USA THOROUGHBRED TRAINERS

[ezpace]

WE ARE ASKING ALL TRACK MANAGEMENTS
TO HAVE COBALT LEVELS OF YOUR ENTERED HORSES
TAKEN AND PUBLISHED IN THE TRACK PROGRAM
WITH BUTE AND LASIX INFO.ALSO, WE ARE DONE
BETTING UNTIL PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DOPE LAWS
ARE ENFORCED

[thaskalos]

WE ARE ASKING ALL TRACK MANAGEMENTS
TO HAVE COBALT LEVELS OF YOUR ENTERED HORSES
TAKEN AND PUBLISHED IN THE TRACK PROGRAM
WITH BUTE AND LASIX INFO.ALSO, WE ARE DONE
BETTING UNTIL PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DOPE LAWS
ARE ENFORCED

WHO ARE "YOU" GUYS?

[chadk66]

that silence you hear is the racing industry:cool:

[Tom]

WHO ARE "YOU" GUYS?

US!

[duncan04]

Seems like people are still betting. So maybe it's just you

[Stillriledup]

Seems like people are still betting. So maybe it's just you

Less people are betting less money. The industry is leaving untold millions on the table by not coming down extremely hard on rules violators. Bettors see the wrist slaps and since actions speak louder than words, they take notice.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Less people are betting less money. The industry is leaving untold millions on the table by not coming down extremely hard on rules violators. Bettors see the wrist slaps and since actions speak louder than words, they take notice.

Circa 1905 - harness racing was the second most popular sport in the United States. Yes, sport - people followed it and loved it. Drugs were widely used and that was fairly well known.

I'd love to see racing cleaned up, but drugs aren't the principle reason for the secular decline of horse racing in the United States.

[thaskalos]

Circa 1905 - harness racing was the second most popular sport in the United States. Yes, sport - people followed it and loved it. Drugs were widely used and that was fairly well known.

I'd love to see racing cleaned up, but drugs aren't the principle reason for the secular decline of horse racing in the United States.

Who knows? Wasn't the integrity factor the principle reason for the demise of harness racing?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Who knows? Wasn't the integrity factor the principle reason for the demise of harness racing?

I know.

No, harness racing's secular decline simply started earlier. With alternative forms of gaming, harness racing, especially half-mile harness racing, lost its appeal.

Don't get me wrong - I've owned horses and haven't employed trainers "with an edge," so I'd love to see the sport cleaned up. But it's delusional to think that trainers with an edge are the main driver behind the secular decline of racing in the US. Horse A goes from a 5% trainer to a 30% miracle worker - that's hard to handicap?

[Stillriledup]

I know.

No, harness racing's secular decline simply started earlier. With alternative forms of gaming, harness racing, especially half-mile harness racing, lost its appeal.

Don't get me wrong - I've owned horses and haven't employed trainers "with an edge," so I'd love to see the sport cleaned up. But it's delusional to think that trainers with an edge are the main driver behind the secular decline of racing in the US. Horse A goes from a 5% trainer to a 30% miracle worker - that's hard to handicap?

Its not hard to handicap, the problem is its too EASY to handicap, the horse pays 2.80, it just ruins racing and ruins the handicapping process. It turns horse racing into trainer racing, and nobody wants that.

[ezpace]

Seems like people are still betting. So maybe it's just you
*************
GET A CLUE & A EDUCATION Attendace+$$wagered decimated
DOPE VIOLATIONS INCREASED IMMENSELY
NOBODy IS HANDICAPPING PROBABILITIES anymore ,even if you think so.
We are Guessing PERIOD so after40yrs im done till there is drug enforcement

[Saratoga_Mike]

*************
GET A CLUE & A EDUCATION Attendace+$$wagered decimated
DOPE VIOLATIONS INCREASED IMMENSELY
NOBODy IS HANDICAPPING PROBABILITIES anymore ,even if you think so.
We are Guessing PERIOD so after40yrs im done till there is drug enforcement

Nobody handicaps probabilities anymore, yet SRU just told us, or strongly intimated, that favorites win more often and pay less and less. Somebody is guessing right, according to SRU's data.

