Trainer Kellyn Gorder

[upthecreek]

Suspended 1 Year

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/methamphetamine-positive-lands-gorder-14-month-suspension/

[Grits]

The trainer is never at fault. It is always an incident of contamination. It is always appealed.

Putting meth in a racehorse. Damn. :(

[lamboguy]

the chances of a positive test for meth once its in a horses system is something like 110%. does anyone really think this trainer is dumb enough to stick it in his horses?

my guess is that there is someone that doesn't like this trainer and is getting even with him this way. i have never spoken, met or could not pick out Gorder and am not biased in anyway. but i have seen this type of thing before and do understand that the stewards have no other choice but to suspend him once they have a positive.

[chadk66]

the chances of a positive test for meth once its in a horses system is something like 110%. does anyone really think this trainer is dumb enough to stick it in his horses?

my guess is that there is someone that doesn't like this trainer and is getting even with him this way. i have never spoken, met or could not pick out Gorder and am not biased in anyway. but i have seen this type of thing before and do understand that the stewards have no other choice but to suspend him once they have a positive.yes I do.

[Tall One]

Interesting. Not saying he's innocent, but meth? Kid is/was an up and comer with a few horses from Mt Brilliant in addition to others under his watch so this is somewhat a surprise.

Can't read the article here at work, but is this being appealed or did they sit him down already?

[FrankieFigs]

He also had one DQ'ed in August of 2013. Belle Natalie was the filly; she won the race our group sponsored at Ellis Park that day. I'm thinking it was for a drug positive but can't remember for sure.

[cj]

The unlabeled meds are the most troubling thing IMO.

[Stillriledup]

Big suspension for accidental contamination and there are trainers who kill horses with cobalt on purpose and get 0 days?

Incredible.

[Kash$]

Big suspension for accidental contamination and there are trainers who kill horses with cobalt on purpose and get 0 days?

Incredible.

5,000 fine.:confused:

[cj]

Big suspension for accidental contamination and there are trainers who kill horses with cobalt on purpose and get 0 days?

Incredible.

Accidental contamination? Yeah, that is what it was, I'm sure. Probably from those unmarked drugs.

[fiveouttasix]

in addition to the meth the article said "Gorder also has been suspended another 60 days for illegal injectables and hypodermic syringes having been found in his barn." I guess these were planted

[chadk66]

in addition to the meth the article said "Gorder also has been suspended another 60 days for illegal injectables and hypodermic syringes having been found in his barn." I guess these were plantedI'm sure they're accidental too. planted no doubt. put down the crack pipe, step away from the barn.:D

[Donttellmeshowme]

dudes pic looks like hes on meth

[chadk66]

yea he said they tested all the help but didn't say they tested him;)

[Robert Fischer]

I don't know enough to pass judgement.


The information that i've seen is incomplete, and paints a very illogical picture.
He does seem to be guilty of violating a procedure when it comes to certain standard injectable medications and their labeling and possession.


As an ignorant outsider reading these reports, the best I can GUESS would be that a horse may have eaten a bit of drugs/contraband that a backstretch worker had brought/dropped/stashed into the barn. Then it seems that the horse drew a big red-flag for a meth positive. Then it seems like they brought in security and searched his barn and found some procedural violations. Then I would guess that Gorder may have reacted in an abrasive manner.

Like I said, these are guesses, based upon limited information.

I assume we will see an appeal. No result to such an appeal will really surprise me.

[chadk66]

I don't know enough to pass judgement.


The information that i've seen is incomplete, and paints a very illogical picture.
He does seem to be guilty of violating a procedure when it comes to certain standard injectable medications and their labeling and possession.


As an ignorant outsider reading these reports, the best I can GUESS would be that a horse may have eaten a bit of drugs/contraband that a backstretch worker had brought/dropped/stashed into the barn. Then it seems that the horse drew a big red-flag for a meth positive. Then it seems like they brought in security and searched his barn and found some procedural violations. Then I would guess that Gorder may have reacted in an abrasive manner.

Like I said, these are guesses, based upon limited information.

I assume we will see an appeal. No result to such an appeal will really surprise me.nothing procedural about his violations. you get caught with a need or syringe your gone.

[castaway01]

Big suspension for accidental contamination and there are trainers who kill horses with cobalt on purpose and get 0 days?

Incredible.

You complain about rampant cheating, then you complain if anyone gets punished for cheating. Gets the post count up though.

[Relwob Owner]

You complain about rampant cheating, then you complain if anyone gets punished for cheating. Gets the post count up though.


Totally agree.

Someone is caught cheating and is actually punished. Thats a good thing IMO

[WP1981]

I'm sure this is all just a big misunderstanding.

[cj]

http://www.twinspires.com/blog/2015/4/23/roi-not-win-percentage-casts-shadow-gorder-contamination-claims

[Robert Fischer]

http://www.twinspires.com/blog/2015/4/23/roi-not-win-percentage-casts-shadow-gorder-contamination-claims
thanks, sharp article

Doug Salvatore is a great player, and one of the better writers from the player's perspective we have today as well.

And a PA forum contributor!

[thaskalos]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/methamphetamine-positive-lands-gorder-14-month-suspension/
Trainer Kellyn Gorder is obviously a man of great character, a fact corroborated by the impassioned pleas of even the highly-esteemed Barry Irwin...but where is the reasonable explanation for the unlabeled drugs and the syringes found in his possession?

[Relwob Owner]

Trainer Kellyn Gorder is obviously a man of great character, a fact corroborated by the impassioned pleas of even the highly-esteemed Barry Irwin...but where is the reasonable explanation for the unlabeled drugs and the syringes found in his possession?


I dont see an explanation for that coming in the near future and if it does come, I do think one of the normal sabotage-esque excuses will be used.

[Robert Fischer]

...but where is the reasonable explanation for the unlabeled drugs and the syringes found in his possession?

Looks like he willfully committed a violation of protocol.

Apparently it's fairly common for barns to keep certain medications on hand and do certain administration of antibiotics etc in-house. He didn't follow the rule-of-law, and if he feels it is inconvenient to follow the rule to the letter, then he should obviously raise that point somewhere appropriate, rather than simply not follow it.

The major issue here is the methamphetamine positive. And either Gorder is an irrational maniac who thinks he can use meth on a horse and beat the tests, or it was a case of contamination.

[chadk66]

Looks like he willfully committed a violation of protocol.

Apparently it's fairly common for barns to keep certain medications on hand and do certain administration of antibiotics etc in-house. He didn't follow the rule-of-law, and if he feels it is inconvenient to follow the rule to the letter, then he should obviously raise that point somewhere appropriate, rather than simply not follow it.

The major issue here is the methamphetamine positive. And either Gorder is an irrational maniac who thinks he can use meth on a horse and beat the tests, or it was a case of contamination.yes he willfully violated the rules of racing regarding housing drugs/needles, etc. However, I don't think it's all that common for barns to keep certain meds on hand that are to be administered only by a vet including injectable antibiotics. To me, his willful violations of these rules tell the story of his character regardless of what others say about him. pretty hard to dismiss blatant violations such as these.

[Robert Fischer]

yes he willfully violated the rules of racing regarding housing drugs/needles, etc. However, I don't think it's all that common for barns to keep certain meds on hand that are to be administered only by a vet including injectable antibiotics. To me, his willful violations of these rules tell the story of his character regardless of what others say about him. pretty hard to dismiss blatant violations such as these.

IIRC , you have training experience. You would have perspective of first-hand experience. :ThmbUp:

[chadk66]

IIRC , you have training experience. You would have perspective of first-hand experience. :ThmbUp:I don't think there are many that would risk having the stuff in the tack room. too many prying eyes. too easy for security to walk in unannounced and rummage through. I've seen it happen a fair number of times. They usually come in and search the barn before they even tell you there is a positive on one of your horses. I believe most keep it off the premises and bring it in and out as needed and quickly. Or possibly in a very well hidden place in their vehicle. It would be fairly sloppy/stupid to keep it in the barn.

[Fager Fan]

I dont see an explanation for that coming in the near future and if it does come, I do think one of the normal sabotage-esque excuses will be used.

Wrong. Gorder gave an explanation the afternoon after this was first reported. It had to do with medicine prescribed a particular horse and he admits that it should've been long ago been thrown away instead of being found still sitting in his office.

[Fager Fan]

Trainer Kellyn Gorder is obviously a man of great character, a fact corroborated by the impassioned pleas of even the highly-esteemed Barry Irwin...but where is the reasonable explanation for the unlabeled drugs and the syringes found in his possession?

The problem with Irwin is that he uses Pletcher. I don't know how Irwin reconciles the spate of rare liver diseases that came out of that barn. It leaves Irwin without the proverbial leg to stand on.

[Relwob Owner]

Wrong. Gorder gave an explanation the afternoon after this was first reported. It had to do with medicine prescribed a particular horse and he admits that it should've been long ago been thrown away instead of being found still sitting in his office.

If thats the case I stand corrected and hadn't seen that. That being the case, the explanation you mentioned was in response to injectable medications, syringes, needles and oral medications not properly labeled being found? All of these things had to do with one particular horse and they were just left in his office? You find this believable?

[Stillriledup]

You complain about rampant cheating, then you complain if anyone gets punished for cheating. Gets the post count up though.

Nothing like a poster adding to his own post count by complaining about someone else's post count.

Good job though, you probably hold the record here for posts with no substance, just 5th grade drivel. If drivel were dollars, you would be Trump. (stole that from Vic)

[upthecreek]

http://halveyonhorseracing.com

[elhelmete]

http://halveyonhorseracing.com

Good article, thanks.

My friends had to pre-emptively scratch one of their horses yesterday due to a series of errors (involving meds) which if I were to tell the story (can't just now) would absolutely blow your mind. An unbelievable, chilling comedy of errors by several people with titles and responsibilities.

[chadk66]

http://halveyonhorseracing.comthis dudes credibility went right out the window when he stated only three scientists in the world believe global warming isn't caused by humans. At that point he became just another ass clown.

[Turntime]

this dudes credibility went right out the window when he stated only three scientists in the world believe global warming isn't caused by humans. At that point he became just another ass clown.

When one does not have anything intelligent to say in response to another’s opinion, they often resort to name calling. Let’s stay on topic. How does your investigation into the Kellyn Gorder situation differ from the authors? Obviously you disagree with his conclusions, so please enlighten us with your opinion and the facts to back them up. It’s easy to call people names under the anonymity of the internet, but I would suggest that if you don’t have anything of substance to say about the topic then it’s best to keep quiet.

[chadk66]

When one does not have anything intelligent to say in response to another’s opinion, they often resort to name calling. Let’s stay on topic. How does your investigation into the Kellyn Gorder situation differ from the authors? Obviously you disagree with his conclusions, so please enlighten us with your opinion and the facts to back them up. It’s easy to call people names under the anonymity of the internet, but I would suggest that if you don’t have anything of substance to say about the topic then it’s best to keep quiet.I've stated my opinion on the Gorder matter already. The guy broke the rules on several occasions. I don't know what more there is to discuss other than he probably isn't being penalized enough.

[rastajenk]

Who is this Halvey guy? I thought he made some very perceptive, valid points.

[upthecreek]

Who is this Halvey guy? I thought he made some very perceptive, valid points.
I found him on twitter, he was tweeting w/ CJ

[cj]

I found him on twitter, he was tweeting w/ CJ

Rich is a good guy. We sometimes agree, sometimes not, but I respect him. He is sharp.

[Grits]

On Friday's Oaks card, Gorder has 4 horses in. Races 2,4,5,12. Having not paid attention to his horses, has he had runners in... these first days of CD? It'll be interesting to see how these finish.

[thaskalos]

http://halveyonhorseracing.com
So...according to Mr. Halvey, there is no drug problem today in horse racing. It's all the fault of the "governors of the sport", who create the perception of rampant cheating in order to "secure their jobs". Only a tiny percentage of blood and urine samples come back positive...and almost all of the violations are for legal, therapeutic drugs. In fact, Mr. Halvey suggests that the only problem with the drug situation today is that the drug tests are too PRECISE, and innocent, hard-working horsemen like Mr. Kellyn Gorder inadvertently get caught up in this maddening web which is as likely to punish the innocent as it is to punish the guilty.

But then we get this:

"We are not idiots. Of course there are cheats, and I imagine there are drugs that are a step ahead of the testing protocols, but I want to know. Where are the labs making the drugs? Why isn't racing spending money finding these Breaking Bad actors and closing them down? How many veterinarians are willing to lose their livelihood just to make a few bucks injecting horses with secret potions?"

Only a few of the horsemen engage in cheating practices of this sort, Mr. Halvey assures us...and it would take only a modest effort to round these undesirables up, and drive them out of the game. But it's those dastardly "governors of the sport" again...who refuse to clean up the game because they supposedly have so much to gain from presenting the drug problem in the sport as a much bigger issue than it currently is.

Mr. Halvey ignores a few pretty important facts in order to strengthen his hypothesis, of course. He ignores that there are plenty of reports put out by esteemed veterinarians which suggest that powerful illegal drugs DO exist out there which "greatly increase a horse's locomotion"...while other reports clearly indicate that there are indeed veterinarians out there who are willing to jeopardize their livelihood in order to illegally make some quick bucks. One doesn't have to go far to encounter these reports; some of them have appeared on the pages of this very board...and we have talked about them plenty.

Do the "governors of the sport" gain anything by greatly distorting the drug problem in the game today, and blowing it out of proportion...as Mr. Halvey suggests? What possible benefit could come to these governors of the sport, by them giving the perception to the public that this game is nothing but a den of thieves? Aren't these the exact same "governors of the sport" who have concealed the truth behind every single scandal that has ever come down the pike in this game's long and checkered past? Hasn't every jockey race-fixing scandal, every trainer arrest, and every past-posting incident in this game gotten covered up, and brushed under the carpet...in an attempt to protect the so-called "integrity" of the game, at the expense of properly informing the public...who have faithfully supported this game for DECADES? Wasn't it Andy Beyer who declared in print a few years back, that it was common practice in California to "punish" the connections of the positively-tested winners of prestigious races, with hushed-up suspensions and slap-on-the-wrist fines...in a well-orchestrated attempt to keep these incidents out of public view, thus protecting the "integrity" of the game?

And we are now supposed to believe that these same "governors of the sport", who have fought tooth and nail to keep racing scandals of all kinds away from public view for all these years, are now making a determined effort to exaggerate the drug problems in this game...because it somehow offers them the benefit of added "job security"?

I'm sorry Mr. Halvey...but I just don't see it. I really can't believe that these "governors of the sport" are overstating the drug problems that are currently plaguing this game. Overstating problems of this magnitude isn't what these people are really about. If they could...they would brush the whole thing right under the carpet. THAT'S what these folks are really good at!

[Turntime]

Thaskalos, talked to Mr. Halvey and he said he will respond to your well thought out post after the Derby, possibly on his blog.

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos, talked to Mr. Halvey and he said he will respond to your well thought out post after the Derby, possibly on his blog.
I am looking forward to it. Thank you.

[Stillriledup]

I am looking forward to it. Thank you.

Good writeup, i enjoyed reading that.

I think the biggest problem with the game is that there's really nobody who is actually fighting FOR the game. We just assume that because all these different tracks conduct equine athletic contests, that they're all "purveyors" of the sport, but in reality, these are just gambling and or gaming companies who are in the gambling business...so, their time, effort, resources and focus is on the gambling product, each track is its own "entity" there's nothing much in it for them to spend the time cultivating this sport, they're more interested in the money they make from the gambling.

The time, effort and money it would take to get a "cleaner" game wont necessarily increase betting handle because perception is that there's shenanigans going on. If tracks spent millions of extra dollars to clean this game and then announced "ladies and gents the game is now clean, you can bet with confidence" how quick would this "clean game" speech be forgotten the minute a horse goes from 10-1 to 7-1 at the quarter pole and wins....or, when a guy nobody has ever heard of claims a horse and he improves 30 Beyer points overnight. If this stuff happens, all the millions spent to clean up the game means nothing...the perception is that the game isnt clean and even if the game gets cleaned spotless, how are you going to convince most of these horse bettors that the last bet they lost wasn't because someone pulled the wool over their eyes? Most don't want to admit when they lost fair and square, most bettors just feel that crooked nonsense is why they lost their bet so i don't know if spending millions to clean up the game will change the perception of too many people, if anyone.

[Turntime]

Thaskalos, the response to your post is up on his blog.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/

[Stillriledup]

Thaskalos, the response to your post is up on his blog.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/

One thing i'd like to add on the discussion between Halvey and Gus on how clean the sport really happens to be. One huge factor is that the PERCEPTION is that its much dirtier than it really is. When bettors lose bets, many blame "cheats" and even if the races are super clean for the most part, if a bettor sees a trainer winning 35%, he just figures the guy is a gas trainer and no amount of testing is going to convince that guy otherwise.

So, the perception is REALLY important, but if the game is pretty clean or really clean, the perception is that its kinda not that clean.

[cj]

Baseball and cycling were clean too, not many positive tests for anything...until they weren't.

[thaskalos]

Thaskalos, the response to your post is up on his blog.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/

Thanks for the update. Please inform Mr. Halvey that my own reply will be up in this very spot by noon Wednesday, May the 6th.

[Stillriledup]

No doubt to CJs point. Its a bettor's responsibility to know if they're being cheated or not and to proceed accordingly. There are other ways to sniff out drug cheats by just paying attention and watching the races, seeing who's moving up horses and winning ungodly percentages is the first step in sniffing that out, bettors aren't allowed access to sensitive testing info, they have to just trust what they're being told is true, people are very skeptical to trust a regulating body that gives wrist slaps and often will sweep stuff under the rug for perceptions sake, i wouldn't trust these people as far as i could throw them.

If i watch some of these usual suspects train and see their horses, HOW they win and how they improve overnight, i can make a pretty good guess who the cheats are, i dont need some regulatory body to tell me about pico grams and nano grams. I can look at races, move ups, and win percentage and i'm fine with that as my 'cheating radar' .

[rastajenk]

Mr. Halvey jumps out to a 10-length lead in the first turn and opens up even more daylight down the backstretch, exuding too much class for Mr. Thaskalos. Mr. Thaskalos will need some performance-enhancing drugs of his own to cut into this wicked pace.

[Grits]

Thanks for the update. Please inform Mr. Halvey that my own reply will be up in this very spot by noon Wednesday, May the 6th.

In fairness, I have a network of objective, highly regarded experts at my disposal. I have done extensive research which means I don’t have to resort to anecdote. I have talked to numerous racing commissioners and executive directors. This is something I know a lot about. Not necessarily everything. But a lot. I posted your response on my blog. How about you do the same on PaceAdvantage.

Before taking a great deal more time with a blogger who lurks, at Pace Advantage for material while cutting and pasteing the opinion of one of its most respected posters to his own sanctuary, as opposed to discussion here, agreeing to disagree may save you a bit of time. It's more than apparent, if only by the countless number of times I appears in the blogger's writing... you are in an unfortunately tiring situation.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I had never participated in PaceAdvantage. The Thaskolos post was presented to me by a PaceAdvantage user. Considering thaskolos misrepresented my position, I felt it necessary to clarify it. I signed up for PA but it took over a week before I got posting privileges. In the meantime I posted to my blog, which is read by a lot of people, and used a third party to inform the PA users, since I wasn't being allowed to post. Now that I have posting privileges, I'll respond here, if a response is warranted. In this case I can't imagine extending this discussion much farther. I will stick by the facts contained in the RCI drug violation statistics and my opinion that Kellyn Gorder did not deserve 14 months for a picogram positive.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts.

[PaceAdvantage]

Sorry it took so long, but we don't let just anybody in (despite the presence of SRU)... :lol:

Welcome aboard!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

For some time now David Jacobson has been the poster boy for alleged cheating in NY. What he does seems unbelievable without the assistance of performance-enhancing substances. NYRA has put him under the mictroscope on many occasions and they've come up empty. That either means DJ is the smartest guy on the track and the NYRA folks...well. the opposite, or DJ is clean. As horseplayers we deserve to know which. In my article, When the Mob Rules There Are No Rules (http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1152) I discuss in some detail an attempt to get Jacobson ruled off the track in NY. It seems to defy all common sense that a trainer could improve a horse by 10-15% after having him for a week. If I had a good explanation that I could document factually, I'd give it but I don't. Instead, I expect NY or PA or wherever to focus their attention on the training magicians and come up with the explanation. Half the problem is trainers looking to chemically improve their horses. The other half is the ineptitude of the commissions that are apparently consistently outsmarted. Bettors are quick to point at the trainers. I would hope they would be just as quick to criticize the group that can't catch them.

[cj]

For some time now David Jacobson has been the poster boy for alleged cheating in NY. What he does seems unbelievable without the assistance of performance-enhancing substances. NYRA has put him under the mictroscope on many occasions and they've come up empty. That either means DJ is the smartest guy on the track and the NYRA folks...well. the opposite, or DJ is clean. As horseplayers we deserve to know which. In my article, When the Mob Rules There Are No Rules (http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1152) I discuss in some detail an attempt to get Jacobson ruled off the track in NY. It seems to defy all common sense that a trainer could improve a horse by 10-15% after having him for a week. If I had a good explanation that I could document factually, I'd give it but I don't. Instead, I expect NY or PA or wherever to focus their attention on the training magicians and come up with the explanation. Half the problem is trainers looking to chemically improve their horses. The other half is the ineptitude of the commissions that are apparently consistently outsmarted. Bettors are quick to point at the trainers. I would hope they would be just as quick to criticize the group that can't catch them.

I think he is the poster boy for flipping horses, not cheating.

[thaskalos]

Mr. Halvey jumps out to a 10-length lead in the first turn and opens up even more daylight down the backstretch, exuding too much class for Mr. Thaskalos. Mr. Thaskalos will need some performance-enhancing drugs of his own to cut into this wicked pace.
Why does your post not surprise me?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

He does that very well. But he has been the target of accusations for a while, as the petition that was circulated demonstrates. I would still believe NYRA has an obligation to assure the betting public they have looked hard and have found nothing damning. I would think DJ would have demanded it by now.

[cj]

He does that very well. But he has been the target of accusations for a while, as the petition that was circulated demonstrates. I would still believe NYRA has an obligation to assure the betting public they have looked hard and have found nothing damning. I would think DJ would have demanded it by now.

If dumping the ones that don't pan out at Laurel or Suffolk or Parx is doing it well, then yes, he does it very well.

Jacobson plays by the rules. He just doesn't seem to care much about the horses once they aren't making him money. I think the system enables him, and he takes full advantage.

[Grits]

When one has no concrete, documented proof, petitions are simply white noise falling on deaf ears. And in the Jacobson case? The search box will lead one to the realization that he's a vastly discussed topic here.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If dumping the ones that don't pan out at Laurel or Suffolk or Parx is doing it well, then yes, he does it very well.

Jacobson plays by the rules. He just doesn't seem to care much about the horses once they aren't making him money. I think the system enables him, and he takes full advantage.


We don't disagree at all. I think DJ is sharp with his claims, and yes, he'll dump them in a heartbeat once he decides they will not be covering expenses. But he still gets a lot of negative perception from the public, and sometimes perception becomes reality.

[cj]

We don't disagree at all. I think DJ is sharp with his claims, and yes, he'll dump them in a heartbeat once he decides they will not be covering expenses. But he still gets a lot of negative perception from the public, and sometimes perception becomes reality.

Just because something is "by the rules" doesn't mean people can't judge actions negatively. That is what happens with Jacobson.

This stuff happens all the time in our game. Ken Ramsey / Mike Maker pair just did it Derby week at Churchill, dumped a 50k claim in for 5 and watched the horse run dead last. I guess few noticed because it was Ken Ramsey. The sport of horse racing allows this kind of stuff. Until that changes, it will continue to happen.

[thaskalos]

I had never participated in PaceAdvantage. The Thaskolos post was presented to me by a PaceAdvantage user. Considering thaskolos misrepresented my position, I felt it necessary to clarify it. I signed up for PA but it took over a week before I got posting privileges. In the meantime I posted to my blog, which is read by a lot of people, and used a third party to inform the PA users, since I wasn't being allowed to post. Now that I have posting privileges, I'll respond here, if a response is warranted. In this case I can't imagine extending this discussion much farther. I will stick by the facts contained in the RCI drug violation statistics and my opinion that Kellyn Gorder did not deserve 14 months for a picogram positive.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts.

I never meant to misrepresent your position, Mr. Halvey. You told us that 99.5% of the blood and urine samples which are tested come back negative...and that 94% of the "violations" were for legal, therapeutic drugs...and you told us this repeatedly in your blog column. Yes, you yourself admitted that there were "cheats" in this game...but you also added that these cheats represent only a tiny percentage of the horsemen population. So, looking at the drug picture that you paint for us...how can you blame me for thinking that your opinion is that there in no drug "problem" in our game today? The drug scene that you paint here is not a "problem"; it's an inconvenience. 99.5% of the samples come back negative, 94% of the infractions are for legal, therapeutic drugs...and only a few of the trainers cheat. There is no "real" problem here then that I could see...that's why I interpreted your opinion as meant to imply that no drug "problem" existed in our game today.

You also objected when I suggested that you might be considering the drug testing today as being too "precise". You said in your rebuttal that what you were against was the "no tolerance" rule against minute traces of drugs, and not the "precision" of the testing itself...as I had erroneously assumed. But again...it was your repeated use of the word "picogram" and "cross-contamination", your reference to the minute traces of cocaine on the money in our pockets, and your description of the drug policies of the game, which, in your opinion, "punish the innocent just as easily as they punish the guilty"...which made me think that you might consider the drug testing today as being too "precise". If I was wrong, then I apologize...and I assure you that I did not intentionally try to misrepresent your views.

You also repeatedly pointed out to me that I failed to supply any "real proof" to support the statements that I made in my initial post here; I think what you said was that the evidence I provided was "anecdotal". Well...in my defense I must say that I was only submitting a post to an online chat room, and these posts are usually brief, and more to-the-point than what a blog article would be. When I wrote my initial post in this thread, I had no idea that it would be seen by you...or that you would honor me with a reply. Had I known that...then I would have supplied all the "evidence" needed to back up the statements that I made.

