Cheating in Racing Today

[upthecreek]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/combating-culture-cheating/#.WH42c9PM05A.twitter

[BCOURTNEY]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/combating-culture-cheating/#.WH42c9PM05A.twitter

I personally believe that EPO doping could be detected after the 3 day period by testing the animal's hemoglobin and hemocrit values. A statistical analysis of a owner/trainers horses could show variance against the norm.

[EasyGoer89]

If you can steal money in racing with no threat of jail, there's not much serious deterrent for the criminals. Trainers know that they can 'free roll' everyone and most likely the worst punishment will be a 30 or 60 day vacation on the golf course or beach (pina colada anyone?) without the threat of losing clients.

jocks too, they can play games all they want, nobody seems to care, jocks Teflon all they need to do is say the horse felt funny and get away with pretty much anything. Even certain hall of fame jocks continue to this very minute, not ride out mounts, some of these guys are averaging one or 2 'pull ups' a day and nobody does a thing about it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If you want to expose this "culture of cheating" the first thing you need to do is cite statistics. How many violations are actually occurring each year? How many of these violations were for legal therapeutics and how many were for illegal PED's?

Gorajec talks about out-of-competition testing at Indiana Grand. 10% of the testing was out-of-competition testing and the number of positive tests was...that's right, he didn't say. He just got someone from the UFC to tell us that without out-of-competition testing human athletes would run rampant, with the implication that is exactly where horse racing is.

Whether or not drugs/medications are the scourge Gorajec believes, the perception on the part of many people is that they are racing's number one problem. But you don't solve the problem with misinformation, no statistical backup, and an indictment of all horsemen. If there is an endemic problem there are ways to go about fixing it. I'd be far more interested in an editorial about that.

Here was a piece after Joe Gorajec was fired in Indiana.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?s=Gorajec

[cj]

If you want to expose this "culture of cheating" the first thing you need to do is cite statistics. How many violations are actually occurring each year? How many of these violations were for legal therapeutics and how many were for illegal PED's?

Gorajec talks about out-of-competition testing at Indiana Grand. 10% of the testing was out-of-competition testing and the number of positive tests was...that's right, he didn't say. He just got someone from the UFC to tell us that without out-of-competition testing human athletes would run rampant, with the implication that is exactly where horse racing is.

Whether or not drugs/medications are the scourge Gorajec believes, the perception on the part of many people is that they are racing's number one problem. But you don't solve the problem with misinformation, no statistical backup, and an indictment of all horsemen. If there is an endemic problem there are ways to go about fixing it. I'd be far more interested in an editorial about that.

Here was a piece after Joe Gorajec was fired in Indiana.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?s=Gorajec

Just to be clear, Rich admits his bias against the writer of the Paulick Report piece in the article he links.

I think Gorajec hits a very good point here. Drugs are being used that give long term benefits but can't be detected after a a short period. I'm not sure how anyone could even consider arguing that. Anyone that thinks this isn't going on today is, to be frank, a fool. This is EXACTLY what Ron Ellis was trying to do with Masochistic in my opinion. He just wasn't very good at it.

It is steroid juicing and blood doping. Drug testing in horse racing, as it is in most facets, is about two decades behind the rest of the world. People are exploiting the weak system that is in place. They will continue to do so as long as they can get away with it.

[thaskalos]

If you want to expose this "culture of cheating" the first thing you need to do is cite statistics. How many violations are actually occurring each year? How many of these violations were for legal therapeutics and how many were for illegal PED's?

Gorajec talks about out-of-competition testing at Indiana Grand. 10% of the testing was out-of-competition testing and the number of positive tests was...that's right, he didn't say. He just got someone from the UFC to tell us that without out-of-competition testing human athletes would run rampant, with the implication that is exactly where horse racing is.

Whether or not drugs/medications are the scourge Gorajec believes, the perception on the part of many people is that they are racing's number one problem. But you don't solve the problem with misinformation, no statistical backup, and an indictment of all horsemen. If there is an endemic problem there are ways to go about fixing it. I'd be far more interested in an editorial about that.

Here was a piece after Joe Gorajec was fired in Indiana.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?s=Gorajec

So...is this what you hold as an opinion now, as you survey the current drug-dominated racing landscape? That "mercy triumphs over judgement"?

[johnhannibalsmith]

His exposure of this cheating amounts to a compilation of stuff you read here. Complete with conjecture, hyperbole, and laughable blanket statements that are opinion masquerading as fact.

Don't get me wrong, exposing problems, or cheating, is not a bad thing. But there's not much here and what amazing insight he offers amounts to little more than his unyielding perspective. Yup, there's no such thing as a horseman that treated a horse in the way he describes to help the horse and of course it is done solely because he or she could get away with it. I have a hard time even reading past stupidity like that and taking it seriously. Sure, if it was impossible to get away with it, they wouldn't do it, but that hardly somehow makes the case that their motivation is simply that there is no deterrent. Otherwise, every horse would get treated as a bad bleeder or neurotic mess. Why not. Who cares if it doesn't help this horse, we can get away with it, might just as well. That's the picture he's painting unnecessarily (just one example) and it is nothing but a complete detraction from any sort of great exposure we're going to be treated to, maybe, I guess. Maybe they are helping the horse and doing it because they can get away with it. Why the nonsense about "code for helping"? How can you argue that your exact examples are done specifically to help a horse with the specific problems. The problem is that it is easy to get away with, that's the point you were making. Why we needed to cast all horseman as deceitful code-speakers that can't envision helping a horse... or whatever that irrelevant yellow journalism was all about. I know this will be unpopular here, but this guy is the wrong vessel for this message if this is any indication of what can be expected of his 'expose' work.

[cj]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/tricks-of-the-trade-how-epo-used-for-blood-doping-a-horse/

Just some info on EPO from a few years ago.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

So...is this what you hold as an opinion now, as you survey the current drug-dominated racing landscape? That "mercy triumphs over judgement"?
Right before Gorajec was fired I was getting ready to do a piece on how he seemed to be interested in destroying the careers of those who wouldn't play ball with him. In Gorajec's world, he was most often unmerciful, even when mercy was called for. Like many zealots, he never believed their was a line that shouldn't be crossed. To quote Barry Goldwater, Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

CJ is right. I was not a Gorajec fan, but that had a lot to do with the myriad stories I heard from people who were railroaded by him. When he got fired, I believed he got what he deserved.

Thask, you did the same thing Gorajec did. The drug dominated landscape without the macro statistic to back it up. Citing Masochistic as Exhibit A doesn't prove rampant drug use. But for those who wish to believe it, the ARCI statistics - most importantly less than one-half of one percent of all tests come back positive and there are less than 100 Class 1 and 2 violations a year - are either made up or misleading.

One Masochistic gets more press than 100,000 races with negative tests. If you want to believe the sport is drug dominated, just provide the statistics. That's all I asked Gorajec to do.

[NorCalGreg]

If you can steal money in racing with no threat of jail, there's not much serious deterrent for the criminals. Trainers know that they can 'free roll' everyone and most likely the worst punishment will be a 30 or 60 day vacation on the golf course or beach (pina colada anyone?) without the threat of losing clients.

jocks too, they can play games all they want, nobody seems to care, jocks Teflon all they need to do is say the horse felt funny and get away with pretty much anything. Even certain hall of fame jocks continue to this very minute, not ride out mounts, some of these guys are averaging one or 2 'pull ups' a day and nobody does a thing about it.

Here's a thought....learn the game the way it's played--and has been played for a hundred years--not the way you want it to be played.

Unless you prefer bitching to winning.

[thaskalos]

Right before Gorajec was fired I was getting ready to do a piece on how he seemed to be interested in destroying the careers of those who wouldn't play ball with him. In Gorajec's world, he was most often unmerciful, even when mercy was called for. Like many zealots, he never believed their was a line that shouldn't be crossed. To quote Barry Goldwater, Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

CJ is right. I was not a Gorajec fan, but that had a lot to do with the myriad stories I heard from people who were railroaded by him. When he got fired, I believed he got what he deserved.

Thask, you did the same thing Gorajec did. The drug dominated landscape without the macro statistic to back it up. Citing Masochistic as Exhibit A doesn't prove rampant drug use. But for those who wish to believe it, the ARCI statistics - most importantly less than one-half of one percent of all tests come back positive and there are less than 100 Class 1 and 2 violations a year - are either made up or misleading.

One Masochistic gets more press than 100,000 races with negative tests. If you want to believe the sport is drug dominated, just provide the statistics. That's all I asked Gorajec to do.

In the "hush-hush" world of the backstretch...we will all be dead and buried before any "proof" that could satisfy you could ever be uncovered. But...continue to repeat those ARCI stats...if it makes you feel better. :ThmbUp:

[onefast99]

Interesting article on this topic, how many trainers want to be 40% ITM rather than 11%, all of them do. You are under peer pressure in this game and those that have mastered their doping skills will never get caught until the day they do.

[aaron]

Here's a thought....learn the game the way it's played--and has been played for a hundred years--not the way you want it to be played.

Unless you prefer bitching to winning.
Reminds me of Harvey Pack at the Paddock Club,many years ago. A bettor asked him what are you going to do about Oscar Barerra ? He answered,I don't know what you are going to do,but I am going to be betting on his horses.
You must know how the game is being played !!!

[NorCalGreg]

Reminds me of Harvey Pack at the Paddock Club,many years ago. A bettor asked him what are you going to do about Oscar Barerra ? He answered,I don't know what you are going to do,but I am going to be betting on his horses.
You must know how the game is being played !!!