Again, magical trainers are easy to handicap. If you are complaining because you care about horses or fairness for clean trainers, I commend you.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Its not hard to handicap, the problem is its too EASY to handicap, the horse pays 2.80, it just ruins racing and ruins the handicapping process. It turns horse racing into trainer racing, and nobody wants that.

Putting aside the impact on the horse and fairness to clean trainers issue (not what we're discussing here), why does it matter if you have to handicap the trainer? It doesn't. You love posting that. It's become trite. Please come up with something new and interesting.

[Stillriledup]

Putting aside the impact on the horse and fairness to clean trainers issue (not what we're discussing here), why does it matter if you have to handicap the trainer? It doesn't. You love posting that. It's become trite. Please come up with something new and interesting.

I dont mind handicapping the trainer, i just don't like it when the trainer is too dominant a factor in the process. I want the trainer to essentially blend into the backround and be an insignificant bit piece while the horse talent is 99% of the equasion.

[thaskalos]

I know.

No, harness racing's secular decline simply started earlier. With alternative forms of gaming, harness racing, especially half-mile harness racing, lost its appeal.

Don't get me wrong - I've owned horses and haven't employed trainers "with an edge," so I'd love to see the sport cleaned up. But it's delusional to think that trainers with an edge are the main driver behind the secular decline of racing in the US. Horse A goes from a 5% trainer to a 30% miracle worker - that's hard to handicap?

Okay...since I consider you to be a very knowledgeable person, and I respect what you say here, I'd like to engage you in a short conversation about this very point. IMO...this is not a matter of a horse going from a 5% trainer to a 30% trainer. This is a matter of the trainer becoming one of the key factors in handicapping...whereas the trainer was only a SECONDARY handicapping factor in years past. In fact...I remember listening to "expert" horseplayers debating whether the trainer, or the JOCKEY, was a bigger handicapping factor, back when I first started playing this game. Do you suppose that we could hold such a debate today?

I don't want to pretend that I know everything...but I would bet my bottom dollar that, if asked, the vast majority of the horseplayers out there would say that this is NOT the game that they initially fell in love with...and that "trainer handicapping" is something that they could easily do without. Speaking for myself...I got into this game because I loved handicapping HORSES. Handicapping the trainers holds virtually no appeal for me.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Okay...since I consider you to be a very knowledgeable person, and I respect what you say here, I'd like to engage you in a short conversation about this very point. IMO...this is not a matter of a horse going from a 5% trainer to a 30% trainer. This is a matter of the trainer becoming one of the key factors in handicapping...whereas the trainer was only a SECONDARY handicapping factor in years past. In fact...I remember listening to "expert" horseplayers debating whether the trainer, or the JOCKEY, was a bigger handicapping factor, back when I first started playing this game. Do you suppose that we could hold such a debate today?

I don't want to pretend that I know everything...but I would bet my bottom dollar that, if asked, the vast majority of the horseplayers out there would say that this is NOT the game that they initially fell in love with...and that "trainer handicapping" is something that they could easily do without. Speaking for myself...I got into this game because I loved handicapping HORSES. Handicapping the trainers holds virtually no appeal for me.

I started betting t'breds in the mid to late 80s. At that point, the trainers were key factors. Perhaps it was different before that point. I don't know.

If racing were 100% clean tomorrow and forever more, I don't think handle would increase. Again, I'm not supporting cheats. I think the penalties in the sport are a joke. I'm making a business point.

[thaskalos]

Putting aside the impact on the horse and fairness to clean trainers issue (not what we're discussing here), why does it matter if you have to handicap the trainer? It doesn't. You love posting that. It's become trite. Please come up with something new and interesting.

