % | NA | 13% | NA | NA | NA | NA | 38% | 29% | 14% | NA | 33% | NA |
Day 2 of 2014 -- Sept. 10 (Wednesday)
Day 2 of the 2014 meet was unlike Day 1 in three respects. (1) While the track was rated firm both days, it was much drier the second day. (2) Starters from posts 1-6 produced winners at a rate a little more than double that of starters from posts 7-12. Unlike Day 1, the portion of the track next to the rail was not soft; instead, it was producing a dusty kickback.(3) There was an equal division of winners in two groups: horses on or close to the lead after a half-mile won four races, and horses 4 1/2 lengths or more off the pace after a half-mile won four races.
Posts 1 - 6: There were six winners from 48 starters = 13%
Posts 7-12: There were two winners from 33 starters = 6%
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 3 |
| Winners | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Win % | NA | NA | 25% | 25% | 13% | 13% | NA | NA | NA | 17% | NA | 33% |
Days 3, 4 and 5 and of 2014 -- Sept. 13, 17, 24 (Saturday, Wednesday, Wednesday)
Days 3, 4 and 5 of the 2014 meet came on a firm surface, and no rain had fallen at the track since before Day 2. Thirteen of 25 winners came from posts 1-6, and 12 of 25 winners came from posts 7-12. This was a more even distribution than either of the first two days.
On Day 3, early speed was dominant, with seven of nine winners either on the lead or running in second position after a half-mile. Four of those seven were on the lead after a half-mile. Only two winners were 5 1/2 lengths or more off the lead after a half-mile, and one of those two was in second position at the time.
On Day 4, from nine winners, one led after a half-mile, and one was second at that point, but four more winners were 1 1/2 lengths or less off the lead after a half-mile, and another one was only 3 1/2 lengths off the lead at that point. That's a total of seven of nine winners flashing early speed.
On Day 5, from seven winners, two led after a half-mile and three more were 2 1/2 lengths or less off the lead after a half-mile. The other two winners after the first half-mile were fourth, four lengths off the lead and seventh, 4 3/4 lengths off the lead.
Posts 1 - 6: There were 13 winners from 150 starters = 8.66%
Posts 7-12: There were 12 winners from 102 starters = 11.76%
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 23 | 16 | 10 | 3 |
| Winners | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 |
| Win % | 8% | 8% | 8% | 8% | 4% | 16% | 4% | 24% | 4% | 19% | 9% | NA |
Days 1, 2, 4 and 5 of 2013 -- Sept. 7, 11, 18 and 25 (Saturdays and Wednesdays)
Early speed won a hefty part of the time during days 1, 2 and 4 of the 2013 meet, and early speed was seen in just over half the winners on day 5. During these four days, inside posts won at a much higher rate than outside posts. The track was, for lack of a better way of expressing it, on the drier side of firm on days 1, 2 and 4.
On day 5, the track was not as dry, but it was firmer than it was on day 3 (see below). Five days before day 5, .86 inch rain fell in the area, and four days before day 5, .62 inch fell. Day 2 of the meet, a Wednesday, was curtailed after a lightning storm knocked out the track's tote system.
Posts 1 - 6: There were 24 winners from 204 starters = 11.8%
Posts 7-12: There were 10 winners from 140 starters = 7.1%
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 34 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 34 | 30 | 30 | 26 | 13 | 7 |
| Winners | 7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Win % | 21% | 6% | 6% | 6% | 15% | 17% | 9% | 10% | 3% | 4% | 15% | NA |
Day 3 of 2013 -- Sept. 14 (Saturday)
While the track was rated firm on this Saturday, it had taken good rains after the races on the preceding Wednesday and on Thursday. The results from Day 3 are similar to those of the 2012 meet, when wet conditions were dominant. Paths closer to the rail were softer, and so outside posts won more often and at a much higher rate than they did during the drier days 1, 2, 4 and 5.