:D Aaron think we've both been around long enough to know the game. Other than the drugs nowadays....the game is definitely the same.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/tricks-of-the-trade-how-epo-used-for-blood-doping-a-horse/

Just some info on EPO from a few years ago.
I'm not going to suggest trainers don't use EPO. But, I think EPO is one of the most overblown issues in racing. This from the California boys, Scott Stanley and Rick Arthur

But the fact is that EPO positives are rarely triggered. California, which probably has the country’s most vigilant system in place to detect EPO use, hasn’t had an EPO positive in years. “It’s something we frequently look for and rarely see,” said Stanley. “It’s certainly a lot rarer than other drugs we’ve seen.”
Arthur agreed. “We have not seen any evidence of EPO use in California,” he said samples for EPO. Over the last six years, we've done well over 5,000 samples. And we've seen virtually no use of EPO use out here.”

Second, it is almost all but absent in thoroughbreds. If any trainer is using it, it is most likely for harness horses.

Third, I've mentioned this multiple times, although it is like pulling teeth to get people to believe it. Horses have contractile spleens. You can read about it here.

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/pdf/magazine/Magazine-DrugsinRacing-PartIV.pdf

The bottom line is that most vets and equine pharmacologists believe EPO doesn't have much effect if any, and the article cites the reasons why.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

In the "hush-hush" world of the backstretch...we will all be dead and buried before any "proof" that could satisfy you could ever be uncovered. But...continue to repeat those ARCI stats...if it makes you feel better. :ThmbUp:
I would have expected better from you. If you understood the relationship between ARCI and the horsemen, you'd certainly know there is no love lost between the two. Just answer me this. How can you test 300,000 horses per year and then just dismiss the results? You offer what Gorajec offered. Conjecture, anecdote and hyperbole. If racing is drug infested, your answer for why we can't find it is it's all a big cover-up? You tell me what we should be doing to find this rampant drug use that we are not doing. You act like demanding proof of your off the wall indictment of racing is somehow naive. As I've said regularly, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Show me the facts. And "everybody knows" would not be a fact.

[thaskalos]

I would have expected better from you. If you understood the relationship between ARCI and the horsemen, you'd certainly know there is no love lost between the two. Just answer me this. How can you test 300,000 horses per year and then just dismiss the results? You offer what Gorajec offered. Conjecture, anecdote and hyperbole. If racing is drug infested, your answer for why we can't find it is it's all a big cover-up? You tell me what we should be doing to find this rampant drug use that we are not doing. You act like demanding proof of your off the wall indictment of racing is somehow naive. As I've said regularly, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Show me the facts. And "everybody knows" would not be a fact.

I've seen you post your opinion on this issue here plenty of times, Rich...and YOU'VE never posted any "facts" here either. You THINK that you have "the facts", because you have access to certain people within the game...who relay to you whatever is "convenient" for them to have reported. And, once armed with these "facts"...you come here to give us more of the same old "company line". "Only a few of the samples taken come back tainted...so this means that our game is basically honest." :rolleyes:

We patronize a sport where no money can be found for updating the means by which the game times the races and handles the money...and you expect the allocation of sufficient funds to equip the testing laboratories to the extent needed in order to adequately deal with today's drug problem in the sport? How can any "real proof" of the extent of the cheating in this game ever be gathered...when no one is willing to PAY for the accumulation of such proof? In whose best interest would it be to fully expose today's drug problem to the comparatively few remaining horseplayers out there? Don't you see that there is virtually no "investigative reporting" at ALL in this game? Which "independent source" out there is supposed to REVEAL this "proof" to us...if such proof ever was to surface?

The horseplayer can't afford to wait for what you call "real proof" to come along...because he knows that such proof isn't forthcoming. He looks around and sees previously-unknown trainers winning with 35%+ of their horses after sizable sample sizes...and he sees that these aren't Hall-Of-Fame training candidates that we are talking about. And he wonders how long the "honest" trainers can remain honest...when the DISHONEST ones are posting numbers which dwarf the percentages of the HOF trainers of old.

A singe voice rose up to say that baseball had a major drug problem...but because that voice wasn't deemed "respectable", the "establishment" and all its players LAUGHED. But Jose Canseco alone was right...and everybody else was LYING. The only difference between baseball and horse racing is that, in OUR game...the "truth" will surely KILL this game...so, this "truth" cannot be tolerated.

[EasyGoer89]

Here's a thought....learn the game the way it's played--and has been played for a hundred years--not the way you want it to be played.

Unless you prefer bitching to winning.

So cheating and drugging animals is ok as long as we realize it's happening? What does wanting a clean sport have to do with the handicapping process? I didn't talk about handicapping in my post.

[thaskalos]

Here's a thought....learn the game the way it's played--and has been played for a hundred years--not the way you want it to be played.

Unless you prefer bitching to winning.

Or...if we CAN'T win...we can create handicapping software to sell to others. :ThmbUp:

[PaceAdvantage]

Or...if we CAN'T win...we can create handicapping software to sell to others. :ThmbUp:So you know for a fact Greg can't win eh?

Interesting.

The atmosphere in this forum is getting more distasteful by the hour.

[EasyGoer89]

Or...if we CAN'T win...we can create handicapping software to sell to others. :ThmbUp:

Wow. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vskSP5nj0Lc

[thaskalos]

So you know for a fact Greg can't win eh?

Interesting.

The atmosphere in this forum is getting more distasteful by the hour.

Yes...I know for a fact that Greg can't win. Mainly because he has said so right here on this board. Of course...you would have known this if you spent a little more time on your own site.

The only things "distasteful" here are your interruptions, when you have nothing of value to add to the ongoing discussion. May I suggest another "vacation"?

[AndyC]

If you want to expose this "culture of cheating" the first thing you need to do is cite statistics.......

Add gambling to any event and there will always be someone looking to get an edge by cheating. I believe that cheating will always be a part of racing and a bettor needs to learn how to deal with it or find something else to do. It doesn't mean that efforts shouldn't be made to minimize cheating. By all means expose as much as possible.

In the mean time, if you are waiting for cheating to be eradicated before making another bet, you have already made your last bet. Otherwise cheating needs to be dealt with as any other handicapping factor in determining which horse to bet.

[Spalding No!]

If you want to expose this "culture of cheating" the first thing you need to do is cite statistics. How many violations are actually occurring each year?
You are assuming that testing of biological samples will detect all possible violations. This is not the case.

How many of these violations were for legal therapeutics and how many were for illegal PED's?
Although there is an obvious difference between the effects of different substances, that does not mean that legal therapeutics cannot be used illegally. Hence the highlighting of the 24-hour rule in the article.

Gorajec talks about out-of-competition testing at Indiana Grand. 10% of the testing was out-of-competition testing and the number of positive tests was...that's right, he didn't say.
There's a catch here. The main goal of out-of-competition testing is to deter cheating. So a low violation level can mean 3 things: (1) there is no cheating going on, (2) the cheating has been suspended because there is testing, and/or (3) the testing is unable to pick up certain substances that would constitute cheating.

But you don't solve the problem with misinformation, no statistical backup, and an indictment of all horsemen. If there is an endemic problem there are ways to go about fixing it. I'd be far more interested in an editorial about that.
What's interesting in the article is that there is no mention of the veterinarian who was suspended for rampant rule violations related to medications and administrations both legal and illegal, which happened in his own backyard in 2014.

There is also no mention of the 3 trainers and multiple veterinarians who were cited and convicted at Penn National regarding systemic cheating through illegal administration of drugs on raceday.

Is this proof of an endemic problem? It depends on if you think these are simply isolated cases or willing to extrapolate and consider the possibility that others are doing the same or similar things elsewhere (or at the same facility).

It's also interesting to note that >90% of horses race on lasix, a similar figure utilize NSAIDs the day before the race, and before stricter regulations were put in place large proportions of race horses were raced or trained on clenbuterol and anabolic steroids, possibly the same with corticosteroids. This suggests indiscriminate use of medication for all racehorses, regardless of any actual individual indications for the use of such medications. Is it a far cry to think there are other substances being given routinely that are not legal to administer?

[EMD4ME]

So you know for a fact Greg can't win eh?

Interesting.

The atmosphere in this forum is getting more distasteful by the hour.

If you need an additional moderator , please let me know :lol:

Dahoss and I are worthy & capable :lol: :lol:

Just kidding! Was trying to put some laughs into your Monday (Tuesday this week as MLK day was yesterday) periodical check in :lol:

[EMD4ME]

Or...if we CAN'T win...we can create handicapping software to sell to others. :ThmbUp:

My coffee ended up on the interior side of my windshield :lol: :lol:

And I dont mind! Comedic gold I tell ya :ThmbUp:

[EMD4ME]

All I know is, for whatever I'm involved in , in life, I want spalding no on my side. I advise never debating that poster :ThmbUp:

[HuggingTheRail]

Yes...I know for a fact that Greg can't win. Mainly because he has said so right here on this board. Of course...you would have known this if you spent a little more time on your own site.

The only things "distasteful" here are your interruptions, when you have nothing of value to add to the ongoing discussion. May I suggest another "vacation"?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9_nXlvY6Io

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes...I know for a fact that Greg can't win. Mainly because he has said so right here on this board. Of course...you would have known this if you spent a little more time on your own site.

