Horses positive for Meth. Trainers held blameless

[thespaah]

According to reports, 6 horses in various barns tested positive for Methamphetamine.
The trainers were held to not be at fault...
Not looking always for the worst in people, but thinking in terms of the real world, a person in just about any other occupation would have at least been suspended from their job and ordered to undergo some type of remediation. at worst, their employment would have been terminated.
These guys get to come up with polluted horses or equipment and nothing happens to them. NO sanctions. No repercussions.
If there are those frustrated with the game, it comes as no surprise.
I think there should be zero tolerance.
Cameras can be installed in every barn at a very low cost. So if for example, someone is out of "get" a trainer or other on site employee, the security cams and other safeguards can be used to protect reputations.
In conclusion, the use of illegal and banned substances MUST be stopped.

[betovernetcapper]

With today's testing, a horse (or person) can test positive for an amount of a drug that will have no effect. The amount of Meth to affect a human's performance might be the size of a baby aspirin. A 10th of that might not affect a humans performance, but still would show up as positive. You could pick up a trace amount from food or drink. You could conceivably test positive for alcohol after eating a salad or a teaspoon of cough syrup.
Given that a horse is substantially larger than a person, it would require a higher amount to effect his performance, but trace amounts can show up & such trace amounts may be from someone taking the drug & having some residue on their hands when giving the horse food or water.
I think some common sense should be applied in determining guilt or innocence in this kind of thing.

[SuperPickle]

According to reports, 6 horses in various barns tested positive for Methamphetamine.
The trainers were held to not be at fault...
Not looking always for the worst in people, but thinking in terms of the real world, a person in just about any other occupation would have at least been suspended from their job and ordered to undergo some type of remediation. at worst, their employment would have been terminated.
These guys get to come up with polluted horses or equipment and nothing happens to them. NO sanctions. No repercussions.
If there are those frustrated with the game, it comes as no surprise.
I think there should be zero tolerance.
Cameras can be installed in every barn at a very low cost. So if for example, someone is out of "get" a trainer or other on site employee, the security cams and other safeguards can be used to protect reputations.
In conclusion, the use of illegal and banned substances MUST be stopped.


So a couple points on this..

1. There have been a lot of stories about horses testing positive for street drugs going back almost 50 years including a high profile one back in the 80's in which D. Wayne Lukas had some cocaine positives. In almost all cases it was surmised these were inadvertent contaminations versus people drugging horses to win races. As we all know in the 80's everyone was on coke and some of the coke ended up in horses.

2. Given the positives were across multiple barns its a pretty valid theory that it was contamination versus an attempt to gain an edge.

3. Street drugs like coke and meth are barely performance enhancers. You can argue because they are uppers they could stimulate a horse to generate more energy and ran faster however a vet or chemist would tell you there's literally dozens of things that you could given them that would be both more effective and would carry much smaller penalties. It's unlikely anyone is trying to improve a horse's performance with coke or meth.

On the surface this looks like something but there really isn't anything here.

[betovernetcapper]

I've been reflecting on this and Meth is maybe the last thing I'd want to give the average horse if I wanted to win a race. Race horse's tend to be nervous & a bit strung to begin with. On Meth, they would lose their race on the way to the paddock.
In the 1930's the street name for Heroin was horse, because it was said to be used to fix races. Most horse's have some kind of pain but under the influence of heroin they wouldn't notice it. Re the meth, I don't think there is any there, there.

[Pensacola Pete]

According to reports, 6 horses in various barns tested positive for Methamphetamine.

Maybe the stewards figured that the horses left their stalls and bought it on the streets.

[Donttellmeshowme]

According to reports, 6 horses in various barns tested positive for Methamphetamine.
The trainers were held to not be at fault...
Not looking always for the worst in people, but thinking in terms of the real world, a person in just about any other occupation would have at least been suspended from their job and ordered to undergo some type of remediation. at worst, their employment would have been terminated.
These guys get to come up with polluted horses or equipment and nothing happens to them. NO sanctions. No repercussions.
If there are those frustrated with the game, it comes as no surprise.
I think there should be zero tolerance.
Cameras can be installed in every barn at a very low cost. So if for example, someone is out of "get" a trainer or other on site employee, the security cams and other safeguards can be used to protect reputations.
In conclusion, the use of illegal and banned substances MUST be stopped.




What track? Which trainers?m Need more info.....

[Shemp Howard]

The Race Commissions seem bent on keeping this information under wraps.

I've been trying to get information on a horse that was disqualified from a winning purse at Penn National for almost two months.

E-mails have gone ignored, even to the Secretary of Agriculture who oversees the Commission.

I;m now writing to the Governor.

Transparency....forget about it.

[cato]

Sending an email to an organization demanding information is not really an effective way to obtain information - especially if the organization would like to avoid giving the information. Its really easy to delete emails...

If the information on the horse or the event in question is information that ultimately made its way to a governmental organization (like a racing commission) then you just need to do written freedom of information act request and they are obligated to respond in a certain time period.

Its a simple process on the federal level and I assume it would be approximately the same on a state level.

PM me if you need help and I'll look into it.

Best, Cato

[cato]

In Pennsylvania its the "Right to Know Law". Google it and you should be set on the right path.

Or go to this site

https://ballotpedia.org/Pennsylvania_Right_to_Know_Law

Happy hunting!

[Tom]

Maybe the stewards figured that the horses left their stalls and bought it on the streets.


"....5 wide on the far turn, skimmed Union Avenue, picked up a stash and ducked back in for the drive. Ride was high in the saddle at the wire."

[burnsy]

"....5 wide on the far turn, skimmed Union Avenue, picked up a stash and ducked back in for the drive. Ride was high in the saddle at the wire."

I think you have to cross town to buy that stuff........Not much on Union Ave.

[Inner Dirt]

I've been reflecting on this and Meth is maybe the last thing I'd want to give the average horse if I wanted to win a race. Race horse's tend to be nervous & a bit strung to begin with. On Meth, they would lose their race on the way to the paddock.
In the 1930's the street name for Heroin was horse, because it was said to be used to fix races. Most horse's have some kind of pain but under the influence of heroin they wouldn't notice it. Re the meth, I don't think there is any there, there.