Posts 1 - 6: There were 4 winners from 53 starters = 7.5%
Posts 7-12: There were 5 winners from 31 starters = 16%
| Post | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Starters | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| Winners | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Win % | NA | 22% | NA | 22% | 11% | NA | NA | 13% | 33% | 40% | NA | NA |
2012
The track took heavy rain at the outset of the meet, and more rain fell before its fifth and final day. One day of the would-be six-day meet was cancelled due to rain. Paths closer to the rail were softer, and so outside posts won more often and at a much higher rate.
Posts 1 - 6: There were 15 winners from 215 starters = 7%
Posts 7 - 12: There were 21 winners from 130 starters = 16%
2010-2011
Day 1 of 2010 saw good ground the first race and yielding ground thereafter, but only four races were run at one turn, so the stats for that day are meaningless.
Days 2, 3 and 4 of 2010 were run on firm ground. From 24 races, six were won by runners on the lead after a half-mile, and another 12 were won by runners within 3 1/2 lengths of the lead after a half-mile.
In 2011, days 1, 2, 3 and 4 were all rated firm. From 29 races, seven were won by runners on the lead after a half-mile, and another 12 were won by runners within 3 1/2 lengths of the lead after a half-mile.
During the two combined years, the inside six post positions were stronger than the outside six post positions.
Posts 1 - 6: There were 37 winners from 316 starters = 11.7%
Posts 7-13: There were 16 winners from 165 starters = 9.7%
All statistics are from one-turn races with distances ranging from six furlongs to one mile 70 yards. Races going two turns (1 5/16 mile and 1 1/2 mile) are not included due to the small sample size.
JOCKEY STATISTICS
2016 Kentucky Downs Meet
| $ Rank | Jockey | Starts | Wins | 2d | 3d | Total $ | Win % | Top 3 | Top 3 % |
| 1 | Florent Geroux | 46 | 12 | 9 | 3 | $1,767,773 | 26% | 24 | 52% |
| 2 | Brian Joseph Hernandez, Jr. | 35 | 7 | 1 | 5 | $812,061 | 20% | 13 | 37% |
| 3 | Robby Albarado | 37 | 4 | 1 | 4 | $721,365 | 11% | 9 | 24% |
| 4 | Julien R. Leparoux | 24 | 4 | 5 | 1 | $658,234 | 17% | 10 | 42% |
| 5 | James Graham | 39 | 2 | 9 | 2 | $457,911 | 5% | 13 | 33% |
| 6 | Flavien Prat | 29 | 3 | 3 | 3 | $390,033 | 10% | 9 | 31% |
| 7 | Channing Hill | 18 | 2 | 0 | 1 | $315,551 | 11% | 3 | 17% |
| 8 | Drayden Van Dyke | 9 | 2 | 1 | 2 | $291,001 | 22% | 5 | 56% |
| 9 | Miguel Mena | 26 | 2 | 2 | 1 | $271,028 | 8% | 5 | 19% |
| 10 | Corey J. Lanerie | 37 | 3 | 0 | 5 | $257,129 | 8% | 8 | 22% |
| 11 | Carlos H. Marquez, Jr. | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | $197,678 | 50% | 4 | 67% |
| 12 | Joseph Rocco, Jr. | 30 | 1 | 3 | 2 | $166,156 | 3% | 6 | 20% |
| 13 | Declan Cannon | 21 | 1 | 2 | 0 | $150,491 | 5% | 3 | 14% |
| 14 | Francisco C. Torres | 13 | 1 | 2 | 1 | $150,314 | 8% | 4 | 31% |
| 15 | Shaun Bridgmohan | 14 | 0 | 2 | 3 | $142,398 | 0% | 5 | 36% |
| 16 | Jose Lezcano | 10 | 1 | 0 | 2 | $120,517 | 10% | 3 | 30% |
| 17 | Marcelino Pedroza | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $115,800 | 0% | 1 | 100% |
| 18 | Jose Valdivia, Jr. | 12 | 1 | 0 | 1 | $115,153 | 8% | 2 | 17% |
| 19 | Chris Landeros | 21 | 0 | 2 | 4 | $108,320 | 0% | 6 | 29% |
| 20 | David Romero Flores | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $96,774 | 10% | 1 | 10% |
| 21 | Sophie Doyle | 15 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $56,157 | 0% | 1 | 7% |
| 22 | Jesus Lopez Castanon | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | $47,731 | 0% | 1 | 17% |
| 23 | Forest Boyce | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | $43,072 | 0% | 2 | 67% |
| 24 | Jon Kenton Court | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | $37,904 | 0% | 1 | 14% |
| 25 | Marlon St. Julien | 9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $34,206 | 0% | 1 | 11% |
| 26 | Kent J. Desormeaux | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | $34,200 | 0% | 2 | 100% |
| 27 | Joe Bravo | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 | $24,782 | 0% | 1 | 14% |
| 28 | Albin Jimenez | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | $23,243 | 0% | 2 | 33% |