No...I don't agree with you when you say that "only a few of the horsemen cheat"...nor do I hold the RCI drug violation statistics in the very high esteem that you seem to regard them. After all...these are the exact same stats that the "governors of the sport" had always paraded in front of us, even as unscrupulous trainers were searching in remote places for cobra venom and frog juice...in order to circumvent the drug testing protocols of the sport. How much validity should we place in the RCI drug violation statistics, when the strong suspicion is that there are powerful drugs out there which evade detection? Even you stated that you suspected as much, in your Gorder article.

You say that the drug use in this game isn't "rampant"...but that too is open to debate. After all, trainer David Wells painted quite a different picture in his recent horse doping trial...where he was ordered to spend three months in jail. Mr. Wells testified that he grew up in a horse training family...that doping horses was a "rampant" practice in horse racing...and that he had to do what he did in order to survive.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/02/trainer_sent_to_prison_in_penn.html

I don't know Kellyn Gorder, nor can I say with certainty that he deserves to be punished in the manner that he was, by the Kentucky Racing Commission. All I know about this situation is what I've read...and I admit to being somewhat confused. A Class 1 banned substance was found in a blood sample of one of his horses...and a subsequent barn search unearthed additional improperly labeled medications...as well as needles and syringes. What would the proper punishment be in this case...in your opinion?

[thaskalos]

I had never participated in PaceAdvantage. The Thaskolos post was presented to me by a PaceAdvantage user. Considering thaskolos misrepresented my position, I felt it necessary to clarify it. I signed up for PA but it took over a week before I got posting privileges. In the meantime I posted to my blog, which is read by a lot of people, and used a third party to inform the PA users, since I wasn't being allowed to post. Now that I have posting privileges, I'll respond here, if a response is warranted. In this case I can't imagine extending this discussion much farther. I will stick by the facts contained in the RCI drug violation statistics and my opinion that Kellyn Gorder did not deserve 14 months for a picogram positive.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts.
In all fairness, the gentleman who presented my post to you can hardly be called a "Paceadvantage user". He hadn't posted here in seven years...and his only two postings in the year 2008 had to do with the "greatest pro wrestlers of all time"...and the "death of Bobby Fischer". :)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I never meant to misrepresent your position, Mr. Halvey. You told us that 99.5% of the blood and urine samples which are tested come back negative...and that 94% of the "violations" were for legal, therapeutic drugs...and you told us this repeatedly in your blog column. Yes, you yourself admitted that there were "cheats" in this game...but you also added that these cheats represent only a tiny percentage of the horsemen population. So, looking at the drug picture that you paint for us...how can you blame me for thinking that your opinion is that there in no drug "problem" in our game today? The drug scene that you paint here is not a "problem"; it's an inconvenience. 99.5% of the samples come back negative, 94% of the infractions are for legal, therapeutic drugs...and only a few of the trainers cheat. There is no "real" problem here then that I could see...that's why I interpreted your opinion as meant to imply that no drug "problem" existed in our game today.

You also objected when I suggested that you might be considering the drug testing today as being too "precise". You said in your rebuttal that what you were against was the "no tolerance" rule against minute traces of drugs, and not the "precision" of the testing itself...as I had erroneously assumed. But again...it was your repeated use of the word "picogram" and "cross-contamination", your reference to the minute traces of cocaine on the money in our pockets, and your description of the drug policies of the game, which, in your opinion, "punish the innocent just as easily as they punish the guilty"...which made me think that you might consider the drug testing today as being too "precise". If I was wrong, then I apologize...and I assure you that I did not intentionally try to misrepresent your views.

You also repeatedly pointed out to me that I failed to supply any "real proof" to support the statements that I made in my initial post here; I think what you said was that the evidence I provided was "anecdotal". Well...in my defense I must say that I was only submitting a post to an online chat room, and these posts are usually brief, and more to-the-point than what a blog article would be. When I wrote my initial post in this thread, I had no idea that it would be seen by you...or that you would honor me with a reply. Had I known that...then I would have supplied all the "evidence" needed to back up the statements that I made.

No...I don't agree with you when you say that "only a few of the horsemen cheat"...nor do I hold the RCI drug violation statistics in the very high esteem that you seem to regard them. After all...these are the exact same stats that the "governors of the sport" had always paraded in front of us, even as unscrupulous trainers were searching in remote places for cobra venom and frog juice...in order to circumvent the drug testing protocols of the sport. How much validity should we place in the RCI drug violation statistics, when the strong suspicion is that there are powerful drugs out there which evade detection? Even you stated that you suspected as much, in your Gorder article.

You say that the drug use in this game isn't "rampant"...but that too is open to debate. After all, trainer David Wells painted quite a different picture in his recent horse doping trial...where he was ordered to spend three months in jail. Mr. Wells testified that he grew up in a horse training family...that doping horses was a "rampant" practice in horse racing...and that he had to do what he did in order to survive.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/02/trainer_sent_to_prison_in_penn.html

I don't know Kellyn Gorder, nor can I say with certainty that he deserves to be punished in the manner that he was, by the Kentucky Racing Commission. All I know about this situation is what I've read...and I admit to being somewhat confused. A Class 1 banned substance was found in a blood sample of one of his horses...and a subsequent barn search unearthed additional improperly labeled medications...as well as needles and syringes. What would the proper punishment be in this case...in your opinion?

That was certainly a fair reply.

It's become my practice to investigate medication violations where it appears the trainer was dealt with unfairly. If I had an advantage in this case, I talked directly with Kellyn Gorder and the racing commisson. In my conversations with Gorder he sincerely seemed puzzled, if not horrified that his horse tested positive for meth. I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe he ever injected his horse with meth. I think it is fair to say we are unlikely to ever know how the drug got into the horse's system.

Any disagreement you and I may have might be a matter of degrees. I honestly don't know the number of trainers consciously cheating to gain an advantage, and I don't know where you should draw the line between rampant and incidental. I suspect that line can vary for each of us - is 5% rampant? 10%? 50%?

Where I expect we agree is that the racing commissions should find the cheaters and punish them harshly. While I can feel fine about suggesting Gorder's suspension and fine for Meth was excessive, I can just as easily say Julio Cartagena probably got off way too easy for a Nikethamide violation.

Gorder has no defense for the unlabeled medications and the syringes and he offered none to me when I spoke with him. He received two months for the syringes and the unlabeled drugs, and he and I agreed that penalty was warranted and fair.

Where I was really trying to make a convincing argument was that 48 picograms was such a small amount, it was hard to conclude it had been administered to the horse. What is dead certain is that 48 picograms could have no impact on a horse's performance. And if the horse was a human, 48 picograms would never have gotten an indictment. I asked vets and pharmacologists. Their answer was the same - it was most likely cross contamination. So, if you want my opinion on the punishment Gorder should have received, I would have said a year with 10 months suspended assuming he had no Class 1 or 2 violations for the next 36 months, sentences for meth and the syringes to run concurrently. In other words, two months for everything and three years probation. I think in that case justice is done. Gorder gets some real time, the commission can legitimately claim they came down hard on the Class 1, and if Gorder gets caught again he does the heavier sentence. Meanwhile, the guy's ability to make a living isn't destroyed.

I am sorry I didn't get to talk directly with David Wells. By the time I got to his attorney, Wells was already in jail and for the most part unavailable to talk by phone. That would have been an interesting story, one way or the other. I garned a lot of second hand information - stuff that isn't publishable because of lack of corroboration - but there was a lot more going on than we got to read in DRF or Ray Paulick.

I'm not sure either of us would say we enjoyed the exchange, but I appreciate that it stayed civil. For what it is worth, I thought you had intelligent points worth considering. It is unfortunate we had to meet under less than ideal circumstances.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

In all fairness, the gentleman who presented my post to you can hardly be called a "Paceadvantage user". He hadn't posted here in seven years...and his only two postings in the year 2008 had to do with the "greatest pro wrestlers of all time"...and the "death of Bobby Fischer". :)

That person was someone who reads posts both here and on my blog. Beyond him pointing this out to me and being a registered PA user, I had no sense what his involvement was. Frankly, it would not have been my choice to use him as an intermediary, but I was being denied posting privileges and I had no idea if they were ever coming. I'd have much rather posted my response to your post here in the first place. For whatever it is worth, I will not have to take the circuitous route again. I'll be speaking for myself.

[thespaah]

Suspended 1 Year

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/methamphetamine-positive-lands-gorder-14-month-suspension/
Something doesn't quite add up here.
I gotta see the results of any investigation which is surely to take place....Based on the appeal..
If the allegations are true, throw the book at the guy...

[thespaah]

yes I do.
Yes you do what?
Please expand on your comment.
You were in the business. Explain what your experience tells you.
Thanks.

[thespaah]

The unlabeled meds are the most troubling thing IMO.
I agree. That in and of itself should be grounds for some sort of punishment.

[chadk66]

Yes you do what?
Please expand on your comment.
You were in the business. Explain what your experience tells you.
Thanks.obviously he is dumb enough to stick the stuff in his horses. he has proven he is dumb enough to house needles/syringes in his tack room. there's no cure for stupid. I love the blogger pointing out "the statistics don't back up the claim" or something to that affect. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out there won't be statistics for something that they don't find lol. You guys can believe whatever you want to believe. I've been there done that. I can tell you it's a far bigger deal than this blogger wants to believe. And I'm not the only former trainer on here that will tell you that. But if it makes anybody feel better to think there isn't a problem, who am I to tell you any different.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I agree. That in and of itself should be grounds for some sort of punishment.

Just to be clear, Gorder was given two months for the syringes and the unlabeled medications and an additional year for the meth. As he told me, there was no issue with the punishment for the syringes and the unlabeled meds.

The syringes were left over from a nebulizer antibiotic treatment for one of the horses. This was documented on the medication sheets. Still, he has no excuse for not disposing of the syringes once the treatment was completed.

[Stillriledup]

For some time now David Jacobson has been the poster boy for alleged cheating in NY. What he does seems unbelievable without the assistance of performance-enhancing substances. NYRA has put him under the mictroscope on many occasions and they've come up empty. That either means DJ is the smartest guy on the track and the NYRA folks...well. the opposite, or DJ is clean. As horseplayers we deserve to know which. In my article, When the Mob Rules There Are No Rules (http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1152) I discuss in some detail an attempt to get Jacobson ruled off the track in NY. It seems to defy all common sense that a trainer could improve a horse by 10-15% after having him for a week. If I had a good explanation that I could document factually, I'd give it but I don't. Instead, I expect NY or PA or wherever to focus their attention on the training magicians and come up with the explanation. Half the problem is trainers looking to chemically improve their horses. The other half is the ineptitude of the commissions that are apparently consistently outsmarted. Bettors are quick to point at the trainers. I would hope they would be just as quick to criticize the group that can't catch them.

I think with Jacobson what it comes down to is this. A lot of the time, he's technically not breaking rules and you are right, the on track vet has the last say so if a horse is going to be allowed to race, but the main problem i see is that DJ has no problem dropping a horse from 50k to 10k to run vs giving that horse some R and R and making sure the horse is sound enough to run.

If you claim one for 50 and then run it for 5 or 10 (as well as ship the horse to FL or Suffolk or some other C track) is that horse really 100 Pct sound? Are you going to give a perfectly sound 50,000 dollar horse away for 5k? Nothing is wrong with the horse at all and he's giving them away?

I think if you're the person who is most likely to drop a horse drastically in claiming price and you do this more than any other trainer, you become a "poster boy" for something.

If anyone wants to argue that 50k claimers running for 10k are perfectly sound horses who just got dramatically slower overnight, than you can make the case that DJ is doing nothing wrong, he's never running a compromised horse and he's just getting a bad rap. But if one of those "big dropdowns" breaks down, do we just say its bad luck? Or, is it something more.

Jacobson was the trainer of record of a horse named Saginaw. I guess you can say that Saginaw is the "lava man" of the east coast and yet, Lava Man's trainer and owners found a way to make sure Lava Man was retired without incident (even though they made an ill advised brief comeback) and Saginaw's connections didn't take the same precautions. Lava Man is enjoying the rest of his life and Saginaw is 6 feet under. Was it ALL Jacobson's fault? Probably not, but when you are Jacobson and you have already had a microscope under you and have people saying that you really don't always do right by the horses, you need to not have a horse like Saginaw break down on the racetrack.

You did mention in your blog that Buddy Jacobson ran his barn and felt "no great attachment" to the animals....have we seen evidence that David isn't anything like his dad and he cares greatly about the animals? I think he will tell you he does, but if you see 50k horses shipping to finger lakes to run for 4k and then those horses "never come home" its hard to see that type of management goes hand in hand with "deeply caring".

People are very sensitive to the animals these days, and any abuse of them get a lot of people seeing red.....its a problem for many people and usually when there's a problem, there's a poster boy. If Jacobson doesn't deserve to be a poster boy for this problem, is there someone who deserves it more? Is there a trainer out there who's worse than David in this regard?

[thespaah]

obviously he is dumb enough to stick the stuff in his horses. he has proven he is dumb enough to house needles/syringes in his tack room. there's no cure for stupid. I love the blogger pointing out "the statistics don't back up the claim" or something to that affect. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out there won't be statistics for something that they don't find lol. You guys can believe whatever you want to believe. I've been there done that. I can tell you it's a far bigger deal than this blogger wants to believe. And I'm not the only former trainer on here that will tell you that. But if it makes anybody feel better to think there isn't a problem, who am I to tell you any different.
Please don't misconstrue my query. I was merely looking for the views of those who've worked in the business. Someone who is not concerned with being politically correct.
Thanks.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

obviously he is dumb enough to stick the stuff in his horses. he has proven he is dumb enough to house needles/syringes in his tack room. there's no cure for stupid. I love the blogger pointing out "the statistics don't back up the claim" or something to that affect. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out there won't be statistics for something that they don't find lol. You guys can believe whatever you want to believe. I've been there done that. I can tell you it's a far bigger deal than this blogger wants to believe. And I'm not the only former trainer on here that will tell you that. But if it makes anybody feel better to think there isn't a problem, who am I to tell you any different.

Unlike the old days, mass spectrometer technology has evolved tremendously. A few years ago the standards were nanograms (billionths of a gram). Now machines are capable of picograms (trillionths of a gram) and in some cases quadrillionths of a gram. They regularly test for over 1,800 substances. The question is, if they aren't finding it, what could it be that they aren't testing for?

You've been on the backside. It is a very small world, and it's hard to imagine anyone could get by with cheating without it eventually getting around. I've heard plenty of cases where someone lets the stewards know they should look at so and so.

I've always found it perplexing that one former trainer after another will tell us drugs are a far bigger deal than than we want to believe, but they don't tell us who the scofflaws are and what secret juice they are injecting.

I've asked for something simple. Explain why the public statistics are wrong by giving us the right statistics. Explain what possible substances can be creating performance enhancement that labs can find. Since you've been there and done that, perhaps you could share what illegal and undectable substances you used, and what year that was so we know what testing technology was available.

The fact is that publicly published statistics don't back up the claim. I suppose it could be a conspiracy of 38 different commissions to suppress drug positives to make the statistics look good. I suppose it could be the widespread availability of illegal and undetectable drugs and complete inability of commissions to find them that make compliance look like 99.6%. I'm wide open to any explanation based on fact and not anecdote or speculation.

[thaskalos]

That was certainly a fair reply.

It's become my practice to investigate medication violations where it appears the trainer was dealt with unfairly. If I had an advantage in this case, I talked directly with Kellyn Gorder and the racing commisson. In my conversations with Gorder he sincerely seemed puzzled, if not horrified that his horse tested positive for meth. I could be completely wrong, but I don't believe he ever injected his horse with meth. I think it is fair to say we are unlikely to ever know how the drug got into the horse's system.

Any disagreement you and I may have might be a matter of degrees. I honestly don't know the number of trainers consciously cheating to gain an advantage, and I don't know where you should draw the line between rampant and incidental. I suspect that line can vary for each of us - is 5% rampant? 10%? 50%?

Where I expect we agree is that the racing commissions should find the cheaters and punish them harshly. While I can feel fine about suggesting Gorder's suspension and fine for Meth was excessive, I can just as easily say Julio Cartagena probably got off way too easy for a Nikethamide violation.

Gorder has no defense for the unlabeled medications and the syringes and he offered none to me when I spoke with him. He received two months for the syringes and the unlabeled drugs, and he and I agreed that penalty was warranted and fair.

Where I was really trying to make a convincing argument was that 48 picograms was such a small amount, it was hard to conclude it had been administered to the horse. What is dead certain is that 48 picograms could have no impact on a horse's performance. And if the horse was a human, 48 picograms would never have gotten an indictment. I asked vets and pharmacologists. Their answer was the same - it was most likely cross contamination. So, if you want my opinion on the punishment Gorder should have received, I would have said a year with 10 months suspended assuming he had no Class 1 or 2 violations for the next 36 months, sentences for meth and the syringes to run concurrently. In other words, two months for everything and three years probation. I think in that case justice is done. Gorder gets some real time, the commission can legitimately claim they came down hard on the Class 1, and if Gorder gets caught again he does the heavier sentence. Meanwhile, the guy's ability to make a living isn't destroyed.

I am sorry I didn't get to talk directly with David Wells. By the time I got to his attorney, Wells was already in jail and for the most part unavailable to talk by phone. That would have been an interesting story, one way or the other. I garned a lot of second hand information - stuff that isn't publishable because of lack of corroboration - but there was a lot more going on than we got to read in DRF or Ray Paulick.

I'm not sure either of us would say we enjoyed the exchange, but I appreciate that it stayed civil. For what it is worth, I thought you had intelligent points worth considering. It is unfortunate we had to meet under less than ideal circumstances.

Well...I can state quite categorically that I did in fact enjoy our little exchange here. I am a big fan of our sport, and have supported it enthusiastically at the betting windows for 34 years now...and it pleases me to converse with knowledgeable people, even if their views differ from mine. I am also happy to see that you have assumed an active role at our little gathering here...and I look forward to further debates with you in the future...perhaps under more pleasant circumstances. :)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I think with Jacobson what it comes down to is this. A lot of the time, he's technically not breaking rules and you are right, the on track vet has the last say so if a horse is going to be allowed to race, but the main problem i see is that DJ has no problem dropping a horse from 50k to 10k to run vs giving that horse some R and R and making sure the horse is sound enough to run.

If you claim one for 50 and then run it for 5 or 10 (as well as ship the horse to FL or Suffolk or some other C track) is that horse really 100 Pct sound? Are you going to give a perfectly sound 50,000 dollar horse away for 5k? Nothing is wrong with the horse at all and he's giving them away?

I think if you're the person who is most likely to drop a horse drastically in claiming price and you do this more than any other trainer, you become a "poster boy" for something.

If anyone wants to argue that 50k claimers running for 10k are perfectly sound horses who just got dramatically slower overnight, than you can make the case that DJ is doing nothing wrong, he's never running a compromised horse and he's just getting a bad rap. But if one of those "big dropdowns" breaks down, do we just say its bad luck? Or, is it something more.

Jacobson was the trainer of record of a horse named Saginaw. I guess you can say that Saginaw is the "lava man" of the east coast and yet, Lava Man's trainer and owners found a way to make sure Lava Man was retired without incident (even though they made an ill advised brief comeback) and Saginaw's connections didn't take the same precautions. Lava Man is enjoying the rest of his life and Saginaw is 6 feet under. Was it ALL Jacobson's fault? Probably not, but when you are Jacobson and you have already had a microscope under you and have people saying that you really don't always do right by the horses, you need to not have a horse like Saginaw break down on the racetrack.

You did mention in your blog that Buddy Jacobson ran his barn and felt "no great attachment" to the animals....have we seen evidence that David isn't anything like his dad and he cares greatly about the animals? I think he will tell you he does, but if you see 50k horses shipping to finger lakes to run for 4k and then those horses "never come home" its hard to see that type of management goes hand in hand with "deeply caring".

People are very sensitive to the animals these days, and any abuse of them get a lot of people seeing red.....its a problem for many people and usually when there's a problem, there's a poster boy. If Jacobson doesn't deserve to be a poster boy for this problem, is there someone who deserves it more? Is there a trainer out there who's worse than David in this regard?

I actually defended DJ in my article on the mob rules. I think DJ can reduce horses to dollars as well. He'll claim a horse for $40K, run him at $30K for a $50,000 purse. If he loses him he gets $30K plus $30K from the purse. He's plus $20K. If he doesn't lose him and decides the horse is a liability for some reason, and then he drops him to $10K for a $18K purse, even if the horse wins and gets claimed he's picked up two purses and is a few bucks ahead. I think he's shrewd in figuring out how to get the most from a horse and make decent money. Look at how he's handled Salutos Amigos. Purses in NY are big enough that you can play the claiming game, especially with state-breds.

I think you make a great point. There is a perception that the way DJ handles his stock seems to lead to him being somewhat like his dad. By the way, if you want to read a fascinating story, read the story of Buddy Jacobson. I've not underestimated the possibility DJ still has some residual anger somewhere about how they treated his dad.

Even if he is similar to his dad in seeing horses as a means to a living, he's been smart enough to keep any opinions to himself. I'm too tired to look up the statistic, but I want to say his horses don't have a remarkable breakdown rate.

Apparently DJ has made himself immune to the criticisms. He keeps his mouth shut, makes his money and wins training titles. By the way, I thought you put up a great post with some really excellent points.

[chadk66]

Unlike the old days, mass spectrometer technology has evolved tremendously. A few years ago the standards were nanograms (billionths of a gram). Now machines are capable of picograms (trillionths of a gram) and in some cases quadrillionths of a gram. They regularly test for over 1,800 substances. The question is, if they aren't finding it, what could it be that they aren't testing for?

You've been on the backside. It is a very small world, and it's hard to imagine anyone could get by with cheating without it eventually getting around. I've heard plenty of cases where someone lets the stewards know they should look at so and so.

I've always found it perplexing that one former trainer after another will tell us drugs are a far bigger deal than than we want to believe, but they don't tell us who the scofflaws are and what secret juice they are injecting.

I've asked for something simple. Explain why the public statistics are wrong by giving us the right statistics. Explain what possible substances can be creating performance enhancement that labs can find. Since you've been there and done that, perhaps you could share what illegal and undectable substances you used, and what year that was so we know what testing technology was available.

The fact is that publicly published statistics don't back up the claim. I suppose it could be a conspiracy of 38 different commissions to suppress drug positives to make the statistics look good. I suppose it could be the widespread availability of illegal and undetectable drugs and complete inability of commissions to find them that make compliance look like 99.6%. I'm wide open to any explanation based on fact and not anecdote or speculation.doesn't matter how much they pick up, it's whether they pick it up. they obviously don't have the means to pick up certain substances yet.

[chadk66]

I never used illegal drugs. But there were plenty that did. They are always ahead of the curve. There is always something that comes along that isn't being tested for. Vets are always one step ahead. It's not hard to know who the bad boys are. It's not for me to point out who they are. You can either choose to believe this or not. Doesn't really matter to me.

[Tall One]

I've always found it perplexing that one former trainer after another will tell us drugs are a far bigger deal than than we want to believe, but they don't tell us who the scofflaws are and what secret juice they are injecting.


Isnt that what a governing body for the races is for? Just my opinion, but not even a retired trainer wants to be the guy who gives up another trainer.

Start with the former, and not the latter, to unlock the snake venom...oh, wait.

[chadk66]

Isnt that what a governing body for the races is for? Just my opinion, but not even a retired trainer wants to be the guy who gives up another trainer.

Start with the former, and not the latter, to unlock the snake venom...oh, wait.what purpose would it serve. that was over twenty years ago. many are dead now or moved on to other careers. And some may have cleaned up their ways after having a positive or two. What people uses changes all the time. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to look at trainers records and come up with certain conclusions. But maybe it's just easy for me having been on the inside.

[Tall One]

what purpose would it serve. that was over twenty years ago. many are dead now or moved on to other careers. And some may have cleaned up their ways after having a positive or two. What people uses changes all the time. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to look at trainers records and come up with certain conclusions. But maybe it's just easy for me having been on the inside.



Exactly my point. Why should you come on here and say "Such and such stable did this, and this other trainer did that" regardless of when it was?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I never used illegal drugs. But there were plenty that did. They are always ahead of the curve. There is always something that comes along that isn't being tested for. Vets are always one step ahead. It's not hard to know who the bad boys are. It's not for me to point out who they are. You can either choose to believe this or not. Doesn't really matter to me.

20 years ago you were hoping to get a cell phone that made clear phone calls. You were hoping to buy a computer that did less at a slower speed than the smart phone in your pocket today. 20 years ago there were jurisdictions that didn't have a TCO2 standard and milkshaking was the new secret performance enhancer. 20 years ago the testing ability was archaic in comparison to today. Same as what we see in terms of DNA testing, otherwise OJ may have been doing time a lot sooner than he did. CSI is a little over the top, but the ability to identify DNA evidence is light years beyond what it was 20 years ago. Same with the spectrum and sensitivity of mass spectrometers. I mean no disrespect, but I have gotten very frustrated by the myriad of trainers I've spoken with all saying, I'm clean but there are guys that aren't and I'm not going to name them. The constant anecdotal suggestion that that are plenty of trainers trying to gain a chemical edge with almost none of them being found, and vets being one step ahead of the testers starts to become the stuff of urban legend. I'd have been happy to know what the secret elixirs were 20 years ago just to make sure the commissions dealt with them. I agree that it should be fairly easy to know who the bad boys are, but apparently they aren't being widely identified, with the exception of someone like David Wells. The exception, not the rule. Perpetuating the idea that cheating is rampant without offering any proof because of apathy does as much to reinforce the negative image of racing as the actual violations do. The question of whether the RCI statistics are accurate or a result of inept enforcement is critical for the game and any light you shed on that is important.