I am guessing it was sometime in the 80's a trainer had an uncanny ability to claim 870 yard runners at Los Alamitos and successfully move them up the claiming ladder and win, some going from $2K all the way up to $20K. Of course when the horses were claimed away from this trainer they would quickly sink back down the claiming ladder. It was later discovered he was giving them heroin. The guy's name escapes me, anyone else remember this incident?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This is a more complicated issue than most people want to acknowledge. Environmental contamination is an issue that racing has been wrestling with for a while. While the absolute insurers rule was designed to punish trainers for any kind of positive, and the detection devices have gotten more and more sensitive, it is becoming clear that trainers can be saddled with positives for levels so low that they almost certainly were not the result of a trainer purposely spiking a horse. When you see a positive for cocaine or meth at the 20 picogram level, either the trainer gave the horse the drug so long ago it has lost all efficacy or it was a result of contamination. Even the Olympics, MLB, NFL and other sports have de minimis levels before enforcing standards. Horse racing does not separate violations into potentially performance enhancing levels and irrelevant levels. I could only say that if you tested positive for cocaine at a ridiculously small picogram level, you knew you didn't take it, and it probably came from money you handled, but you were convicted and punished anyway, you'd raise holy hell protesting the unfairness of it. But there is no problem trashing a trainer in the exact same position.

The New York absolute insurer rule is one of the few that has been changed to allow trainers a positive defense for positives where they can prove neither they nor any employee was responsible for the positive.

Trainers who purposely cheat should be seriously sanctioned. Period. But that's not every positive.

[PaceAdvantage]

When it comes to this game "almost certainly" can never be counted on...

[Tom]

"Probably not" is generally the best you can hope for.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

When it comes to this game "almost certainly" can never be counted on...
Had I said "absolutely, positively had nothing to do with anything the trainer did" I'd have lost all credibility.

[cj]

Had I said "absolutely, positively had nothing to do with anything the trainer did" I'd have lost all credibility.

The problem people have with this stuff is that nobody ever gets in any real trouble for drugging horses. Therefore, fans probably go overboard in wanting to condemn even the slightest overages. I can't blame them.

[GatetoWire]

Accidental contamination is always blamed on stable employees etc but I've always believed that many of these contaminations come because trainers are using illegal substances that are produced by the same labs that produce other street drugs.

Balco showed us that lots of unique drugs can be created by independent labs. If a lab was producing street drugs and PED's they could easily get cross contaminated and result in horses testing positive for Meth or other street drugs in small amounts.

[foregoforever]

The New York absolute insurer rule is one of the few that has been changed to allow trainers a positive defense for positives where they can prove neither they nor any employee was responsible for the positive.

Exactly how does one prove that someone didn't do something? That, literally, would be proving a negative.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Exactly how does one prove that someone didn't do something? That, literally, would be proving a negative.
For example by showing security video that shows an unauthorized person accessing a stall.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The problem people have with this stuff is that nobody ever gets in any real trouble for drugging horses. Therefore, fans probably go overboard in wanting to condemn even the slightest overages. I can't blame them.
I think the larger problem is that very few people understand the difference between PEDs and legal therapeutic drugs. A small picogram overage of flunixin is not the same as a significant overage of an anabolic steroid or a heart/lung performance enhancer. Although all drugs are classified (1 through 5) based on medical uses among other things, most fans both don't know and don't care if the overage is for omeprazole (the active ingredient in Prilosec), stanozolol or benzedrine. A flunixin overage gets a fairly small fine ($500) the first time and gets increasingly worse for subsequent violations. There are quite a few trainers who have gotten significant suspensions for Clenbuterol, including Kirk Zadie, Ramon Preciado and Jose de la Torre.

Another thing most people don't know is that for certain drugs, cocaine for example, the testing is for a metabolite of the drug and not the drug itself. Concentrations are extrapolated based on the measurement of the metabolite.When you are talking about 20 picograms of cocaine based on the concentration of a metabolite, things are less clear.

The other thing people might not take into account is once a trainer is stained with a Class 1 or 2 violation, it often becomes harder for them to attract clients. The punishment often continues beyond what was handed down by the Commission.

I've got first hand knowledge of trainers who were told that even though the Commission knew they took no illegal action that might cause an overage, they were getting a small fine anyway, and often that fine seems to give support to the concern that nobody is really getting punished severely for the violation. Generally that part of the story doesn't get out to the public.

I don't blame the fans. I mostly blame two groups. The trainers who clearly tried to gain an edge, which is not most of the violations, and the people running horse racing for having poorly designed enforcement programs and minimal investigation into alleged violations.

Racing needs to focus on the chronic cheats, and the Class 1 and 2 violations that clearly show an intent to cheat.

[foregoforever]

For example by showing security video that shows an unauthorized person accessing a stall.
Here's the regulation:
The trainer shall be held responsible for any positive test unless the trainer can show by substantial evidence that neither the trainer nor any employee nor agent was responsible for the administration of the drug or other restricted substance. Every trainer must guard each horse trained by him or her in such manner and for such period of time prior to racing the horse so as to prevent any person, whether or not employed by or connected with the owner or trainer, from administering any drug or other restricted substance to such horse contrary to this Part.
The second part would seem to exclude the "unauthorized person" defense. I don't disagree with the points you're making, but I find this language curious.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The second part would seem to exclude the "unauthorized person" defense. I don't disagree with the points you're making, but I find this language curious.
If you review absolute insurer (or trainer responsibility) rules for most of the states, NY is one of the few (if not the only) to give trainers a chance to provide a defense. In most states the trainer is presumed guilty after a positive and usually the only way to beat the rap is to prove sampling was bad, or the chain of custody was violated or the confirmatory sample showed no violation.