The only things "distasteful" here are your interruptions, when you have nothing of value to add to the ongoing discussion. May I suggest another "vacation"?No, in fact I plan to spend a LOT more time here going forward.

Keep up the nonsense Thask...

[ultracapper]

Never link to sappy Elton John again. 6 seconds of my life just tossed to the wolves. I had to listen to "Alice" real quick to get the taste out of my mouth of the song you sent us.

[NorCalGreg]

Yes...I know for a fact that Greg can't win. Mainly because he has said so right here on this board. Of course...you would have known this if you spent a little more time on your own site.

The only things "distasteful" here are your interruptions, when you have nothing of value to add to the ongoing discussion. May I suggest another "vacation"?


Is that really what I said, thask?

[Ruffian1]

You are assuming that testing of biological samples will detect all possible violations. This is not the case.


Although there is an obvious difference between the effects of different substances, that does not mean that legal therapeutics cannot be used illegally. Hence the highlighting of the 24-hour rule in the article.


There's a catch here. The main goal of out-of-competition testing is to deter cheating. So a low violation level can mean 3 things: (1) there is no cheating going on, (2) the cheating has been suspended because there is testing, and/or (3) the testing is unable to pick up certain substances that would constitute cheating.


What's interesting in the article is that there is no mention of the veterinarian who was suspended for rampant rule violations related to medications and administrations both legal and illegal, which happened in his own backyard in 2014.

There is also no mention of the 3 trainers and multiple veterinarians who were cited and convicted at Penn National regarding systemic cheating through illegal administration of drugs on raceday.

Is this proof of an endemic problem? It depends on if you think these are simply isolated cases or willing to extrapolate and consider the possibility that others are doing the same or similar things elsewhere (or at the same facility).

It's also interesting to note that >90% of horses race on lasix, a similar figure utilize NSAIDs the day before the race, and before stricter regulations were put in place large proportions of race horses were raced or trained on clenbuterol and anabolic steroids, possibly the same with corticosteroids. This suggests indiscriminate use of medication for all racehorses, regardless of any actual individual indications for the use of such medications. Is it a far cry to think there are other substances being given routinely that are not legal to administer?

This part I can speak directly to:

No opinions, just fact.

Quote:
How many of these violations were for legal therapeutics and how many were for illegal PED's?

Although there is an obvious difference between the effects of different substances, that does not mean that legal therapeutics cannot be used illegally. Hence the highlighting of the 24-hour rule in the article.

End Quote.

This is soooo spot on I can't tell you how much I appreciate it.

I have probably told the story so I will save all the dramatics and get to the point.

I watched a vet and trainer do exactly this in the receiving barn a couple of hours before the race we were both in.

He beats me a nose.

I go up to the Stewards stand and explain what happened.

They said to me that there is nothing they can do.

I said, how about uphold the rules of racing !!

They said sorry.

I said so am I because as of this conversation I now realize I can no longer play a game I have played for 25+ years unless I cheat.

The Stewards were floored.

One was a former rider I rode quite a bit.

I left the game several months later.

Don't feel bad for me, I am doing great !

Best decision I ever made.

Instead, feel bad for the game and all that is in it.

It is the real loser.

[thaskalos]

Is that really what I said, thask?

Greg...my reply to you was made in jest...just as your reply to EasyGoer wasn't meant to be taken seriously either...right? I mean...just because we are "bitching" about the cheating in this game does not mean that we are currently LOSING in the game...right? We could be WINNING in the game now, but wanting to win even MORE. Or...we could be winning players today, but we could be worried about our playing status TOMORROW...should this "cheating" increase in the future. My reply to you was my attempt at HUMOR...just as I felt your reply to EasyGoer was humorous as well.

And yet...PA-Mike saw fit to call my reply to you "distasteful"...without stopping to notice that, if MY reply to you was "distasteful"...then YOUR reply to EasyGoer, which PROMPTED my reply, was "distasteful", as well. I mean...when you told EasyGoer to "Learn the game the way it's played...unless you prefer bitching to winning"...you were as wrong as I was. You implied that he was a "loser in this game"...even though you know nothing about him.

At least I know enough about you to say that you didn't win money betting horses last year.

[PaceAdvantage]

So I'm playing favorites again...but at least this time, you can't blame it on political affiliation. :p

[thaskalos]

So I'm playing favorites again...but at least this time, you can't blame it on political affiliation. :p

But I can still BLAME you...right? :kiss:

[NorCalGreg]

Greg...my reply to you was made in jest...just as your reply to EasyGoer wasn't meant to be taken seriously either...right? I mean...just because we are "bitching" about the cheating in this game does not mean that we are currently LOSING in the game...right? We could be WINNING in the game now, but wanting to win even MORE. Or...we could be winning players today, but we could be worried about our playing status TOMORROW...should this "cheating" increase in the future. My reply to you was my attempt at HUMOR...just as I felt your reply to EasyGoer was humorous as well.

And yet...PA-Mike saw fit to call my reply to you "distasteful"...without stopping to notice that, if MY reply to you was "distasteful"...then YOUR reply to EasyGoer, which PROMPTED my reply, was "distasteful", as well. I mean...when you told EasyGoer to "Learn the game the way it's played...unless you prefer bitching to winning"...you were as wrong as I was. You implied that he was a "loser in this game"...even though you know nothing about him.

At least I know enough about you to say that you didn't win money betting horses last year.

Hey! I "broke even" :D

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I've seen you post your opinion on this issue here plenty of times, Rich...and YOU'VE never posted any "facts" here either. You THINK that you have "the facts", because you have access to certain people within the game...who relay to you whatever is "convenient" for them to have reported. And, once armed with these "facts"...you come here to give us more of the same old "company line". "Only a few of the samples taken come back tainted...so this means that our game is basically honest." :rolleyes:

We patronize a sport where no money can be found for updating the means by which the game times the races and handles the money...and you expect the allocation of sufficient funds to equip the testing laboratories to the extent needed in order to adequately deal with today's drug problem in the sport? How can any "real proof" of the extent of the cheating in this game ever be gathered...when no one is willing to PAY for the accumulation of such proof? In whose best interest would it be to fully expose today's drug problem to the comparatively few remaining horseplayers out there? Don't you see that there is virtually no "investigative reporting" at ALL in this game? Which "independent source" out there is supposed to REVEAL this "proof" to us...if such proof ever was to surface?

The horseplayer can't afford to wait for what you call "real proof" to come along...because he knows that such proof isn't forthcoming. He looks around and sees previously-unknown trainers winning with 35%+ of their horses after sizable sample sizes...and he sees that these aren't Hall-Of-Fame training candidates that we are talking about. And he wonders how long the "honest" trainers can remain honest...when the DISHONEST ones are posting numbers which dwarf the percentages of the HOF trainers of old.

A singe voice rose up to say that baseball had a major drug problem...but because that voice wasn't deemed "respectable", the "establishment" and all its players LAUGHED. But Jose Canseco alone was right...and everybody else was LYING. The only difference between baseball and horse racing is that, in OUR game...the "truth" will surely KILL this game...so, this "truth" cannot be tolerated.
I've posted plenty of facts. And taken plenty of crap from people who have "opinions." My position has never changed. I oppose the use of PEDs and support harsh penalties for trainers who use them. I also believe if you are going to destroy a trainer's living, you should set scientifically supportable standards, and to a greater extent than you might believe, standards are not always defensible. You should be able to tell the difference between environmental contamination and feeding a horse a PED. My job isn't to simply support the company line, but to defend trainers who have been abused by the system. Is that most trainers? No. It's a select few. The vast majority of trainers who ask for my help wind up with the advice, "pay the fine."

I've never suggested is that racing is lily white. I've only suggested that when you look at the number of violations and the number of tests, the extent of the problem may be expected, but is certainly manageable. Especially when you consider less than 1% of all violations are for illegal substances. Comically, you think all my information comes from a few trainers who "feed" me what they want.

As I said, you act as if the statistics should be completely irrelevant. No, it makes more sense to believe scientific genius trainers are defeating testing machines that could find a needle in all the hay in all the world.

Interestingly, I have published about what I think are the failures of racing to catch scofflaws before the race is declared official. I've argued for much greater investigation. When a trainer is nailed for substance X, and nobody tries to find the source of it, you get criticized by me. When RMTC does a poor job of testing supplements, they get criticized by me. My job is not to paint a Pollyanna-ish picture of drugs in racing. It's to make sure the standards are fair and scientific. It's to make sure resources are being directed at the right places. It's to make sure that lazy and inept racing commissions treat trainers fairly. People should be thanking me for trying to clean up the game from my end. You are absolutely wrong that horseplayers should not demand real proof. You keep letting the racing commissions off the hook, and you have nothing better than what we have always had. Post race testing. Violations long after the race is official.

I've argued that if there is a BALCO out there somewhere, racing has an obligation to find it. But there are only two possible reasons they haven't. It isn't there or they won't look. Give me the Joe Valachi of racing. Show me where racing commissions have gone after the all of a sudden 35% trainers to prove to the public nothing nefarious is going on. What kind of idiot sport allows the speculation to achieve the equivalent of fact? My job is to tell racing, give us the goods, one way or the other. At least I'm making an effort to bring the truth to light.

[thaskalos]

I've posted plenty of facts. And taken plenty of crap from people who have "opinions." My position has never changed. I oppose the use of PEDs and support harsh penalties for trainers who use them. I also believe if you are going to destroy a trainer's living, you should set scientifically supportable standards, and to a greater extent than you might believe, standards are not always defensible. You should be able to tell the difference between environmental contamination and feeding a horse a PED. My job isn't to simply support the company line, but to defend trainers who have been abused by the system. Is that most trainers? No. It's a select few. The vast majority of trainers who ask for my help wind up with the advice, "pay the fine."

