IMO, Michael Gill's accomplishments as an owner, winning at about a 15% clip, are
not spectacular. Basically he has bought, claimed and saddled more runners than any other owner. To put the strangest warp factor
you want on it, the man had more post race
tests come back negative (clean)than any other owner in the country.

Everything Gill accomplished in 2004 was done "against the bias". The stress on the
entire operation for having for the most
part to ship to almost every track, the
physical toll on the horses, the expense of
shipping, etc. Most racing secretaries are looking for a certain number of starts per meet per stall and based on this criteria
no one is more prolific than Gill. It is a
travesty that the man is not awarded stalls
wherever he applies for them. You would think with all the buzz around him the tracks would want the man on the premises
to watch him ("Son, keep your friends close and your enemies closer".)When I read that Gill's horses are in Roussel's private barn
at the Fair Grounds, I had to chuckle, because if I am not mistaken that is the barn we used to call the Harthill barn, and
I personally saw some veterinary/pari mutuel
miracles come out from under that shed.


But in the end Gill as an owner must be judged by the bottom line. It seems like he claimed alot of 50k - 80k stock in California
which ended up running for 10k-16k in the
East. And what about the young horses he bought at 2YO in training sales? What was the
bottom line on those? Can you consider a man
eclipse worthy if his operation didn't turn
a profit? I guess I read somewhere that Gene
Klein was losing money during his eclipse
award years. Incredible.

Gill's use of low profile trainers is kind of like Allen Jerkens' use of jockeys. It's
almost like both of them kind of grudgingly
share the spotlight, so that there is no doubt where the magic is coming from. (And
yes I'm still resentful that Noel Wynter beat
me wire to wire a few years ago at Belmont in a big stake race).



Post Edited (01-25-05 13:25)