A very well known trainer in NY wanted to install security cameras at his barns but NYRA dawdled in providing the necessary wiring. Meanwhile the trainer had a positive, swore it wasn't him, but had no video to support his cause. Another trainer in another state had a system that recycled the video every 30 days. He had a positive but wasn't sent a notice for three months, long after he could have gotten any help from his video. His story was that an assistant who had worked for his vet but had been fired, spiked a horse at 3 in the morning in an effort to get revenge. Could have been total BS, but if the Commission had informed the trainer within, say, 10 days, the video would have been available. But the question is, should the Commission have a responsibility to be more timely with its notifications? Of course the speculation was that the Commission knew exactly what it was doing.

You're right. The language is curious. It would be like saying a bank was the guilty party if a robber happened to defeat the security. "I'd have never robbed the bank if I wasn't able to defeat the alarm system, so punish the bank not me." The NY language seems to suggest that the trainer is guilty if he or one of his people are at fault, and he is guilty if he didn't stop someone who wanted to tamper with a horse. I might ask Karen Murphy for a clearer interpretation.

[thespaah]

With today's testing, a horse (or person) can test positive for an amount of a drug that will have no effect. The amount of Meth to affect a human's performance might be the size of a baby aspirin. A 10th of that might not affect a humans performance, but still would show up as positive. You could pick up a trace amount from food or drink. You could conceivably test positive for alcohol after eating a salad or a teaspoon of cough syrup.
Given that a horse is substantially larger than a person, it would require a higher amount to effect his performance, but trace amounts can show up & such trace amounts may be from someone taking the drug & having some residue on their hands when giving the horse food or water.
I think some common sense should be applied in determining guilt or innocence in this kind of thing.
Hence the reason for zero tolerance. The PED's and illegal substances should not be anywhere near the barns in the first place.
It doesn't matter. Banned means just that. BANNED. Break that rule and pay the consequences. No exceptions.

[thespaah]

So a couple points on this..

1. There have been a lot of stories about horses testing positive for street drugs going back almost 50 years including a high profile one back in the 80's in which D. Wayne Lukas had some cocaine positives. In almost all cases it was surmised these were inadvertent contaminations versus people drugging horses to win races. As we all know in the 80's everyone was on coke and some of the coke ended up in horses.

2. Given the positives were across multiple barns its a pretty valid theory that it was contamination versus an attempt to gain an edge.

3. Street drugs like coke and meth are barely performance enhancers. You can argue because they are uppers they could stimulate a horse to generate more energy and ran faster however a vet or chemist would tell you there's literally dozens of things that you could given them that would be both more effective and would carry much smaller penalties. It's unlikely anyone is trying to improve a horse's performance with coke or meth.

On the surface this looks like something but there really isn't anything here.
I respectfully disagree. There is no possible rationalization for drug violations.
Illegal is illegal.

[thespaah]

What track? Which trainers?m Need more info.....
..I forgot to post the darn link. I read it on paulickreport.com

[betovernetcapper]

Hence the reason for zero tolerance. The PED's and illegal substances should not be anywhere near the barns in the first place.
It doesn't matter. Banned means just that. BANNED. Break that rule and pay the consequences. No exceptions.

The problem I have with zero tolerance laws is that it tends to lead to an excessive obedience to the letter of the law and not the spirit. In China the gun laws are so strict that someone can be executed for possession of a bullet. In the UK you can get 3 years for carrying a locking Swiss Army knife. I forget the state but a few years ago a young man got 20 years for possession of a felony amount of LSD. The amount was determined by weight & the kid had put the blotter acid on bond paper. If he had used rice paper, he would have gotten 6 months. In Saudi Arabia, the religious police decided that the laws about women being uncovered, led to 14 young women being pushed back into a burning school building to their deaths.

IMO if a person is proven to have used drugs or a battery or any other illegal method to alter a race, throw the book at him. Give him a couple of years in prison, but there should be a certainty of the persons guilt.

[betovernetcapper]

It occurred to me that testing after the race may not be the optimal choice. I know this would require some lab equipment, but wouldn't it be better to take a blood test two hours before the race & keep the horse under supervision until the race? That way if the horse was positive, he could be scratched & no harm would be done to the players.

After a horse has raced a few times at a track, his normal blood work should be evident & if it showed some major change, the matter could be addressed before the race, even if he's not showing positive for a banned substance. The change might be due to a substance not yet banned. People are always attempting new things to beat the system. If the horse isn't scratched, the announcer could say in race three, #1A has irregular blood work. Players could adjust their bets accordingly.

Tests could still be done after the race & if the blood work is different, it would be easier to determine the culprit.

IMO if something could be done along these lines, it would pretty much stop any illegal drug use.

[onefast99]

I think the larger problem is that very few people understand the difference between PEDs and legal therapeutic drugs. A small picogram overage of flunixin is not the same as a significant overage of an anabolic steroid or a heart/lung performance enhancer. Although all drugs are classified (1 through 5) based on medical uses among other things, most fans both don't know and don't care if the overage is for omeprazole (the active ingredient in Prilosec), stanozolol or benzedrine. A flunixin overage gets a fairly small fine ($500) the first time and gets increasingly worse for subsequent violations. There are quite a few trainers who have gotten significant suspensions for Clenbuterol, including Kirk Zadie, Ramon Preciado and Jose de la Torre.

Another thing most people don't know is that for certain drugs, cocaine for example, the testing is for a metabolite of the drug and not the drug itself. Concentrations are extrapolated based on the measurement of the metabolite.When you are talking about 20 picograms of cocaine based on the concentration of a metabolite, things are less clear.

The other thing people might not take into account is once a trainer is stained with a Class 1 or 2 violation, it often becomes harder for them to attract clients. The punishment often continues beyond what was handed down by the Commission.

I've got first hand knowledge of trainers who were told that even though the Commission knew they took no illegal action that might cause an overage, they were getting a small fine anyway, and often that fine seems to give support to the concern that nobody is really getting punished severely for the violation. Generally that part of the story doesn't get out to the public.

I don't blame the fans. I mostly blame two groups. The trainers who clearly tried to gain an edge, which is not most of the violations, and the people running horse racing for having poorly designed enforcement programs and minimal investigation into alleged violations.