I've never suggested is that racing is lily white. I've only suggested that when you look at the number of violations and the number of tests, the extent of the problem may be expected, but is certainly manageable. Especially when you consider less than 1% of all violations are for illegal substances. Comically, you think all my information comes from a few trainers who "feed" me what they want.

As I said, you act as if the statistics should be completely irrelevant. No, it makes more sense to believe scientific genius trainers are defeating testing machines that could find a needle in all the hay in all the world.

Interestingly, I have published about what I think are the failures of racing to catch scofflaws before the race is declared official. I've argued for much greater investigation. When a trainer is nailed for substance X, and nobody tries to find the source of it, you get criticized by me. When RMTC does a poor job of testing supplements, they get criticized by me. My job is not to paint a Pollyanna-ish picture of drugs in racing. It's to make sure the standards are fair and scientific. It's to make sure resources are being directed at the right places. It's to make sure that lazy and inept racing commissions treat trainers fairly. People should be thanking me for trying to clean up the game from my end. You are absolutely wrong that horseplayers should not demand real proof. You keep letting the racing commissions off the hook, and you have nothing better than what we have always had. Post race testing. Violations long after the race is official.

I've argued that if there is a BALCO out there somewhere, racing has an obligation to find it. But there are only two possible reasons they haven't. It isn't there or they won't look. Give me the Joe Valachi of racing. Show me where racing commissions have gone after the all of a sudden 35% trainers to prove to the public nothing nefarious is going on. What kind of idiot sport allows the speculation to achieve the equivalent of fact? My job is to tell racing, give us the goods, one way or the other. At least I'm making an effort to bring the truth to light.

Mr. Halvey...it was YOU who turned this thread into a conversation about Joe Gorajec and Indiana Racing. Before your interjection, we were talking about cheating in GENERAL...and we were voicing our opinions about it. NONE of us here are trying to "destroy" anyone; we are just commenting about a topic that's "near and dear" to all of us -- a topic that directly affects our finances.

And if we are "speculating" here...SO WHAT? Isn't that what horseplayers are SUPPOSED to do? Are you attempting here to deprive the horseplayer of his inherent right to SPECULATE?

[GatetoWire]

Not the infamous spleen argument again!!
The spleen argument is complete BS

I guess the horses that I have seen put on Epogen and improved exponentially must have been missing their spleens!!

Or maybe the trainers used an anti-coagulant in conjunction with the EPO!!!

[Ruffian1]

I've posted plenty of facts. And taken plenty of crap from people who have "opinions." My position has never changed. I oppose the use of PEDs and support harsh penalties for trainers who use them. I also believe if you are going to destroy a trainer's living, you should set scientifically supportable standards, and to a greater extent than you might believe, standards are not always defensible. You should be able to tell the difference between environmental contamination and feeding a horse a PED. My job isn't to simply support the company line, but to defend trainers who have been abused by the system. Is that most trainers? No. It's a select few. The vast majority of trainers who ask for my help wind up with the advice, "pay the fine."

I've never suggested is that racing is lily white. I've only suggested that when you look at the number of violations and the number of tests, the extent of the problem may be expected, but is certainly manageable. Especially when you consider less than 1% of all violations are for illegal substances. Comically, you think all my information comes from a few trainers who "feed" me what they want.

As I said, you act as if the statistics should be completely irrelevant. No, it makes more sense to believe scientific genius trainers are defeating testing machines that could find a needle in all the hay in all the world.

Interestingly, I have published about what I think are the failures of racing to catch scofflaws before the race is declared official. I've argued for much greater investigation. When a trainer is nailed for substance X, and nobody tries to find the source of it, you get criticized by me. When RMTC does a poor job of testing supplements, they get criticized by me. My job is not to paint a Pollyanna-ish picture of drugs in racing. It's to make sure the standards are fair and scientific. It's to make sure resources are being directed at the right places. It's to make sure that lazy and inept racing commissions treat trainers fairly. People should be thanking me for trying to clean up the game from my end. You are absolutely wrong that horseplayers should not demand real proof. You keep letting the racing commissions off the hook, and you have nothing better than what we have always had. Post race testing. Violations long after the race is official.

I've argued that if there is a BALCO out there somewhere, racing has an obligation to find it. But there are only two possible reasons they haven't. It isn't there or they won't look. Give me the Joe Valachi of racing. Show me where racing commissions have gone after the all of a sudden 35% trainers to prove to the public nothing nefarious is going on. What kind of idiot sport allows the speculation to achieve the equivalent of fact? My job is to tell racing, give us the goods, one way or the other. At least I'm making an effort to bring the truth to light.

The cheaters destroyed this trainers living and my scientific standards are I watched them do it. Make no mistake, it was not an isolated case. What I spoke to about legal drugs but well past the legal time line happens constantly.
I don't want to argue about it, but if racing won't clean up this problem, with rules already in place, and all I got was "sorry", what does that leave us with?

[thaskalos]

The cheaters destroyed this trainers living and my scientific standards are I watched them do it. Make no mistake, it was not an isolated case. What I spoke to about legal drugs but well past the legal time line happens constantly.
I don't want to argue about it, but if racing won't clean up this problem, with rules already in place, and all I got was "sorry", what does that leave us with?

Ruffian 1...may I ask you an honest question?

You had the option and the means to move on to something else instead of compromising your integrity...but, what about those "honest" trainers who have no other readily identifiable way of earning a living? When the stewards turn their backs on these trainers...what else are they left to do? Sit there and watch the cheaters ply their trade undisturbed?

[ReplayRandall]

The cheaters destroyed this trainers living and my scientific standards are I watched them do it. Make no mistake, it was not an isolated case. What I spoke to about legal drugs but well past the legal time line happens constantly.
I don't want to argue about it, but if racing won't clean up this problem, with rules already in place, and all I got was "sorry", what does that leave us with?

If you've seen this situation happen on more than one occasion, why didn't you take out your I-phone, I-pad, etc. and gets this on video? If you REALLY cared about what you say, wouldn't it behoove you to get evidence, at the least, in this manner?.....I'm not buying your devotion to the integrity of the sport when you just walk away.

[cj]

Right before Gorajec was fired I was getting ready to do a piece on how he seemed to be interested in destroying the careers of those who wouldn't play ball with him. In Gorajec's world, he was most often unmerciful, even when mercy was called for. Like many zealots, he never believed their was a line that shouldn't be crossed. To quote Barry Goldwater, Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!

CJ is right. I was not a Gorajec fan, but that had a lot to do with the myriad stories I heard from people who were railroaded by him. When he got fired, I believed he got what he deserved.

Thask, you did the same thing Gorajec did. The drug dominated landscape without the macro statistic to back it up. Citing Masochistic as Exhibit A doesn't prove rampant drug use. But for those who wish to believe it, the ARCI statistics - most importantly less than one-half of one percent of all tests come back positive and there are less than 100 Class 1 and 2 violations a year - are either made up or misleading.

One Masochistic gets more press than 100,000 races with negative tests. If you want to believe the sport is drug dominated, just provide the statistics. That's all I asked Gorajec to do.

The whole point of the article was that horses are being drugged with things that won't show up in tests. What good are positive test stats in that light?

[cj]

Here's a thought....learn the game the way it's played--and has been played for a hundred years--not the way you want it to be played.

Unless you prefer bitching to winning.

What is wrong with a bettor wanting a clean game? Can't the two be separate issues?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You are assuming that testing of biological samples will detect all possible violations. This is not the case.

I can't tell. Either you are saying current technology will miss positives from substances for which they are testing, or there are substances for which there are not acceptable tests. If it's the former, thanks for throwing the entire post race testing protocol into chaos. I know that the GCMS they have can detect 1,800 different substances, including all those for which there are standards, all the commonly available PED's, and even substances that haven't been sold in the U.S. for decades, like Nikethamide, and they can detect them at levels so small it borders on the incrediblle. It is possible that there are effective PEDs for which tests have not been developed, but not likely. You don't have to believe me. You have access to the two Ricks in CA. Ask them for the rates of false positives, missed negatives and potential unknown substances.

Although there is an obvious difference between the effects of different substances, that does not mean that legal therapeutics cannot be used illegally. Hence the highlighting of the 24-hour rule in the article.

Of course they can be used illegally. And if a trainer gets nailed for phenylbutazone after giving the recommended dose at the recommended withdrawal time, we know two things. He was trying to comply, which should count for something. And he's going to pay a fine. And if he was trying to use legal therapeutics to gain some sort of edge, he may pay a bigger fine.

There's a catch here. The main goal of out-of-competition testing is to deter cheating. So a low violation level can mean 3 things: (1) there is no cheating going on, (2) the cheating has been suspended because there is testing, and/or (3) the testing is unable to pick up certain substances that would constitute cheating.

Doesn't a low post-race testing violation rate mean the same thing? And doesn't a low post-race testing violation rate mean that out-of-competition testing will also show a low rate, perhaps even making it a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere? The inference in the article is that without out-of-competition testing, the post race violation rate will skyrocket. ARCI's own numbers say the post-race violation rate is less than one-half of one percent, and almost all of those are legal therapeutics. You'd have to do some selling to spend limited resources on out-of-competition testing, and you'd have to show some evidence that trainers are using illegal substances that have the PE effect but are washed out by race day. In essence, some evidence that trainers are juicing with steroids, getting the anabolic effect, and are smart enough to (almost) never get caught.