[chadk66]

All your statements you made are correct based on findings. But the one thing you fail to understand and take into account are things being used that are not being tested for. Until you understand that none of this matters quite frankly.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

All your statements you made are correct based on findings. But the one thing you fail to understand and take into account are things being used that are not being tested for. Until you understand that none of this matters quite frankly.

I appreciate you engaging on this. I hope you can understand my frustration. I'm having difficulty conceiving of substances that can improve horses significantly enough to risk using them but are sufficiently undetectable to fool the modern testing machines. I'm having difficulty understanding why commissions are not rooting out the trainers using such substances. They have to have an idea who they might be. You have to admit it is horrifying to consider the incredible ineptitude of commissions that can't figure this out and take some action. I could hardly think of a larger indictment of the sport.

[cj]

I appreciate you engaging on this. I hope you can understand my frustration. I'm having difficulty conceiving of substances that can improve horses significantly enough to risk using them but are sufficiently undetectable to fool the modern testing machines. I'm having difficulty understanding why commissions are not rooting out the trainers using such substances. They have to have an idea who they might be. You have to admit it is horrifying to consider the incredible ineptitude of commissions that can't figure this out and take some action. I could hardly think of a larger indictment of the sport.

Pretty simple really, the money and technology doesn't exist. Any handicapper can pick out trainers that are probably cheating. It isn't that hard to figure out. Proving it is another story. Sport with A LOT more money than horse racing are always behind the curve. You can't expect racing to be ahead of it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Pretty simple really, the money and technology doesn't exist. Any handicapper can pick out trainers that are probably cheating. It isn't that hard to figure out. Proving it is another story. Sport with A LOT more money than horse racing are always behind the curve. You can't expect racing to be ahead of it.

They test every horse that finishes first and second, and a random horse if they please. That's how they nailed A C Avila. 324,000 plus tests a year. They have plenty of budget to do that many. They use incredibly sophisticated mass spectrometers that spit out results for 1,800 substances. I've watched the testing. I agree that handicappers have an idea of who to test and if we do, it's inconceivable the commissions don't. At that point the explanation has to be they are ignoring it. Baseball and football were hamstrung by unions and comical testing programs. Anyone who got caught was an idiot. Cycling basically had a conspiracy of silence and testing equiment that wasn't sophisticated enough to catch the scofflaws. Now they can tell you whether the testosterone in your system was produced naturally or injected. As with many things, knowledge creates doubt and that is where I am. I can't explain the why or the how, but I'm working on it.

[cj]

They test every horse that finishes first and second, and a random horse if they please. That's how they nailed A C Avila. 324,000 plus tests a year. They have plenty of budget to do that many. They use incredibly sophisticated mass spectrometers that spit out results for 1,800 substances. I've watched the testing. I agree that handicappers have an idea of who to test and if we do, it's inconceivable the commissions don't. At that point the explanation has to be they are ignoring it. Baseball and football were hamstrung by unions and comical testing programs. Anyone who got caught was an idiot. Cycling basically had a conspiracy of silence and testing equiment that wasn't sophisticated enough to catch the scofflaws. Now they can tell you whether the testosterone in your system was produced naturally or injected. As with many things, knowledge creates doubt and that is where I am. I can't explain the why or the how, but I'm working on it.

I just feel the testing will always be behind the cheaters. It is in other sports, and probably is in racing. By far the worst part is the laughable punishments given out when somebody is caught. Not that of Gorder, which was severe, the usual punishment is a joke. Owner's aren't punished at all and in many cases they are behind the bad stuff going on.

[ReplayRandall]

Owner's aren't punished at all and in many cases they are behind the bad stuff going on.
CJ, You really believe that the owners are the originators of the idea to implement performance enhancing drugs or painkillers via their trainer or vet?

[thaskalos]

Where is the animosity that the "honest" trainers must necessarily harbor for those cheaters who are using illegal means to gain the upper hand...thus endangering the livelihoods of those who continue to play by the rules? How can the honest trainers continue to show the general apathy that they seem to portray, when total unknowns in the training profession suddenly start surpassing the training results posted by even those who have achieved Hall-of-Fame status?

Wouldn't this situation come to a swifter conclusion if the "honest" trainers took a more proactive stance in all of this?

[chadk66]

I appreciate you engaging on this. I hope you can understand my frustration. I'm having difficulty conceiving of substances that can improve horses significantly enough to risk using them but are sufficiently undetectable to fool the modern testing machines. I'm having difficulty understanding why commissions are not rooting out the trainers using such substances. They have to have an idea who they might be. You have to admit it is horrifying to consider the incredible ineptitude of commissions that can't figure this out and take some action. I could hardly think of a larger indictment of the sport.I hope you don't think I'm being disrespectful to you. I'm surely not. It just frustrates me as a former trainer when people don't know or fail to accept what's really going on out there. I've stated this numerous times on here that I have never used illegal substances and or done illegal things during my training days. I despise those that do. Nobody wants this sport cleaned up more than I do. And I can tell you if those things weren't going on I would be the first to applaud it and dismiss anyone claiming otherwise. The fact is, it's going on and will always go on. I think the reason commissions don't take severe actions is many fold. They don't want to end peoples careers over it. They don't want the public to really know how bad it is. They don't want PETA dragging them through the mud for the things that are done to these animals. Just look how the industry handled the Assmussen ordeal. They also don't want to eliminate players in the industry. It's struggling the way it is. This could all be cleaned up in very short order if they took some very serious steps to do so. It would be highly unpopular but it would clean it up. I have seriously considered going back into the business but I will not do it until there is a level playing field.

[cj]

CJ, You really believe that the owners are the originators of the idea to implement performance enhancing drugs or painkillers via their trainer or vet?

If you follow the super trainers closely, a lot of the times it is the owner that matters more than the trainer.

[Seabiscuit@AR]

I agree with CJ

the testers will always be behind the drug cheats. You can only hope the testers are only 2 lengths behind and not 6 lengths behind. And that when the testers catch someone they give them a couple of years out of the game so it will at least make others think twice

There is a perfect example of the testers being slow from Australia and the last spring carnival there (Sept to Nov 2014). The Victorian spring carnival is the pinnacle of Australian racing BTW

On December 14 2014 the news proudly proclaimed "Melbourne's spring carnival hailed cleanest ever as huge drug testing blitz returns zero positive results"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/superracing/melbournes-spring-carnival-hailed-cleanest-ever-as-huge-drug-testing-blitz-returns-zero-positive-results/story-fnibcaa0-1227155751935

One month later the story changed. On January 15 2015 the news reports that 3 big name trainers had positives for horses over the new cobalt threshold. All 3 had horses that tested positive for cobalt during the aforementioned Victorian spring carnival

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-fnibcaa0-1227183755785

Australian racing has only been able to test for cobalt recently. No doubt trainers have been using it for the last few years

All 3 trainers are still training and their cobalt cases have yet to be heard. Everyone is wondering if they are "too big to fail"

[ReplayRandall]

If you follow the super trainers closely, a lot of the times it is the owner that matters more than the trainer.
True.....but that doesn't answer my question:
Are the owners the originators of the idea to implement performance enhancing drugs or painkillers via their trainer or vet?

[Robert Fischer]

Sometimes they are.

[Robert Fischer]

baseball is a great example

you had players, even star players taking body-builder doses and looking like comic heroes.

The Public denied it.

Then it went overboard and became a guilty verdict.

The Public accepted that cheating had occurred.

The league toughened rules and testing.

Now, the public believes baseball is clean.


reality and public perception are two totally different things.

[cj]

True.....but that doesn't answer my question:
Are the owners the originators of the idea to implement performance enhancing drugs or painkillers via their trainer or vet?


Yes...not always of course, situations are different. I've followed several owners that move from trainer to trainer and as one gets caught, they turn to some new nobody and turn them into 35% trainers almost overnight.

[Grits]

True.....but that doesn't answer my question:
Are the owners the originators of the idea to implement performance enhancing drugs or painkillers via their trainer or vet?

What, R2, would lead you to believe this... absolutely not possible?

The wealthy really like winning...and some, believe or not, at any cost. I believe this. They're accustomed to having positive results in their work, and too, in their play--positive, as in winning, not drug testing. I'd think this possible especially when they understand there are no unfortunate consequences regarding their own involvement.

As for trainers banding together to rat out those who are cheating. This will never happen. It isn't human nature, gentlemen. It simply is not. The only behavior seen as lower, more common, than cheating is snitching. We have a hard time accepting this, but I believe it. The backstretch is a small, tightly knit world. Smaller than most think.

The only person in recent years who put a dent in more than questionable "business" behavior in horseracing was the late Jess Jackson, when he took on sellers and buyers colluding at horse sales.

The only way any of this will change, if, indeed, it does--is to begin agreeing on something, first. And then, change the infrastructure, starting with jurisdictions...the number of them. JMO

[outofthebox]

They test every horse that finishes first and second, and a random horse if they please. That's how they nailed A C Avila. 324,000 plus tests a year. They have plenty of budget to do that many. They use incredibly sophisticated mass spectrometers that spit out results for 1,800 substances. I've watched the testing. I agree that handicappers have an idea of who to test and if we do, it's inconceivable the commissions don't. At that point the explanation has to be they are ignoring it. Baseball and football were hamstrung by unions and comical testing programs. Anyone who got caught was an idiot. Cycling basically had a conspiracy of silence and testing equiment that wasn't sophisticated enough to catch the scofflaws. Now they can tell you whether the testosterone in your system was produced naturally or injected. As with many things, knowledge creates doubt and that is where I am. I can't explain the why or the how, but I'm working on it.All jurisdictions are different. Here in La. they just test the winner. On occasion the stewards will spot test a horse. One race a night is picked out for TCO2 levels. Cobalt is still not tested for, and is believed to be circulating on the backside. It's not hard to find out what the state labs are testing. Compounding labs meds and drugs are rampant on the backside.

[Track Phantom]

Yes...not always of course, situations are different. I've followed several owners that move from trainer to trainer and as one gets caught, they turn to some new nobody and turn them into 35% trainers almost overnight.

My uninformed opinion is that most of the "hard to believe, high percentage situations" are owner driven. The best way to test this is to look at the percentages a trainer has with one owner vs another. I'll bet some of the high percentage trainers win at an obscene rate with one or two owners but are normalized with many others.

Also, owners like Midwest Thoroughbred and Ken Ramsey seem to win at rates above normal no matter who is training their runners. One can say they have better horses but that, to me, is just silly. The data is too revealing to believe that.

I'm assuming certain owners are willing to spend the high dollars associated with whatever is being administered. Their margin per horse is likely small due to the extreme costs but are able to make up for it in volume.

[Grits]

I'm always aware of finger pointing (for PA's protection, here). With this said, whenever Gary and Mary West's horses are running for Wayne Catalano....I don't care how they look on paper, Catalano has them ready. At 3rd or 4th choice, doesn't matter. Off the layoff, doesn't matter. I don't have to handicap.

One learns a lot by observation and this is my (I guess) uninformed observation about owner/trainers, gentlemen.

(PA can remove in needed.) ;)

[Stillriledup]

I'm always aware of finger pointing (for PA's protection, here). With this said, whenever Gary and Mary West's horses are running for Wayne Catalano....I don't care how they look on paper, Catalano has them ready. At 3rd or 4th choice, doesn't matter. Off the layoff, doesn't matter. I don't have to handicap.

One learns a lot by observation and this is my (I guess) uninformed observation about owner/trainers, gentlemen.

(PA can remove in needed.) ;)

What about that Calabrese guy, you know the one who's sensitive that he might be confused with the mobster, that guy always seems to employ a "supertrainer" who's winning 35% you dont see too many calabrese horses trained by guys who are 3 for 100 and i think calabrese used catalano at one point, but i don't know for sure.

[Stillriledup]

They test every horse that finishes first and second, and a random horse if they please. That's how they nailed A C Avila. 324,000 plus tests a year. They have plenty of budget to do that many. They use incredibly sophisticated mass spectrometers that spit out results for 1,800 substances. I've watched the testing. I agree that handicappers have an idea of who to test and if we do, it's inconceivable the commissions don't. At that point the explanation has to be they are ignoring it. Baseball and football were hamstrung by unions and comical testing programs. Anyone who got caught was an idiot. Cycling basically had a conspiracy of silence and testing equiment that wasn't sophisticated enough to catch the scofflaws. Now they can tell you whether the testosterone in your system was produced naturally or injected. As with many things, knowledge creates doubt and that is where I am. I can't explain the why or the how, but I'm working on it.

Thanks for the compliments in Post 75 of this thread.

To touch a bit on the Avila situation, what if the horse didnt come up positive for "slow down" drugs, didn't you have a video replay of the jockey strangling the horse in the back of the pack? Isn't that enough to figure some shenanigans were going on? Watch another Avila horse named Room for me in her first lifetime start, the horse was exploding with run in the back of the pack pulling the guy out of the saddle, purposely taken 15 wide in the lane weaving all over the place and then the horse eventually came back a couple months later and the money poured in on that horse and the horse was full of run and missed by a nose off a "bad pp line".

Sometimes we need testing to catch the bad guys but other times its right in front of our (their) faces and they just ignore it. Same thing with betting records, while Avila got lightly punished for this Masochistic situation, it probably never dawned on them to review all the betting records to see when and where the largest bets came in on this horse, was it thru an ADW account? Was the largest money coming in from the fancy betting room at Santa Anita and the bets were part of a "players card" and can be tracked to a certain person? None of these questions were ever asked and or answered, yet, if they want to punish someone for "race fixing" they might be able to find more "proof" that this was an elaborate scheme and not just an accidental overage (when the horse ran the first time).

It seems like all they care about is "testing" and the other evidence is just laying there and never looked into.

CJ makes a very underrated point in post 84, as handicappers, we can sniff out the cheats by not necessarily how many races they win but HOW they win. And, you can follow the money too. You get a horse claimed and he goes from Joe Blow 8% trainer to Mr supertrainer at 35 percent and the horse comes out on the track looking like Secretariat with a glowing coat and get bet off the board like the insiders know that this horse was "Treated". Nobody ever looks at individual situations, massive form reversals, betting patters and whatnut, all they care about is "picograms" and if the horse "tests clean" it means the guy is 'honest' and bettors know that's baloney.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Thanks for the compliments in Post 75 of this thread.

To touch a bit on the Avila situation, what if the horse didnt come up positive for "slow down" drugs, didn't you have a video replay of the jockey strangling the horse in the back of the pack? Isn't that enough to figure some shenanigans were going on? Watch another Avila horse named Room for me in her first lifetime start, the horse was exploding with run in the back of the pack pulling the guy out of the saddle, purposely taken 15 wide in the lane weaving all over the place and then the horse eventually came back a couple months later and the money poured in on that horse and the horse was full of run and missed by a nose off a "bad pp line".

Sometimes we need testing to catch the bad guys but other times its right in front of our (their) faces and they just ignore it. Same thing with betting records, while Avila got lightly punished for this Masochistic situation, it probably never dawned on them to review all the betting records to see when and where the largest bets came in on this horse, was it thru an ADW account? Was the largest money coming in from the fancy betting room at Santa Anita and the bets were part of a "players card" and can be tracked to a certain person? None of these questions were ever asked and or answered, yet, if they want to punish someone for "race fixing" they might be able to find more "proof" that this was an elaborate scheme and not just an accidental overage (when the horse ran the first time).

It seems like all they care about is "testing" and the other evidence is just laying there and never looked into.

CJ makes a very underrated point in post 84, as handicappers, we can sniff out the cheats by not necessarily how many races they win but HOW they win. And, you can follow the money too. You get a horse claimed and he goes from Joe Blow 8% trainer to Mr supertrainer at 35 percent and the horse comes out on the track looking like Secretariat with a glowing coat and get bet off the board like the insiders know that this horse was "Treated". Nobody ever looks at individual situations, massive form reversals, betting patters and whatnut, all they care about is "picograms" and if the horse "tests clean" it means the guy is 'honest' and bettors know that's baloney.

If you want the detailed story on Avila and Masochistic it is posted here http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1270

The testing by the stewards was prompted by their observation of Berrio's ride, since Masochistic finished fifth and normally wouldn't have been selected for testing. It was a good performance by Berrio, but if you really focus on the horse it does appear that he was not ridden in a way that would have given him his best chance to win.

When Masochistic shipped to CD and won the race there, there was an extensive analysis of the betting records and it was concluded there was no unusual action. Avila himself said he had $1,000 on the horse.

Avila was fined $10,000 and given 60 days, which you could probably say is more than a slap on the wrist. Remember a couple of things. One, acepromazine is one of the 26 RCI approved therapeutics and is a Class 4 medication, drugs that have lower potential to affect performance. Two, the CHRB concluded it was not clear Avila even knew about the acepromazine. Beyond that, all investigation could not conclude there was any pool manipulation.

Clearly the level of ace in the horse's system precluded the possibility it was accidental. Someone gave the horse ace.

There are trainers that do have superior methodologies. It can be everything from the type of feed and supplements, to the way the horses are shod, to the specific training methodologies. I know trainers that employ chiropractors, and you wouldn't see that from a low profile operation. One reason there are higher percentage trainers is that they are better at their job. They don't have to run their horses as often, or when they are not in top shape. They have better stock and they do get better jocks. They won't "fill" races for the racing secretary. I'm not suggesting this is the explanation for every super trainer, but there are certainly some that fit the bill. But you have a legitimate point - it is just as important to look for things like betting coups as presence of drugs.

[Track Phantom]

When Masochistic shipped to CD and won the race there, there was an extensive analysis of the betting records and it was concluded there was no unusual action. Avila himself said he had $1,000 on the horse.

This is silly. The horse was, I think 4-1 ML and went off at 2-1 in a very evenly matched field. He was a Cal-bred who ran flat in the debut but was bet like a can't miss...and didn't.

Not sure what they were looking for as unusual but my experience is that is a canned answer to anything to divert attention. The mere fact he was 2-1 in that race was, on its face, "unusual".

Even mentioning that "Avila said he had only $1,000 on him" holds zero weight when the guy went the lengths he did to set the race up. No chance that is true. None.

[Stillriledup]

This is silly. The horse was, I think 4-1 ML and went off at 2-1 in a very evenly matched field. He was a Cal-bred who ran flat in the debut but was bet like a can't miss...and didn't.

Not sure what they were looking for as unusual but my experience is that is a canned answer to anything to divert attention. The mere fact he was 2-1 in that race was, on its face, "unusual".

Even mentioning that "Avila said he had only $1,000 on him" holds zero weight when the guy went the lengths he did to set the race up. No chance that is true. None.

It all comes down to what they deem "unusual". What they might have done is determine that because the horse paid 2-1 that the exotics 'lined up' and the exa, tri and other payouts seemed in line with what they should pay if a 2-1 was the winner...as opposed to determining that 2-1 was unusual in an of itself.

Like you say, it was a Calbred horse who was off the board and was bet like he couldn't lose vs open company into MASSIVE pools. Someone knew this horse was a 'good thing' and would race better than what he showed as a FTS.

[Saratoga_Mike]

What about that Calabrese guy, you know the one who's sensitive that he might be confused with the mobster, that guy always seems to employ a "supertrainer" who's winning 35% you dont see too many calabrese horses trained by guys who are 3 for 100 and i think calabrese used catalano at one point, but i don't know for sure.

You know the story behind the mob connection (NO connection). He sued the paper and prevailed. It isn't like he imagined the false news story.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

All jurisdictions are different. Here in La. they just test the winner. On occasion the stewards will spot test a horse. One race a night is picked out for TCO2 levels. Cobalt is still not tested for, and is believed to be circulating on the backside. It's not hard to find out what the state labs are testing. Compounding labs meds and drugs are rampant on the backside.

I've talked often with Dr. Steven Barker, the pharmacologist the heads up the testing lab at LSU. Louisiana has an enlightened program of standards and testing as far as I can tell. From my conversations, it appears that Louisiana will not adopt zero-tolerance standards, and will not convict trainers for picogram levels that are clearly not performance enhancing. As for cobalt, it does occur naturally in horses and it is commonly an additive in feed and supplements. No question that high levels of cobalt can produce terrible side effects, but cobalt’s reputation as a performance enhancer is likely over-exaggerated and is not supported by evidence. This is one of the reasons Louisiana is holding out on adopting a standard.

Like the TCO2 standard, the cobalt standard is related more to natural levels and not the performance enhancement level. And while those calling for immediate and stringent enforcement don't have much beyond "I heard cobalt is bad" as the reason, it's likely to go away without all the hew and cry. Same as TCO2 - almost all the violations are Lasix bumps or dehydration. Nobody is milkshaking - it's just way to easy to pick it up by the sodium level.

Cobalt is one of the things that the mass spectrometers get EVERY time. No hiding it. According to most of the vets and pharmacologists it doesn't have a performance enhancing effect. And it can mess up a horse badly. The bottom line is that there is no reason for trainers to use it. It was one of those substance de jour things (like milkshaking) that didn't work and it's on to something else.

[Saratoga_Mike]

HoH,

You sound very well informed on the Cobalt matter. I believe the Meadowlands (on the harness side) recently started testing for Cobalt, and the track's owner commented that several horses were found with Cobalt levels off the charts (i.e., no way it was naturally occurring or from basic sweet feed). If Cobalt has no performance-enhancing properties, why are trainers giving it at such high levels?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This is silly. The horse was, I think 4-1 ML and went off at 2-1 in a very evenly matched field. He was a Cal-bred who ran flat in the debut but was bet like a can't miss...and didn't.

Not sure what they were looking for as unusual but my experience is that is a canned answer to anything to divert attention. The mere fact he was 2-1 in that race was, on its face, "unusual".

Even mentioning that "Avila said he had only $1,000 on him" holds zero weight when the guy went the lengths he did to set the race up. No chance that is true. None.

At the end of the day, even if all the conspiracists were right that it was a setup, other than the acepromazine violation that occured in the maiden race at SA, Avila and Los Pollos Hermanos (the owners) did nothing wrong. Or they didn't do anything trainers haven't been doing since 1782. The only possible violation would have been pool manipulation, and CD's investigation found nothing that would have constituted a violation. Don't underestimate the owners wanting to get a seat in the owners section on KY Derby day as part of the motivation. It was Avila's testimony that he only bet $1,000 and of course you take it for what it is worth, but that is what he said. If it wasn't CD on Derby Day with the big pools, whatever amount they fired likely would have resulted in much lower than 2-1 odds.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

HoH,

You sound very well informed on the Cobalt matter. I believe the Meadowlands (on the harness side) recently started testing for Cobalt, and the track's owner commented that several horses were found with Cobalt levels off the charts (i.e., no way it was naturally occurring or from basic sweet feed). If Cobalt has no performance-enhancing properties, why are trainers giving it at such high levels?

It's been used by humans as part of blood doping, and I think they figure there was a transference to horses. I think it was also one of those things that passes around the backside and less than scupulous trainers are trying it, much like they did with milkshakes. Eventually, testing showed that milkshakes only really improve male stakes quality horses, and the biggest improvement you'll see is about 2%. I don't think many of the trainers trying cobalt realize the serious side effects that can occur. It will ultimately ruin the horse - it's a poison in high concentration. As I mentioned, I've talked to vets and pharmacologists and what they are telling me is that the current results do not support cobalt as a performance enhancer for horses. And as I said the labs will find it every time and it is likely to disappear on its own.

[Donttellmeshowme]

It's been used by humans as part of blood doping, and I think they figure there was a transference to horses. I think it was also one of those things that passes around the backside and less than scupulous trainers are trying it, much like they did with milkshakes. Eventually, testing showed that milkshakes only really improve male stakes quality horses, and the biggest improvement you'll see is about 2%. I don't think many of the trainers trying cobalt realize the serious side effects that can occur. It will ultimately ruin the horse - it's a poison in high concentration. As I mentioned, I've talked to vets and pharmacologists and what they are telling me is that the current results do not support cobalt as a performance enhancer for horses. And as I said the labs will find it every time and it is likely to disappear on its own.





Cobalt is not a performance enhancer? Yea ok you just keep on believing what the vets tell you.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Cobalt is not a performance enhancer? Yea ok you just keep on believing what the vets tell you.

I was going to quote the study in 2014 that showed cobalt had no impact on red blood cell counts and oxygen carrying ability in horses but I expect that would be a waste of good typing. You think there's a reason these scientists keep messing with us with their studies we know are crap?

[Donttellmeshowme]

I was going to quote the study in 2014 that showed cobalt had no impact on red blood cell counts and oxygen carrying ability in horses but I expect that would be a waste of good typing. You think there's a reason these scientists keep messing with us with their studies we know are crap?





Then why is everyone using it?

[rastajenk]

Everyone isn't using it.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Everyone isn't using it.




Ok everyone is not using it. Why are so many people using it? There u go u happy now?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Ok everyone is not using it. Why are so many people using it? There u go u happy now?

I don't know what the percentage is of trainers who have tried cobalt. It may have been a lot of them, but it is unlikely many are still using it. The use of cobalt emanated from use by humans in the early 90's to increase red blood cell count and oxygen carrying capacity. Because of the terrible side effects, humans quickly discontinued using it and turned to synthetic EPO. Naturally horsemen followed with the use of EPO but once the test for EPO was perfected, horsemen said, hey since they are not testing for cobalt and it can increase red blood cell count, let's use that instead. Unfortunately, the effects for horses did not parallel the effects on humans. In fact, in many cases it slowed horses down. The cobalt standard is NOT set as a performance enhancing standard, same as TCO2. It is set based on the range of cobalt levels you would find naturally in a horse. So if a horse should not have more than 25 parts per billion naturally, anything above that level would indicate the supplemental administration of cobalt and constitute a violation. Different jurisdictions have adopted different levels, but the point is there hasn't been a study done that pinpoints the level at which cobalt is performance enhancing, if at all. Like most things on the backstretch, someone said, cobalt will make your horse run faster, it's legal, there's no standard for it, and it doesn't hurt your horse. Trainers didn't read any studies - they just followed. Thyroxin, milkshakes - all the same thing. We can gain an edge and they can't get us. Most trainers have already realized it doesn't improve the horse, it isn't legal now, and it can kill your horse. Plus, it is really easy to find in blood samples because it is elemental, not even a complex molecule. My guess is that in a fairly short period of time we won't be hearing about cobalt.