Racing needs to focus on the chronic cheats, and the Class 1 and 2 violations that clearly show an intent to cheat.I have always looked at the drug issue as one that can be stopped by those who run the facility, in many cases a known offender or cheat that is given a new lease on life at a different venue will most certainly behave themselves until no one is looking at them under a microscope anymore, case in point is some of the individuals you previously mentioned. The other issue here is the cost associated with discovering new drugs using the old outdated lab tests gives the cheater a distinct advantage. Tracks cannot afford the costs associated with these needed tests.

[thespaah]

The problem I have with zero tolerance laws is that it tends to lead to an excessive obedience to the letter of the law and not the spirit. In China the gun laws are so strict that someone can be executed for possession of a bullet. In the UK you can get 3 years for carrying a locking Swiss Army knife. I forget the state but a few years ago a young man got 20 years for possession of a felony amount of LSD. The amount was determined by weight & the kid had put the blotter acid on bond paper. If he had used rice paper, he would have gotten 6 months. In Saudi Arabia, the religious police decided that the laws about women being uncovered, led to 14 young women being pushed back into a burning school building to their deaths.

IMO if a person is proven to have used drugs or a battery or any other illegal method to alter a race, throw the book at him. Give him a couple of years in prison, but there should be a certainty of the persons guilt.
The issue at hand is this. Too many trainers are being slapped on the wirst with a stern "don't ever do that again" and for the next 6 months they are one their best behavior. As soon as they get the perception that no one is looking, they start up again.
My point here is I want the crooks out of the game.
I look to the way Japan, Hong Kong racing associations operate regarding drugs and cheating. They have rules to which horsemen follow to the letter.
Here in the US, the rules are treated as "suggestions" because the penalties are so mild. Substances such as Meth and Cocaine should not be present in a horse racing barn in ANY quantity. This idea of cross contamination is absurd. Why? Because in order for that stuff to be detected, someone had to knowingly transport it into the barn. Knowingly as in deliberately violating the rules and laws.
Call me a hard ass. One of the perceptions that keeps some people away from the game is that certain so called super trainers are cheating all over the place while track managements look the other way. The average bettor gets the shaft and eventually finds the game too difficult and eventually walks away....

[thespaah]

It occurred to me that testing after the race may not be the optimal choice. I know this would require some lab equipment, but wouldn't it be better to take a blood test two hours before the race & keep the horse under supervision until the race? That way if the horse was positive, he could be scratched & no harm would be done to the players.

After a horse has raced a few times at a track, his normal blood work should be evident & if it showed some major change, the matter could be addressed before the race, even if he's not showing positive for a banned substance. The change might be due to a substance not yet banned. People are always attempting new things to beat the system. If the horse isn't scratched, the announcer could say in race three, #1A has irregular blood work. Players could adjust their bets accordingly.

Tests could still be done after the race & if the blood work is different, it would be easier to determine the culprit.

IMO if something could be done along these lines, it would pretty much stop any illegal drug use.
Pre race testing is a fantastic idea. However, equipment must be set up to quickly analyze results and then create a report.
The rest of it is easy. All horses tested then go to a detention barn where armed security people are stationed to watch over the horses and attendant personnel.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The issue at hand is this. Too many trainers are being slapped on the wirst with a stern "don't ever do that again" and for the next 6 months they are one their best behavior. As soon as they get the perception that no one is looking, they start up again.
My point here is I want the crooks out of the game.
I look to the way Japan, Hong Kong racing associations operate regarding drugs and cheating. They have rules to which horsemen follow to the letter.
Here in the US, the rules are treated as "suggestions" because the penalties are so mild. Substances such as Meth and Cocaine should not be present in a horse racing barn in ANY quantity. This idea of cross contamination is absurd. Why? Because in order for that stuff to be detected, someone had to knowingly transport it into the barn. Knowingly as in deliberately violating the rules and laws.
Call me a hard ass. One of the perceptions that keeps some people away from the game is that certain so called super trainers are cheating all over the place while track managements look the other way. The average bettor gets the shaft and eventually finds the game too difficult and eventually walks away....
Everyone wants the crooks out of the game.

When you think of trainers who got a slap on the wrist, who are you thinking of? What about jurisdictions where rules are treated as suggestions? Which ones come to mind? I assume you follow this stuff closely and you've got some statistics to back up your claim.

How exactly do you think cross-contamination occurs? Here's a true story. A stable girl has a cat and the cat gets an ear infection. The vet gives her a topical steroid to treat the infection. She applies it to the cat's ear, and later puts a bit in a horse's mouth. The horse tests positive for the topical steroid at a very small picogram level. The trainer goes into the hearing with the stewards with the stable girl, the tube of the topical steroid, and pretty clear testimony that it was cross contamination. Did he get a slap on the wrist? Actually, no. He was found culpable and fined anyway.

Here's another true story. A horse trailer was used as a meth lab. After the drug makers were nabbed and convicted, the trailer was sold at auction. It was carefully cleaned and went into service as a horse trailer. A horse that was transported in the trailer tested positive for meth, again at a very low picogram level. They tested the trailer, and sure enough there was still residual meth in the trailer. So in your mind, should the trainer have been fined and suspended for what was cross-contamination on the part of a horse transport company?

One thing we agree on is that there are perceptions about how rampant cheating is. Unfortunately, the facts don't support many of the perceptions. I've spent enough time on the backside to know that there is a significant difference between the super trainers and the blue collar guys, only it doesn't have to do with PEDs. There is a significant difference in the horseflesh the super trainers have. No broken down rehabilitation projects in their stable. There is a significant difference in being able to afford to give horses that have minor injuries sufficient time to recover. There is a significant difference in the quality of feed and dietary supplements. There is a significant difference in the ratio of grooms to horses. The super trainers never put off shoeing a horse for a week or two just to save a few bucks. Super trainers don't skimp on vet care. They have chiropractors and massage therapists.

One half of one percent of all tests come back positive, which is about as good as you would see in any major sport. Most of those positives are for legal therapeutics. About 0.001% are for Class 1 or 2 substances. Yes, we agree that horse racing has a perception problem.