When you handicap the horse...you can put your own twist on the information that is available to you. But when you are handicapping the trainer...then there IS no individualized "twist". How can you use your individual skill to supply yourself with the needed edge to overcome the takeout...when trainers stats are EVERYWHERE!

If you put the Beyer figures in the hands of 5 different players, you can get 5 different opinions....but the same cannot be said about the trainer stats.

[thaskalos]

I started betting t'breds in the mid to late 80s. At that point, the trainers were key factors. Perhaps it was different before that point. I don't know.

If racing were 100% clean tomorrow and forever more, I don't think handle would increase. Again, I'm not supporting cheats. I think the penalties in the sport are a joke. I'm making a business point.

Show me a handicapping book from the late 80s where the trainer was considered a "major" handicapping factor.

[Saratoga_Mike]

When you handicap the horse...you can put your own twist on the information that is available to you. But when you are handicapping the trainer...then there IS no individualized "twist". How can you use your individual skill to supply yourself with the needed edge to overcome the takeout...when trainers stats are EVERYWHERE!

If you put the Beyer figures in the hands of 5 different players, you can get 5 different opinions....but the same cannot be said about the trainer stats.

So have dominate trainer stats made it more difficult for you to win?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Show me a handicapping book from the late 80s where the trainer was considered a "major" handicapping factor.

Please see Big A around 1987/8. There was this guy named Peter Ferriola....and he wasn't the only one!

[Saratoga_Mike]

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-09-27/sports/1993270201_1_ferriola-trainer-york-state-racing

[Stillriledup]

When you handicap the horse...you can put your own twist on the information that is available to you. But when you are handicapping the trainer...then there IS no individualized "twist". How can you use your individual skill to supply yourself with the needed edge to overcome the takeout...when trainers stats are EVERYWHERE!

If you put the Beyer figures in the hands of 5 different players, you can get 5 different opinions....but the same cannot be said about the trainer stats.

If a horse goes from a 5% trainer to a 35% trainer, the horse CAN improve 5 or 10 lengths (or show massive improvement) and that's not something that can ever be seen in the PPs, which turns it into trainer racing. Its a guess. And, you're guessing and THEY KNOW. Insiders know if the horse will show massive improvement, its too big of an edge to give up. If trainers are "bit players" than you don't have to worry about any kind of massive form reversal and that creates a much better handicapping situation as well as creating a more honest perception about the races.

[thaskalos]

Please see Big A around 1987/8. There was this guy named Peter Ferriola....and he wasn't the only one!

There have always been cheats. But we now have a case where the cheating trainers may outnumber the honest ones. When the cheating is confined to only a few people...then it's still considered a minor factor. But when there are several 30% trainers at every racing locale...THAT'S when the problems get MAJOR...and that's what we have today. Yes...there was plenty of cheating back in the "old days"...but the trainers then were still a little cautious -- and the trainer winning percentages were respectable. A 25% trainer back them was considered Hall-Of-Fame material. But the industry showed no inclination to deal with the cheating problem...so the problem expoded...as some of us predicted it would.

With a 25% winning percentage today...the trainer is lucky if he can still hold on to his stock.

[thaskalos]

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-09-27/sports/1993270201_1_ferriola-trainer-york-state-racing

As I said...one sparrow doesn't make a spring. And the same could be said about 2 or 3 sparrows.

What we have today is an epidemic.

[Saratoga_Mike]

There have always been cheats. But we now have a case where the cheating trainers may outnumber the honest ones. When the cheating is confined to only a few people...then it's still considered a minor factor. But when there are several 30% trainers at every racing locale...THAT'S when the problems get MAJOR...and that's what we have today. Yes...there was plenty of cheating back in the "old days"...but the trainers then were still a little cautious -- and the trainer winning percentages were respectable. A 25% trainer back them was considered Hall-Of-Fame material. But the industry showed no inclination to deal with the cheating problem...so the problem expoded...as some of us predicted it would.