[GatetoWire]

It's been used by humans as part of blood doping, and I think they figure there was a transference to horses. I think it was also one of those things that passes around the backside and less than scupulous trainers are trying it, much like they did with milkshakes. Eventually, testing showed that milkshakes only really improve male stakes quality horses, and the biggest improvement you'll see is about 2%. I don't think many of the trainers trying cobalt realize the serious side effects that can occur. It will ultimately ruin the horse - it's a poison in high concentration. As I mentioned, I've talked to vets and pharmacologists and what they are telling me is that the current results do not support cobalt as a performance enhancer for horses. And as I said the labs will find it every time and it is likely to disappear on its own.

This could not be further from the truth.
Milkshaking and cobalt are significant performance enhancers.

Trainers don't take risks on things that don't work.
Rich believes that the use of PED's in racing does not exist and as a result all of his columns and articles try to dispel the use of PED's.

Actual people who use and have used PED's are never going to tell Rich the real truth.

[Robert Fischer]

I think it's easy to get sidetracked into a debate about a specific substance.

Rather than doing that, it's useful to see the main concept in general terms.
The cat is out of the bag, humans have learned that drugs enhance performance, and there are great incentives aligned up with elite performance.
Understanding those basic principles then leads to thinking about limiting factors. In this case, limiting factors would be the detection of such drugs, and the cost of drugs.
Now you have




testing capability
testing timeframe vs. positive effects of the drug vs. elimination time of drug
cost of drugs
Testing capability - Are the tests capable of detecting all useful performance enhancers? - No.

Can some of popular drugs that do happen to be tested for and detectable be used out-of-competition and still be beneficial? - Yes.

Is the incentive greater than the cost of the drugs? - Yes.



Thus, there will never be clean athletic competition again, unless a meteor hits us and we devolve.

[Saratoga_Mike]

This could not be further from the truth.
Milkshaking and cobalt are significant performance enhancers.

Trainers don't take risks on things that don't work.
Rich believes that the use of PED's in racing does not exist and as a result all of his columns and articles try to dispel the use of PED's.

Actual people who use and have used PED's are never going to tell Rich the real truth.

Dr. Gill, who appears well credentialed, thinks milkshaking can have a PE impact in some cases....

http://www.equiforce.com/bicarbonate-loading-in-horses.aspx

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This could not be further from the truth.
Milkshaking and cobalt are significant performance enhancers.

Trainers don't take risks on things that don't work.
Rich believes that the use of PED's in racing does not exist and as a result all of his columns and articles try to dispel the use of PED's.

Actual people who use and have used PED's are never going to tell Rich the real truth.

Of course I believe PEDs exist and are used. I've said on many occasions that trainers who use performance enhancing drugs should be dealt with harshly. I'll go further. Yes, I believe there should be a cobalt standard because cobalt can be poisonous to a horse. I haven't seen the evidence that it is performance enhancing, but I have seen the evidence it can cause serious injury or death.

I also believe there should be a difference between therapeutic overages and positives for PEDs. 29 picograms of banamine should not be punished at the same level as 500 nanograms of ephedrine. I also believe that trainers who have made every effort to comply with the rules but run afoul (e.g., Ferris Allen and stanozolol) should not be treated in the same way as those trainers pushing the envelope (e.g., Scott Lake and stanozolol).

I believe many racing commissions are ill equiped to handle many of the drug issues. I've been at commission meetings and read transcripts where they have asked questions like

What's a picogram"
Is that drug FDA approved?
Now what exactly does that drug do?
Can't you just use something else?

It shows a low level of real knowledge, and leads to the bureaucrats running the show. I care deeply about horses and their health and would never favor anything that would be deleterious to them.

I've written about five trainers at this point. I wrote about Doug O'Neill's positive for oxazepam in NY, noting it was most likely a case of cross-contamination, something that happens far more often than you might guess. I wrote about the case of Doug O'Neill and Argenta where the CHRB wanted to get him for milkshaking but conceded it was most likely a case of dehydration and Lasix. I wrote about Ferris Allen who had a horse gelded and gave him the standard treatment after surgery of stanozolol and was nailed for a 40 pg positive when he ran the horse 37 days later because MD had decided to adopt a zero tolerance policy for stanozolo (in NY 100 pg is considered de minimis). Yes, I thought his punishment was excessive because the amount in the horse's system could not possibly be performance enhancing. I wrote about Bill Brashears who made every effort to comply with the banamine standard, a standard I showed was arbitrarily low and would result in unnecessary positives. I also pointed out that every study done proves banamine does not have an analgesic (performance ehancing) effect after 16 hours and he ran his horses at no less than 24 hours from medication administration. I wrote about A C Avila and acepromazine, and lo and behold, I found him to be clearly guilty and probably deserving of more punishment than he got. Finally was the case of Kellyn Gorder and a meth level that once again seems more likely contamination than anything else. Find one place where I've defended the use of a PED as being ok. In fact, of all the trainers I've written about, only Gorder was about a PED, and I simply can't construct a scenario where he injected the horse with meth.

If you read my columns, most of my reporting pieces are about trainers that have been treated unfairly (my opinion). Not once do I say there is no use of PED's. Do I take commissions to task for bad standards and bad enforcement? Yes. I believe their ineptitude is deleterious to racing.

What you don't know is how many trainers I talk with where I simply say, you have no leg to stand on, pay the fine and do the days.

Yes, I fight for the horsemen where I believe they have been treated unfairly. But I have never defended, nor will I ever defend a trainer who has used a PED to gain an edge.

I explained to you why trainers used cobalt and milkshakes. Trainers don't take a risk on things that don't work? Where do you think they got the idea those things worked? From the Journal of Equine Performance Enhancement?

As for whether a trainer would tell me the truth, let's wait an see until I ask one who was accused of using a PED and see what he says. I'm not doing a survery of PED use on the backside. I'm looking at individual cases and writing the facts. I'm not writing off the top of my head. I am investigating, researching and interviewing and reporting on what I find. You don't have to believe it, but I'd appreciate if you could characterize it correctly.

A person once told me, never let the facts get in the way of a good yarn. I never bought that maxim, but I sure run into a lot of people who do.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Dr. Gill, who appears well credentialed, thinks milkshaking can have a PE impact in some cases....

http://www.equiforce.com/bicarbonate-loading-in-horses.aspx

The theory of how sodium bicarbonate can reduce the build-up of lactic acid is generally sound. There has been a lot of research since Gill's article from 2004, and as I mentioned milkshaking is most likely going to affect higher class males running at longer distances. Since 2004 there have been TCO2 standards adopted by most jurisdictions, but it is also the case that identifying sodium levels is pretty easy to do. If you look at the literature, the 37 mmol/L standard was set based on the amount of TCO2 expected to be found in a horse eating a racetrack diet and being treated with Lasix. It was not necessarily the division line between performance enhancement and not. The question of what level of TCO2 represents the performance enhancement level was rendered moot by the standard. It was assumed that anything above natural level was considered performance enhancing because of the lactic acid issue. I'm not arguing whether milkshaking is performance enhancing per se. I'm saying it is not effective on a lot of horses and it is too easy to detect for trainers to think they can get away with it.

[Grits]

Eventually, testing showed that milkshakes only really improve male stakes quality horses, and the biggest improvement you'll see is about 2%.

There has been a lot of research since Gill's article from 2004, and as I mentioned milkshaking is most likely going to affect higher class males running at longer distances.

Feeling, right away, that you would take note of the age of Dr.Gill's piece, still, you completely lost me here, with both of these. Where is the data that's led you to make the statement that only male stakes horses benefit from milkshaking?

Thanks in advance.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Feeling, right away, that you would take note of the age of Dr.Gill's piece, still, you completely lost me here, with both of these. Where is the data that's led you to make the statement that only male stakes horses benefit from milkshaking?

Thanks in advance.

Actually, both Rick Arthur, the equine medical director for CHRB and Steven Barker, the chief equine pharmacologist at LSU told me about testing that demonstrated the highest impact of TCO2 was on the highest quality horses, males were more impacted than females, and the impacts were in the 1-2% range. If you are really curious, I can ask for the actual journal citations. Since the bicarb prevents the build up of lactic acid, it would only apply in races at longer distances, since in sprints lactic acid build up is not an issue. I also spoke with a physiologist who did studies on human world-class athletes and found very small performance differences even when the athletes were loaded with bicarb. I don't want you to lose the point. A 2% difference at a mile and a quarter could mean one second improvement in time for a stakes horse, which might just be enough to win. However, we just didn't see the same level of improvement for cheaper horses. Read this article on TCO2 and Argenta to get an idea of an actual case where levels were elevated. Argenta, the horse in question, finished dead last. http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=555

[Grits]

Thank you for your response, Mr.Halvey.

The reason I asked were, for instance, on Ness' positive, Mullins' postives. Both, several years apart. I didn't recall that all of these horses were stakes horses in these trainers barns.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/ness-gets-tco2-overage-at-tampa-its-taking-the-fun-out-of-it/

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/26661/mullins-denies-milkshake-wrongdoing-cerin-also-cited

[MJC922]

The customer is the bottom line here, if the customers collectively pull their money out i.e. do not invest in US drug-enhanced horse racing and instead invest internationally things will inevitably change over time, more tracks will go under etc. Things could change immediately with a boycott because when the gate opens and the pool reads 0 trust me this bickering stops because then nobody will give a tinkers damn what is and what is not performance enhancing, it'll be clean or you don't get paid.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Thank you for your response, Mr.Halvey.

The reason I asked were, for instance, on Ness' positive, Mullins' postives. Both, several years apart. I didn't recall that all of these horses were stakes horses in these trainers barns.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/ness-gets-tco2-overage-at-tampa-its-taking-the-fun-out-of-it/

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/26661/mullins-denies-milkshake-wrongdoing-cerin-also-cited


You'll note in the case of Ness' horse, it was a cheap horse ($12,500 claimer) and finished fifth. So the point that it wasn't helpful to a cheaper horse sounds credible. But the more accurate point I was making was that milkshaking is most effective on high quality males at longer distances, not that it can't affect lower quality horses. The violation for Ness was 38 mmol/L, one millimole over the standard. What you often see is that horses that are dehydrated (happens in Florida and CA) and are given a Lasix shot (which dehydrates them more) can build up a concentration of TCO2. You can tell if it is milkshaking by the sodium level, which is off the charts if the horse was given bicarb. It's still the trainer's fault, just not necessarily nefarious

Yes, it seems all trainers protest their innocence. Some are believable, some aren't. But for the people who figure they know it all, Mullins' quote was telling. "I'm a trainer, not a chemist."

In the cases of Mullins and Cerrin, I'm not sure how those cases were resolved, but I can look them up. Interestingly, Vlad Cerrin is one of the people I've talked with about trainer violations. But if you are feeding a horse a high alfalfa diet, that can raise TCO2. Buffering agents used to treat stomach upset or ulcers (Tums) can impact TCO2. I've already mentioned dehydration and Lasix. And if you gave the horse an electrolyte solution on a hot day (Gatorade) it could raise TCO2. Rick Arthur's position is that (1) anything above 37 mmol/L is de facto performance enhancing and (2) even it the violation was related to feed, medication or Lasix it was still in the trainer's purview to control it. I think the trainers are better educated on what can cause elevated TCO2 and are paying attention more.

What I really appreciate is that you've looked at some of the articles on line and tried to engage in an elucidating discussion.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Thank you for your response, Mr.Halvey.

The reason I asked were, for instance, on Ness' positive, Mullins' postives. Both, several years apart. I didn't recall that all of these horses were stakes horses in these trainers barns.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/ness-gets-tco2-overage-at-tampa-its-taking-the-fun-out-of-it/

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/26661/mullins-denies-milkshake-wrongdoing-cerin-also-cited

I looked up violations and fines for both Cerrin and Mullins. Didn't see where action was taken by CHRB for TCO2. However, Cerrin was fined $100 twice by the stewards for having his dog off leash. I may call Cerrin and ask him what happened with TCO2.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Since this thread was about Kellyn Gorder, his fine and suspension were stayed by the stewards pending an appeal hearing.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I looked up violations and fines for both Cerrin and Mullins. Didn't see where action was taken by CHRB for TCO2. However, Cerrin was fined $100 twice by the stewards for having his dog off leash. I may call Cerrin and ask him what happened with TCO2.

Grits is correct - August 2008. Mullins' other violations are too long to re-type - just click here and you'll find the list.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/mullins-no-stranger-to-controversy/

[Saratoga_Mike]

Since this thread was about Kellyn Gorder, his fine and suspension were stayed by the stewards pending an appeal hearing.

Are you a disinterested party in all of these matters, or have you been paid in the past or present to help in the defense of accused trainers?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Grits is correct - August 2008. Mullins' other violations are too long to re-type - just click here and you'll find the list.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/mullins-no-stranger-to-controversy/

I should have been clearer. Mullins and Cerrin were never fined or suspended for TCO2.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Are you a disinterested party in all of these matters, or have you been paid in the past or present to help in the defense of accused trainers?

I'm not disinterested, but I am independent. I have never accepted compensation from the trainers I have written about. Nor am I paid by any other entity to research and write. My articles have appeared in other places, but they have been reprinted with my permission and without compensation. My positions are my positions because that is what I believe, not because I am being paid to represent them.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I should have been clearer. Mullins and Cerrin were never fined or suspended for TCO2.

Taking into his entire career, do you think Mr. Mullins is a clean trainer and represents the sport well?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Taking into his entire career, do you think Mr. Mullins is a clean trainer and represents the sport well?

I think with a lot of trainers you see an evolution. When they are young, they can be impressionable and the argument, hey everybody's doing it, might resonate. They can also develop a need to prove themselves, and perhaps that creates a need to win at all costs. I think they also may feel like baseball players did - if I want to keep up with Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens, I have to take the same stuff they did. You hope they eventually wise up and run a clean stable.

I don't know Mullins nor have I talked with him. I know that of his violations since 2005, one was for Ranatidine, a therapeutic used to treat stomach ulcers (horses actually have sensitive stomachs, and certain therapeutic drugs like Bute can lead to ulcers), one was for Bute (a NSAID), one was for methyprednisolone (a steroidal anti-inflammatory) and one was for the use of Air Power, a cough medicine made up of Honey, Menthol, Eucalyptus Oil, Lemon Juice, Aloe Vera, Apple Cider Vinegar, and Ethanol. While Air Power is advertised as safe on race day, many jurisdictions mean nothing but Lasix when they say no race day medication.

So I would look at those four violations and I wouldn't get too excited. They are true therapeutics with minimal if any performance enhancing effects.

The trainer I know well is Doug O'Neill, a guy often harshly criticized for his violations. Frankly, and he says this, as a young trainer he made mistakes. I took it upon myself, at my expense, to go out to Santa Anita and spend three days shadowing him (http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1412)). He told me he would never knowingly drug a horse in the future. You can believe him or not, but I thought he was sincere.

Did Mullins learn from his mistakes? I really don't know. Will he stay clean into the future? Again, I don't know. If the question is, do either Jeff Mullins or Doug O'Neill represent the sport well, I think the record shows that at one time they were not the best actors. But I also believe that America is about rehabilitation, and if they both stay clean into the future then I would support their right to continue training. And if they break the rules, then they should get an appropriate punishment.

It would be great to never have violations. But I think it would be even better to have fair standards that differentiate between therapeutics and PEDs and are set at performance enhancing levels. In that way we are more likely to get the bad guys and not the ones who are really trying to stay clean.

[Robert Fischer]

Violations usually aren't going to tell much about cheating. At least not directly.



Before you can cheat, you start with an insight into the rules.
Then you bring an insight into performance enhancers. Then you cheat.

[Donttellmeshowme]

This could not be further from the truth.
Milkshaking and cobalt are significant performance enhancers.

Trainers don't take risks on things that don't work.
Rich believes that the use of PED's in racing does not exist and as a result all of his columns and articles try to dispel the use of PED's.

Actual people who use and have used PED's are never going to tell Rich the real truth.





Thats what i told him that it was a performance enhancer and he told me i was wrong. Go figure..

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Thats what i told him that it was a performance enhancer and he told me i was wrong. Go figure..

It's almost as if you didn't read any of what I said. I'll simplify what I said. Milkshaking is not a universal performance enhancer. It can improve performance by reducing lactic acid, but you only see it in races long enough for lactic acid to build up, generally longer routes. It can retard the performance of horses too. It has the most profound positive effect on males of superior quality. And generally the most significant effect we see is about a 2% improvement. It is extremely easy to find, and would be a poor choice for a trainer trying to get away with cheating.

Cobalt has not been shown to be a performance enhancer in any studies. It does not work the same as it does in humans, increasing red blood cell count and oxygen carrying capacity. I suppose that doesn't mean it cannot enhance performance, just that they haven't done a test where it does. However, it is a poison, and should be regulated based on the health of a horse. It is also an extremely easy substance to find, and a poor choice for a trainer looking to get away with something.

Those are facts which you can verify as easily as you please. Or you can smugly assume you know more than all the people who believe such facts.

I think the difference between us is that you can change my mind on cobalt with the existence of a study that proves performance enhancement, or some statistic that proves it is widely being used without detection. I'm not sure there is anything that would change yours. No need to change anyone's mind on TCO2. The science is there, and at worst my belief and yours may be a matter of a few degrees.

“Faced with the choice of having to change one’s mind or proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof” John Kenneth Galbraith

[johnhannibalsmith]

... And generally the most significant effect we see is about a 2% improvement...

I might have missed it or maybe it was a footnote in something referenced externally - but how exactly was this figure arrived at with such conclusiveness?

[Donttellmeshowme]

It's almost as if you didn't read any of what I said. I'll simplify what I said. Milkshaking is not a universal performance enhancer. It can improve performance by reducing lactic acid, but you only see it in races long enough for lactic acid to build up, generally longer routes. It can retard the performance of horses too. It has the most profound positive effect on males of superior quality. And generally the most significant effect we see is about a 2% improvement. It is extremely easy to find, and would be a poor choice for a trainer trying to get away with cheating.

Cobalt has not been shown to be a performance enhancer in any studies. It does not work the same as it does in humans, increasing red blood cell count and oxygen carrying capacity. I suppose that doesn't mean it cannot enhance performance, just that they haven't done a test where it does. However, it is a poison, and should be regulated based on the health of a horse. It is also an extremely easy substance to find, and a poor choice for a trainer looking to get away with something.

Those are facts which you can verify as easily as you please. Or you can smugly assume you know more than all the people who believe such facts.

I think the difference between us is that you can change my mind on cobalt with the existence of a study that proves performance enhancement, or some statistic that proves it is widely being used without detection. I'm not sure there is anything that would change yours. No need to change anyone's mind on TCO2. The science is there, and at worst my belief and yours may be a matter of a few degrees.

“Faced with the choice of having to change one’s mind or proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof” John Kenneth Galbraith






2%? yea ok buddy gotcha

[thaskalos]

Cobalt has not been shown to be a performance enhancer in any studies. It does not work the same as it does in humans, increasing red blood cell count and oxygen carrying capacity.


Maybe the Australian horses are different... :)

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/cobalt-eroding-integrity-racing-australia

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I might have missed it or maybe it was a footnote in something referenced externally - but how exactly was this figure arrived at with such conclusiveness?

It was based on a conversation I had with an exercise physiologist who had performed the study where they used different levels of a solution containing primarily baking soda and sugar, and then measured treadmill performance. I also had a subsequent conversation with an equine pharmacologist who told me, "that sounds about right." As I said, 2% could be 5-7 lengths improvement.

[cj]

It was based on a conversation I had with an exercise physiologist who had performed the study where they used different levels of a solution containing primarily baking soda and sugar, and then measured treadmill performance. I also had a subsequent conversation with an equine pharmacologist who told me, "that sounds about right." As I said, 2% could be 5-7 lengths improvement.

Right, 2% would be more than a few rungs on the class ladder.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Maybe the Australian horses are different... :)

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/cobalt-eroding-integrity-racing-australia

Thanks for the article Thask. To side with HoH on the Cobalt and milkshaking matter, you have to assume there are a lot of really, really stupid trainers in the world.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Maybe the Australian horses are different... :)

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/cobalt-eroding-integrity-racing-australia

I've read the Australian and Hong Kong reports. It says what I said. There is a "natural" level of cobalt in a horse, and anything above that level is a violation. That is the basis for standards here and there. It doesn't indicate a level at which performance enhancement occurs, although there was a lot of inference based on the success of horses. What you have is anecdotal evidence, and if that is enough for you, that's fine. It's not enough for me. I want to see the study that says horses improved by a specific amount with the administration of cobalt, and the recent studies I've seen are saying it doesn't have that impact. However, as I also said, since cobalt is a poison that can seriously harm a horse, whether or not it has performance enhancing effects is less relevant. It needs to have an enforceable standard based on the health of the horse. Anything above the naturally occuring level is a fine standard as far as I am concerned.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Right, 2% would be more than a few rungs on the class ladder.

Exactly.

9-furlong race goes in 110 seconds. 98% of 110 seconds = 107.8 seconds. That's a 20 Beyer point improvement.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I've read the Australian and Hong Kong reports. It says what I said. There is a "natural" level of cobalt in a horse, and anything above that level is a violation. That is the basis for standards here and there. It doesn't indicate a level at which performance enhancement occurs, although there was a lot of inference based on the success of horses. What you have is anecdotal evidence, and if that is enough for you, that's fine. It's not enough for me. I want to see the study that says horses improved by a specific amount with the administration of cobalt, and the recent studies I've seen are saying it doesn't have that impact. However, as I also said, since cobalt is a poison that can seriously harm a horse, whether or not it has performance enhancing effects is less relevant. It needs to have an enforceable standard based on the health of the horse. Anything above the naturally occuring level is a fine standard as far as I am concerned.

What is your agenda? The Meadowlands (on the harness side) found horses with Cobalt levels well above naturally occurring levels. Is it your position that "the trainers were trying to cheat, but Cobalt doesn't really work, so it doesn't matter???"

[johnhannibalsmith]

It was based on a conversation I had with an exercise physiologist who had performed the study where they used different levels of a solution containing primarily baking soda and sugar, and then measured treadmill performance. I also had a subsequent conversation with an equine pharmacologist who told me, "that sounds about right." As I said, 2% could be 5-7 lengths improvement.

Thanks. It could be exactly right but I have some difficulty - and this may go to some of the other statements as well about "the science" - finding comfort in one study and a nod of support. 30 years later and probably five million starts later under the influence of lasix, the best and brightest in study after study can't even agree on its effectiveness at treating EIPH, if at all. And that's a legal medication with no diversity in composition, only in dosage. A milkshake could be almost anything that has sodium bicarb in it. Maybe a half box of arm and hammer. Maybe a full. Maybe some sugar, electrolytes, maybe even some Lactanase. Like a bad street drug, there's enough variation in the recipe for me to not feel real comfortable buying into that element of the argument in the debate.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Like a bad street drug...

For the record, this comparison was used only in the context of trying to hammer down an "effectiveness" of said chemical concoction. Observation and anecdotal type experience being what it is - I don't have a particularly negative opinion of the treatment itself were it not pretty clearly at least (perhaps much like lasix) a performance enhancer insofar as it reduces part of the physiological distress that inhibits performance.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Thanks for the article Thask. To side with HoH on the Cobalt and milkshaking matter, you have to assume there are a lot of really, really stupid trainers in the world.

We totally agree on that. You do have to be really, really stupid to milkshake or use cobalt. However, you have to remember a lot of the TCO2 violations have nothing to do with milkshaking. They are related to feed, dehydration or Lasix. I counted 186 violations for TCO2 since 2009 from the RCI database. Thats an average of a bit over 30 a year. However, in 2014, there were only 15. Which seems to make my point, which is the idea has lost favor with trainers. Of the 15, you can be sure almost all of them were not milkshakes.

I counted 6 - that's right S-I-X cobalt positives in 2014.

This is both harness and TB.

I'm not giving you my "opinion." I'm reading the reports, I'm reading statistics. Go look for yourself. http://www.rmtcnet.com/content_recentrulings.asp?sort=violation

You've really got to cut me some slack. I'm trying to bring a degree of reality into a topic that is far too often not based on facts. You tell me what 15 TCO2's and 6 cobalts in 2014 means? Other than you have 21 really, really stupid trainers.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Thanks. It could be exactly right but I have some difficulty - and this may go to some of the other statements as well about "the science" - finding comfort in one study and a nod of support. 30 years later and probably five million starts later under the influence of lasix, the best and brightest in study after study can't even agree on its effectiveness at treating EIPH, if at all. And that's a legal medication with no diversity in composition, only in dosage. A milkshake could be almost anything that has sodium bicarb in it. Maybe a half box of arm and hammer. Maybe a full. Maybe some sugar, electrolytes, maybe even some Lactanase. Like a bad street drug, there's enough variation in the recipe for me to not feel real comfortable buying into that element of the argument in the debate.

Just to be clear, I got my information from those sources, but there are other studies. As I've noted, the issue for the people making standards isn't whether TCO2 is performance enhancing, but what the natural level is. I read the "studies" CHRB used to set both TCO2 and cobalt and that was what they did. On cobalt Rick Arthur pulled a bunch of samples from horses in training, tested the levels and concluded 25 ppb was the right enforcement level. I read a study from the Australian harness horse association which concluded TCO2 is more likely to retard performance than enhance it.

I think a lot of the Lasix controversy has to do with the fact Dubai, Hong Kong and Europe get by without raceday Lasix. If they can, why can't we. I've written about this (http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=910) and there are reasons why it would be so much harder here. It's a numbers game. Dubai has 23 race days a year, Hong Kong 86. We have more races than Hong Kong in a weekend in August. And the dirty secret in Europe is that Lasix is used extensively during training. It's not a banned drug, just banned on race day. In any case, most of the horsemen and their vets are hooked on Lasix and will fight to keep it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What is your agenda? The Meadowlands (on the harness side) found horses with Cobalt levels well above naturally occurring levels. Is it your position that "the trainers were trying to cheat, but Cobalt doesn't really work, so it doesn't matter???"
:bang:
For the tenth time. What I've consistently said is that there is no study that shows it is performance enhancing, but I believe it doesn't matter if cobalt is performance enhancing. It is poisonous in high enough concentrations. It should be regulated and picking the "natural" level for the standard is fine.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Exactly.