What's interesting in the article is that there is no mention of the veterinarian who was suspended for rampant rule violations related to medications and administrations both legal and illegal, which happened in his own backyard in 2014.

I won't say a lot about that, other than Gorajec was on a crusade to get Ross Russell. There is quite a bit to that story that never came out, but it is reasonable to say it helped hasten his demise.

There is also no mention of the 3 trainers and multiple veterinarians who were cited and convicted at Penn National regarding systemic cheating through illegal administration of drugs on raceday.

If there is a poster boy for the ills of racing, Penn National may be it.

Is this proof of an endemic problem? It depends on if you think these are simply isolated cases or willing to extrapolate and consider the possibility that others are doing the same or similar things elsewhere (or at the same facility).

I actually do believe there are pockets where the culture of racing is unscrupulous. I won't mention tracks, but they are all in the Penn National classification. The problem with racing at smaller venues is that you have far too many owners and trainers living on very slim margins, and far too many horses that are running on three legs, and that may drive the trainers in a bad direction. But I similarly believe at many of the larger venues the problems are far more isolated.

It's also interesting to note that >90% of horses race on lasix, a similar figure utilize NSAIDs the day before the race, and before stricter regulations were put in place large proportions of race horses were raced or trained on clenbuterol and anabolic steroids, possibly the same with corticosteroids. This suggests indiscriminate use of medication for all racehorses, regardless of any actual individual indications for the use of such medications. Is it a far cry to think there are other substances being given routinely that are not legal to administer?[/QUOTE]

And there is the rub. Speculation without facts serves no one well. If there is rampant cheating, then give us a plan to root it out.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The whole point of the article was that horses are being drugged with things that won't show up in tests. What good are positive test stats in that light?
I've talked to vets and equine pharmacologists and have asked them whether there can be many substances that have a PED effect and do no show up among the 1,800 substances the modern GCMS can detect. For the most part they are stumped. Obviously I don't have the training to know what the answer is, but think about it for a minute. If you asked a pharmacologist to speculate on what sort of substance could be out there and undetectable, if he actually knows the answer it becomes a matter of adding that test. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but considering how long they've been playing cat and mouse with dopers, tough to figure out what it could be. Then, you have to find someone to compound it - I mean if it was a known substance we'd already be testing for it. You have to have a distribution network that is totally underground. And then you have to have racing commissions that ignore it. That's a lot of pieces that would have to fall into place.

[cj]

If you've seen this situation happen on more than one occasion, why didn't you take out your I-phone, I-pad, etc. and gets this on video? If you REALLY cared about what you say, wouldn't it behoove you to get evidence, at the least, in this manner?.....I'm not buying your devotion to the integrity of the sport when you just walk away.

You are off base. He's been out of the game a while, certainly before iPhones and iPads.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Mr. Halvey...it was YOU who turned this thread into a conversation about Joe Gorajec and Indiana Racing. Before your interjection, we were talking about cheating in GENERAL...and we were voicing our opinions about it. NONE of us here are trying to "destroy" anyone; we are just commenting about a topic that's "near and dear" to all of us -- a topic that directly affects our finances.

And if we are "speculating" here...SO WHAT? Isn't that what horseplayers are SUPPOSED to do? Are you attempting here to deprive the horseplayer of his inherent right to SPECULATE?
Actually the editorial that started the thread was written by Gorajec. That makes him fair game.

[Grits]

If you've seen this situation happen on more than one occasion, why didn't you take out your I-phone, I-pad, etc. and gets this on video? If you REALLY cared about what you say, wouldn't it behoove you to get evidence, at the least, in this manner?.....I'm not buying your devotion to the integrity of the sport when you just walk away.

I could be wrong, and he can correct me if so, R2, but I believe Ruffian1 left training, and the industry, long before the introduction of I-phones and I-pads. Years before the advent of any smart device as we know them today. Something tells me the stewards, the racing secretaries wouldn't cotton to him walking in with a tape recorder, asking, "where can I plug it in, fellas?" I remember, too, when the first video camcorders by Sony were the size of one that could be seen on a movie lot today.

[Grits]

You are off base. He's been out of the game a while, certainly before iPhones and iPads.

Sorry. I didn't see your post. My bad. ;)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Not the infamous spleen argument again!!
The spleen argument is complete BS

I guess the horses that I have seen put on Epogen and improved exponentially must have been missing their spleens!!

Or maybe the trainers used an anti-coagulant in conjunction with the EPO!!!
Whoever said the truth will set you free never posted here. How many medical people have to say something until you believe it is true?

[NorCalGreg]

What is wrong with a bettor wanting a clean game? Can't the two be separate issues?

The same thing wrong with a trainer who blames the game. A trainer is ultimately in the business of winning horse races--either adapt, change with the game in whatever way necessary...or find another game

Same goes for a horse bettor, store owner, or any other pursuit in life.

They have a saying in the infantry---

"lead, follow, or get out of the way"

A "bettor" wanting a clean game is worried about his bottom line...ultimately.

My position as a "bettor" ...isn't as chaste as wanting a clean game, because it's morally correct.. I doubt any other bettor or trainer's stance is much different.

[cj]

I've talked to vets and equine pharmacologists and have asked them whether there can be many substances that have a PED effect and do no show up among the 1,800 substances the modern GCMS can detect. For the most part they are stumped. Obviously I don't have the training to know what the answer is, but think about it for a minute. If you asked a pharmacologist to speculate on what sort of substance could be out there and undetectable, if he actually knows the answer it becomes a matter of adding that test. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but considering how long they've been playing cat and mouse with dopers, tough to figure out what it could be. Then, you have to find someone to compound it - I mean if it was a known substance we'd already be testing for it. You have to have a distribution network that is totally underground. And then you have to have racing commissions that ignore it. That's a lot of pieces that would have to fall into place.


This is the exact reason that Olympians are subject to OOC testing. It isn't mystery substances. It is getting the test while it is still in the system. The effects last long after the test will come back clean. If they didn't, people wouldn't be using them. What would be the point?

[Ruffian1]

Ruffian 1...may I ask you an honest question?

You had the option and the means to move on to something else instead of compromising your integrity...but, what about those "honest" trainers who have no other readily identifiable way of earning a living? When the stewards turn their backs on these trainers...what else are they left to do? Sit there and watch the cheaters ply their trade undisturbed?

Starting a new career at age 46 with 3 kids getting ready for college and no formal training in anything wasn't much option but I felt I could do it. Thankfully, it worked out as well as it did.

There are many truly gifted trainers who are as honest as they come. They can stay the course because they are really fine horsemen or women. But for those trainers that were very average or below average , they retire, give up training and become agents, or asst. trainers or do what it takes to make a buck or just plod through with a few horses. And yes, some will have to decide that if others are doing things, they must as well. I know it sounds kind of vague and I'm sorry for that but that's what I've seen from the other honest trainers. And do know, they were the majority not the minority.

Lastly,I don't know if the 24 hour rule has been cleaned up at all. No clue and honestly no interest .

Hope that helps.

[ReplayRandall]

You are off base. He's been out of the game a while, certainly before iPhones and iPads.

My bad......didn't see a time-frame listed by the poster.

[Ruffian1]

If you've seen this situation happen on more than one occasion, why didn't you take out your I-phone, I-pad, etc. and gets this on video? If you REALLY cared about what you say, wouldn't it behoove you to get evidence, at the least, in this manner?.....I'm not buying your devotion to the integrity of the sport when you just walk away.

It was the summer of 2000. Would have been a camcorder and are you suggesting that I go on a one man crusade to catch people doing illegal things that I work with daily? Seriously?
Yes, I REALLY cared about what I said. It was my livelihood. At the time it was all I knew.

I will pass on the rest of what you said.

[ReplayRandall]

It was the summer of 2000. Would have been a camcorder and are you suggesting that I go on a one man crusade to catch people doing illegal things that I work with daily? Seriously?
Yes, I REALLY cared about what I said. It was my livelihood. At the time it was all I knew.

Please disregard my post in it's entirety.....My apologies, sir.

[Ruffian1]

]The same thing wrong with a trainer who blames the game. A trainer is ultimately in the business of winning horse races--either adapt, change with the game in whatever way necessary...or find another game [/b]

Same goes for a horse bettor, store owner, or any other pursuit in life.

They have a saying in the infantry---

"lead, follow, or get out of the way"

A "bettor" wanting a clean game is worried about his bottom line...ultimately.

My position as a "bettor" ...isn't as chaste as wanting a clean game, because it's morally correct.. I doubt any other bettor or trainer's stance is much different.

I found another game rather than be a cheating piece of crap. Hope your ok with that.

[Ruffian1]

Please disregard my post in it's entirety.....My apologies, sir.

No problem. It's forgotten.

[thaskalos]

The whole point of the article was that horses are being drugged with things that won't show up in tests. What good are positive test stats in that light?

Mr. Halvey obviously thinks that if it doesn't show up in the testing...then it doesn't exist.

[thaskalos]

I found another game rather than be a cheating piece of crap. Hope your ok with that.

Thanks for your input here...and good luck in the future. :ThmbUp:

[Ruffian1]

Thanks for your input here...and good luck in the future. :ThmbUp:

Thanks Thas !