| 29 | Jack Gilligan | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | $22,378 | 0% | 1 | 10% |
| 30 | Edgar S. Prado | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $16,975 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 31 | Fernando De La Cruz | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | $16,706 | 0% | 1 | 20% |
| 32 | Julio A. Garcia | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | $14,500 | 0% | 1 | 100% |
| 33 | Ty Kennedy | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | $10,446 | 0% | 1 | 11% |
| 34 | Vladimir Panov | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $8,400 | 0% | 1 | 100% |
| 35 | Rodney A. Prescott | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $4,850 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 36 | Carlos Villasana | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $4,642 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 37 | Jacob Radosevich | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $4,500 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 38 | Rafael Mojica, Jr. | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $2,466 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 39 | Joe M. Johnson | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $2,456 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 40 | Tiago Josue Pereira | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $2,071 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 41 | David Moran | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $2,000 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 42 | Juan P. Vargas | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $1,500 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 43 | Calvin H. Borel | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $1,473 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 44 | Arturo Aparicio | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $1,260 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 45 | Sheldon Russell | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $1,125 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 46 | Odhair J. Mayta | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $726 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 47 | Yuri Yaranga | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $706 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 48 | Aaron T. Gryder | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $500 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 48 | Didiel A. Osorio | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $500 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 48 | Richard A. Bracho | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $500 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
TRAINER STATISTICS
Top 53 -- 2016 Kentucky Downs Meet
| $ Rank | Trainer | Starts | Wins | 2d | 3d | Total $ | Win % | Top 3 | Top 3 % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Michael J. Maker | 35 | 8 | 6 | 5 | $1,469,336 | 23% | 19 | 54% |
| 2 | Christophe Clement | 7 | 3 | 2 | 0 | $479,125 | 43% | 5 | 71% |
| 3 | Michael Stidham | 13 | 1 | 2 | 0 | $295,767 | 8% | 3 | 23% |
| 4 | Mark E. Casse | 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | $265,015 | 6% | 2 | 13% |
| 5 | Joe Sharp | 18 | 2 | 5 | 2 | $260,139 | 11% | 9 | 50% |
| 6 | Ian R. Wilkes | 14 | 2 | 1 | 3 | $259,221 | 14% | 6 | 43% |
| 7 | George R. Arnold, II | 12 | 3 | 2 | 0 | $232,112 | 25% | 5 | 42% |
| 8 | Steven M. Asmussen | 12 | 2 | 1 | 1 | $210,742 | 17% | 4 | 33% |
| 9 | Kellyn Gorder | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $207,240 | 50% | 1 | 50% |
| 10 | Aubrey A. Maragh | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $206,490 | 100% | 1 | 100% |
| 11 | Brad H. Cox | 12 | 1 | 3 | 1 | $177,143 | 8% | 5 | 42% |
| 12 | Pavel Vashchenko | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | $159,506 | 33% | 4 | 67% |
| 13 | Larry Rivelli | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | $134,500 | 67% | 3 | 100% |
| 14 | Wesley A. Ward | 9 | 1 | 0 | 1 | $131,899 | 11% | 2 | 22% |
| 15 | Victoria H. Oliver | 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | $130,768 | 10% | 2 | 20% |