9-furlong race goes in 110 seconds. 98% of 110 seconds = 107.8 seconds. That's a 20 Beyer point improvement.

You don't have an argument from me. It seems to have the greatest impact on the best horses. It doesn't affect all horses equally. It can retard the performance of some horses. The high end of improvement may be 2%. The average of horses that improved would be lower. It would be in races where lactic acid buildup is relevant. How many high end stakes races over a mile have you ever heard of a trainer getting a positive for TCO2?

I think it's comical I gave you the statistic and you want to use it to show my points are somehow off.

What exactly are your points? That milkshaking and cobalt are no doubt performance enhancing and used rampantly across the land? And your proof is we are seeing trainers improving horses by big numbers so they must be cheating? And the people testing aren't finding whatever it is they are using, including TCO2 and cobalt?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

2%? yea ok buddy gotcha

I've been pretty patient with you. I'm not getting any substantive facts from you. All you've got are wiseass remarks that add nothing to an intelligent conversation. You should be ashamed of your classlessness, but that would be asking for a miracle.

[Saratoga_Mike]

:bang:
For the tenth time. What I've consistently said is that there is no study that shows it is performance enhancing, but I believe it doesn't matter if cobalt is performance enhancing. It is poisonous in high enough concentrations. It should be regulated and picking the "natural" level for the standard is fine.

What's your agenda? You have one. Who on earth takes up the cause of defending trainers "who try to cheat" but aren't really cheating b/c they use ineffective (your opinion) substances? It makes no sense.

You downplayed a 2% improvement. I showed 2% equals 20 Beyer points at 9 furlongs. How is that not a huge edge?

Are you affiliated with a horsemen/trainer/owners' group or association? How about a racing board?

[Stillriledup]

I've been pretty patient with you. I'm not getting any substantive facts from you. All you've got are wiseass remarks that add nothing to an intelligent conversation. You should be ashamed of your classlessness, but that would be asking for a miracle.

This is a tough bunch, i'm glad you're in here fighting the good fight, we appreciate your contributions.

I think i understand Mike's line of questioning, my question would be if you're going to bat for trainers who have had, in your mind, accidental overages, your articles and comments would hold more weight if you occasionally wrote about a trainer who's actually cheating. In other words not all overages are accidental, but if you never write about trainers who are cheating, it looks like you think nobody is really cheating.

No trainer is going to admit that his positive is anything but accidental or an honest mistake, but if a trainer has dozens and dozens of violations, at what point does that guy or gal get called out (by you possibly) for being a cheat? How many "mistakes" do you get before its not a mistake?

[Saratoga_Mike]

SRU - I gave him a chance to give his opinion of Jeff Mullins. Read his response. He knows Rick Arthur and several well-known Cali trainers. There's an agenda here.

[johnhannibalsmith]

This is a tough bunch, i'm glad you're in here fighting the good fight, we appreciate your contributions.

...

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

It's a thankless job to ever sing out of tune with the chorus here on certain subjects. Even harder to try to reply to each and every post and the points/complaints/rebuttals within and not get frazzled. Regardless of where anyone falls on any matter, all subjects are a whole lot more interesting when someone is willing to take the lumps for going against the grain.

Okay, well, except about 73% of your posts. :D

[Saratoga_Mike]

What exactly are your points? That milkshaking and cobalt are no doubt performance enhancing and used rampantly across the land? And your proof is we are seeing trainers improving horses by big numbers so they must be cheating? And the people testing aren't finding whatever it is they are using, including TCO2 and cobalt?

There are tests for TCO2 and Cobalt now. I'd assume trainers have moved onto other PED at this point.

You said there were very few TCO2 positives last year. So? From that, we are to conclude milkshakes do not work? No, there's a test now. Trainers are much smarter than you think.

And yes, a trainer who wins at a 35% to 40% clip first off the claim with big numbers is very likely cheating. What with what substance? I don't know and neither does Rick Arthur. If he knew, we'd test for it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... He knows Rick Arthur and several well-known Cali trainers. There's an agenda here.

If you were trying to learn about medication, it's uses, those that use it, and all that follows... wouldn't talking to Arthur and some of the notable regulars that run horses make some sort of sense without such conduct implying an agenda?

[Saratoga_Mike]

If you were trying to learn about medication, it's uses, those that use it, and all that follows... wouldn't talking to Arthur and some of the notable regulars that run horses make some sort of sense without such conduct implying an agenda?

It would make sense, no doubt. Is the agenda parroting the official CHRB line? Maybe. I don't know. And I'm not even judging the CHRB. I'm sure they try their best to root out drug cheats.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What's your agenda? You have one. Who on earth takes up the cause of defending trainers "who try to cheat" but aren't really cheating b/c they use ineffective (your opinion) substances? It makes no sense.

You downplayed a 2% improvement. I showed 2% equals 20 Beyer points at 9 furlongs. How is that not a huge edge?

Are you affiliated with a horsemen/trainer/owners' group or association? How about a racing board?

No, I'm not affiliated with anyone but myself.

I've taken up the cause of trainers who do not try to cheat but are caught up in a system that sets inappropriate standards (not all standards, but some), is overzealous in enforcement, and doesn't differentiate between performance enhancing drugs and therapeutic medications. Have you read my pieces on Bill Brashears, Doug O'Neill, Ferris Allen and Kellyn Gorder and you agree they were all treated fairly? Those are the only trainers I've defended. Do you believe they tried to cheat? How many trainers do you believe are engaged in "cheating?" 90%? 50% 10%? Would you base that on published statistics or some other data we can all share?

[Saratoga_Mike]

No, I'm not affiliated with anyone but myself.

I've taken up the cause of trainers who do not try to cheat but are caught up in a system that sets inappropriate standards (not all standards, but some), is overzealous in enforcement, and doesn't differentiate between performance enhancing drugs and therapeutic medications. Have you read my pieces on Bill Brashears, Doug O'Neill, Ferris Allen and Kellyn Gorder and you agree they were all treated fairly? Those are the only trainers I've defended. Do you believe they tried to cheat? How many trainers do you believe are engaged in "cheating?" 90%? 50% 10%? Would you base that on published statistics or some other data we can all share?

Your cause is odd, but I'll take you at your word and drop the agenda question. I wouldn't defend Doug O'Neil and I don't know Brashears or Gorder, but I suspect you're right on Ferris Allen. He's always been a 13% to 15% trainer who does a decent job with claims, but nothing out of the ordinary. I'd consider him an honest trainer.

90%? No way. 50%? No way. 10%? No. Depending on the track, I'd guess 0.5% to 2%. How would I identify trainers for extra testing attention? First-off-the-claim stat. Overall win percentage. Improvement of horses new to barns.

[thaskalos]

No, I'm not affiliated with anyone but myself.

I've taken up the cause of trainers who do not try to cheat but are caught up in a system that sets inappropriate standards (not all standards, but some), is overzealous in enforcement, and doesn't differentiate between performance enhancing drugs and therapeutic medications. Have you read my pieces on Bill Brashears, Doug O'Neill, Ferris Allen and Kellyn Gorder and you agree they were all treated fairly? Those are the only trainers I've defended. Do you believe they tried to cheat? How many trainers do you believe are engaged in "cheating?" 90%? 50% 10%? Would you base that on published statistics or some other data we can all share?
We don't know how many trainers cheat...but we DO know that those trainers who cheat do so because cheating allows them to win more races than they ordinarily would. What is conspicuously absent from this scenario is the outrage that the "honest" trainers should be feeling for those cheaters who are taking food out of the law-abiding trainers' mouths. From what we see, the honest trainers seem to know who the cheaters are...and yet, the cheaters still merrily continue to operate for years...with seemingly little disturbance from the trainers whom they are fleecing.

It boggles the mind...

[Saratoga_Mike]

Thask,

What can the honest trainers do?

[Stillriledup]

SRU - I gave him a chance to give his opinion of Jeff Mullins. Read his response. He knows Rick Arthur and several well-known Cali trainers. There's an agenda here.

I know what you are saying, its odd that someone who's a horseplayer or horse racing fan who has no affiliation to trainers and isn't a trainer himself, would fight for the rights of trainers, we all know that horsemen are for horsemen and when someone writes blogs that says "but these guys arent really cheating" than it SEEMS "anti horse player". Now, i know its not specifically anti horseplayer because fighting for fairness in judging the trainers doesn't mean he dislikes bettors, but it just seems like something that a person who is pro horse player wouldn't do.

If you defend Avila, a guy who just got a 10k fine for cheating, you'll probably defend anyone.

[Stillriledup]

We don't know how many trainers cheat...but we DO know that those trainers who cheat do so because cheating allows them to win more races than they ordinarily would. What is conspicuously absent from this scenario is the outrage that the "honest" trainers should be feeling for those cheaters who are taking food out of the law-abiding trainers' mouths. From what we see, the honest trainers seem to know who the cheaters are...and yet, the cheaters still merrily continue to operate for years...with seemingly little disturbance from the trainers whom they are fleecing.

It boggles the mind...

The problem is that the honest trainers would LOVE to see the crooks outed and tossed out and even if they KNOW which guys are cheating, how can they prove it in a world where the only proof anyone cares about is tainted fluid proof and even then, the guy can just claim he can't explain it. And, if you're Joe Honest and you scream from the mountaintops that Joe Crook is breaking the rules and beating the tests, it just looks like sour grapes.

I think if honest trainers knew of a way to get rid of the cheats, they would do it, but i'm not sure what they can do? Have any ideas?

[Saratoga_Mike]

I know what you are saying, its odd that someone who's a horseplayer or horse racing fan who has no affiliation to trainers and isn't a trainer himself, would fight for the rights of trainers, we all know that horsemen are for horsemen and when someone writes blogs that says "but these guys arent really cheating" than it SEEMS "anti horse player". Now, i know its not specifically anti horseplayer because fighting for fairness in judging the trainers doesn't mean he dislikes bettors, but it just seems like something that a person who is pro horse player wouldn't do.

If you defend Avila, a guy who just got a 10k fine for cheating, you'll probably defend anyone.

I don't view his position as anti-horseplayer. In fact, if you visit his blog, you'll see he's a bettor. As a bettor, you know what trainers can really pick a horse up off a claim. I just found his cause odd, but he seems genuine. I wish him luck in defending the Ferris Allens of the world, someone who should never be lumped in with Doug O'Neil.

[thaskalos]

Thask,

What can the honest trainers do?
If I am playing poker with you, Mike, and I am pretty confident that you are a cheater...do you figure that I will allow you to operate undisturbed for long?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This is a tough bunch, i'm glad you're in here fighting the good fight, we appreciate your contributions.

I think i understand Mike's line of questioning, my question would be if you're going to bat for trainers who have had, in your mind, accidental overages, your articles and comments would hold more weight if you occasionally wrote about a trainer who's actually cheating. In other words not all overages are accidental, but if you never write about trainers who are cheating, it looks like you think nobody is really cheating.

No trainer is going to admit that his positive is anything but accidental or an honest mistake, but if a trainer has dozens and dozens of violations, at what point does that guy or gal get called out (by you possibly) for being a cheat? How many "mistakes" do you get before its not a mistake?

I've written about five trainers. Four of them, Doug O'Neill, Bill Brashears, Ferris Allen and Kellyn Gorder were in the category of got nailed without actually trying to cheat. And before you come unglued about Doug O'Neill, one article was specifically about oxazepam, the other was about TCO2 where the CHRB concluded he didn't milkshake a horse and both the CHRB and me concluded he was still over the standard and didn't have a leg to stand on. The fifth trainer was AC Avila, and the article clearly said he did it and he actually got off easily.

As to trainers admitting, Brashears admitted using the Banamine, and the medication records backed up the time and dose. He just thought he was doing it right. And if you read that article, both Brashears and me agreed he deserved a fine, but not days or RCI points. Never said he should be let off - just that the punishment was excessive in my opinion. Gorder admitted the syringes and unlabeled medication, and if you read my article we both agreed the two month suspension was warranted. Ferris Allen admitted the vet gave the horse stanozolol, but again he thought he was in the clear in terms of withdrawal time.

I don't think they were accidental overages. They were real. I just don't think the trainers were consciously trying to get an edge. I do think they were overprosecuted - like the people in Texas who got 25 years for possession of a joint. They did it, but the punishment was over the top. That's most of what I write about.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If I am playing poker with you, Mike, and I am pretty confident that you are a cheater...do you figure that I will allow you to operate undisturbed for long?

I don't know that an analogy works in this case. What can the honest trainer do? If you were a trainer at Penn Nat and you thought David Wells was cheating (he was), what would you do? Complain to the stewards? What good would it do? You need proof in the form of a post-race positive. A sting operation? It's hard to pull off the latter as a trainer.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I don't know that an analogy works in this case. What can the honest trainer do? If you were a trainer at Penn Nat and you thought David Wells was cheating (he was), what would you do? Complain to the stewards? What good would it do? You need proof in the form of a post-race positive. A sting operation? It's hard to pull off the latter as a trainer.

Not to mention payback can be a real bitch on the backside. While the good guy is home sleeping a good night's sleep because he voiced his concern, the bad guy is slipping a gram of crushed meth into an in-today's feed tub at 2am. Maybe that's an extreme example, but between the reality of mike's post and SRU insight and then the extreme examples that really can **** you for good... the upside isn't what it seems when you know the guy's worst case scenario is another weak ruling that gets it's last tooth pulled on the third tier of appeal four years later.

[thaskalos]

I don't know that an analogy works in this case. What can the honest trainer do? If you were a trainer at Penn Nat and you thought David Wells was cheating (he was), what would you do? Complain to the stewards? What good would it do? You need proof in the form of a post-race positive. A sting operation? It's hard to pull off the latter as a trainer.
Correct me if I am wrong...but didn't you say a short while ago that you believed only about 2% of the trainers cheated?

[Stillriledup]

I've written about five trainers. Four of them, Doug O'Neill, Bill Brashears, Ferris Allen and Kellyn Gorder were in the category of got nailed without actually trying to cheat. And before you come unglued about Doug O'Neill, one article was specifically about oxazepam, the other was about TCO2 where the CHRB concluded he didn't milkshake a horse and both the CHRB and me concluded he was still over the standard and didn't have a leg to stand on. The fifth trainer was AC Avila, and the article clearly said he did it and he actually got off easily.

As to trainers admitting, Brashears admitted using the Banamine, and the medication records backed up the time and dose. He just thought he was doing it right. And if you read that article, both Brashears and me agreed he deserved a fine, but not days or RCI points. Never said he should be let off - just that the punishment was excessive in my opinion. Gorder admitted the syringes and unlabeled medication, and if you read my article we both agreed the two month suspension was warranted. Ferris Allen admitted the vet gave the horse stanozolol, but again he thought he was in the clear in terms of withdrawal time.

I don't think they were accidental overages. They were real. I just don't think the trainers were consciously trying to get an edge. I do think they were overprosecuted - like the people in Texas who got 25 years for possession of a joint. They did it, but the punishment was over the top. That's most of what I write about.

Thanks for the response, appreciate it.

What it really comes down to is the idea of consciousness. I've always said that to bettors, whether or not its an accident doesnt matter to them because the end result is the same. The trainer can apologize and say it was an accident or a mistake they made, but how does that make the gambler whole?

The problem is that people are gambling on these races and HUGE money is at stake, if you know the punishments are slaps on the wrist, you're not going to run your barn as if one overage can be your last or really put a dent in your career. Nowadays, you got guys who are multiple time offenders doing what, 60 days of laying on Manhattan Beach sipping pina coladas while their wife trains the barn? They don't miss a beat, they lose no clients (because clients secretly want their trainers to push the envelope) and they don't lose any money, they just get to play golf and work on their tan, that's the punishment.

So, you know, its a tricky call to ever say punishments are too stern, especially for multiple time offenders.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

SRU - I gave him a chance to give his opinion of Jeff Mullins. Read his response. He knows Rick Arthur and several well-known Cali trainers. There's an agenda here.

Just to be clear, if somone tells Rick Arthur I'm on the phone, there's a good chance he's out to lunch. We are not friends by any stretch. But, he works for a public agency and has to deal with me.

Doug O'Neill and I are friends now, but we didn't start that way. My articles about O'Neill were before we became better acquainted. I interviewed him twice for the articles as a reporter. After the articles came out, I asked if I could follow him around for a piece on life as a trainer. If I write about him again, I'll disclose we are friends.

I don't know Mullins. I don't know if he is a good guy or bad. I also don't follow the So Cal circuit. If you look at my blog, I am exclusively NYRA. My answer was, if these guys are truly rehabilitated I'm willing to let bygones be bygones. But if they cheat, I'll be happy to cream them.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

There are tests for TCO2 and Cobalt now. I'd assume trainers have moved onto other PED at this point.

You said there were very few TCO2 positives last year. So? From that, we are to conclude milkshakes do not work? No, there's a test now. Trainers are much smarter than you think.

And yes, a trainer who wins at a 35% to 40% clip first off the claim with big numbers is very likely cheating. What with what substance? I don't know and neither does Rick Arthur. If he knew, we'd test for it.

Actually I think trainers are smart at being trainers. At least the ones that can make a decent living. I've talked to a lot of trainers. I respect them for how hard they work. They are knowledgable about horses, but as Mullins said, chemistry isn't really his thing.

Irronically, the magical substance at one time was the milkshake. Once the commissions caught on to that, maybe it was cobalt. But you are right. It would be insane to think you could milkshake or use cobalt and get away with it today. I agree that if someone is cheating with an unknown substance we aren't testing for it. But I'm confounded by what those substances can be, where they are coming from, and why the commissions are oblivious.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If you were trying to learn about medication, it's uses, those that use it, and all that follows... wouldn't talking to Arthur and some of the notable regulars that run horses make some sort of sense without such conduct implying an agenda?

I talk to lots of vets and pharmacologists. My agenda, if I have one, is to learn as much as I can learn so I sound knowledgable when I write. People who have read my stuff know that I've ripped Arthur before. I'm trying to think if I've praised him. I wish to be accurate in my writing, and to this point, I stand by my reporting. And my handicapping and betting articles, which are among the best on the internet. And my NYRA selections, which are also known to be high quality.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I talk to lots of vets and pharmacologists. My agenda, if I have one, is to ...

I'm not sure if you've misinterpreted my post or just expanding on the topic, but I was trying to cast some doubt on the notion that those relationships - whatever they are short of family or lover - would imply an agenda. I thought actually talking to people that have first-hand information and experience sounded like a refreshingly responsible way to form an opinion shared on the internet.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It would make sense, no doubt. Is the agenda parroting the official CHRB line? Maybe. I don't know. And I'm not even judging the CHRB. I'm sure they try their best to root out drug cheats.

The irony is that the I've plastered the CHRB (and the Stewards) on a number of occasions. I am unashamedly willing to back horsemen that get caught in a system where small therapeutic violations are dealt with harshly, and real cheating isn't investigated to the degree it should be. I am just as harsh on horsemen that do cheat (AC Avila) and I am happy to tell anyone they should throw the book at some trainers. I actually don't think CHRB investigatory efforts are that good. In fact, because of the absolute insurers rule, the incentive for most commissions to investigate is all but absent. If they were really interested in what goes on, they'd install cameras instead of leaving it up to the trainers. I'm just as in favor of tougher enforcement overal as I am not giving basically good guys a punishment that is overly harsh.

[Robert Fischer]

The problem is that the honest trainers would LOVE to see the crooks outed and tossed out and even if they KNOW which guys are cheating, how can they prove it in a world where the only proof anyone cares about is tainted fluid proof and even then, the guy can just claim he can't explain it. And, if you're Joe Honest and you scream from the mountaintops that Joe Crook is breaking the rules and beating the tests, it just looks like sour grapes.

I think if honest trainers knew of a way to get rid of the cheats, they would do it, but i'm not sure what they can do? Have any ideas?

That's a good point.
Just look at this thread, there are like 9 pages debating about whether CO2 OR Cobalt work.

I have a level of insight that's pretty high, but even I don't have concrete evidence of the good cheaters.
What I can do, is see when there is a likelyhood of enhanced performance. These instances that suggest enhanced performance aren't always obvious to the average fan and certainly wouldn't be agreed upon by a consensus of average fans (OK, not unless an authority stated them to be so).
It starts with me actually having insight into the performance of a horse, and then seeing when there is a rapid increase in performance.
More importantly and to the point, these instances of probable enhanced performance don't tell you whether the performance was enhanced due to elite training and adjustments, natural health improvements and healing of injuries, or performance enhancing drugs.

At that point I can make a guess, and sometimes trainers make these guesses rather easy for such an astute observer, but there are also times when I can not really know much more than the fact that there is a high probability of being enhanced from whatever cause.

We have a crazy game, that is comical at times. We've actually had trainers who use steroids and growth hormone on themselves and enter bodybuilding contests. Then we've had that same trainer claim a horse, lay him off, bring him back to the races significantly more fit and muscular than with the previous barn.
When you see something like that, you just shake your head.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'm not sure if you've misinterpreted my post or just expanding on the topic, but I was trying to cast some doubt on the notion that those relationships - whatever they are short of family or lover - would imply an agenda. I thought actually talking to people that have first-hand information and experience sounded like a refreshingly responsible way to form an opinion shared on the internet.

In that case thank you and we are in agreement. I am interested in the truth, in the facts and in improving the sport. And talking to people is a good way for me to get there.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

That's a good point.
Just look at this thread, there are like 9 pages debating about whether CO2 OR Cobalt work.

I have a level of insight that's pretty high, but even I don't have concrete evidence of the good cheaters.
What I can do, is see when there is a likelyhood of enhanced performance. These instances that suggest enhanced performance aren't always obvious to the average fan and certainly wouldn't be agreed upon by a consensus of average fans (OK, not unless an authority stated them to be so).
It starts with me actually having insight into the performance of a horse, and then seeing when there is a rapid increase in performance.
More importantly and to the point, these instances of probable enhanced performance don't tell you whether the performance was enhanced due to elite training and adjustments, natural health improvements and healing of injuries, or performance enhancing drugs.

At that point I can make a guess, and sometimes trainers make these guesses rather easy for such an astute observer, but there are also times when I can not really know much more than the fact that there is a high probability of being enhanced from whatever cause.

We have a crazy game, that is comical at times. We've actually had trainers who use steroids and growth hormone on themselves and enter bodybuilding contests. Then we've had that same trainer claim a horse, lay him off, bring him back to the races significantly more fit and muscular than with the previous barn.
When you see something like that, you just shake your head.

If we can see it, why can't the commission see it and go after it? That is one of my great frustrations. The appearance of cheating is as deleterious to racing as the cheating, and in my opinion the commissions should be either clearing or getting the goods on the trainers you reference. People may still not believe it, but it is better to say we looked up and down and sideways at Trainer A, and we can't find evidence of cheating.

[Robert Fischer]

If we can see it, why can't the commission see it and go after it? That is one of my great frustrations. The appearance of cheating is as deleterious to racing as the cheating, and in my opinion the commissions should be either clearing or getting the goods on the trainers you reference. People may still not believe it, but it is better to say we looked up and down and sideways at Trainer A, and we can't find evidence of cheating.

I don't know. I've never seriously thought about how to better regulate the sport.

There seemingly would be a level of intelligent due diligence.
Testing beyond that level, may actually incentivize cheating for bigger barns by pricing smaller barns out of the market.
Some of the foreign models seem to be interesting where horses are essentially stabled by the 'house' as a race nears.
I really do not have any answers to this.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Thanks for the response, appreciate it.

What it really comes down to is the idea of consciousness. I've always said that to bettors, whether or not its an accident doesnt matter to them because the end result is the same. The trainer can apologize and say it was an accident or a mistake they made, but how does that make the gambler whole?

The problem is that people are gambling on these races and HUGE money is at stake, if you know the punishments are slaps on the wrist, you're not going to run your barn as if one overage can be your last or really put a dent in your career. Nowadays, you got guys who are multiple time offenders doing what, 60 days of laying on Manhattan Beach sipping pina coladas while their wife trains the barn? They don't miss a beat, they lose no clients (because clients secretly want their trainers to push the envelope) and they don't lose any money, they just get to play golf and work on their tan, that's the punishment.

So, you know, its a tricky call to ever say punishments are too stern, especially for multiple time offenders.

I'm careful to say that if you are over a standard that was set based on good scientific study, you deserve some punishment. But let's take Banamine, one of the 26 approved RCI therapeutic medications. The RCI set the standard at less than half of what their own study said the standard should be (20 ng vs. 50 ng). While the withdrawal time is not part of the standard, Bill Brashears vet was told 24 hour withdrawal was fine to avoid a violation. Subsequently, the RCI realized they were getting a slew of Banamine violations, and commissioned another study that said, if you want to keep the level at 20 ng, you better recommend a 32 hour withdrawal. Remember, they could have moved the level up and not had a statistically ridiculous number of violations, but I believe they had an agenda, and that agenda is documented in my article. We know the studies on banamine show the performance enhancing effect (analgesic effect) is gone at 16 hours. The anti-inflammatory effect, which all vets agree is important so the horse doesn't suffer greater injury, my last up to 36 hours. 24 hours is probably the right withdrawal time if you want to guarantee no performance enhancement and therapeutic benefit. At 32 hours, you lose a lot of the therapeutic effect of banamine. Brashears has a positive, he then cuts the dose on future horses to 80% and increases withdrawal time. He then had horses that passed the test so he figured he had a solution. Then he had two horses test positive. Unfortuantely they didn't tell him about the second violation until after the third so he had no chance to adjust. The Commission gave him three violations, instead of combining 2 and 3 into 1 violation which is the usual practice. Brashears got 15 days (because of the third violation), $1,500, loss of purse, 3 RCI points and a $10,000 lawyer bill. He offered to pay a fine if they would combine 2 and 3 so he didn't get days. They rejected the offer.