One last thing. If you believe most people lose and leave the game because of cheating trainers, you haven't sat if front of three drunk guys trying to figure out what a three horse trifecta box costs. There are plenty of things wrong with horse racing that are more important to bettors than drugs.

[thespaah]

Everyone wants the crooks out of the game.

When you think of trainers who got a slap on the wrist, who are you thinking of? What about jurisdictions where rules are treated as suggestions? Which ones come to mind? I assume you follow this stuff closely and you've got some statistics to back up your claim.

How exactly do you think cross-contamination occurs? Here's a true story. A stable girl has a cat and the cat gets an ear infection. The vet gives her a topical steroid to treat the infection. She applies it to the cat's ear, and later puts a bit in a horse's mouth. The horse tests positive for the topical steroid at a very small picogram level. The trainer goes into the hearing with the stewards with the stable girl, the tube of the topical steroid, and pretty clear testimony that it was cross contamination. Did he get a slap on the wrist? Actually, no. He was found culpable and fined anyway.

Here's another true story. A horse trailer was used as a meth lab. After the drug makers were nabbed and convicted, the trailer was sold at auction. It was carefully cleaned and went into service as a horse trailer. A horse that was transported in the trailer tested positive for meth, again at a very low picogram level. They tested the trailer, and sure enough there was still residual meth in the trailer. So in your mind, should the trainer have been fined and suspended for what was cross-contamination on the part of a horse transport company?

One thing we agree on is that there are perceptions about how rampant cheating is. Unfortunately, the facts don't support many of the perceptions. I've spent enough time on the backside to know that there is a significant difference between the super trainers and the blue collar guys, only it doesn't have to do with PEDs. There is a significant difference in the horseflesh the super trainers have. No broken down rehabilitation projects in their stable. There is a significant difference in being able to afford to give horses that have minor injuries sufficient time to recover. There is a significant difference in the quality of feed and dietary supplements. There is a significant difference in the ratio of grooms to horses. The super trainers never put off shoeing a horse for a week or two just to save a few bucks. Super trainers don't skimp on vet care. They have chiropractors and massage therapists.

One half of one percent of all tests come back positive, which is about as good as you would see in any major sport. Most of those positives are for legal therapeutics. About 0.001% are for Class 1 or 2 substances. Yes, we agree that horse racing has a perception problem.

One last thing. If you believe most people lose and leave the game because of cheating trainers, you haven't sat if front of three drunk guys trying to figure out what a three horse trifecta box costs. There are plenty of things wrong with horse racing that are more important to bettors than drugs.I'm think of incidents that prompted me to start this thread.
The scenarios you presented are so rare, they are statistically near impossible to repeat.
The issue here is in your second to last paragraph. The perception.
Why the US cannot take a page out of the books of other jurisdictions where any kind of drug violations are met with stern sanctions and mandate those is a mystery.
"There are plenty of things wrong with horse racing that are more important to bettors than drugs."
On that we will have to agree to disagree.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The scenarios you presented are so rare, they are statistically near impossible to repeat.

"There are plenty of things wrong with horse racing that are more important to bettors than drugs."
On that we will have to agree to disagree.
I wish they were rare. They unfortunately are not. They happen regularly. But that is not the point. The point is that one trainer stained with a Class 1 violation because of clear cross contamination is one too many.

On the last point I guarantee you have lost far more money because of the high takeout rates, arbitrary stewards decisions, and bad rides than you ever will from horses beating your horse because of PEDs.

Check out the DRF survey on racing. For experienced horseplayers, drugs, including Lasix, are low on the list of problems.

In addition, the survey results showed that bettors overwhelmingly believe that horsemen are getting away with using illicit drugs that affect horses’ performances on race day despite little evidence that cheating is widespread in racing, such as a glut of positive drug tests for illicit drugs or the seizure of illegal substances at racetracks or training centers.

http://www.drf.com/news/survey-lasix-issue-deemed-low-priority

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

[Donttellmeshowme]

..I forgot to post the darn link. I read it on paulickreport.com




Are you going to post the link so we can know what trainers they are talking about?

[cj]

Are you going to post the link so we can know what trainers they are talking about?

Surely by now you could have searched the Paulick Report in the time it took you to post.

[GatetoWire]

One thing we agree on is that there are perceptions about how rampant cheating is. Unfortunately, the facts don't support many of the perceptions. I've spent enough time on the backside to know that there is a significant difference between the super trainers and the blue collar guys, only it doesn't have to do with PEDs. There is a significant difference in the horseflesh the super trainers have. No broken down rehabilitation projects in their stable. There is a significant difference in being able to afford to give horses that have minor injuries sufficient time to recover. There is a significant difference in the quality of feed and dietary supplements. There is a significant difference in the ratio of grooms to horses. The super trainers never put off shoeing a horse for a week or two just to save a few bucks. Super trainers don't skimp on vet care. They have chiropractors and massage therapists.

One half of one percent of all tests come back positive, which is about as good as you would see in any major sport. Most of those positives are for legal therapeutics. About 0.001% are for Class 1 or 2 substances. Yes, we agree that horse racing has a perception problem.



Rich: it's clear that you don't believe that drugs are a problem in racing but these quotes from above are just don't illustrate the real landscape that exists today.
The major problem in racing right now is EPO use and micro dosing that gives regulators about a 4-hour window to catch a trainer dosing a horse that will race 10-15 days after dosing.
Testing is useless because today's designer drugs with micro-dosing will never show up in post-race testing. It's exactly the same blueprint that BALCO used. Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong and others were always way ahead of testing. So are today's trainers.
Testing post race will never catch anyone using EPO today.

You have been given backstretch access but that doesn't make what you saw and what you were "allowed" to see to be gospel. Do you think because O'Neil and Gorder allowed you in their stables and let you observe and you didn't see anything in your visits that they must be clean?

You were shown what they wanted you to see and if they were cheating then they certainly would not have allowed you to see it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

There are plenty of things wrong with horse racing that are more important to bettors than drugs.