With a 25% percentage today...the trainer is lucky if he can still hold on to his stock.

I just tried to google the top 20 trainers at AQU in 1988. I couldn't find anything. I'd love to see the stats. If someone has them, please post them.

You're probably right on your 25% point above, but I still don't think it explains the secular decline in racing in the US....of course I've been wrong at least once before, I think.

[thaskalos]

I just tried to google the top 20 trainers at AQU in 1988. I couldn't find anything. I'd love to see the stats. If someone has them, please post them.

You're probably right on your 25% point above, but I still don't think it explains the secular decline in racing in the US....of course I've been wrong at least once before, I think.

The secular decline in racing today can be attributed to several different things...but, IMO, the integrity of the game is at the top of the list. When given no other gambling outlet to indulge in...then the gambler may participate in a game with a questionable reputation. After all...people LOVE to gamble...and the gambling options are non-existent. But when other, more "honest" forms of gambling are introduced...then it's a virtual sure thing that the stigmatized game will have a hard time surviving.

It's nature's law of the survival of the fittest...

[Stillriledup]

I just tried to google the top 20 trainers at AQU in 1988. I couldn't find anything. I'd love to see the stats. If someone has them, please post them.

You're probably right on your 25% point above, but I still don't think it explains the secular decline in racing in the US....of course I've been wrong at least once before, I think.

I dont have actual stats, but my gut tells me Gus is right, i dont remember off the top of my head trainers routinely winning this high of a percentage. Almost every track seems to have one trainer hitting 40%, we used to think 25% was a lot, 25% is the new 15.

[appistappis]

It has got to the point now that a lot of races at the smaller tracks the horse has become irrelevant. Today for example there were Justin evans horses at sunland and diodoro horses at turp para and when I was explaining how to bet to the guys I said you have to play the exotics and use them and not use them. When a horse's last three beyers are 39, 84,47, the actual handicapping of the horse itself is impossible. They are underlays in every race they run in so you bet them and don't bet them and hope they miss because everything else in the race is an overlay. If the juice is in today you hope to break even on the race.

[appistappis]

Example, todays 2nd race at turf appeared to be between the 2, 4 and 5 with diodoro being the 2.....I used him in every spot and to miss but I did the same with the 7 who didn't look like a contender but was a SILVA. Silva hits around 30% at TP but was 3% in Chicago. The horse was irrelevant but I caught a nice super with this method.

[Stillriledup]

Example, todays 2nd race at turf appeared to be between the 2, 4 and 5 with diodoro being the 2.....I used him in every spot and to miss but I did the same with the 7 who didn't look like a contender but was a SILVA. Silva hits around 30% at TP but was 3% in Chicago. The horse was irrelevant but I caught a nice super with this method.

I tossed that 2, thought he was overbet, bet the 4 to win and boxed 4-5 and thought i was home and dried all the way.....and somehow, the 7 rebroke and exploded away like a graded horse. Massive form reversal, that horse looked like a plowhorse on paper.

[appistappis]

So as that example shows, are drug trainers ruining the game or do we just have to re-invent ourselves as handicapper all the time????

[Appy]

So as that example shows, are drug trainers ruining the game or do we just have to re-invent ourselves as handicapper all the time????

Both are true IMO. BUt those 2 are joined by a third, and perhaps most important factor of all, which is politics.

[Stillriledup]

So as that example shows, are drug trainers ruining the game or do we just have to re-invent ourselves as handicapper all the time????

For all we know, some of these 30 percent trainers are complying with their local medication rules and figuring out a way to be far superior, with legal meds, than some of their rival trainers....they're so much better it LOOKS like they're cheating, but for all we know, they might not be.

Also, some trainers are extremely sensitive to their win percentages, so they will devalue their owners assets just to win, anyone can win 30 or 40 percent if you consistently run horses far below what they're worth AT THE TIME.