Same to you.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This is the exact reason that Olympians are subject to OOC testing. It isn't mystery substances. It is getting the test while it is still in the system. The effects last long after the test will come back clean. If they didn't, people wouldn't be using them. What would be the point?
If that is a real problem - and if it is, it is almost certainly steroids - you could run an experiment to see if it is revealing. I'd support that. I'll give you a few problems you have to deal with. First, even if they ban stanozolol, the natural steroids are still legal. Of what use is it to do OOC testing if the results are going to be for legal drugs that have to be cleared by race day? Second, what do you do about Fair Hill or Payson? Are horses out of training still subject to testing? I'm not sure racing commissions have jurisdiction at private facilities.

I still have the same issue. If you know - or even have an inkling - illegal juicing is going on, then tell us what substances may be involved and give us the plan to deal with it.

[Jeff P]

Gus, in one of your posts you mentioned the steroid era in Baseball and Jose Conseco being the only one telling the truth while everybody else was lying.

Rich, in one of your posts you asked for stats.

When I think back about the steroid era in Baseball, perhaps the most telling stat, and the one that immediately pops into my head, was the number of players who suddenly began hitting 50 home runs in a season vs. historical norms.

If you'll recall, early on, nobody in Baseball had (yet) tested positive for steroids, but (eventually) it became obvious to just about everybody what was really going on.

When I look at trainer stats in horse racing - I see a lot of similarities between very early on in the steroid era of Baseball and what is going on (right now) in horse racing.

Very few positive drug tests. But plenty of trainers whose records show ridiculous win rates vs. the historical norms of hall of fame trainers.

Anyone else remember this story about Jane Cibelli from 2013?:

Cibelli Suspended 2 Months for Deadening a Horse’s Leg:
https://horseracingwrongs.com/2013/09/26/cibelli-suspended-2-months-for-deadening-a-horses-leg/

On January 27th of this year, Dr. Orlando Paraliticci, a private vet working for trainer Jane Cibelli, was caught injecting a nerve block, called "P Bloc," into the Cibelli-trained horse Raven Train. Raven Train was scheduled to run that day in a $16,000 claiming race. According to the Paulick Report, "Paraliticci quickly left the stall, saying, 'I'm sorry. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.'" Paraliticci was banned from Tampa Bay Downs (TBD) on February 3rd and eventually (May 15th) suspended 90 days by the Florida Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (FDPMW). Eight months later, Cibelli has finally been disciplined.

I also found a link about the same story (but with less detail) on The BloodHorse.com site here:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/118424/suspension-track-sanctions-for-cibelli

After reading every post in this thread up to this point, I decided to reach back into my database and take a look at trainer stats for Jane Cibelli from 2013:

Here's what I have in my database for trainer Jane Cibelli at Tampa Bay Downs from opening day of the 2012-2013 meet up through and including the day of the incident:

query start: 1/17/2017 2:13:05 PM
query end: 1/17/2017 2:13:05 PM
elapsed time: 0 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2_2012-2013-2014.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
SQL UDM Plays Report: Hide

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE TRACK='TAM'
AND TRAINER='CIBELLI JANE'
AND [DATE] >= #12-01-2012#
AND [DATE] <= #01-27-2013#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 86.20 67.20 54.10
Bet -66.00 -66.00 -66.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L 20.20 1.20 -11.90

Wins 14 18 19
Plays 33 33 33
PCT .4242 .5455 .5758

ROI 1.3061 1.0182 0.8197
Avg Mut 6.16 3.73 2.85
And here's what I have in my database for trainer Jane Cibelli at Tampa Bay Downs from 01-28-2013 (the day after the incident) through the end of the 2012-2013 meet:

query start: 1/17/2017 1:36:07 PM
query end: 1/17/2017 1:36:07 PM
elapsed time: 0 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2_2012-2013-2014.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
SQL UDM Plays Report: Hide

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE TRACK='TAM'
AND TRAINER='CIBELLI JANE'
AND [DATE] >= #01-28-2013#
AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2013#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 45.80 86.80 88.10
Bet -112.00 -112.00 -112.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -66.20 -25.20 -23.90

Wins 7 21 30
Plays 56 56 56
PCT .1250 .3750 .5357

ROI 0.4089 0.7750 0.7866
Avg Mut 6.54 4.13 2.94

Based on the above stats, it looks like Jane Cibelli went from being a 40 percent trainer to a 12 percent trainer almost overnight.

Which begs the question: Do regulators really need positive tests to shine a spotlight in the right place?


Jeff Platt
President, HANA


.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Mr. Halvey obviously thinks that if it doesn't show up in the testing...then it doesn't exist.
You certainly know better than to stoop to that level. Or perhaps I overrated you.

I believe that if it doesn't show up in the testing it is not a violation. You want to make it a violation, change the standards. If you want to make the use of substances like natural steroids illegal, do that. If it isn't showing up because we don't have a test for it, then identify the substance and develop the test.

I'm doing something about what I see are the problems with standards and enforcement beyond bitching on PA. Which puts me one up on those who have nothing better to offer than complaints and snide remarks.

[Ruffian1]

If that is a real problem - and if it is, it is almost certainly steroids - you could run an experiment to see if it is revealing. I'd support that. I'll give you a few problems you have to deal with. First, even if they ban stanozolol, the natural steroids are still legal. Of what use is it to do OOC testing if the results are going to be for legal drugs that have to be cleared by race day? Second, what do you do about Fair Hill or Payson? Are horses out of training still subject to testing? I'm not sure racing commissions have jurisdiction at private facilities.

I still have the same issue. If you know - or even have an inkling - illegal juicing is going on, then tell us what substances may be involved and give us the plan to deal with it.



Substance.

Amicar given 3 hours before the race. One hour AFTER lasix was given. 21 hours after the 24 hour rule.

Something tells me the rule was 48 hours in 2000 but I could be mistaken. It's been a while.

A plan to deal with it?

Uphold the rules of racing that I had to know when I took my trainers test.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Which begs the question: Do regulators really need positive tests to shine a spotlight in the right place?.

If all we are looking for is a reason to look, the statistics related to the change in power hitting created probable cause. The tests provided confirmation.

If you're seeing racing as a parallel, are the incidents we identify isolated, or are they, like baseball, part of an identifiable pattern? One way or the other, testing will confirm that.

Mine is a simple question. Which standard is current being violated that we are not testing for?

Just like in baseball, in the absence of a positive test, we don't have a violation. If the use of steroids for horses out of training should be illegal, or at least if there should be standards, racing sends the wrong message by keeping natural steroids as legal.

What I don't buy is the absence of a plan to deal with drugs in racing other than post-race testing. In fact, I've written extensively that finding a violation after the race is official is hardly a victory. But as long as natural anabolic are legal (they are in Hong Kong by the way) the problem is not with trainers who use them. It's with racing's administrators.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

[/b]Substance.

Amicar given 3 hours before the race. One hour AFTER lasix was given. 21 hours after the 24 hour rule.

Something tells me the rule was 48 hours in 2000 but I could be mistaken. It's been a while.

A plan to deal with it?

Uphold the rules of racing that I had to know when I took my trainers test.
Things have changed quite a bit. Check out the current RMTC standards.

http://rmtc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CTS-List-2-25-2016.pdf

Only one substance can be given less than 24 hours before a race. Lasix.

[cj]

If that is a real problem - and if it is, it is almost certainly steroids - you could run an experiment to see if it is revealing. I'd support that. I'll give you a few problems you have to deal with. First, even if they ban stanozolol, the natural steroids are still legal. Of what use is it to do OOC testing if the results are going to be for legal drugs that have to be cleared by race day? Second, what do you do about Fair Hill or Payson? Are horses out of training still subject to testing? I'm not sure racing commissions have jurisdiction at private facilities.

I still have the same issue. If you know - or even have an inkling - illegal juicing is going on, then tell us what substances may be involved and give us the plan to deal with it.

The rest of the sports world and even some.of the horse racing world have dealt with these issues just fine.

[Redboard]

If all we are looking for is a reason to look, the statistics related to the change in power hitting created probable cause. The tests provided confirmation.

If you're seeing racing as a parallel, are the incidents we identify isolated, or are they, like baseball, part of an identifiable pattern? One way or the other, testing will confirm that.

Mine is a simple question. Which standard is current being violated that we are not testing for?

Just like in baseball, in the absence of a positive test, we don't have a violation. If the use of steroids for horses out of training should be illegal, or at least if there should be standards, racing sends the wrong message by keeping natural steroids as legal.

What I don't buy is the absence of a plan to deal with drugs in racing other than post-race testing. In fact, I've written extensively that finding a violation after the race is official is hardly a victory. But as long as natural anabolic are legal (they are in Hong Kong by the way) the problem is not with trainers who use them. It's with racing's administrators.

But off the record give us your personal opinion. Why do you think that some of these trainers (and we all know who they are) do so good off the claim?

[EasyGoer89]

Gus, in one of your posts you mentioned the steroid era in Baseball and Jose Conseco being the only one telling the truth while everybody else was lying.

Rich, in one of your posts you asked for stats.

When I think back about the steroid era in Baseball, perhaps the most telling stat, and the one that immediately pops into my head, was the number of players who suddenly began hitting 50 home runs in a season vs. historical norms.

If you'll recall, early on, nobody in Baseball had (yet) tested positive for steroids, but (eventually) it became obvious to just about everybody what was really going on.

When I look at trainer stats in horse racing - I see a lot of similarities between very early on in the steroid era of Baseball and what is going on (right now) in horse racing.