I don't want to downplay the drug problem, but I completely agree with your above statement. The proliferation of alternative forms of gambling (lower takeout alternatives) have done more to damage racing than drugs in racing. One could easily argue the industry was/is too slow to react to increased competition, but it's still a bigger factor than drugs. I think we need major drug reform in racing, especially on the penalty side for repeat offenders, but such action won't resurrect the game, imo.

[thespaah]

Surely by now you could have searched the Paulick Report in the time it took you to post.
Thank you.
Sometimes the entitlement mentality of some Americans has me tearing out what is left of my hair.

[thespaah]

Are you going to post the link so we can know what trainers they are talking about?
This took me a grand total of 5 freakin seconds.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/lone-star-park-trainers-held-blameless-methamphetamine-positives/

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Rich: it's clear that you don't believe that drugs are a problem in racing but these quotes from above are just don't illustrate the real landscape that exists today.
The major problem in racing right now is EPO use and micro dosing that gives regulators about a 4-hour window to catch a trainer dosing a horse that will race 10-15 days after dosing.
Testing is useless because today's designer drugs with micro-dosing will never show up in post-race testing. It's exactly the same blueprint that BALCO used. Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong and others were always way ahead of testing. So are today's trainers.
Testing post race will never catch anyone using EPO today.

You have been given backstretch access but that doesn't make what you saw and what you were "allowed" to see to be gospel. Do you think because O'Neil and Gorder allowed you in their stables and let you observe and you didn't see anything in your visits that they must be clean?

You were shown what they wanted you to see and if they were cheating then they certainly would not have allowed you to see it.
I'm certainly not naive, and I want to be clear that there are trainers who look for any edge they can. I also want to be clear that any trainer who purposely looks for an edge should be dealt with harshly. I've spent a lot of time with a lot of trainers and I'm just having a hard time believing 95% of them have to cheat, much less they do cheat. Maybe 5% do, and they aren't Fletcher or Chad Brown or Baffert.

The one thing I didn't say is that there is a serious failure on the part of racing commissions and it is two fold. One, spending pretty much all the enforcement money on post race testing is not a good policy. There is not a security agency in the world that eschews prevention in favor of trying to catch scofflaws after they have committed the crime. Two, many - not all - of the people on racing commissions are political appointees who are woefully underqualified for the job.

The focus on prosecuting blood or urine test positives without doing any investigation is part of the reason why we have trainers getting nailed for positives that are likely cross contamination. What the tracks need to realize is that they need to have a security presence and an investigative capability so trainers think twice about keeping illegal substances around and that anyone personally using illegal substances should be found and ruled off the track.

Here's a simple concept. If you never set up a speed trap, you'll never catch speeders, and if drivers know where speed traps are often set up they'll slow down.

Pre-race testing and out of competition testing should be part of every enforcement program.

I've heard the EPO argument and I want to say I've had this discussion before on this board. I've asked my experts who I work with (vets and equine pharmacologists) about the charge that these EPO's are in use, widespread or otherwise. I can only tell you what they tell me. EPOs do not have the same effect on horses that they have on humans because of how the equine spleen works.

I read the Paulick Report piece on EPO. Paulick obtained a copy of a letter written by a veterinarian who he keeps anonymous, and who denies ever having written the letter. Two things about the letter are interesting.

Also need to be giving iron (pills or shots), folic acid, B12 + an anabolic steroid (Equipoise or Winstrol) and don't overtrain. The horse has to be healthy and not exhausted to build red cells. The steroids put the horse into a building state and the B12, folic acid and iron are all needed in increased amounts to make the increased number of red cells.

So it apparently isn't a simple case of injecting EPOs and sitting back and waiting for the result. First, remember that Epogen is a controlled substance and you have to have a legal or illegal dealer. If the dealer is legal, it's traceable. Second, Winstrol is no longer sold. If you want to get the generic you have to go to a compounding pharmacy, and if it is a legal pharmacy it is traceable.

A red cell lives for about 100 days so do monitor the CBC's. Too much Epogen could lead to strokes and/or heart attacks, and in the horse, may increase the likelihood of bleeding in a race.

And remember that if a horse dies suspiciously in most jurisdictions a necropsy is required.

All this is to say if a trainer is getting drugs legally they are traceable, making my suggestion that active rather than just passive enforcement is needed. If they are getting drugs illegally, it would be harder to find, and of course impossible if you do no investigation at all. But you have to probably involve a vet, who by doing it puts his license at risk. You have to obtain some legal over the counter drugs (B-12 and Iron) which are traceable. The Balco type lab has to have a big enough client base to make it profitable. You have to do blood testing (also traceable) and you have to have somebody carefully watching the dosing so you don't give a horse a stroke or a heart attack. You run the risk of increasing bleeding, which winds up undoing any good you might have done with the Epogen.

I'm not telling you it doesn't happen. I'm telling you that you can't find medical and pharmacological experts that believe it has an effect beyond what we see due to the equine spleen. In the relaxed horse, not all red blood cells are in use. Extra cells (about 30% of the total) are stored in the spleen, a large organ located in the horse’s abdominal cavity between the left kidney and the small colon. When the horse performs strenuous exercise, the spleen contracts, pushing these extra red blood cells into circulation and thus greatly increasing the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood.

This simply doesn't happen in humans, which is why EPO was in popular use. Give me one statistic, even a small study that shows the red blood cell count increases beyond what happens when the spleen contracts.

I'm also telling you that the complications arising from using it create a lot of risk, especially considering you have to use steroids and vitamins. A trainer can't keep any of this stuff on hand. He may have to make his vet and the testing lab complicit. He may have to find an illegal source and keep it secret, no small feat on the backside.

But mostly I'm telling you an aggressive enforcement program that doesn't wait until you get a positive to spring into action finds these kind of things eventually. They got Balco that way.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Surely by now you could have searched the Paulick Report in the time it took you to post.



Nope was hoping he would put the link up when he made the thread.

[Donttellmeshowme]

This took me a grand total of 5 freakin seconds.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/lone-star-park-trainers-held-blameless-methamphetamine-positives/



Thank you so much.