Now remember, a horse could be worth 20k today and 0 after the race, so when we handicap that day's race, we need to handicap what that horse is worth today and not what he's worth as an investment weeks and months from the date of the race. All we care about is today...so, some trainers might actually think to himself 'this horse is worth 20 today, but i'm running him for 10 because he might be worth much less after the race or much less a couple weeks from now'

Whether there's cheating or not, that's for the racing jurisdictions to decide, for the bettors and handicappers, we have to just handicap what we're given and adjust.

What ruins the process a bit for bettors is some trainers being so far superior to others. Now, is it possible that a handful of trainers just can 'outtrain' others legally? If they can, and its all honest, the process is still tricky for us because that turns it a bit into "trainer racing" and since the trainer racing part of handicapping is just "behind the scenes" there's no way to take advantage of it, you're just really a sitting duck with trainer-tracers coming at your head and you just gotta hope you don't get hit by a big form reversal that the insiders know about and you do not.

We all want horse handicapping to be HORSE handicapping, we want the trainers for the most part to stay out of the way and blend into the backround and let the horses decide the races on the track without any wild form reversals that are chemically enhanced.

Now, the chemical enhancement wouldn't be so bad if insiders were not allowed to profit on that. But they are, and that's why if huge bettors have this information and you do not, you're giving up too much of an edge.

As a bettor you want other bettors to have to pick winners via the established PPs, if they outpick you fair and square, you can live with it....but, its a tough thing to know that someone inside the game, with little or no knowledge of handicapping sticking money on a horse that will be "much improved" this time. You don't have to know how to handicap at all if you have this kind of info.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm saddened this Christmas to see people still falling for the ezpace bait... :lol:

I usually delete his stuff like this, but I haven't been around the past few days...my apologies...

[whodoyoulike]

For all we know, some of these 30 percent trainers are complying with their local medication rules and figuring out a way to be far superior, with legal meds, than some of their rival trainers....they're so much better it LOOKS like they're cheating, but for all we know, they might not be...

But, since we're mostly anonymous on here and if you happen to be a cheating trainer, why not comment on why you do it?

[Shemp Howard]

Okay...since I consider you to be a very knowledgeable person, and I respect what you say here, I'd like to engage you in a short conversation about this very point. IMO...this is not a matter of a horse going from a 5% trainer to a 30% trainer. This is a matter of the trainer becoming one of the key factors in handicapping...whereas the trainer was only a SECONDARY handicapping factor in years past. In fact...I remember listening to "expert" horseplayers debating whether the trainer, or the JOCKEY, was a bigger handicapping factor, back when I first started playing this game. Do you suppose that we could hold such a debate today?

I don't want to pretend that I know everything...but I would bet my bottom dollar that, if asked, the vast majority of the horseplayers out there would say that this is NOT the game that they initially fell in love with...and that "trainer handicapping" is something that they could easily do without. Speaking for myself...I got into this game because I loved handicapping HORSES. Handicapping the trainers holds virtually no appeal for me.

I decided to track the "you only live once" trainer this year who advertises heavily to attract patrons just to see how the idea of trainer handicapping might work out.

Needless to say, an unmitigating disaster on all accounts,


Needless to say, an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions.

[ezpace]

I'm saddened this Christmas to see people still falling for the ezpace bait... :lol:

I usually delete his stuff like this, but I haven't been around the past few days...my apologies...
999999999999999999999999999

:-))

[mountainman]

I abhor trainer-racing, but accept it as an immutable fact. While the odd juxtaposition of my two jobs makes it tricky-even a bit perilous-to speak out on drugging, I've nonetheless made my sentiments obvious.

Sadly, supernatural training feats are too often attributable to chemistry-and unnatural substances make for unnatural performances that conform to no method, however astute, of prediction. Does anyone here REALLY claim, even after cashing a bet based on a change-of-hands, to have a handle on the significance, nature, or repeatability of a freakish, drug-addled performance??? And lots of luck in assessing yet a FURTHER change of trainers.