Very few positive drug tests. But plenty of trainers whose records show ridiculous win rates vs. the historical norms of hall of fame trainers.

Anyone else remember this story about Jane Cibelli from 2013?:

Cibelli Suspended 2 Months for Deadening a Horse’s Leg:
https://horseracingwrongs.com/2013/09/26/cibelli-suspended-2-months-for-deadening-a-horses-leg/



I also found a link about the same story (but with less detail) on The BloodHorse.com site here:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/118424/suspension-track-sanctions-for-cibelli

After reading every post in this thread up to this point, I decided to reach back into my database and take a look at trainer stats for Jane Cibelli from 2013:

Here's what I have in my database for trainer Jane Cibelli at Tampa Bay Downs from opening day of the 2012-2013 meet up through and including the day of the incident:

query start: 1/17/2017 2:13:05 PM
query end: 1/17/2017 2:13:05 PM
elapsed time: 0 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2_2012-2013-2014.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
SQL UDM Plays Report: Hide

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE TRACK='TAM'
AND TRAINER='CIBELLI JANE'
AND [DATE] >= #12-01-2012#
AND [DATE] <= #01-27-2013#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 86.20 67.20 54.10
Bet -66.00 -66.00 -66.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L 20.20 1.20 -11.90

Wins 14 18 19
Plays 33 33 33
PCT .4242 .5455 .5758

ROI 1.3061 1.0182 0.8197
Avg Mut 6.16 3.73 2.85
And here's what I have in my database for trainer Jane Cibelli at Tampa Bay Downs from 01-28-2013 (the day after the incident) through the end of the 2012-2013 meet:

query start: 1/17/2017 1:36:07 PM
query end: 1/17/2017 1:36:07 PM
elapsed time: 0 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2_2012-2013-2014.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
SQL UDM Plays Report: Hide

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE TRACK='TAM'
AND TRAINER='CIBELLI JANE'
AND [DATE] >= #01-28-2013#
AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2013#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 45.80 86.80 88.10
Bet -112.00 -112.00 -112.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -66.20 -25.20 -23.90

Wins 7 21 30
Plays 56 56 56
PCT .1250 .3750 .5357

ROI 0.4089 0.7750 0.7866
Avg Mut 6.54 4.13 2.94

Based on the above stats, it looks like Jane Cibelli went from being a 40 percent trainer to a 12 percent trainer almost overnight.

Which begs the question: Do regulators really need positive tests to shine a spotlight in the right place?


Jeff Platt
President, HANA


.

This is a great post and is outside the box thinking, there is a way to sniff out cheats and get rid of them in ways other than a positive that was detected through blood or urine analysis.

Another way to get rid of the cheats is to issue demerits to owners who are involved with such people. Accumulate a certain amount of demerits and you get punished, an owner feigning ignorance is no excuse, If owners know they will have strikes against them they might think twice about moving Their horses from one known cheat to another.

[appistappis]

Here's a thought....learn the game the way it's played--and has been played for a hundred years--not the way you want it to be played.

Unless you prefer bitching to winning.

exactly, great post......a guy in the casino was complaining one day that the roulette was fixed, that the 0 and 00 spots were bigger than the others.....he asked me if he should call the police or the gaming comission......i said bet the 0 and 00

[EMD4ME]

exactly, great post......a guy in the casino was complaining one day that the roulette was fixed, that the 0 and 00 spots were bigger than the others.....he asked me if he should call the police or the gaming comission......i said bet the 0 and 00

Alright, now I'll bite.

Tell me please, NCG, Appistappis or otherwise:

Have you kept meet long painstaking notes, watched replays 7 days a week (on a 5 day racemeet) every week for years, showed discipline, waited for the right time, plucked down $500 bucks or $1,000 into a $2 pick 6, watch 5 of the races run exactly as you thought they would (with prices), be alive for $50,000-$100,000 and then:

Watch your horse run an awesome race, with a great trip and ride ONLY to run 2nd to an absolute DRUGGED UP, JUICED UP piece of garbage (and I don't mean to demean a horse, I'm talking PP's and talent when I say garbage)?????


Tell me how you would feel IF that was the case.

Tell me how you would feel IF that winner was never handicappable by anyone UNLESS you knew the horse was drugged to the gills.

I'll be waiting.

P.S. I'm not talking about some Oscar Barrera or Gregory Martin 1st off the claim. I'm talking some off the wall trainer who decided to juice once in a while to survive, stay in the game etc.

There is NO way to bet over that horse manure.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

But off the record give us your personal opinion. Why do you think that some of these trainers (and we all know who they are) do so good off the claim?
Personally I'd love to know their secret. And personally, if the track decided to investigate I think it would be in the best interest of racing. And personally, if they found an illegal substance, I'd be fine throwing the book at them.

[EasyGoer89]

Alright, now I'll bite.

Tell me please, NCG, Appistappis or otherwise:

Have you kept meet long painstaking notes, watched replays 7 days a week (on a 5 day racemeet) every week for years, showed discipline, waited for the right time, plucked down $500 bucks or $1,000 into a $2 pick 6, watch 5 of the races run exactly as you thought they would (with prices), be alive for $50,000-$100,000 and then:

Watch your horse run an awesome race, with a great trip and ride ONLY to run 2nd to an absolute DRUGGED UP, JUICED UP piece of garbage (and I don't mean to demean a horse, I'm talking PP's and talent when I say garbage)?????


Tell me how you would feel IF that was the case.

Tell me how you would feel IF that winner was never handicappable by anyone UNLESS you knew the horse was drugged to the gills.

I'll be waiting.

P.S. I'm not talking about some Oscar Barrera or Gregory Martin 1st off the claim. I'm talking some off the wall trainer who decided to juice once in a while to survive, stay in the game etc.

There is NO way to bet over that horse manure.

It really just comes down to Juiced horses are more likely to have money on them from non handicappers who did no work and were fed the juice info. If there was no juicing, everyone would have to work hard to pick winners, I'm a sharing caring kinda guy but I don't want to share my profits with a person who got a whisper on a cheating situation, I'll share If you can come up with the winner legitimately.

[EMD4ME]

It really just comes down to Juiced horses are more likely to have money on them from non handicappers who did no work and were fed the juice info. If there was no juicing, everyone would have to work hard to pick winners, I'm a sharing caring kinda guy but I don't want to share my profits with a person who got a whisper on a cheating situation, I'll share If you can come up with the winner legitimately.

It's rewarding the one who didn't treat the animal's issue with TLC.

It's rewarding the stupid handicapper, who picked the winner by accident.

It's punishing the one who spends the necessary effort to win.

It's simply giving Sosa, McGuire and Bonds the accolades for cheating.

Then you get the Mendez (race 1 ride yesterday) and other subtle stuff and you wonder, how in the world do I survive in this game.....

I don't like to throw dice, pick #'s on a stupid roulette table etc. Betting a horse because you think/know they're juiced is pretty much the same thing. I'd rather wager on races where I SEE that handicapping them thoroughly is a REWARD and that logical winners follow. I've slowly learned not to bet open claimers. I've learned to follow only certain tracks. I've learned to incorporate juicing into my capping (long ago) but just because I do, doesn't mean I like it.

Most will hate this statement. Make the game honest and many of us could never ever work another day in our lives. We'd be rich off of horse racing.

[EasyGoer89]

It's rewarding the one who didn't treat the animal's issue with TLC.

It's rewarding the stupid handicapper, who picked the winner by accident.

It's punishing the one who spends the necessary effort to win.

It's simply giving Sosa, McGuire and Bonds the accolades for cheating.

Then you get the Mendez (race 1 ride yesterday) and other subtle stuff and you wonder, how in the world do I survive in this game.....

I don't like to throw dice, pick #'s on a stupid roulette table etc. Betting a horse because you think/know they're juiced is pretty much the same thing. I'd rather wager on races where I SEE that handicapping them thoroughly is a REWARD and that logical winners follow. I've slowly learned not to bet open claimers. I've learned to follow only certain tracks. I've learned to incorporate juicing into my capping (long ago) but just because I do, doesn't mean I like it.

Most will hate this statement. Make the game honest and many of us could never ever work another day in our lives. We'd be rich off of horse racing.


The 'juice vig' that legitimate bettors have to pay is usually a nice chunk of change at the end of the year. It's like getting beat in the stock market by inside traders, but in Racing it's much more damaging due to the tiny pool sizes, so a racing cheat putting a grand on a horse is probably equivalent to 100 people the bankroll size of warren buffet in the stock market. It's a lot to overcome. Gus preaches this all the time that the takeout in the game being so high has no room for anything less than a 100 pct honest sport and yet, the game charges 'gold' prices while delivering you copper.

[Ruffian1]

exactly, great post......a guy in the casino was complaining one day that the roulette was fixed, that the 0 and 00 spots were bigger than the others.....he asked me if he should call the police or the gaming comission......i said bet the 0 and 00

I really do get that customers cannot possibly understand what it is like to be 100% responsible for 40+ employees, 65+ horses, all the jockeys that ride them as well as all the jockey's that will be behind them, to say nothing about all the families that depend on all those people and forgetting that silly ole integrity of the game stuff that affects everyone involved including you, the bettor.