[cj]

Nope was hoping he would put the link up when he made the thread.

...but still felt the need tosay it again?

[Donttellmeshowme]

I'm certainly not naive, and I want to be clear that there are trainers who look for any edge they can. I also want to be clear that any trainer who purposely looks for an edge should be dealt with harshly. I've spent a lot of time with a lot of trainers and I'm just having a hard time believing 95% of them have to cheat, much less they do cheat. Maybe 5% do, and they aren't Fletcher or Chad Brown or Baffert.

The one thing I didn't say is that there is a serious failure on the part of racing commissions and it is two fold. One, spending pretty much all the enforcement money on post race testing is not a good policy. There is not a security agency in the world that eschews prevention in favor of trying to catch scofflaws after they have committed the crime. Two, many - not all - of the people on racing commissions are political appointees who are woefully underqualified for the job.

The focus on prosecuting blood or urine test positives without doing any investigation is part of the reason why we have trainers getting nailed for positives that are likely cross contamination. What the tracks need to realize is that they need to have a security presence and an investigative capability so trainers think twice about keeping illegal substances around and that anyone personally using illegal substances should be found and ruled off the track.

Here's a simple concept. If you never set up a speed trap, you'll never catch speeders, and if drivers know where speed traps are often set up they'll slow down.

Pre-race testing and out of competition testing should be part of every enforcement program.

I've heard the EPO argument and I want to say I've had this discussion before on this board. I've asked my experts who I work with (vets and equine pharmacologists) about the charge that these EPO's are in use, widespread or otherwise. I can only tell you what they tell me. EPOs do not have the same effect on horses that they have on humans because of how the equine spleen works.

I read the Paulick Report piece on EPO. Paulick obtained a copy of a letter written by a veterinarian who he keeps anonymous, and who denies ever having written the letter. Two things about the letter are interesting.

Also need to be giving iron (pills or shots), folic acid, B12 + an anabolic steroid (Equipoise or Winstrol) and don't overtrain. The horse has to be healthy and not exhausted to build red cells. The steroids put the horse into a building state and the B12, folic acid and iron are all needed in increased amounts to make the increased number of red cells.

So it apparently isn't a simple case of injecting EPOs and sitting back and waiting for the result. First, remember that Epogen is a controlled substance and you have to have a legal or illegal dealer. If the dealer is legal, it's traceable. Second, Winstrol is no longer sold. If you want to get the generic you have to go to a compounding pharmacy, and if it is a legal pharmacy it is traceable.

A red cell lives for about 100 days so do monitor the CBC's. Too much Epogen could lead to strokes and/or heart attacks, and in the horse, may increase the likelihood of bleeding in a race.

And remember that if a horse dies suspiciously in most jurisdictions a necropsy is required.

All this is to say if a trainer is getting drugs legally they are traceable, making my suggestion that active rather than just passive enforcement is needed. If they are getting drugs illegally, it would be harder to find, and of course impossible if you do no investigation at all. But you have to probably involve a vet, who by doing it puts his license at risk. You have to obtain some legal over the counter drugs (B-12 and Iron) which are traceable. The Balco type lab has to have a big enough client base to make it profitable. You have to do blood testing (also traceable) and you have to have somebody carefully watching the dosing so you don't give a horse a stroke or a heart attack. You run the risk of increasing bleeding, which winds up undoing any good you might have done with the Epogen.

I'm not telling you it doesn't happen. I'm telling you that you can't find medical and pharmacological experts that believe it has an effect beyond what we see due to the equine spleen. In the relaxed horse, not all red blood cells are in use. Extra cells (about 30% of the total) are stored in the spleen, a large organ located in the horse’s abdominal cavity between the left kidney and the small colon. When the horse performs strenuous exercise, the spleen contracts, pushing these extra red blood cells into circulation and thus greatly increasing the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood.

This simply doesn't happen in humans, which is why EPO was in popular use. Give me one statistic, even a small study that shows the red blood cell count increases beyond what happens when the spleen contracts.

I'm also telling you that the complications arising from using it create a lot of risk, especially considering you have to use steroids and vitamins. A trainer can't keep any of this stuff on hand. He may have to make his vet and the testing lab complicit. He may have to find an illegal source and keep it secret, no small feat on the backside.

But mostly I'm telling you an aggressive enforcement program that doesn't wait until you get a positive to spring into action finds these kind of things eventually. They got Balco that way.




EPO does have the same effect on horses as it does humans. Dont let a vet tell you any different. EPO produces more red blood cells which in turn gives a horse or human more oxygen then more energy. Same effect.

[GatetoWire]

EPO does have the same effect on horses as it does humans. Dont let a vet tell you any different. EPO produces more red blood cells which in turn gives a horse or human more oxygen then more energy. Same effect.

Exactly. Trainers busted in NJ using EPO years ago were winning at huge percentages and the horses improved massively.
It's laughable to say EPO doesn't work in horses when you have seen it work first hand.

[CosmicWon]

This is an interesting discussion and while I stand more often than not with Halsey on most issues, I'd rather expand my knowledge of horsemanship than be obstinate in the face of science and thus wanted to seek more information on the effect of EPO in equine athletes in order to form a more confident position.

Long story short, much of the scientific research I found failed to reject the hypothesis that EPO has little to no positive effects on performance horses. In fact, I found numerous citations stating EPO "therapy" would have a detrimental effect on equine performance due to the splenic reaction that occurs naturally in horses during strenuous work.

While at rest, yes, it was found EPO does increase red blood cells and aid oxygenation in horses, and I assume this is the physiological reaction mimicked when we send weak foals and horses convalescing from rehab or open wounds to the hyperbaric chamber.

More importantly for our discussion, though, the opposite was found to be true when horses in regular exercise regimes where given EPO therapy: The blood was oxygenated to the point where circulation became too thick/viscous and therefore restricted blood flow to the point whereby it negatively affected the racing efforts of the horses in the study group.