| 16 | Anthony J. Granitz | 7 | 1 | 1 | 2 | $124,270 | 14% | 4 | 57% |
| 17 | H. Graham Motion | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | $122,787 | 20% | 2 | 40% |
| 18 | Thomas F. Proctor | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | $119,250 | 20% | 3 | 60% |
| 19 | Tim Glyshaw | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $115,800 | 0% | 1 | 100% |
| 20 | Thomas M. Amoss | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | $107,980 | 25% | 2 | 50% |
| 21 | Dale L. Romans | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | $102,954 | 10% | 3 | 30% |
| 22 | William I. Mott | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | $102,586 | 0% | 2 | 40% |
| 23 | Charles LoPresti | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | $102,502 | 17% | 2 | 33% |
| 24 | Brendan P. Walsh | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | $102,444 | 17% | 2 | 33% |
| 25 | Chris M. Block | 7 | 1 | 1 | 2 | $98,390 | 14% | 4 | 57% |
| 26 | Ben Colebrook | 17 | 0 | 1 | 1 | $94,206 | 0% | 2 | 12% |
| 27 | Charles L. Dickey | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $90,640 | 33% | 1 | 33% |
| 28 | Gerald Russel Aschinger | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $89,446 | 50% | 1 | 50% |
| 29 | Arnaud Delacour | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $88,500 | 50% | 1 | 50% |
| 30 | Bradlee Rainwater | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $87,000 | 100% | 1 | 100% |
| 31 | Neil L. Pessin | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $84,714 | 50% | 1 | 50% |
| 32 | Gregory D. Sacco | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $78,000 | 100% | 1 | 100% |
| 33 | Eddie Kenneally | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $72,426 | 0% | 1 | 20% |
| 34 | Kristin Mulhall | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $65,800 | 0% | 1 | 100% |
| 35 | Jonathan E. Sheppard | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | $59,900 | 0% | 1 | 50% |
| 36 | Jack O. Fisher | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 | $54,750 | 0% | 3 | 75% |
| 37 | Neil D. Drysdale | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $50,841 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
| 38 | Pavel Matejka | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $41,423 | 33% | 1 | 33% |
| 39 | Rafael A. Fernandez | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $35,200 | 0% | 1 | 50% |
| 40 | Albert M. Stall, Jr. | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $35,084 | 0% | 1 | 25% |
| 41 | David R. Vance | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $34,800 | 33% | 1 | 33% |
| 42 | Randy L. Morse | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $33,306 | 0% | 1 | 20% |
| 43 | Murat Sancal | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $31,350 | 0% | 1 | 33% |
| 44 | James P. DiVito | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | $31,000 | 0% | 2 | 100% |
| 45 | Robert B. Hess, Jr. | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $29,400 | 0% | 1 | 100% |
| 46 | Ignacio Correas, IV | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $28,240 | 0% | 1 | 20% |
| 47 | Rick Hiles | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | $28,000 | 50% | 2 | 100% |
| 48 | Scott Becker | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $27,900 | 0% | 1 | 100% |
| 49 | Eoin G. Harty | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $26,726 | 0% | 1 | 50% |
| 50 | Lee J. Rossi | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $26,000 | 0% | 1 | 100% |
| 50 | Philip A. Bauer | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | $26,000 | 0% | 1 | 100% |
| 52 | Mike Crowder | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $25,200 | 100% | 1 | 100% |
| 53 | Michael E. Lauer | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | $24,500 | 50% | 1 | 50% |
References
Downey, Dick. (2017) The Downey Profile. Web. Retrieved from http://www.thedowneyprofile.com/post_position_statistics
2 comments:
plz visit this site and click here: Pool Champ’s Forte
Here, in the following post, I am going to share word-whizzleanswers.com Word Whizzle Search Answers
Post a Comment