Now you tell me. Was that all fair? I didn't think so, but I wrote the article based on my interviews with the executive director of the racing commission, Brashears, and Brashears vet. Read the full article and tell me. Did Brashears get treated fairly? Did this penalty help cleanup horseracing? You don't have to agree, but my opinion is that IN THIS CASE, Brashears was treated more harshly than was necessary for justice to be served.

By the way, Brashears trains at C level tracks and has a string of about 15 horses. Not exactly the Toddster.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I don't know. I've never seriously thought about how to better regulate the sport.

There seemingly would be a level of intelligent due diligence.
Testing beyond that level, may actually incentivize cheating for bigger barns by pricing smaller barns out of the market.
Some of the foreign models seem to be interesting where horses are essentially stabled by the 'house' as a race nears.
I really do not have any answers to this.

With my writing I am hoping to get people thinking about this. I am hoping my questions and my case studies stimulate people to look at what pisses me off - the need to address all the cheating in racing, not just prosecutive positive post race tests. I defend trainers who have no one else to defend them - they are all independent contractors so to speak. But I also push against the commissions who are not working nearly as hard as they could to create not just a clean sport, but the perception of a clean sport.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Not to mention payback can be a real bitch on the backside. While the good guy is home sleeping a good night's sleep because he voiced his concern, the bad guy is slipping a gram of crushed meth into an in-today's feed tub at 2am. Maybe that's an extreme example, but between the reality of mike's post and SRU insight and then the extreme examples that really can **** you for good... the upside isn't what it seems when you know the guy's worst case scenario is another weak ruling that gets it's last tooth pulled on the third tier of appeal four years later.

Incredibly good point. I've spent enough time on the backside to know just how easy it would be to screw someone. Which is another problem racing doesn't deal with. Could that have happened in Gorder's case? Sure the horse could have been contaminated by persons unknown.

Because of the absolute insurers rule, if my horse tests positive for cocaine, and I know I didn't administer it, I am still as guilty as if I did. I sort of liken it to someone stealing my car, committing a crime in it, and me getting charged because I was supposed to be in control of my vehicle at all times. Sorry, best I could think of at 10:00

[Donttellmeshowme]

I've been pretty patient with you. I'm not getting any substantive facts from you. All you've got are wiseass remarks that add nothing to an intelligent conversation. You should be ashamed of your classlessness, but that would be asking for a miracle.




So you talk to vets and phamacologists and we are suppose to believe all these vets and what they say just because you talked to them?

Let me tell you something straight up pal. Milkshakes and cobalt make horses run faster and longer. They are performance enhancing. You can slice and dice it anyway u want, but those 2 things help a horse immensely. Fact......

[Saratoga_Mike]

Correct me if I am wrong...but didn't you say a short while ago that you believed only about 2% of the trainers cheated?

I did say that Thask, but you've deflected my questions, which isn't your typical m.o. My thinking was there are 4 to 6 trainers at each track who perform miracles on a regular basis. I assumed a few hundred trainers make entries at each track. My assumptions certainly could be flawed. What's your estimate and why?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

So you talk to vets and phamacologists and we are suppose to believe all these vets and what they say just because you talked to them?

Let me tell you something straight up pal. Milkshakes and cobalt make horses run faster and longer. They are performance enhancing. You can slice and dice it anyway u want, but those 2 things help a horse immensely. Fact......

I'm just going to submit your post to the jury of public opinion. I would hope more than one person on the site would be shaking their head right now.

No, you're not supposed to believe them because I talked to them. You're supposed to believe them because they spend their professional lives studying such things, trying to find the right answers and publishing their results for all who can read to see.

If only they had asked you, they could have saved themselves years of wasted time studying this stuff.

[Donttellmeshowme]

I'm just going to submit your post to the jury of public opinion. I would hope more than one person on the site would be shaking their head right now.

No, you're not supposed to believe them because I talked to them. You're supposed to believe them because they spend their professional lives studying such things, trying to find the right answers and publishing their results for all who can read to see.

If only they had asked you, they could have saved themselves years of wasted time studying this stuff.





All im saying is milkshakes and cobalt are performance enhancers. You keep ur head in the sand and think they are not.

[Saratoga_Mike]

But I'm confounded by what those substances can be, where they are coming from, and why the commissions are oblivious.

1) Do you agree EPO is a PED?

2) When were the first tests for EPO in horse racing performed?

3) When did EPO hit the market?

My answers:

1) Yes

2) Around 2003/4

3) 1989

http://pi.amgen.com/united_states/epogen/epogen_pi_hcp_english.pdf

You had an almost 15-year gap between testing and the release of the drug. So why are you confounded that tests may not exist for powerful PEDs? I just gave you one.

Guess what happened to certain trainers at a certain Midatlantic track after EPO testing was introduced? 30% trainers turned into 15% trainers.

[Saratoga_Mike]

All im saying is milkshakes and cobalt are performance enhancers. You keep ur head in the sand and think they are not.

Three experts who lean toward your opinion:

1) Here's a vet in Australia who believes milkshaking can serve as a performance enhancer in longer races.

http://www.jockeysite.com/stories/milkshake.htm

_________________________________________________

2) Australian Standardbred (Nov 91) - "Benefits of sodium bicarbonate on racing standardbreds"

"Twenty two standardbreds were paired and participated in a crossover trial when competing in two races at least a week apart. They were treated with 300mg/kg NaHco3 orally 2 1/2 hours before racing or with a placebo of salt and dextrose. The treatments were switched for the second race. Blood tests and lactate were measured before and after racing. Results: Racing times were a mean 1.1 seconds faster in those treated with NaHC03 (sodium bicarbonate) and blood pH was significantly elevated .Notably, post exercise lactate clearance rates were significantly enhanced in treated horses."

__________________________________________________ _________

3) Dr. Rick Arthur:

"This is not a trivial issue. In humans, bicarbonate loading has been shown to increase the exercise time to exhaustion by 50% during certain standard exercise tests. For a racehorse, what impact would even a 1% increase in time to exhaustion have on the outcome of a race? Careers of trainers, horses, and a few veterinarians, I'm sorry to say, have been made by milkshaking, and their success has always been at the expense of others."

Read more on BloodHorse.com: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/27175/more-than-a-milkshake#ixzz3ZeNCduEX

[HalvOnHorseracing]

1) Do you agree EPO is a PED?

2) When were the first tests for EPO in horse racing performed?

3) When did EPO hit the market?

My answers:

1) Yes

2) Around 2003/4

3) 1989

http://pi.amgen.com/united_states/epogen/epogen_pi_hcp_english.pdf

You had an almost 15-year gap between testing and the release of the drug. So why are you confounded that tests may not exist for powerful PEDs? I just gave you one.

Guess what happened to certain trainers at a certain Midatlantic track after EPO testing was introduced? 30% trainers turned into 15% trainers.

I'm not confounded by what substances were used previously. I'm confounded by what those substances are today. Testing today is light years ahead of where it as even 10 years ago.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'm not confounded by what substances were used previously. I'm confounded by what those substances are today. Testing today is light years ahead of where it as even 10 years ago.

You would have made the same argument in 2002.

I would have said: "There are certain trainers at a midatlantic track who are miracle workers first-off-the claim, improving horses by 6 to 8 lengths in 10 days. Something illicit is going on."

You would have responded with: "Mike, testing is light years ahead of where it was in 1992. It's 2002. We're testing for many more substances today than 10 years ago."

You would have been dead wrong in 2002, and common sense tells me you're wrong in 2015.

And your response is, "well what are they using now?" How should I know? But in 2002, I knew something was up and it was EPO. History is on the side of the skeptic, not on your side.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Three experts who lean toward your opinion:

1) Here's a vet in Australia who believes milkshaking can serve as a performance enhancer in longer races.

http://www.jockeysite.com/stories/milkshake.htm

_________________________________________________

2) Australian Standardbred (Nov 91) - "Benefits of sodium bicarbonate on racing standardbreds"

"Twenty two standardbreds were paired and participated in a crossover trial when competing in two races at least a week apart. They were treated with 300mg/kg NaHco3 orally 2 1/2 hours before racing or with a placebo of salt and dextrose. The treatments were switched for the second race. Blood tests and lactate were measured before and after racing. Results: Racing times were a mean 1.1 seconds faster in those treated with NaHC03 (sodium bicarbonate) and blood pH was significantly elevated .Notably, post exercise lactate clearance rates were significantly enhanced in treated horses."

__________________________________________________ _________

3) Dr. Rick Arthur:

"This is not a trivial issue. In humans, bicarbonate loading has been shown to increase the exercise time to exhaustion by 50% during certain standard exercise tests. For a racehorse, what impact would even a 1% increase in time to exhaustion have on the outcome of a race? Careers of trainers, horses, and a few veterinarians, I'm sorry to say, have been made by milkshaking, and their success has always been at the expense of others."

Read more on BloodHorse.com: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/27175/more-than-a-milkshake#ixzz3ZeNCduEX

I've said about a dozen times that milkshaking CAN have performance enhancing effects. The statement that it DOES have a performance enhancing effect is inaccurate. That is the fact. It's a bit subtle, but there is an obvious difference.

Let me give you two quotes from the Australian Harness Racing Council report presented in 2000:

“A horse that is scientifically trained or well-trained cannot be improved very much by the administration of alkinizing agents.”

When they refer to alkinizing agents, they mean “MILKSHAKES.” The report goes on to say

“In North American tests in 1996 it was found that some horses performed worse when administered with a buffering substance or an alkinizing agent.”

So perhaps the 2000 report trumps the 1991 report.

As you might imagine there has been a lot of work since the things you cite above. Arthur is self-interested in these things, and once again studies have sedated a lot of the alarm he raised.

There were doctors 200 years ago who believed eating fruit for breakfast was poisonous. Good science asks the question and continuously searches for the answer. It evolves and recognizes that newer studies and newer testing equipment can yield better answers.

I get the feeling your motivation is not to find the truth, but to somehow prove I am trying to promote an agenda that underplays drugs in racing. You've been looking for the conspiracy all along. Somehow, because you wouldn't defend trainers who appear to have been treated harshly, you can't conceive of anyone else doing it without an agenda. My agenda is simple. To make enforcement sensible, to treat violators fairly, and to get the real cheats out of racing. You may find it suspcious that no on else is doing it, but my motivations are exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they put the freedom of the press clause in the constitution. To make sure those with power do not run roughshod over those with no power. To bring their actions into the court of public opinion. In American racing, you are guilty and you must prove your innocence. This is in contrast to Australia where the trainer has the presumption of innocence and the racing authorities have a responsibility to investigate if they want a conviction. As you read in the Kellyn Gorder article, after the test came back positive, they did no investigation to find the cause. He was guilty because the test was positive, and that was the end of that. I don't think that is fair because I believe racing commissions should be more interested in finding the truth than simply getting a conviction.The current system is everything American justice is not. The commissions are the investigators, the jury, the judges, and the ones to hear the appeal. I think that can be changed for the better.

Anyone who follows me knows I am dead set against performance enhancing agents, which rarely include legitimate therapeutics. I ask a simple question. What is the EPO of 2015 and why are they having such a hard time figuring that out? It is a perfectly reasonable question that (1) acknowledges the existence of potentially PE substances and (2) lays deserved criticism on racing commissions that would rather pummel trainers trying to compete fairly than find the alchemists.

I'm sure you have little use for my suggestions, but you might consider I have some legitimate points even if I am not 100% right all the time.

I didn't appear out of the blue. I wrote a book in the late 80's on longshot form cycles called The Condition Sign. I was a contributing writer to American Turf Monthly in the early 90's, and until they folded in 2103 I was a regular contributing writer to Horseplayer Magazine. I am the on-track handicapper for Arapahoe Park during their season. I still appear as a guest on radio. I have a long record of publishing and expressing my opinion and I have spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours researching my articles. I'm not dogmatic like Donttellme. I've come to my opinions through research and discussion. The difference between us is that when a definitive study is published and it has a different conclusion than mine, I have no problem changing my mind.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

All im saying is milkshakes and cobalt are performance enhancers. You keep ur head in the sand and think they are not.

For I hope the last time, milkshaking CAN be a performance enhancer, but you cannot say in every case it IS a performance enhancer. It is also the case that its use has been almost entirely discontinued. 14 TCO2 violations in 2014, mostly related to feed, dehydration or Lasix and not milkshaking. Testing cannot seem to prove the performance enhancing effect of Cobalt and it is really not stupid to believe the scientists. Last year there were six cobalt violations in harness and thoroughbred racing, indicating it has also fallen from popularity. The reality is no matter how much of a performance enhancer these substances are or aren't, their use is getting less and less. The argument about them will be moot if the trend continues.

[Saratoga_Mike]

.

1) What is the EPO of 2015 and why are they having such a hard time figuring that out? It is a perfectly reasonable question that (1) acknowledges the existence of potentially PE substances and (2) lays deserved criticism on racing commissions that would rather pummel trainers trying to compete fairly than find the alchemists.

I'm sure you have little use for my suggestions, but2) you might consider I have some legitimate points even if I am not 100% right all the time.



1) Cheats are always one or two steps ahead of regulators. That's universal, not just in racing.

2) Yes, I already said I agreed with you on Ferris Allen. You seem like a very bright guy who, in my opinion, just isn't skeptical enough.

With that, I'm moving on from this topic. Good luck with your wagers.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You would have made the same argument in 2002.

I would have said: "There are certain trainers at a midatlantic track who are miracle workers first-off-the claim, improving horses by 6 to 8 lengths in 10 days. Something illicit is going on."

You would have responded with: "Mike, testing is light years ahead of where it was in 1992. It's 2002. We're testing for many more substances today than 10 years ago."

You would have been dead wrong in 2002, and common sense tells me you're wrong in 2015.

And your response is, "well what are they using now?" How should I know? But in 2002, I knew something was up and it was EPO. History is on the side of the skeptic, not on your side.

What a funny thing to say. Testing is always improving, but the current crop of mass spectrometers is to the testing machines of the mid 90's as your computer is to a calculator.

I'm not sure how I would be wrong to suggest we could find more substances at lower levels than we ever have. My question is still, what could a substance look like that can fool the machines and improve horses dramatically. I've asked experts and they don't have a definitive answer.

But, one again, and I hope it penetrates this time, I am not denying the possible existence of PEDs. I just want to know what potential form they could take and what commissions are doing to find them.

And just to be clear, I wouldn't have said, testing is light years ahead of where it was 10 years ago before I said, let's investigate those trainers and either clear them of cheating or prove it, but in the meantime let's not speculate and impugn someone's character with nothing more than anecdote. Let's find the truth.

Ironically, that is exactly the same thing I would say today. Don't just tell me a trainer improves a horse so he's cheating. Look for the truth. Oh yeah, and don't forget to use the machines that are light years ahead of where they were ten years ago to help you out.

[thaskalos]

I did say that Thask, but you've deflected my questions, which isn't your typical m.o. My thinking was there are 4 to 6 trainers at each track who perform miracles on a regular basis. I assumed a few hundred trainers make entries at each track. My assumptions certainly could be flawed. What's your estimate and why?
You misunderstood me, Mike...my intention wasn't to "deflect". I wanted to prove a point.

So, let's say there are 98 trainers on the backstretch of a relatively minor track, who are breaking their backs trying to earn a decent living for themselves and their families. They get up before the roosters, and they tend to their business in an honest and straight-forward manner...showing a lot of care for the horses in their stalls. And then, out of the blue, two totally unknown trainers arrive on the scene...flashing wonderful toothy grins, and sporting fine mustaches...and shiny new sombreros. These newcomers may be unknown...but they prove pretty quickly that they are good at their craft. DAMN good, in fact. So good...that they are able to show about a 40% win record on pretty much every statistical category out there...based on pretty substantial sample sizes. These two guys claim a horse from the other trainers...and the new acquisition wins at first asking at a 42% rate...but when the OTHER trainers claim a horse from those hotshots, then the claimed horse mysteriously forgets how to run...and the win rate drops to about 3% for the new owners.

Some time passes...and, understandably, these two trainers start attracting more and more business. After all, this is a results-oriented business, and the two new trainers are getting great results; results which show that those Hall-of-Fame trainers whom the game has honored for all these years may not have been any special after all. The two newcomers now command a lot of horses...and the honest trainers have their stomachs turning whenever those horses show up in the entrees...because the odds of the honest trainers winning drop substantially whenever the newcomers' horses appear in a race. It's no joke now...because livelihoods and the feeding of families are at stake. The honest trainers start talking among themselves...trying to decide what to do...and how to protect themselves in this unusual situation that they find themselves in. Some idle threats are even thrown about...by the more emotional members of the group.

But finally, sanity prevails. One of the wise, senior members of the group sits the other trainers down...and reasons with them. He says:

"Listen guys...let's not go crazy here. Yes...the results that these guys are getting are indeed magical...and there must be some sort of cheating going on. But there is honestly nothing that we can do. Yes...there are 98 of us, and only 2 of them...and, yes, our livelihoods and the futures of our families are at stake...but rules are rules. And the rules say that there must be conclusive proof before accusations can be made. Until this proof becomes available, then we'll just have to tighten out belts...and ask our families to do the same."

And one of the high-strung honest trainers rises up in protest:

"Wait a minute here...are you telling me that all 98 of us will be held hostage by those two smiling punks"...he asks incredulously?

"Listen boy...you are courting trouble with this attitude of yours. These guys are troublemakers I tell you...and there is no telling WHAT they'll do to us if we don't remain quite. Why...they may even put drugs in the feed of our own horses while we are sleeping, and then we'll have even more problems than we have now. Let's break up now and go home...to see if there is any food left there for us to eat before we go to bed."

And the 98 trainers quietly head home...secure in the knowledge that the feed of their own horses won't get contaminated while they sleep...thus depriving them of their future in the game. After all...a piece of bread is better than a totally empty stomach.

And the saga continues...

Mike...does this make sense to you?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Y...
Mike...does this make sense to you?

Again... do what??????

Tell someone? Like here? Run around screaming about so-and-so the cheat? That ever get anything done?

You act like getting outraged is enough to run your two guys off. Do you think the 98 should just shoot them and stuff them in the trunk?

You've posted as much as nearly anyone that enforcement is a joke and punishments pure comedy gold. Now suddenly the system works if only trainers would share their concerns, concerns that are as obvious to them as to you and everyone else? You don't think everyone top to down and inside to out don't see the same thing from the two guys? But now because trainers can't somehow magically do something you're torn up over how this could be?

Please, tell me, armed with the same sort of speculation that anyone else has, and void of all the same proof that nobody else has, what special power do these 98 trainers have other than joining the chorus of skeptics?

[cj]

Again... do what??????

Tell someone? Like here? Run around screaming about so-and-so the cheat? That ever get anything done?

You act like getting outraged is enough to run your two guys off. Do you think the 98 should just shoot them and stuff them in the trunk?

You've posted as much as nearly anyone that enforcement is a joke and punishments pure comedy gold. Now suddenly the system works if only trainers would share their concerns, concerns that are as obvious to them as to you and everyone else? You don't think everyone top to down and inside to out don't see the same thing from the two guys? But now because trainers can't somehow magically do something you're torn up over how this could be?

Please, tell me, armed with the same sort of speculation that anyone else has, and void of all the same proof that nobody else has, what special power do these 98 trainers have other than joining the chorus of skeptics?

Boycott the entry box? Refuse to run in races where they have entries?

[thaskalos]

Again... do what??????

Tell someone? Like here? Run around screaming about so-and-so the cheat? That ever get anything done?

You act like getting outraged is enough to run your two guys off. Do you think the 98 should just shoot them and stuff them in the trunk?

You've posted as much as nearly anyone that enforcement is a joke and punishments pure comedy gold. Now suddenly the system works if only trainers would share their concerns, concerns that are as obvious to them as to you and everyone else? You don't think everyone top to down and inside to out don't see the same thing from the two guys? But now because trainers can't somehow magically do something you're torn up over how this could be?

Please, tell me, armed with the same sort of speculation that anyone else has, and void of all the same proof that nobody else has, what special power do these 98 trainers have other than joining the chorus of skeptics?

If those 98 trainers are indeed powerless against the cheaters, and the cheaters are free to continue with business as usual...then where is the incentive for a trainer to remain "honest", John? How long can we expect the honest trainers to remain honest...when they see the cheaters out there "performing miracles"? The cheaters are using undetectable drugs, there is nothing that the honest trainers can do...and yet, we are supposed to think that 98% of the trainers remain honest? What...they've all taken a vow of poverty?

[Grits]

Mr.Halvey, these are simply some observations, in that, I don't think a soul is capable of changing your mind at this point. And maybe rightfully so. You're a one man crusade, and yes, there's goodness in such commitment.

I believe that the consensus is that we all want fairness in this sport. Still, I'm surprised at some of your comments. They make me bristle.

Why is it you find some of the questions of racing commission members so inept? Are these paid, full time positions? Surely not. Maybe compensated to a degree per meeting, but surely not full time requirements from those within the industry. These things, as we know, don't usually work this way. I've sat on some of these--not in this industry. Volunteering one's time, knowledge and energy is the norm. It is often a taxing and thankless job.

I believe many racing commissions are ill equipped to handle many of the drug issues. I've been at commission meetings and read transcripts where they have asked questions like

What's a picogram"
Is that drug FDA approved?
Now what exactly does that drug do?
Can't you just use something else?

It shows a low level of real knowledge, and leads to the bureaucrats running the show. I care deeply about horses and their health and would never favor anything that would be deleterious to them.

What exactly does this drug do is not fully within the realm of expertise of the average business person/sport involved (though layman) not trained in pharmacology or medicine. Neither is the term, picogram. These can be difficult positions to fill on the RCs, to say the least. To term their seated members knowledge as low level is somewhat punishing and ungracious.

Now, on the other end of the spectrum, but quite possibly in the same vein. We have trainers, some of whom, may have gotten out of high school with less than a stellar SAT score. It happens, Mr.Halvey. Are we judging them as consummately stupid as well? .... I will go as far as to say that if you are not able to learn the withdrawal times, or you are one who pushes the envelope? Good luck! I'm a believer of---when in doubt---don't. If your horse is sore, don't enter him/her to race. Rest the animal for their own benefit.

I'm sorry, but it would behoove you to realize that, yes, scientific studies are most paramount and provide the greatest degree of knowledge we can obtain, but anecdotal outcomes, in all of this, too, have their place.

I've had a 38 year relationship with physicians (human not animal) and any of them will readily acknowledge this.

IE: Anectodal evidence: Non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts.

Examples: This chapter provides anecdotal evidence from personal interviews, public hearings, and surveys.

(Have such evidence based presentations not been allowed at RCI meetings?)

At this point you're offended, maybe indignant, that with the tremendous advances in technology and gathering of data, even in the last 10 years alone, that as an industry we remain unable to ferret out cheaters. This--after having been reminded this takes a lot of money. We are a sport, again, with limited funding controlled by several innately stubborn factions of leadership who agree on little.

Science, bar none, is one of THE most competitive fields on earth. This includes, not only those individuals conducting the research, but, too, those labs, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies that are applying for those research grants or that are bringing these protocols to us.

Do you have any idea how many advances, in the last 10 years alone, have been made in CANCER treatments and outcomes for you and I? I'm sure you are. With these treatments, drugs are certainly the most vital link, ie, clinical trials and again, anecdotal outcomes.

Cancer, like cheating, Mr.Halvey, has always been with us. Matter of fact, its a lot like cheating, it robs us and those we love. We will probably never eliminate either of these two robbers. However, if I had to bet my house and the land it's sitting on -- on one or the other? I'd go with Cancer. Cheaters, being the second oldest profession.

I applaud your dedication. It is all relevant. Cleaning up this sport, though, is not as easy as you demand, or as you wish. It simply is not. Short of giving up wagering, which I don't believe--from what I can tell at your site--you are doing, yours and each of our own recourse may be limited by discussions such as these.

Thank you for reading.

[Donttellmeshowme]

1) Cheats are always one or two steps ahead of regulators. That's universal, not just in racing.

2) Yes, I already said I agreed with you on Ferris Allen. You seem like a very bright guy who, in my opinion, just isn't skeptical enough.

With that, I'm moving on from this topic. Good luck with your wagers.






Cheaters are never one-two steps ahead of regulators they are always 5-6 steps ahead of them

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Mr.Halvey, these are simply some observations, in that, I don't think a soul is capable of changing your mind at this point. And maybe rightfully so. You're a one man crusade, and yes, there's goodness in such commitment.

I'm not exactly sure what I need to change my mind about. I believe there are good, basically honest trainers who have been treated poorly by the system. That is a lot of what my blog is about. I believe cheaters should be run out of the sport and I've said that here and on the blog. I have to say in this forum, my feeling has been akin to an exchange like this:

Attorney: I have this report which contains the results of testing and statistics on compliance.

Judge: Sorry, not buying it.

I believe that the consensus is that we all want fairness in this sport. Still, I'm surprised at some of your comments. They make me bristle.

If it is worth anything, I want fairness too. In my mind, fairness includes not treating violations for non-performance enhancing therapeutic medications the same as real performance enhancing drugs. It includes doing investigations instead of stopping at the results of a lab test. It includes making sure a trainer was trying to gain an advantage and actually did before taking his livelihood away. The irony of a lot of the discussion that occurred is that I was fine with the standards for TCO2 and cobalt. The fact that they were set based on "natural" levels rather than the known performance enhancing levels is a small concern for me, but hardly worth all the words that were generated here.

Why is it you find some of the questions of racing commission members so inept? Are these paid, full time positions? Surely not. Maybe compensated to a degree per meeting, but surely not full time requirements from those within the industry. These things, as we know, don't usually work this way. I've sat on some of these--not in this industry. Volunteering one's time, knowledge and energy is the norm. It is often a taxing and thankless job.