And interestingly enough, the FEI which governs horsesports Worldwide and maintains a no-tolerance stance towards drugs recently suspended two endurance riders and horses when their mounts tested positive for EPO. The FEI spokeman explained the rationale was not centered on PEDs but rather that EPO in general are banned from sports worldwide.

The spokesman likewise cited the same scientific findings that EPO is not a performance enhancer in horses but rather a performance inhibitor due to the constricting physiologic response on circulation as a result of too many red blood cells in their system.

Citations: http://www.thehorse.com/articles/37647/fei-two-endurance-horses-teste-positive-for-human-epo and http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/veterinary-myth-busting-blood-boosters-performance-horses?id=&pageID=1&sk=&date=

Not sure if those findings will change any minds in those who "want to believe" but it helped me clarify where I stand and why.

[PaceAdvantage]

Hey proximity and Shemp, I thought I told you privately to stop posting about a certain trainer? I guess you ignored my request...

[GatetoWire]

This is an interesting discussion and while I stand more often than not with Halsey on most issues, I'd rather expand my knowledge of horsemanship than be obstinate in the face of science and thus wanted to seek more information on the effect of EPO in equine athletes in order to form a more confident position.

Long story short, much of the scientific research I found failed to reject the hypothesis that EPO has little to no positive effects on performance horses. In fact, I found numerous citations stating EPO "therapy" would have a detrimental effect on equine performance due to the splenic reaction that occurs naturally in horses during strenuous work.

While at rest, yes, it was found EPO does increase red blood cells and aid oxygenation in horses, and I assume this is the physiological reaction mimicked when we send weak foals and horses convalescing from rehab or open wounds to the hyperbaric chamber.

More importantly for our discussion, though, the opposite was found to be true when horses in regular exercise regimes where given EPO therapy: The blood was oxygenated to the point where circulation became too thick/viscous and therefore restricted blood flow to the point whereby it negatively affected the racing efforts of the horses in the study group.

And interestingly enough, the FEI which governs horsesports Worldwide and maintains a no-tolerance stance towards drugs recently suspended two endurance riders and horses when their mounts tested positive for EPO. The FEI spokeman explained the rationale was not centered on PEDs but rather that EPO in general are banned from sports worldwide.

The spokesman likewise cited the same scientific findings that EPO is not a performance enhancer in horses but rather a performance inhibitor due to the constricting physiologic response on circulation as a result of too many red blood cells in their system.

Citations: http://www.thehorse.com/articles/37647/fei-two-endurance-horses-teste-positive-for-human-epo and http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/veterinary-myth-busting-blood-boosters-performance-horses?id=&pageID=1&sk=&date=

Not sure if those findings will change any minds in those who "want to believe" but it helped me clarify where I stand and why.


Did you actually read this article?

Here are some key passages

"We showed that rHuEPO causes an increase in red cell mass, hematocrit and aerobic capacity," McKeever says. "But at the same time, we also saw an increase in blood viscosity, measured at different shear rates representative of different points in the cardiovascular system (i.e. aorta versus capillaries). The take-home message was that the recombinant human EPO worked in horses, as suspected. But our splenectomized study horses did not represent the intact racehorse."

McKeever, now at Rutgers Equine Science Center, did a followup study in standardbreds with intact spleens, following a similar protocol but with a higher dose of rHuEPO (50 IU/kg given three times a week for three weeks). The purpose: to show that rHuEPO increased red cell volume and aerobic capacity in an intact standardbred horse. But they also tried to detect antibodies to the compound.

"It was common for a certain number of horses to show a cross-reactivity problem, as if the horse was responding to a foreign protein," McKeever says. "After three injections of rHuEPO, the horses did show evidence of antibody production."

They also showed that the erythropoietin molecules were similar in humans and horses, that the erythropoietin is excreted fairly rapidly and that the red cells that develop stay in the system for quite a long time, as do the antibodies. (The antibody titer can therefore be used to detect rHuEPO, requiring horses to register a specific low level before they can race.)

"The horse has some protective mechanisms, but when we did our studies, we had a cutoff point for administering the rHuEPO," states McKeever. "We were worried about getting the blood too thick."

Thickening the blood could result in clotting, a reduction in cardiac output and the ability to transport oxygen since the horse is naturally losing fluids at exercise. Add the diuretic furosemide, which is commonly administered in racing horses, and you may exacerbate the problems.

"Not only do you have the cross-reactivity problem, but if the blood becomes too viscous, and you don't know where that occurs in the horse, you could potentially run into sludging problems—microvascular problems that could disrupt the function of very small vessels," McKeever says. "That is what they purportedly see in humans. With the thickening of fluid within small vessels and an increase in red blood cells, one may begin to develop blood clots. Then add the use of furosemide or aminocaproic acid, and you're asking for a disaster."

Despite rHuEPO's purported benefit, the horse's physiology remains extremely sensitive, fighting to maintain blood pressure, blood volume and blood tonicity.

"When we administered rHuEPO (as in some human studies), producing a short-term increase in red cell mass and blood volume, the body sensed that via its baroreceptors and signaled to get rid of some of that extra blood volume," McKeever says. "We actually saw a decrease in plasma volume. Therefore, although you've increased the red cell mass, you've maintained overall blood volume at the expense of plasma volume. This could have implications for normal regulation, since you no longer have the pool of water for sweat production."



It states that EPO does increase the amount of Red Blood cells but the danger is self-regulation with the horse's own body decreases the plasma volume to avoid the blood being too thick.


This is why when you administer EPO to horses you need to also use an anti coagulant like Warfarin to counter this natural effect.



One of the biggest reasons the California horse deaths investigation was BS was because many of the dead horses had Warfarin present and it was passed off that they got contaminated because of backstretch Rat control. Warfarin is also used in Rat poison as an effective way to kill rats.
As soon as you see a horse on an anti coagulant you are pretty guaranteed to see them also on EPO

[elhelmete]

You guys see what Santa Anita installed in their backside? One thousand HD surveillance cameras....

[EMD4ME]

You guys see what Santa Anita installed in their backside? One thousand HD surveillance cameras....

Nice, I like that.