Okay guys...here's the edition of Handicapping Corner that everyone's waiting for... the one that many feel is probably the most important. For that reason, it's gonna be probably the shortest edition. Why? Because I don't think it's that big a deal - that's why. Now, I'm going to address the Meadowlands strictly, maybe make some general remarks about other tracks in general..I'll do a separate bit on Pocono Downs at the start of that meet. First, some numbers, based on the 1997 season:

Almost every track has three classes of drivers: 1) the top one or two, 2) the unbettables and 3) the rest of the guys. Here are the group of every-day catch drivers at the Meadowlands. I call them "the boys." None of these are unbettable - they are all high caliber, competent drivers. Even within these, there are 3 groups: the top 2, the bottom 3, and the rest. The reason I think the driver factor is over rated is evident above. If you throw out LaChance, the difference between the next 7 is only about 4% - 4 winners out of 100 races. If you exclude Campbell, the difference between the next 6 is merely 1 race out of 100. So Brennan wins 12 out of every 100 and Ouellette wins 11 out of every 100. Big deal. The fact is, that racing luck aside, if Ouellette's horse is in-shape and Brennan's horse isn't, Luc is gonna win much more often than George.

I just love when these so-called expert handicappers give you this old line:"XYZ Hanover gets a key driver change tonight from Jim Doherty to Mike LaChance and that should help." Yeah...and the sky is blue, and the earth is round......you jerk - stop wasting ink, wasting your readers' time and insulting your readers' intelligence....we all know that LaChance is a better driver than Doherty, and we all know that it will help .... it ain't gonna hurt!

I really hate to put it this way, and if I'm offending anyone who puts a premium on the driver factor, tough nuggies - this is my web site and if you don't like what I am about to say - get off. If you aren't making money at this game right now, then attempting to gain an additional advantage by mastering the "driver factor" and thereby hitting 1 additional winner out of every 100 races is a futile and idiotic waste of time. If you are doing it, you are lazy, don't want to invest the time to learn what really matters, like making meaningful shape determinations, and you deserve to lose. That one winner ain't the difference between winning at this game and losing. The numbers don't lie. If you think that there's a big difference between Manzi and O'Donnell - if you think that having that extra 6 races out of 10,000 advantage really matters, then you should stay home and not bother betting....No, in fact, let me stand corrected...what you should do (for the benefit of yours truly and those who I know who are learning to play this game right) is please come to the track more often - borrow as much money as you possibly can (a second or third mortgage would be a good place to get the cash) and bet as much as possible, so that we can take it from you. The fact of the matter is, that for the most part, the drivers' abilities are known, and they are priced in. Everyone knows that LaChance and Cambell win more than their share, and their talent is reflected in the odds. But please don't try to convince yourself that there's some kind of major difference between Parker and Pierce - except on a case by case, horse by horse basis, there isn't any difference. Both these guys will get it done when they have the horse and get things their way. They get hot, they get cold, but there's not much difference. If a horse is getting Moiseyev this week, and had Morrill last week, it's not like he's upgrading from Mr. Magoo to a real driver....let's get with it and start worrying about what really matters. These guys are the creme de la creme of the sport...if they couldn't drive, they wouldn't be taking up 9 out of 10 horses in just about every race at the sport's premier venue.

There are some ways to use driver knowledge. One is knowing how certain drivers get along with certain horses. Another would be to recognize up-and-coming drivers, or those not among "the guys" who are improving and capable of holding their own. Another way, probably the only one you ever hear me actually comment on is when one driver has a choice among several horses in a race, and picks a particular horse. This can become a dangerous crutch however...I recently saw a comment "such and such .... but is not Pierce's choice" and the result was that the poor, unfortunate horse got stuck with some guy named Lachance...what a bummer. But this can indicate something, sometimes. One thing you need to be aware of is how the choice of horses affects a driver's results. If you took any of the top bunch and started giving them their pick of 3 horses, including the likely favorite each race, they would start winning a lot more - but you have to earn that right, as Lachance has.

Here's my general overall feelings about the regular drivers at the Meadowlands:

Mike LaChance - tremendously talented and gets along with a wide variety of horses -- at this point, is getting more choice of catch drives than anyone else at the track, which means that his results are likely to be enhanced by in-shape drives as well.

John Campbell - probably the most versatile and talented driver in the history of this sport - seems to be named on fewer horses now, but probably more out of standing commitments to certain stables than anything else. Also, he seems now to not drive quite a few races, which at his stage, is fine...he takes more vacation time than anyone, doesn't bother wearing himself out at Garden State, Freehold, etc.

Jack Moiseyev - was perhaps a bit over rated talent wise...came to this track at the right time when there was an opportunity and really made the most of it..seems to be the most vulnerable in terms of losing choice and/or drives to improving, more available drivers.

George Brennan - is definitely on the improve and is getting better by the day...still seems not to get along with trotters as well as other top drivers...hands seem a bit harder than the top guys...was benefited statistically by good fortune of driving a few killers, like Hot Lead.

Ron Pierce - steady Eddie, gets the job done. Never really got a crack to be king of the hill, as that wasn't available when he started to develop as a fine driver. I think he's probably peaked and there's not too much room for him to improve skill-wise.

Catello Manzi - never one of my favorites, is a notch below the top group in terms of getting horses to the finish line first.

Howard Parker - streakiest driver I've seen, can get on a roll and win with everything, though at times can be overaggressive which costs him valuable wins.

Jim Morrill, Jr. - was one who really had the chance to step right up there, now is in a dog-fight with a few others. Seems to do well first time on horses, for some reason.

Bill O'DONNELL - former co-leader at the track in the 80's, is still hanging around and competent, but has lost the edge to other talent and has lost the choice of stock he had for so long.

Luc Ouellette - can be future king of the track if he keeps improving, when Mike and John start to slow down there schedule's more. Was a tremendous value driver early last meet, when he didn't get top picks and M'lands crowd was not aware of his abilities. Still seems to be better on the front end.

Bill Fahy - is possibly in a battle with O'DONNELL to see which veteran get's knocked off the ladder...seems to lose interest too early in races when off the pace.

That's it folks....that's all I'm going to say about drivers......period.