In issue No. 16 of Handicapping Hints we discussed, in part, the role of the track secretary/handicapper. Today we’ll attempt to persuade the reader that this individual could play a most important role in one’s handicapping.

Why? We’re glad you asked. First off he’s the one responsible for a meeting’s success or failure. It’s his job to know the horses stabled on the grounds in order to be able to match the thoroughbreds available with the stipulations he outlines in his Conditions Book.

Example: There would be no point in writing a condition designed to attract 2-year-old maidens if there were no 2-year-old maidens available. Or - why specify a race for three-year-olds and up going a mile and a quarter if there are no older routers? Thus a secretary must know his "inventory."

Additionally, the secretary is the one who has to deal with horsemen’s complaints. Example: Why was my horse assigned two pounds more than Horse X? Horse X beat my horse by a neck last time out. Or - when are you going to write a sprint race for non-winners that gives my filly a chance?

However, the secretary not only causes complaints but has plenty of cause for complaint himself. Example: He writes a condition calling for four-year-olds-and-up, non-winners of two, going a mile. He knows there’s enough thoroughbreds available who can meet these conditions, and yet the race doesn’t fill. Now, the secretary’s job involves talking to the appropriate trainers and trying to persuade them to enter their horses.

Here’s where one’s handicapping knowledge can enter the picture. The selector should realize that the secretary is able to bully some trainers into entering non-fit horse but can’t bully others. Usually it’s the small unsuccessful or modestly successful stable that can be persuaded to enter a horse against its trainer’s better judgment. Invariably such trainers will oblige to keep in the good graces of the secretary. The none-too subtle threat is that if they don’t oblige they may find themselves without stalls.

On the other hand, the larger, more successful outfits can’t be bulldozed. They can afford to pick and choose their spots, and on occasion can even influence the secretary to write a race condition that will favor one of their charges. The point that we seem to be struggling to make is that the handicapper should be aware of what goes on behind the scenes and , if possible, stick to the bigger, more successful outfits and trainers. They have many advantages.

Not the least of these advantages is the ability to rotate their stock. The bigger outfits don’t have to run horses that are not really fit or ready. They can afford to give their horses a much needed rest. The smaller stables frequently have no choice. They can’t afford the luxury of giving their horses a respite.

Another major advantage enjoyed by successful stables is that the trainers usually aren’t hampered by owners who think they know more than their trainers. The relationship between owner and trainer is usually a good one. This is not always the case.

If memory serves correctly it was a Mrs. Elizabeth Graham, the owner of Maine Chance Farms, who was notorious for interfering with normal training procedures. Her trainers came and went like busses in a terminal. Mrs. Graham manufactured beauty aids and the story goes she would even try to induce her trainers to use certain of her products on the horses. This, of course, was an unusual situation. I couldn’t imagine a Lukas or a Baffert permitting an owner to interfere with training procedures.

In summary try to analyze each race to decide if a horse is or is not well-suited to the conditions, and stick with the successful stables as much as possible, as long as your not being penalized with disproportionately low odds.

Visit the How To Win At Thoroughbred Racing Web site