Hot trainers, super-trainers, and short-term makeover artists send out horses that DEFY the laws of handicapping..horses that get left at the post and still win, engage in suicide duels and emerge victorious, seem hard-ridden and defeated mid-turn, but rebid relentlessly to score. I've seen horses from suspicious super-barns overcome the grain of the surface, bad trips and impossible posts. And just HOW good the recently transferred runner will get is ANYBODY'S guess.

That's not handicapping, and it's not what we signed on for. Sure, I keep track of trainers and can exploit that factor as skillfully as the next handicapper, but cashing on that kind of winner doesn't FEEL much like handicapping-and has become increasingly less profitable with such wide distribution of detailed stats, not to mention the public realization that t-racing is largely about the trainers.

Unfortunately-and trust me on this-meaningful reform will not occur until honest horsemen band together and demand it. And they are also an injured party. Players just don't have the traction to bring about change. At least not now, or in the foreseeable future.

These are simply my opinions and, as always, I could be off-target, or even completely mistaken.

[thaskalos]

I abhor trainer-racing, but accept it as an immutable fact. While the odd juxtaposition of my two jobs makes it tricky-even a bit perilous-to speak out on drugging, I've nonetheless made my sentiments obvious.

Sadly, supernatural training feats are too often attributable to chemistry-and unnatural substances make for unnatural performances that conform to no method, however astute, of prediction. Does anyone here REALLY claim, even after cashing a bet based on a change-of-hands, to have a handle on the significance, nature, or repeatability of a freakish, drug-addled performance??? And lots of luck in assessing yet a FURTHER change of trainers.

Hot trainers, super-trainers, and short-term makeover artists send out horses that DEFY the laws of handicapping..horses that get left at the post and still win, engage in suicide duels and emerge victorious, seem hard-ridden and defeated mid-turn, but rebid relentlessly to score. I've seen horses from suspicious super-barns overcome the grain of the surface, bad trips and impossible posts. And just HOW good the recently transferred runner will get is ANYBODY'S guess.

That's not handicapping, and it's not what we signed on for. Sure, I keep track of trainers and can exploit that factor as skillfully as the next handicapper, but cashing on that kind of winner doesn't FEEL much like handicapping-and has become increasingly less profitable with such wide distribution of detailed stats, not to mention the public realization that t-racing is largely about the trainers.

Unfortunately-and trust me on this-meaningful reform will not occur until honest horsemen band together and demand it. And they are also an injured party. Players just don't have the traction to bring about change. At least not now, or in the foreseeable future.

These are simply my opinions and, as always, I could be off-target, or even completely mistaken.

You are not off-target...you are right ON target...IMO. And, as usual, you've made your point much more eloquently than I possibly could. :ThmbUp:

[mountainman]

You are not off-target...you are right ON target...IMO. And, as usual, you've made your point much more eloquently than I possibly could. :ThmbUp:

merry xmas, pal!

[thaskalos]

merry xmas, pal!
Merry Xmas to you and yours as well, Mark. And all the best for the New Year.

[plainolebill]

I don't like cheating or the appearance of cheating but I don't think that integrity has much to do with the decline of racing. IMHO the lack of a central authority like the commissioners of various team sports has cost racing dearly and is to blame for where we are today.

[Stillriledup]

I abhor trainer-racing, but accept it as an immutable fact. While the odd juxtaposition of my two jobs makes it tricky-even a bit perilous-to speak out on drugging, I've nonetheless made my sentiments obvious.

Sadly, supernatural training feats are too often attributable to chemistry-and unnatural substances make for unnatural performances that conform to no method, however astute, of prediction. Does anyone here REALLY claim, even after cashing a bet based on a change-of-hands, to have a handle on the significance, nature, or repeatability of a freakish, drug-addled performance??? And lots of luck in assessing yet a FURTHER change of trainers.