Last year there was a case I was researching. One of the commissioners who would make the decision had been, by her own admission, to the racetrack once. In her life. She had never owned horses. She wasn't a handicapper. She was a retired business person, active in the party, who decided the racing commission would be a good gig. Was she a nice person? Definitely. If I was a trainer and was up against losing my livelihood for a period of time I think I might be worried about having to plead my case to someone not familiar with anything that goes into training and running a race horse. Now clearly she is not all commissioners. I did do a piece where I looked in depth at the CA racing commission. You might guess that the CHRB would be a model given the quality of racing in the state. I would offer two words that might make you question the quality of the commission: Bo Derek. Don't believe me? Her primary qualification when she was put on the commission was, I like horses. i have yet to run into anyone in CA who doesn't think her presence on the commission is a joke. There is a lawyer on the CHRB, big political donor, whose firm has done work for the tracks. What having less than qualified people on the Commission does is leave the vast majority of the decision making to the long term bureaucrats who are the paid staff. It is widely known that in CA Bo Derek is Charlie McCarthy to Rick Arthur's Edgar Bergen. Is Bo Derek a nice person? Everything I hear says she is. And she is pleasant in other ways. But of the 35 million or so people in CA, I'd find it hard to believe she was either the most qualified or the only one who applied.



What exactly does this drug do is not fully within the realm of expertise of the average business person/sport involved (though layman) not trained in pharmacology or medicine. Neither is the term, picogram. These can be difficult positions to fill on the RCs, to say the least. To term their seated members knowledge as low level is somewhat punishing and ungracious.

Perhaps in the hurry to reply, I wasn't as clear as I could have been. Not every commissioner is fully unqualified. But the nature of the appointments are that they can be political rather than based on qualifications. These are not "volunteer" jobs like serving as boy scout leader. I think you need to be qualified. I believe once you are appointed, you have a responsibility to learn the racing rules. I believe you have the responsibility to familiarize yourself with the medication list, especially since that is a very large part of your job. Where I did a bad job was not being clear that what I was really saying was that you should have been briefed on how medications and drugs are measured long before you got into the middle of a hearing. These people are not like judges who can get cases well beyond their expertise. These are people who have been appointed to know one topic area - the rules of racing in your state. If I am colored, I am colored the same way everyone else is - the myriad of stories I hear and transcripts I read lead me to think we, the racing public, are often not well served by the commissioners.


Now, on the other end of the spectrum, but quite possibly in the same vein. We have trainers, some of whom, may have gotten out of high school with less than a stellar SAT score. It happens, Mr.Halvey. Are we judging them as consummately stupid as well? .... I will go as far as to say that if you are not able to learn the withdrawal times, or you are one who pushes the envelope? Good luck! I'm a believer of---when in doubt---don't. If your horse is sore, don't enter him/her to race. Rest the animal for their own benefit.

I've said in my pieces, trainers are good at training, but they are often not as good at the business management or personnel aspects of the job. They have their weaknesses for sure. And to be clear, I hope when I characterize the gaps in knowledge it is as ignorance, not as stupidity. If you use Brashears as an example, he was told by track officials and his vet that the withdrawal time for Banamine was 24 hours. When it turned out 24 hours was too short, sure he was the one that was going to suffer the punishment. But I'd say there was other culpability (the vet and the racing commission guy who told them 24 hours was the withdrawal time) that is ignored. I'm not so comfortable with harshly punishing Brashears given how the whole thing unfolded. Biochemistry is not always straightforward, and Brashears learned the withdrawal time the hard way. As for not running a horse when it is sore, if it is too sore to run, it would be a cruel trainer who would send him out. Those guys exist, but I don't associate with them. But some inflammation and an injection of Banamine to take out the inflammation is probably not running a sore horse. You ever play a sport? Take an ibuprofen before or after to deal with some joint discomfort not related to structural damage? If you were playing professional (any sport) no problem. If you are a race horse, ibuprofen would be illegal to have in your system, even 8 hours after it stopped acting on the joint. Lot of people aren't bothered by that, but it does make me wonder if it is necessary to protect racegoers.

I'm sorry, but it would behoove you to realize that, yes, scientific studies are most paramount and provide the greatest degree of knowledge we can obtain, but anecdotal outcomes, in all of this, too, have their place.

Anecdotal evidence is not proof, but I fully agree that they can point you in the right direction. I've even said that a trainer who seems to improve a horse dramatically, SHOULD be investigated. Where I draw the line is to say I'm not going to indict the trainer until I find tangible evidence. I'd also say that "I know cobalt is a performance enhancer" is not anecdotal but unsupported opinion. I am totally in favor of considering anecdotal evidence to point us, but not necessarily to answer the question. Five people come in to see the doctor with stomach problems. The doctor asks them where they ate and they all say the same restaurant. That's not proof it was the restaurant, but I'd agree it's a good place to start to find the proof.


At this point you're offended, maybe indignant, that with the tremendous advances in technology and gathering of data, even in the last 10 years alone, that as an industry we remain unable to ferret out cheaters. This--after having been reminded this takes a lot of money. We are a sport, again, with limited funding controlled by several innately stubborn factions of leadership who agree on little.

I think I'm more disappointed than offended that we can't find the real cheats and get rid of them. Instead we often hammer the Kellyn Gorders. One point I made - if we have the money to do 324,000+ blood and urine tests, we have the money to look at a handful of trainers that seem suspicious. As for the disparate governance of the sport, I whole heartedly agree it is a problem in itself or it leads to problems. I may tackle that some day.


Cancer, like cheating, Mr.Halvey, has always been with us. Matter of fact, its a lot like cheating, it robs us and those we love. We will probably never eliminate either of these two robbers. However, if I had to bet my house and the land it's sitting on -- on one or the other? I'd go with Cancer. Cheaters, being the second oldest profession.

I think the effort being put into cancer research is laudable. It would be absurd to put that kind of money into catching dirty trainers but I think we can do better than we do. I'm not ever going to believe we'll catch them all. But it would be heartwarming to hear that a few will no longer be vexing us.

I applaud your dedication. It is all relevant. Cleaning up this sport, though, is not as easy as you demand, or as you wish. It simply is not. Short of giving up wagering, which I don't believe--from what I can tell at your site--you are doing, yours and each of our own recourse may be limited by discussions such as these.

Ironically, I do quite well on the wagering end. Even it is not as easy as pie, I believe more can be done to fix the sport. If I am demanding something it is a plan to fix racing's biggest ails. Anything from trainers using undetectable substances to pool manipulation and high take out rates to malfunctioning timers that misreport race times. If the sport grows, no one is happier than I am. But, as the definition of insanity goes, it is doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different result. Some things need to change.

And I absolutely appreciate your well constructed and civil comments. I'm fine defending myself and my positions. And given how much practice I get, I hope I'm getting better at it.

[Stillriledup]

If those 98 trainers are indeed powerless against the cheaters, and the cheaters are free to continue with business as usual...then where is the incentive for a trainer to remain "honest", John? How long can we expect the honest trainers to remain honest...when they see the cheaters out there "performing miracles"? The cheaters are using undetectable drugs, there is nothing that the honest trainers can do...and yet, we are supposed to think that 98% of the trainers remain honest? What...they've all taken a vow of poverty?

Didn't this somewhat happen to Gill at Penn National? He swooped in, claimed a ton of horses, won a ton of races and the established trainers didnt like it. And now Gill is gone. But it was messy. Wow, was it messy, but they finally got rid of him.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Boycott the entry box? Refuse to run in races where they have entries?

I've seen the stewards be less than understanding when people have refused to run in races with someone that people "think" are cheating. Another case where no good deed goes unpunished.

[cj]

I've seen the stewards be less than understanding when people have refused to run in races with someone that people "think" are cheating. Another case where no good deed goes unpunished.

When you take a stand, you have to expect some pain. If you have enough support they can't run races.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

When you take a stand, you have to expect some pain. If you have enough support they can't run races.

The only group more balkanized than the individual states that have racing may be the trainers.

[johnhannibalsmith]

If those 98 trainers are indeed powerless against the cheaters, and the cheaters are free to continue with business as usual...then where is the incentive for a trainer to remain "honest", John? How long can we expect the honest trainers to remain honest...when they see the cheaters out there "performing miracles"? The cheaters are using undetectable drugs, there is nothing that the honest trainers can do...and yet, we are supposed to think that 98% of the trainers remain honest? What...they've all taken a vow of poverty?

You don't have to believe 98% of trainers are honest. I think 0% of all people are honest 100% of the time. I didn't come up with that figure, I'm using what you provided in the example.

As far as the incentive to stay honest - I still don't know how you think it is that out of everyone tasked with keeping people as honest as possible that the horsemen are best equipped to take the lead against individuals believed to be dishonest.

I'll convey a real world example from the not-so-distant past for the sake of the scenario we're skating around:


A lady has had enough. A trainer. All around it seems like everyone has gotten out of hand. There are too many magic remedies and too many vets and too little scrutiny of all of it. She complains and complains and gets nowhere. One day, believing (knowing without proof) her neighbor on the back was blatantly violating rules. She sets up a discrete video camera in her stall that shoots into the stall behind her, her neighbor's stall that was home to a horse that was an in-today horse. She tapes all the treatments and winds up getting a nice little video of him treating the horse illegally on race day between lasix and post time. She submits the video to the investigators. Guy gets caught, gets the typical couple, few weeks off and is back in action lickety split. These days he's never done better. Moved on from the minors and up holding his own with the big shots in the big time. Meanwhile, she's spent forever looking over her shoulder. It may have made her feel better and it may very well have been the right thing to do, but in the meantime, it had zero effect on him.

You see this scenario play out this way and you know that's the way it's more likely than not to play out every time and you realize you are in the same boat as the bettor that feels fleeced.

[johnhannibalsmith]

When you take a stand, you have to expect some pain. If you have enough support they can't run races.

Yes, I realize. When you take a stand and it is all pain and no gain, you may sleep easy at night for doing the right thing but since this derived from Thask's financial incentive scenario, then this is getting you absolutely nowhere 99 times out of 100. You get to be the bad guy - with the track, with the owners, with the bettors that get pissed every time horseman take a stand in the way you describe. Nothing in that scenario is helping anyone's income.

I'm not arguing against the principle of it all (not in the least to be totally honest), but the realistic machinations and end-result are rarely of any tangible benefit to anyone. And if we are talking about doing this in the scenario that thask provided - the guy that hasn't even been caught doing anything, just everyone figures that's the case - it's even more difficult, if possible at all.

[Stillriledup]

You don't have to believe 98% of trainers are honest. I think 0% of all people are honest 100% of the time. I didn't come up with that figure, I'm using what you provided in the example.

As far as the incentive to stay honest - I still don't know how you think it is that out of everyone tasked with keeping people as honest as possible that the horsemen are best equipped to take the lead against individuals believed to be dishonest.

I'll convey a real world example from the not-so-distant past for the sake of the scenario we're skating around:


A lady has had enough. A trainer. All around it seems like everyone has gotten out of hand. There are too many magic remedies and too many vets and too little scrutiny of all of it. She complains and complains and gets nowhere. One day, believing (knowing without proof) her neighbor on the back was blatantly violating rules. She sets up a discrete video camera in her stall that shoots into the stall behind her, her neighbor's stall that was home to a horse that was an in-today horse. She tapes all the treatments and winds up getting a nice little video of him treating the horse illegally on race day between lasix and post time. She submits the video to the investigators. Guy gets caught, gets the typical couple, few weeks off and is back in action lickety split. These days he's never done better. Moved on from the minors and up holding his own with the big shots in the big time. Meanwhile, she's spent forever looking over her shoulder. It may have made her feel better and it may very well have been the right thing to do, but in the meantime, it had zero effect on him.

You see this scenario play out this way and you know that's the way it's more likely than not to play out every time and you realize you are in the same boat as the bettor that feels fleeced.

Good post.

The reality is that there is not much incentive to not cheat, you can legally steal money with no worries that you might go to actual jail and be charged with a real life crime, all the "fraud" is handled in house, you either say "oops" or just take your 30 or 60 days, but funny thing is that most times, you don't have to give the purse money back. I'm surprised more people don't cheat, its the American way...look at Tom Brady and the Pats. Cheating their rear ends off for better part of a decade, reputations as all time greats cemented, tens of millions in the bank and no cares in the world. So what if he gets suspended a few games, that's not going to matter because the bottom line is that they won't ever take away the SB trophies and strike them out of the record books.

[Grits]

Yes, I realize. When you take a stand and it is all pain and no gain, you may sleep easy at night for doing the right thing but since this derived from Thask's financial incentive scenario, then this is getting you absolutely nowhere 99 times out of 100. You get to be the bad guy - with the track, with the owners, with the bettors that get pissed every time horseman take a stand in the way you describe. Nothing in that scenario is helping anyone's income.

I'm not arguing against the principle of it all (not in the least to be totally honest), but the realistic machinations and end-result are rarely of any tangible benefit to anyone. And if we are talking about doing this in the scenario that thask provided - the guy that hasn't even been caught doing anything, just everyone figures that's the case - it's even more difficult, if possible at all.

JHS, this is why I stated much earlier in the thread...the only thing seen as lower than a cheat is a snitch. And, unfortunately, this is particularly true on the backside. I feel for the female trainer that you speak of. This is disgusting.

Mr. Halvey, thank you for your response to my post.

[chadk66]

I've been gone for a few days and have lost out on most of what's going on in this thread. So I just skimmed the past few pages. I really don't have anything to add but one thing I noted was the lactic acid discussion. Anybody that thinks sprinters don't build lactic acid knows nothing about horses. Sprinters suffer from lactic acid buildup just as much as distance horses do. I've taken sprinters that couldn't finish a sprint due to lactic acid buildup and made routers out of them because they could stay below the threshold they needed to on a route.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I've been gone for a few days and have lost out on most of what's going on in this thread. So I just skimmed the past few pages. I really don't have anything to add but one thing I noted was the lactic acid discussion. Anybody that thinks sprinters don't build lactic acid knows nothing about horses. Sprinters suffer from lactic acid buildup just as much as distance horses do. I've taken sprinters that couldn't finish a sprint due to lactic acid buildup and made routers out of them because they could stay below the threshold they needed to on a route.

The problem with generalizations is that they do not apply in every situation. Lactic acid will build up in any horse (or human) when they are at maximum stress, and of course that can be sprinters or routers. But in general, the longer and harder the stress the more likely you'll see lactic acid buildup that binds the muscles. Happy now?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I've been gone for a few days and have lost out on most of what's going on in this thread. So I just skimmed the past few pages. I really don't have anything to add but one thing I noted was the lactic acid discussion. Anybody that thinks sprinters don't build lactic acid knows nothing about horses. Sprinters suffer from lactic acid buildup just as much as distance horses do. I've taken sprinters that couldn't finish a sprint due to lactic acid buildup and made routers out of them because they could stay below the threshold they needed to on a route.

And by the way, your comment about me being an "ass clown" made it into my blog this week, as did a few other quotes from the exchange here.

[thaskalos]

And by the way, your comment about me being an "ass clown" made it into my blog this week, as did a few other quotes from the exchange here.
:D

Hey...wait a minute. Isn't there a copyright infringement in here somewhere?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

:D

Hey...wait a minute. Isn't there a copyright infringement in here somewhere?

LOL!

halveyonhorseracing.com to read the blog

[thaskalos]

LOL!

halveyonhorseracing.com to read the blog

I've been reading it since our exchange here began. You do a great job! :ThmbUp:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I've been reading it since our exchange here began. You do a great job! :ThmbUp:

Thank you. The general consensus is that I'm only occasionally an ass clown.

[Donttellmeshowme]

I've been gone for a few days and have lost out on most of what's going on in this thread. So I just skimmed the past few pages. I really don't have anything to add but one thing I noted was the lactic acid discussion. Anybody that thinks sprinters don't build lactic acid knows nothing about horses. Sprinters suffer from lactic acid buildup just as much as distance horses do. I've taken sprinters that couldn't finish a sprint due to lactic acid buildup and made routers out of them because they could stay below the threshold they needed to on a route.





And what did you use on your horse that made him go from a sprinter to a route horse.

[chadk66]

And what did you use on your horse that made him go from a sprinter to a route horse.great feed and continued to adjust his training. it's really not all that tough to figure out. And I appreciate you using my comments on your blog:ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

Thank you. The general consensus is that I'm only occasionally an ass clown.

You've been Sinatra here, you took the blows, but in the end, you did it your way. I agree with Gus (Thaskalos) i've enjoyed reading your posts. :ThmbUp:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You've been Sinatra here, you took the blows, but in the end, you did it your way. I agree with Gus (Thaskalos) i've enjoyed reading your posts. :ThmbUp:

Wow. Very nice thing to say. Thanks. New blog every week. I'm hoping by next week I'll finish my piece on trainer Chris Grove. I've got a couple of other trainer situations I'll be detailing in the future, and I'm supposed to chat with Kellyn this week to get an update.

[Stillriledup]

Wow. Very nice thing to say. Thanks. New blog every week. I'm hoping by next week I'll finish my piece on trainer Chris Grove. I've got a couple of other trainer situations I'll be detailing in the future, and I'm supposed to chat with Kellyn this week to get an update.

you're welcome. I think its admirable to go into the fire as the 'new guy' and have 'everyone' essentially gang up on you and stay true to your message and do it the right way.

Keep up the great work.

[MJC922]

Admirable? I guess the funding behind this campaign is pretty good.

[chadk66]

Admirable? I guess the funding behind this campaign is pretty good.exactly what I was thinking

[Stillriledup]

Admirable? I guess the funding behind this campaign is pretty good.

He's said he's not being paid off and has no other real affiliation, i do admit i find it surprising that a horseplayer/gambler would "go to bat" for trainers without having any affiliation or financial interest, but i guess there could be a first time for everything.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

exactly what I was thinking

I would try to explain how your opinion is totally off base, but I am sure that would be a complete waste of time. You are simply wrong if you think I am motivated by anything other than the sincere expression of my beliefs and opinions. I'll just say you make me recall something Mark Twain said. Ignorance is curable, but stupid is forever.

[Donttellmeshowme]

great feed and continued to adjust his training. it's really not all that tough to figure out. And I appreciate you using my comments on your blog:ThmbUp:





great feed? yea ok.........

[HalvOnHorseracing]

He's said he's not being paid off and has no other real affiliation, i do admit i find it surprising that a horseplayer/gambler would "go to bat" for trainers without having any affiliation or financial interest, but i guess there could be a first time for everything.

I'm not sure how I could convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. I've been a horseracing writer since my first book came out in 1988. I wrote for American Turf Monthly for a few years, and wrote for Horseplayer Magazine until they folded in 2013. There are a few reasons I go to bat for SOME trainers. The four trainers I've defended I sincerely believed had either not done anything wrong or had been been either treated unfairly by the system or had been punished beyond the extent of their violation. I'm not defending trainers as a mass. I am cherry picking those I think make an important point. I believe I mentioned I've had trainers call and I've told them, pay the fine, take the days. I believe that there are problems with executive directors at some of the racing commissions, and I don't think anyone has told that side of the story. That is where I have been filling a niche.

I've been a successful horseplayer for years. I post my selections for NYRA in advance on my blog and anyone who wants to track my picks is welcome to. My views on the fairness or unfairness of decisions related to trainers like Ferris Allen has no impact on my betting. My research on the affects of certain substances doesn't cause me problems either. The fact that I put some weight behind the RCI statistics doesn't seem to affect my ability to make money.

I'm not sure why it seems so horrendous to publish on cases like Ferris Allen, Kellyn Gorder or Bill Brashears. Why would I need to be a shill for someone to take the positions I have? I don't know what percentage of trainers are purposely trying to get an edge, but my experience is that the vast majority are trying to comply with the rules and not looking to gain a chemical edge. It is not a dumb position. If I choose to read the research and talk to veterinarians and pharmacologists, isn't that a reasonable way to develop a position?

Aren't you being highly cynical to believe no one would defend the trainers I defended without being paid to do so? Don't people act on their beliefs without necessarily having an ulterior motive?

My motive is simple. I believe we are not being well served by many racing commissions and their staff. There are some who work hard and are fair, but not all and not in all cases. Isn't it enough that it pisses me off to see Ferris Allen lose a $15,000 purse, spend $10,000 on a lawyer, get fined, lose his ability to make a living for 15 days, and lose clients? Isn't it enough that when no one else will call a spade a spade, I will?

I've said clearly cheating must be stopped, but that doesn't mean I can't defend the people I've defended because I believe they weren't "cheating." Regardless of how my position on TCO2 and cobalt was butchered, I said I agreed with standards for both. But I don't agree that commissions should not be required to investigate when there is a small picogram positive, and I'm going to call them on that. I don't agree that the absolute insurer rule can't be improved, and I'm going to call the states on that. But not because I'm getting paid. But because I've made it my cause to make horse racing better.

Believe whatever you want. I have nothing to hide, and I have no apologies to make. I get hundreds of compliments on my reporting, my handicapping articles, my NYRA selections and my opinion pieces. I know the truth about my motivations and my lack of compensation from anyone. Good enough for me.

[thaskalos]

I'm not sure how I could convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. I've been a horseracing writer since my first book came out in 1988. I wrote for American Turf Monthly for a few years, and wrote for Horseplayer Magazine until they folded in 2013. There are a few reasons I go to bat for SOME trainers. The four trainers I've defended I sincerely believed had either not done anything wrong or had been been either treated unfairly by the system or had been punished beyond the extent of their violation. I believe I mentioned I've had trainers call and I've told them, pay the fine, take the days. I believe that there are problems with executive directors at some of the racing commissions, and I don't think anyone has told that side of the story. That is where I have been filling a niche.

I've been a successful horseplayer for years. I post my selections for NYRA in advance on my blog and anyone who wants to track my picks is welcome to. My views on the fairness or unfairness of decisions related to trainers like Ferris Allen has no impact on my betting. My research on the affects of certain substances doesn't cause me problems either. The fact that I put some weight behind the RCI statistics doesn't seem to affect my ability to make money.

I'm not sure why it seems so horrendous to publish on cases like Ferris Allen, Kellyn Gorder or Bill Brashears. Why would I need to be a shill for someone to take the positions I have? I don't know what percentage of trainers are purposely trying to get an edge, but my experience is that the vast majority are trying to comply with the rules and not looking to gain a chemical edge. It is not a dumb position. If I choose to read the research and talk to veterinarians and pharmacologists, isn't that a reasonable way to develop a position?

Aren't you being highly cynical to believe no one would defend the trainers I defended without being paid to do so? Don't people act on their beliefs without necessarily having an ulterior motive?

My motive is simple. I believe we are not being well served by many racing commissions and their staff. There are some who work hard and are fair, but not all and not in all cases. Isn't it enough that it pisses me off to see Ferris Allen lose a $15,000 purse, spend $10,000 on a lawyer, get fined, lose his ability to make a living for 15 days, and lose clients? Isn't it enough that when no one else will call a spade a spade, I will?

I've said clearly cheating must be stopped, but that doesn't mean I can't defend the people I've defended because I believe they weren't "cheating." Regardless of how my position on TCO2 and cobalt was butchered, I said I agreed with standards for both. But I don't agree that commissions should not be required to investigate when there is a small picogram positive, and I'm going to call them on that. I don't agree that the absolute insurer rule can't be improved, and I'm going to call the states on that. But not because I'm getting paid. But because I've made it my cause to make horse racing better.

Believe whatever you want. I have nothing to hide, and I have no apologies to make. I get hundreds of compliments on my reporting, my handicapping articles, my NYRA selections and my opinion pieces. I know the truth about my motivations and my lack of compensation from anyone. Good enough for me.

This is a horseplayer website, Mr. Halvey...and trainers generally don't arouse much sympathy around here. IMO, it goes far beyond the drug issue. The trainers have chosen to take an adversarial stance against the horseplayers, rather than accept us for the "partners" that we feel we are in this business enterprise. The trainers wield too much power in this game, in my opinion, and they have chosen to use the clout that they have to enrich only themselves...to the direct detriment of the player.

They accepted the casino money under the guise that an effort would be made to improve the quality of the sport. The bigger purses were supposed to lead to bigger and more competitive fields...which, in turn, were supposed to provide some relief to the long-suffering player...who is trying to cash a ticket at a decent price. Some of the more naive among us also fostered hidden hopes of maybe even a decrease in the onerous takeouts, which have made this game a lot more expensive for us to play than it should be...especially in an era where the casino profits went a long way toward covering the game's operational expenses.

Alas...it didn't turn out the way it was advertised that it would. The field sizes not only didn't increase...but the 7-horse fields have now been reduced to 5...with the obligatory 2 late scratches. And some of the tracks with the healthiest casino businesses, somehow justify charging some of the highest takeout rates to be found anywhere. Couple the extra-short fields with the high takeouts, and the horseplayer is again taking it on the chin...even as the purses are the healthiest that they've ever been. You talk to the trainers about these tiny fields...and they tell you that their job is to place their horses in the spots where they have the biggest chance of earning their owners a decent-sized check. It turns out that the trainers favor the exact same racing condition that the horseplayers despise. And so...the end result was put on display at Aqueduct this winter. Huge purses...for some of the shortest and most uncompetitive fields that we have ever seen. Caviar for the trainers...and not even a can of tuna fish for the player.

Whoever coined the phrase "Justice for All"...obviously didn't have the horse players in mind.

[Stillriledup]

I'm not sure how I could convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. I've been a horseracing writer since my first book came out in 1988. I wrote for American Turf Monthly for a few years, and wrote for Horseplayer Magazine until they folded in 2013. There are a few reasons I go to bat for SOME trainers. The four trainers I've defended I sincerely believed had either not done anything wrong or had been been either treated unfairly by the system or had been punished beyond the extent of their violation. I'm not defending trainers as a mass. I am cherry picking those I think make an important point. I believe I mentioned I've had trainers call and I've told them, pay the fine, take the days. I believe that there are problems with executive directors at some of the racing commissions, and I don't think anyone has told that side of the story. That is where I have been filling a niche.

I've been a successful horseplayer for years. I post my selections for NYRA in advance on my blog and anyone who wants to track my picks is welcome to. My views on the fairness or unfairness of decisions related to trainers like Ferris Allen has no impact on my betting. My research on the affects of certain substances doesn't cause me problems either. The fact that I put some weight behind the RCI statistics doesn't seem to affect my ability to make money.

I'm not sure why it seems so horrendous to publish on cases like Ferris Allen, Kellyn Gorder or Bill Brashears. Why would I need to be a shill for someone to take the positions I have? I don't know what percentage of trainers are purposely trying to get an edge, but my experience is that the vast majority are trying to comply with the rules and not looking to gain a chemical edge. It is not a dumb position. If I choose to read the research and talk to veterinarians and pharmacologists, isn't that a reasonable way to develop a position?

Aren't you being highly cynical to believe no one would defend the trainers I defended without being paid to do so? Don't people act on their beliefs without necessarily having an ulterior motive?

My motive is simple. I believe we are not being well served by many racing commissions and their staff. There are some who work hard and are fair, but not all and not in all cases. Isn't it enough that it pisses me off to see Ferris Allen lose a $15,000 purse, spend $10,000 on a lawyer, get fined, lose his ability to make a living for 15 days, and lose clients? Isn't it enough that when no one else will call a spade a spade, I will?

I've said clearly cheating must be stopped, but that doesn't mean I can't defend the people I've defended because I believe they weren't "cheating." Regardless of how my position on TCO2 and cobalt was butchered, I said I agreed with standards for both. But I don't agree that commissions should not be required to investigate when there is a small picogram positive, and I'm going to call them on that. I don't agree that the absolute insurer rule can't be improved, and I'm going to call the states on that. But not because I'm getting paid. But because I've made it my cause to make horse racing better.

Believe whatever you want. I have nothing to hide, and I have no apologies to make. I get hundreds of compliments on my reporting, my handicapping articles, my NYRA selections and my opinion pieces. I know the truth about my motivations and my lack of compensation from anyone. Good enough for me.

Gus makes some good points about the disconnect between trainers, the industry and the horse player. Bettors are sensitive to "overages" even if they are just honest mistakes because even though in certain situations the trainer didn't consciously cheat, the end result is that there's no difference to the bettor if the trainer did it on purpose or not, the bettor has no recourse if he had money stolen from his pocket by a horse who won with a bad test.

Adding to some of the points Gus makes it was the trainers who fought tooth and nail to not allow exchange wagering even though exchange wagering would make the product MORE honest, they were disingenuous by saying that it was an integrity issue when we all know that this vehicle would be great in sniffing "irregularities" in betting, if a person knew a horse was "no good" and unusually large money came in against this horse, we would have a record of those wagers as well as the name and other information of the account holder and this is much more information than we currently have if a bettor just walks up to a SAM machine and places wagers in completely anonymous fashion with cash.

As far as the vast majority not looking to gain a chemical edge on purpose, how do you explain the dozens and dozens of "supertrainers" around the country hitting at 35 or 40%? Seems like every track has one of these trainers, people that nobody has ever heard of performing miracles that would make Charlie Whittingham and Woody Stephens tip their caps, what about that, do you think if a trainer doesn't test positive that the horse ran clean?

When i handicap a race or a track with one of these trainers, i have to ask myself "do i trust the on track testing that every horse this trainer has started raced clean"? As a bettor, i have a hard time just blindly trusting the "process" when i see miracle form reversals overnight, so this is kinda why bettors are sensitive to trainers and those that defend them.

I think it also comes down to this. Why spend time fighting for trainers when you can spend the time cracking down on the trainers who are actually cheating? Why not spend the time fighting for the horse player? Other than HANA, it doesn't seem like there are an abundance of people fighting for the players, the bettors and the customers, why not put your efforts to fighting for the bettor and either helping the customers and gamblers, or actually spending time trying to "out" some of these supertrainers who are crippling the game and forcing otherwise honest trainers out of the sport because they can't compete?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This is a horseplayer website, Mr. Halvey...and trainers generally don't arouse much sympathy around here. IMO, it goes far beyond the drug issue. The trainers have chosen to take an adversarial stance against the horseplayers, rather than accept us for the "partners" that we feel we are in this business enterprise. The trainers wield too much power in this game, in my opinion, and they have chosen to use the clout that they have to enrich only themselves...to the direct detriment of the player.

They accepted the casino money under the guise that an effort would be made to improve the quality of the sport. The bigger purses were supposed to lead to bigger and more competitive fields...which, in turn, were supposed to provide some relief to the long-suffering player...who is trying to cash a ticket at a decent price. Some of the more naive among us also fostered hidden hopes of maybe even a decrease in the onerous takeouts, which have made this game a lot more expensive for us to play than it should be...especially in an era where the casino profits went a long way toward covering the game's operational expenses.

Alas...it didn't turn out the way it was advertised that it would. The field sizes not only didn't increase...but the 7-horse fields have now been reduced to 5...with the obligatory 2 late scratches. And some of the tracks with the healthiest casino businesses, somehow justify charging some of the highest takeout rates to be found anywhere. Couple the extra-short fields with the :lol: high takeouts, and the horseplayer is again taking it on the chin...even as the purses are the healthiest that they've ever been. You talk to the trainers about these tiny fields...and they tell you that their job is to place their horses in the spots where they have the biggest chance of earning their owners a decent-sized check. It turns out that the trainers favor the exact same racing condition that the horseplayers despise. And so...the end result was put on display at Aqueduct this winter. Huge purses...for some of the shortest and most uncompetitive fields that we have ever seen. Caviar for the trainers...and not even a can of tuna fish for the player.

Whoever coined the phrase "Justice for All"...obviously didn't hyave the horse players in mind.

This particular thread was started because of the positive Kellyn Gorder's horse had. I didn't start it. I jumped in after I believed my position was misrepresented. The thread eventually morphed into an attack on me under the false assumption I was being paid by horsemen or a horsemen's association to inflitrate and defend the bastards. Frankly I was offended that people wouldn't believe I could care about the people I wrote about simply because I care about people whom I believe were treated unfairly.

You are entitled to your opinion about trainers as a group, and you may be entirely right about how much influence they have. I believe their is a three-legged stool that constitutes the racing structure. Owners and trainers, players, and management. I believe all three groups can be criticized in different ways. In my opinion, management is far less caring about players. They do not understand the effect high takeout has on the game. They don't treat the best players the way most businesses treat their best customers. The players have occasionally banded together in what I would conclude were ineffective boycotts, ineffective because things have not changed. But perhaps the players are too individual to really exert their power. We are great at complaining, but the idea of all players having a racetrack holiday (something I've called for on my blog) seems like a stretch. I think it would be great to have one day where we all simply agree not to bet, just to send the message loud and clear that we are a force that needs to be listened to. We all share some culpability for the state of racing, and yes, some groups more than others.

As I said, I don't defend all trainers, just the ones that have been treated badly. Look at it this way. These are stories about people. It is easy to discriminate against a faceless class - it happens all the time. Immigrants, cops, insurance companies...just pick one. What I do is put a face on the faceless violators. I believe when you know someone, you judge them on who they are and how they act, and not as simply a member of a class. When I talked with Vietnam vets for my latest book, one of the tricks they used to justify how they treated the NVA was to dehumanize them. They were gooks or Charlie, but not actually people.

I'm not going to try to dissuade you to have a different opinion about the behavior of the trainers as a class. I'm not actually sure my opinion would be all that different if I treat them as a class. I have one small sliver where I am operating. I choose a particular trainer and tell his story. It is meant as nothing more than exactly that. A story about a guy and his troubles. It isn't the solution to racing's ills. It isn't meant to say all trainers are great guys or that none of them are nefarious.

Take that for what it is worth. You can read my stuff or not. You can find it appealing or not. Just don't suggest I am not sincere about the stories I tell.

[johnhannibalsmith]

As many times as you've had to re-write the same defense - this most recent one was particularly good. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Gus makes some good points about the disconnect between trainers, the industry and the horse player. Bettors are sensitive to "overages" even if they are just honest mistakes because even though in certain situations the trainer didn't consciously cheat, the end result is that there's no difference to the bettor if the trainer did it on purpose or not, the bettor has no recourse if he had money stolen from his pocket by a horse who won with a bad test.

Adding to some of the points Gus makes it was the trainers who fought tooth and nail to not allow exchange wagering even though exchange wagering would make the product MORE honest, they were disingenuous by saying that it was an integrity issue when we all know that this vehicle would be great in sniffing "irregularities" in betting, if a person knew a horse was "no good" and unusually large money came in against this horse, we would have a record of those wagers as well as the name and other information of the account holder and this is much more information than we currently have if a bettor just walks up to a SAM machine and places wagers in completely anonymous fashion with cash.

As far as the vast majority not looking to gain a chemical edge on purpose, how do you explain the dozens and dozens of "supertrainers" around the country hitting at 35 or 40%? Seems like every track has one of these trainers, people that nobody has ever heard of performing miracles that would make Charlie Whittingham and Woody Stephens tip their caps, what about that, do you think if a trainer doesn't test positive that the horse ran clean?

When i handicap a race or a track with one of these trainers, i have to ask myself "do i trust the on track testing that every horse this trainer has started raced clean"? As a bettor, i have a hard time just blindly trusting the "process" when i see miracle form reversals overnight, so this is kinda why bettors are sensitive to trainers and those that defend them.

I think it also comes down to this. Why spend time fighting for trainers when you can spend the time cracking down on the trainers who are actually cheating? Why not spend the time fighting for the horse player? Other than HANA, it doesn't seem like there are an abundance of people fighting for the players, the bettors and the customers, why not put your efforts to fighting for the bettor and either helping the customers and gamblers, or actually spending time trying to "out" some of these supertrainers who are crippling the game and forcing otherwise honest trainers out of the sport because they can't compete?

I don't want to get into a long discussion about exchange wagering, but from what I've read there are two legitimate sides to that issue. The problem for most issues is that the players have no real advocate. It goes beyond that of course. As players we would have to fight a myriad of jurisdictions, one by one.

As for me not fighting for the players, I have my own current strategy I am pursuing - getting governors to appoint racing commissioners who will lobby for the players. Given the power that resides on the commission, I believe that is the place where an advocate for players can do the most good.

What I've tried to do is educate myself by reading, researching, and interviewing all sorts of different people. I don't pretend to know all the answers, but I am learning. I think there are lots of reasons why Pletcher or Baffert or Chad Brown might have high winning percentages, including they get the best horses and don't run them unless they are ready to win. As for the David Jacobsons or the Rudy Rodriguezes of the world, all the kings horses and all the kings men can't seem to find an answer to how they do their magic, and believe me they are looking. But, if you read my last blog, the last paragraph says very clearly, identify a trainer you think is winning by cheating and I'll make it my business to investigate.

The maddening thing here is that I say I'll look into it, and what I get back is, they won't tell you anyway. You can't have it both ways. If there is an answer, me or someone else will eventually find it if we look long enough and hard enough.

I believe my answer above explains why I write the stories I do. It isn't about defending cheating trainers. It is about humanizing one guy and telling his story. Shame on you for suggesting that it is somehow being a traitor to horseplayers. As far back as 2008 I wrote an editorial piece for Horseplayer Magazine decrying the way horseplayers were treated. I've gone on radio to talk about it. I expect I have done more publicly than most of the people here to fight for horseplayers. As I've said repeatedly, I can walk and chew gum at the same time, meaning I can be pro-horseplayer and tell a story about a guy who got chewed up by a system that I believe needs change in so many ways.

I have absolutely nothing to apologize for. In the world there is room for all viewpoints, and the only thing I have ever asked is that if there is debate, it be fair and civil.

I might turn the tables on you. In your insulated kingdom here, do you find it acceptable for one of the esteemed members to refer to someone with a legitimate point of view as an "ass clown?" I don't remember seeing one post that said, hey, you're out of line, other than CJ who noted that I was "sharp."

It seems to be a losing proposition to engage here. I'm not sure what I could say that would make you believe my primary concern is making the game better for all of us.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

As many times as you've had to re-write the same defense - this most recent one was particularly good. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Practice makes perfect. Another 10 or 20 of these and I might even change somebody's mind.

[thaskalos]

This particular thread was started because of the positive Kellyn Gorder's horse had. I didn't start it. I jumped in after I believed my position was misrepresented. The thread eventually morphed into an attack on me under the false assumption I was being paid by horsemen or a horsemen's association to inflitrate and defend the bastards. Frankly I was offended that people wouldn't believe I could care about the people I wrote about simply because I care about people whom I believe were treated unfairly.

You are entitled to your opinion about trainers as a group, and you may be entirely right about how much influence they have. I believe their is a three-legged stool that constitutes the racing structure. Owners and trainers, players, and management. I believe all three groups can be criticized in different ways. In my opinion, management is far less caring about players. They do not understand the effect high takeout has on the game. They don't treat the best players the way most businesses treat their best customers. The players have occasionally banded together in what I would conclude were ineffective boycotts, ineffective because things have not changed. But perhaps the players are too individual to really exert their power. We are great at complaining, but the idea of all players having a racetrack holiday (something I've called for on my blog) seems like a stretch. I think it would be great to have one day where we all simply agree not to bet, just to send the message loud and clear that we are a force that needs to be listened to. We all share some culpability for the state of racing, and yes, some groups more than others.

As I said, I don't defend all trainers, just the ones that have been treated badly. Look at it this way. These are stories about people. It is easy to discriminate against a faceless class - it happens all the time. Immigrants, cops, insurance companies...just pick one. What I do is put a face on the faceless violators. I believe when you know someone, you judge them on who they are and how they act, and not as simply a member of a class. When I talked with Vietnam vets for my latest book, one of the tricks they used to justify how they treated the NVA was to dehumanize them. They were gooks or Charlie, but not actually people.

I'm not going to try to dissuade you to have a different opinion about the behavior of the trainers as a class. I'm not actually sure my opinion would be all that different if I treat them as a class. I have one small sliver where I am operating. I choose a particular trainer and tell his story. It is meant as nothing more than exactly that. A story about a guy and his troubles. It isn't the solution to racing's ills. It isn't meant to say all trainers are great guys or that none of them are nefarious.

Take that for what it is worth. You can read my stuff or not. You can find it appealing or not. Just don't suggest I am not sincere about the stories I tell.
As I said before, I like your stuff...and I never doubted your sincerity. I am not accusing you of anything...I was just explaining where the animosity that some of us have against the trainers emanates from. There has been enough evidence in the past to indicate that the trainers have a general disdain for the players...and the players react in kind. You are right about the lack of unity in the ranks of the players...and you are also right about what steps the horseplayers need to take, in order to prove that we are a force to be reckoned with. I too have suggested that we boycott a single track, just to prove a point. Why can't we show our spunk by boycotting a single track; aren't there enough OTHER tracks out there to satisfy our craving for "action"? But NO, we can't do it...and thus, we become our own worst enemies. We behave like addicted morons...and then we get mad at trainer Jeff Mullins, when he tells us to our face who we really are.

Keep on doing what you are doing, Mr. Halvey...and don't let the criticism that you've received here get to you. You are an intelligent voice in a game where intelligence is a rarity...and your contributions are needed. And your posts are welcomed at our site here as well. You and I were not introduced under ideal circumstances, but I like your style...and our forum here becomes a better place, with you as a part of it. :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

great feed? yea ok.........You're not really helping anything at this point...and you're way past being constructive...so either up your game or bow out of the discussion from here on out.

We get it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

As I said before, I like your stuff...and I never doubted your sincerity. I am not accusing you of anything...I was just explaining where the animosity that some of us have against the trainers emanates from. There has been enough evidence in the past to indicate that the trainers have a general disdain for the players...and the players react in kind. You are right about the lack of unity in the ranks of the players...and you are also right about what steps the horseplayers need to take, in order to prove that we are a force to be reckoned with. I too have suggested that we boycott a single track, just to prove a point. Why can't we show our spunk by boycotting a single track; aren't there enough OTHER tracks out there to satisfy our craving for "action"? But NO, we can't do it...and thus, we become our own worst enemies. We behave like addicted morons...and then we get mad at trainer Jeff Mullins, when he tells us to our face who we really are.

Keep on doing what you are doing, Mr. Halvey...and don't let the criticism that you've received here get to you. You are an intelligent voice in a game where intelligence is a rarity...and your contributions are needed. And your posts are welcomed at our site here as well. You and I were not introduced under ideal circumstances, but I like your style...and our forum here becomes a better place, with you as a part of it. :ThmbUp:

Thank you so much for saying what you did. I couldn't have characterized the failure of players to unify and send an unmistakeable message any better. I've gotten to know some great people through my work, and that includes some incredible horseplayers as well as trainers. If I can contribute in a positive way, that is payment enough for me. Actually, it seems like it is the only payment I'm likely to get.

[Stillriledup]

I don't want to get into a long discussion about exchange wagering, but from what I've read there are two legitimate sides to that issue. The problem for most issues is that the players have no real advocate. It goes beyond that of course. As players we would have to fight a myriad of jurisdictions, one by one.

As for me not fighting for the players, I have my own current strategy I am pursuing - getting governors to appoint racing commissioners who will lobby for the players. Given the power that resides on the commission, I believe that is the place where an advocate for players can do the most good.

What I've tried to do is educate myself by reading, researching, and interviewing all sorts of different people. I don't pretend to know all the answers, but I am learning. I think there are lots of reasons why Pletcher or Baffert or Chad Brown might have high winning percentages, including they get the best horses and don't run them unless they are ready to win. As for the David Jacobsons or the Rudy Rodriguezes of the world, all the kings horses and all the kings men can't seem to find an answer to how they do their magic, and believe me they are looking. But, if you read my last blog, the last paragraph says very clearly, identify a trainer you think is winning by cheating and I'll make it my business to investigate.

The maddening thing here is that I say I'll look into it, and what I get back is, they won't tell you anyway. You can't have it both ways. If there is an answer, me or someone else will eventually find it if we look long enough and hard enough.

I believe my answer above explains why I write the stories I do. It isn't about defending cheating trainers. It is about humanizing one guy and telling his story. Shame on you for suggesting that it is somehow being a traitor to horseplayers. As far back as 2008 I wrote an editorial piece for Horseplayer Magazine decrying the way horseplayers were treated. I've gone on radio to talk about it. I expect I have done more publicly than most of the people here to fight for horseplayers. As I've said repeatedly, I can walk and chew gum at the same time, meaning I can be pro-horseplayer and tell a story about a guy who got chewed up by a system that I believe needs change in so many ways.

I have absolutely nothing to apologize for. In the world there is room for all viewpoints, and the only thing I have ever asked is that if there is debate, it be fair and civil.

I might turn the tables on you. In your insulated kingdom here, do you find it acceptable for one of the esteemed members to refer to someone with a legitimate point of view as an "ass clown?" I don't remember seeing one post that said, hey, you're out of line, other than CJ who noted that I was "sharp."

It seems to be a losing proposition to engage here. I'm not sure what I could say that would make you believe my primary concern is making the game better for all of us.

I try and keep it as professional as possible, believe me, i've been called worse than an ass clown here including my favorite "silly little punk" :D

I guess that comes along with the territory of being the smartest guy in the room, you'll always have your "silly little haters" coming down on you for telling a truth that hurts the reader somehow.

Keep up the great work, i enjoy reading what you write.

[ReplayRandall]

I guess that comes along with the territory of being the smartest guy in the room.
Always wondered who the smartest guy on PA was.... thanks for being so humble SRU.. :D

[PaceAdvantage]

I guess that comes along with the territory of being the smartest guy in the room, you'll always have your "silly little haters" coming down on you for telling a truth that hurts the reader somehow.See reply #237

[Stillriledup]

Always wondered who the smartest guy on PA was.... thanks for being so humble SRU.. :D

The truth hurts sometimes RR. :D

But, you know i'm just kidding, right? ;)

[cj]

This should be interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/sports/lawsuit-involving-paralyzed-rider-jimmy-rivera-aims-to-clean-up-horse-racing/2015/05/11/7626eba4-f4f7-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This should be interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/sports/lawsuit-involving-paralyzed-rider-jimmy-rivera-aims-to-clean-up-horse-racing/2015/05/11/7626eba4-f4f7-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html

RCI standards have changed a lot since 2008. Stanozolol, one of the drugs cited in the article, is in fact the drug of choice by vets in cases of failure to thrive (loss of appetite). One interesting thing is that stanzolol, once sold under the brand name Winstrol, is no longer manufactured and must be specifically made at a compounding pharmacy. It was (maybe still is) given routinely after gelding, both to help with the sudden inability of the horse to manufacture testosterone and with the failure to thrive issues. The difference today is that there are standards for stanozolol. Maryland, for example, bans even trace levels of the drug post race. Other states will stipulate a minimum 30 day withdrawal time. Other states will not have zero-tolerance, but say a 100 picogram limit. In any case, the new medication rules try very hard to ensure that any level of stanozolol present cannot possibly be performance enhancing. Had those rules been in effect in 2008, perhaps we would not be reading that sad story.

The other thing I've found is that there are a lot of racetrack vets who have been practicing "for 40 years" and doing things a particular way and by golly they won't be changing. In my article on Ferris Allen, the vet gave Allen advice based on the 500 or so shots of Winstrol he'd administered without a violation. Things are evolving and I suspect sometimes the vets are slow to evolve with them.

I've talked to a few vets who believe racing commissions don't know what the hell they are doing and should just leave medicine to the professionals.

Most of the studies I've seen and most of the vets I've talked with seem to buy the theory that most catastrophic injuries are a result of prior injury not being able to heal properly. If you remember the case of an Asian jet liner breaking up in flight (many years ago) when they did the examination of the plane they found hundreds of microfractures, some of which they were able to date because they had nicotine in them, and smoking had long been banned on flights. Sort of the same issue with horses. Small injury doesn't heal, horse keeps running and the next thing you know, catastrophic injury. Dr. Larry Bramlage talks about a time when they were required to break a canon bone in vet school, and nothing short of putting it in a vise would get the bone to snap. There are certainly also catastrophic injuries that are just related to one bad step, but usually a necropsy will reveal what the underlying cause was.

I totally agree that it will be interesting. I have no idea who the favorite is going into the trial, but given the high risk that jockeys take, I certainly wish racing would take care of the ones that suffer catastrophic injury without a court trial.

[thaskalos]

This should be interesting:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/sports/lawsuit-involving-paralyzed-rider-jimmy-rivera-aims-to-clean-up-horse-racing/2015/05/11/7626eba4-f4f7-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html

Many years ago, I struck up a friendship with the late Dave Feldman...who was a horse owner, trainer, and racing columnist for the Chicago Sun Times. Feldman and I would often spend the afternoon together at the Mud Bug OTB in Chicago. He had written a book titled Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda..., a copy of which he had given to me to read. In the book, Feldman had written the following passage: "If you had full knowledge of the things that take place on the backstretch, then you wouldn't even consider betting on the horses".

It surprised me that he had made such an declaration...and I asked him about it when I saw him next. He gave me a long stare, and the only thing he told me about that was: "I should have never written that in. You have no idea what problems it has caused for me".

It's been many years Mr. Feldman...but I think I am starting to get the hint. :bang:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I try and keep it as professional as possible, believe me, i've been called worse than an ass clown here including my favorite "silly little punk" :D

I guess that comes along with the territory of being the smartest guy in the room, you'll always have your "silly little haters" coming down on you for telling a truth that hurts the reader somehow.

Keep up the great work, i enjoy reading what you write.

I'm not sure whether ass clown trumps silly little punk, but it's good to know the unintelligensia didn't single me out.

I'm glad you used the phrase "smartest guy in the room." I have a feeling if I had done it I would have seen vitriol for days! LOL

Thanks for your support on my work. I hope you get a chance to read the story on Mollie and Tenbrooks. I posted the link on another thread. It's an interesting story.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Many years ago, I struck up a friendship with the late Dave Feldman...who was a horse owner, trainer, and racing columnist for the Chicago Sun Times. Feldman and I would often spend the afternoon together at the Mud Bug OTB in Chicago. He had written a book titled Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda..., a copy of which he had given to me to read. In the book, Feldman had written the following passage: "If you had full knowledge of the things that take place on the backstretch, then you wouldn't even consider betting on the horses".

It surprised me that he had made such an declaration...and I asked him about it when I saw him next. He gave me a long stare, and the only thing he told me about that was: "I should have never written that in. You have no idea what problems it has caused for me".

It's been many years Mr. Feldman...but I think I am starting to get the hint. :bang:

I have that book on my bookshelf. It's been years since I pulled it out, but I may have to take another look at it.

Well, as I proved, either end of the spectrum - things aren't so bad or you wouldn't believe what goes on - can get you in plenty of trouble.

There are easier things in life than getting a person to change a strongly held opinion. Like everything else.

[Stillriledup]

I'm not sure whether ass clown trumps silly little punk, but it's good to know the unintelligensia didn't single me out.

I'm glad you used the phrase "smartest guy in the room." I have a feeling if I had done it I would have seen vitriol for days! LOL

Thanks for your support on my work. I hope you get a chance to read the story on Mollie and Tenbrooks. I posted the link on another thread. It's an interesting story.

I'll read about Mollie later tonight, thanks for posting it. I've gotten worse than silly little punk recently, i just forgot which thread it was in, it was pretty good! :D

[thaskalos]

I have that book on my bookshelf. It's been years since I pulled it out, but I may have to take another look at it.

Well, as I proved, either end of the spectrum - things aren't so bad or you wouldn't believe what goes on - can get you in plenty of trouble.

There are easier things in life than getting a person to change a strongly held opinion. Like everything else.

May I ask you a question without you thinking that I am baiting you into another unpleasant exchange? :)

What is your general feeling as you watch Michael Gill painting the picture of the alleged corruption in Pennsylvania? Does he sound believable to you?

[Stillriledup]

May I ask you a question without you thinking that I am baiting you into another unpleasant exchange? :)

What is your general feeling as you watch Michael Gill painting the picture of the alleged corruption in Pennsylvania? Does he sound believable to you?

Are any of the people Gill is accusing of corruption suing him for defamation? Because if they're not, i'd have to consider that what Gill is saying is true.