Hot trainers, super-trainers, and short-term makeover artists send out horses that DEFY the laws of handicapping..horses that get left at the post and still win, engage in suicide duels and emerge victorious, seem hard-ridden and defeated mid-turn, but rebid relentlessly to score. I've seen horses from suspicious super-barns overcome the grain of the surface, bad trips and impossible posts. And just HOW good the recently transferred runner will get is ANYBODY'S guess.

That's not handicapping, and it's not what we signed on for. Sure, I keep track of trainers and can exploit that factor as skillfully as the next handicapper, but cashing on that kind of winner doesn't FEEL much like handicapping-and has become increasingly less profitable with such wide distribution of detailed stats, not to mention the public realization that t-racing is largely about the trainers.

Unfortunately-and trust me on this-meaningful reform will not occur until honest horsemen band together and demand it. And they are also an injured party. Players just don't have the traction to bring about change. At least not now, or in the foreseeable future.

These are simply my opinions and, as always, I could be off-target, or even completely mistaken.

Fantastic post.

Love the line "that's not handicapping, that's not what we signed on for"

Handicapping should be mostly about the horse, with the humans as bit players. When the horse turns into the "bit player" that's when we have a problem with the process.

[ezpace]

You are not off-target...you are right ON target...IMO. And, as usual, you've made your point much more eloquently than I possibly could. :ThmbUp:
(999999(99999999999999999999999999999(999999

Thanks for this confirming post and all other contibutors posts.
much l8r

[Some_One]

3 Aussie trainers facing (a max of) 3 years for cobalt positives during the spring carnival. All results double checked by Hong Kong labs.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/superracing/mark-kavanagh-danny-obrien-and-peter-moody-facing-potential-bans-after-horses-test-positive-to-outlawed-substance-cobalt/story-fnibcgg5-1227183755785?nk=f37dedc082d06d161e0a0e25ee908cc7

"A maximum cobalt level has been in place in Victoria for nine months.
“We put in place a threshold of 200 micrograms per litre in April last year. We have had the drug’s presence confirmed by labs in Western Australia and Hong Kong,” chief steward Terry Bailey said of the Moody case."

[RXB]

Ha-ha, as soon as I saw the name Moody I really had to read that article. No wonder Black Caviar was so unbeatable.

Unfortunately for him, I've never heard of a cobalt bagel... so I think he's on the hook.

[nijinski]

Ha-ha, as soon as I saw the name Moody I really had to read that article. No wonder Black Caviar was so unbeatable.

Unfortunately for him, I've never heard of a cobalt bagel... so I think he's on the hook.
Wasn't she tested many times ?

[Some_One]

Wasn't she tested many times ?

Rules weren't around during her time.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

It is more than 3 Aussie trainers with positives for cobalt. Those 3 are just the 3 big name trainers. Some smaller trainers as well

Peter Moody had another positive test back in 2011 with a horse called Lethal Arrow. He got off that time with a "contaminated feed" defence

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-18/peter-moody-escapes-penalty/3577548

Moody has always been a vocal critic of tighter drugs rules. Some examples below but there are more

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/superracing/peter-moody-colin-alderson-criticise-blanket-steriod-ban/story-fnibcgg5-1226721316059

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/superracing/peter-moody-adamant-treatment-rule-needs-to-be-revisited-as-it-is-damaging-image-of-racing/story-fnibcgg5-1226754421581

[Seabiscuit@AR]

Another leading trainer in Australia, Chris Waller recently got off lightly for lasix use. His defence was the wrong horse got the lasix and this was accepted

Waller had another positive test to a pain killer 18 months earlier. He was also let off thanks to the "contaminated feed" defence

So it is not just American racing that has drugs issues

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/horseracing/chris-waller-fined-30000-and-junoob-disqualified-from-metropoltian-20141211-125b9i.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/turf-thoroughbreds/chris-waller-cleared-of-wrong-doing-over-positive-swabs/story-fnajufri-1226630333774