But to compare the lives of horses and the lives of human beings and their families to a friggin roulette wheel and zeros is so far from what life is about it simply tells me that whoever wrote that and whoever would agree with that has either not thought it through past how much money they might win which in itself shows me how selfish and narrow minded they are, or does not have the capacity to do so. Understanding that it is probably the latter and it is the internet and everyone, no matter how ignorant of reality they might be can have an opinion, I will let it pass.

Maybe this link will help to better understand that horse racing is not roulette. Having witnessed this whole debacle, I hope what I wrote becomes clearer.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjyopHJucrRAhXBKyYKHafVANc4ChAWCB4wAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upi.com%2FArchives%2F1981%2F0 4%2F20%2FA-drugged-horse-falls-and-a-jockey-dies%2F4120356590800%2F&usg=AFQjCNEI4fyBG4K_P1uwsUggaLWfx-yw1A&sig2=IdzgcmngBaNiz2zPs2NfHw

[Nitro]

What is wrong with a bettor wanting a clean game? Can't the two be separate issues?EXACTLY!

The same thing wrong with a trainer who blames the game. A trainer is ultimately in the business of winning horse races--either adapt, change with the game in whatever way necessary...or find another game

Same goes for a horse bettor, store owner, or any other pursuit in life.

They have a saying in the infantry---

"lead, follow, or get out of the way"

A "bettor" wanting a clean game is worried about his bottom line...ultimately.

My position as a "bettor" ...isn't as chaste as wanting a clean game, because it's morally correct.. I doubt any other bettor or trainer's stance is much different.With regard to your post NCG I would be interested in reading your (or anyone else’s) thoughts about how this highly regarded trainer should have dealt with his business and livelihood in light of how it was impacted by drugs:

Quoted from DRF
Gasper Moschera was the New York Racing Association circuit's leading trainer from 1993 through 1998.

But as the new century dawned, Moschera, one of the sharpest claiming trainers in the game, began to fade from the top of the leader board. Now, he has vanished entirely from the Belmont Park backstretch, giving up the game last week after a training career of 25 years. Moschera, 60, said he plans to sell his Floral Park home and move to south Florida. The two horses he had in training have been transferred to Mitch Friedman.

Moschera's business has been in steady decline the last several years. From 1992 to 1998, Moschera averaged 100 wins a year. From 1999 to 2002, he averaged 23 wins a year. In 2002, he won just eight races from 59 starters. His last win came on Aug. 22 at Saratoga with Bar Fly. Since then, he started only six horses.

Moschera traces the beginning of his decline to 1995, when New York became the last racing jurisdiction to permit the use of the anti-bleeding medication Lasix. He said he believes that Lasix, a diuretic, helps mask illegal medications, a development he contends other horsemen have taken advantage of.

"The Lasix was a problem for me," said Moschera. "I didn't want it, but they didn't take a vote on it. There's a lot of [trainers] that win, that didn't win before. I used to run a horse that was 3-5 or 4-5 or 1-2 and you had to beat that horse. Today, it's not like that anymore.'

Moschera, who won 10 Aqueduct training titles and two at Belmont, said he has seen a big difference in the health of the horses he and his primary owner, Barbara Davis, have claimed over the years. "Anything that I claimed in the last couple of years outside of maybe one or two horses, they were broken bones,' Moschera said. "I had to sell them. Most of them, I didn't have a chance to run. It used to be when I claimed 10 horses, maybe you'd get one sore one, two sore ones. Now, maybe out of 50 horses, 45 were no good. Barbara kept putting up money, and they wouldn't train, they wouldn't run. They kept deteriorating.

"It's like I don't know what I'm doing anymore. I'm shelling out all my cash; I have no cash left. I was working just to make payroll and every other bill. I said, that's it. My wife said, 'You're the only one that goes to work and doesn't make money.' '

When Moschera was winning all those races in the 1990's, rumors swirled that he was using illegal substances on his horses, although he never had a drug positive, according to the New York State Racing and Wagering Board.
Moschera won 1,547 races from 8,908 starts, according to Daily Racing Form statistics. He said there was ample opportunity for authorities to catch him if he had been cheating.

"Surely they would have caught me if I was using something,' he said. "I never had a positive; that has to say something. I didn't learn this game with drugs and I never got involved with drugs.'

[appistappis]

I really do get that customers cannot possibly understand what it is like to be 100% responsible for 40+ employees, 65+ horses, all the jockeys that ride them as well as all the jockey's that will be behind them, to say nothing about all the families that depend on all those people and forgetting that silly ole integrity of the game stuff that affects everyone involved including you, the bettor.

But to compare the lives of horses and the lives of human beings and their families to a friggin roulette wheel and zeros is so far from what life is about it simply tells me that whoever wrote that and whoever would agree with that has either not thought it through past how much money they might win which in itself shows me how selfish and narrow minded they are, or does not have the capacity to do so. Understanding that it is probably the latter and it is the internet and everyone, no matter how ignorant of reality they might be can have an opinion, I will let it pass.

Maybe this link will help to better understand that horse racing is not roulette. Having witnessed this whole debacle, I hope what I wrote becomes clearer.
https://www.google.com/url?

sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjyopHJucrRAhXBKyYKHafVANc4ChAWCB4wAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.upi.com%2FArchives%2F1981%2F0 4%2F20%2FA-drugged-horse-falls-and-a-jockey-dies%2F4120356590800%2F&usg=AFQjCNEI4fyBG4K_P1uwsUggaLWfx-yw1A&sig2=IdzgcmngBaNiz2zPs2NfHw

you missed my point, Im not comparing a game of skill to a game of chance, I'm pointing out you have to play with what is given to you

[SuperPickle]

The rest of the sports world and even some.of the horse racing world have dealt with these issues just fine.

I assume you're alluding to Hong Kong and Singapore because they're the only ones racing clean. There's been scandals everywhere else.

The problem is you can't replicate Hong Kong anywhere else. It's a cultural thing. They believe in massive oversight. Massive regulation. Culturally it would never fly here especially with our current political climate. For horse racing to flourish it requires massive oversight and massive subsidies. Do either of those sound like something that would be popular in today's political climate?

To put it another way its easy to make rules. It's expensive to enforce them. Out of competition testing would be super expensive.

How would you fund it? Logically you'd take it off purses. The money for regulation should come out of the pockets of those you need to be regulated. So how do you think a 10-20% purse cut to do out of competition testing would go over with the horseman and owners at your local track?

The reality is everyone on the backstretch says they want clean racing but no one on the backstretch REALLY wants clean racing.

[Track Phantom]

I was very much hoping to read this thread and see that common sense prevails. Instead, I could only get half-way through with the same people drilling down to the granular level of the drugs, idiotic responses about needing failed test results and typical back and forth oneupmansship.

Is there cheating going on? Yes.
Is the cheating bigger than we probably imagine? Yes.
Are so-called clean trainers taking an edge (illegal or not yet identified as illegal)? Yes.
Will we see failed test results to see it as fact? No. (The cheaters have found a way to get past the post race testing and the sport has neither the financial means or desire to "clean it up").

Forget about all of this absolute proof to make a point. Use common sense. It is illogical to think the same trainers can claim horses off of anyone and move up maiden claimers to graded stakes winners consistently.

I've long given up on giving a shit about this issue. The sport won't change it. The trainers/owners/vets/riders that are a part of the cheating are not going to police themselves. It's NEVER going to change. EVER.

So, either live with the game as is and stop wasting cycles trying to push for a change (if it didn't change when Eight Belles died on the track after running 2nd in the Ky Derby and the Dutrow/Big Brown fiasco, it's never changing) or give up the game.

Two options.

[SuperPickle]

Most will hate this statement. Make the game honest and many of us could never ever work another day in our lives. We'd be rich off of horse racing.


WOW EMD has finally reached the Mount Everest of dumb statements. Do we have a parade? Does he do a George Costanza and leave the forum on a high note? There's simply no where to go from here. This is his Mona Lisa of posts. His legacy.

[Hambletonian]

Reminds me of Harvey Pack at the Paddock Club,many years ago. A bettor asked him what are you going to do about Oscar Barerra ? He answered,I don't know what you are going to do,but I am going to be betting on his horses.
You must know how the game is being played !!!

Here is the winning theory that will explain why there will be little if any horse racing left in the US 10-20 years from now.

Just profit from the knowledge of the goings on, don't worry about the right or wrong of it. That worked when racing was the primary way for governments to tax gamblers, but they have way, way better methods now.

Not only does PETA want to end racing, so do many of the venues. The money generated by horse racing for the states is the equivalent of the change you find under your seat cushion, so don't expect state governments to step up and save racing. And at the end of the day the general public is only going to look at the miscreants, and the entire industry will be evaluated on its lukewarm response to matters involving the integrity of the industry.

Meanwhile, just keep on fiddling while Rome burns. Trainers and horseplayers will be the last two groups on the Titanic, no doubt.

[Track Phantom]

Gus, in one of your posts you mentioned the steroid era in Baseball and Jose Conseco being the only one telling the truth while everybody else was lying.

Rich, in one of your posts you asked for stats.

When I think back about the steroid era in Baseball, perhaps the most telling stat, and the one that immediately pops into my head, was the number of players who suddenly began hitting 50 home runs in a season vs. historical norms.

If you'll recall, early on, nobody in Baseball had (yet) tested positive for steroids, but (eventually) it became obvious to just about everybody what was really going on.

When I look at trainer stats in horse racing - I see a lot of similarities between very early on in the steroid era of Baseball and what is going on (right now) in horse racing.

Very few positive drug tests. But plenty of trainers whose records show ridiculous win rates vs. the historical norms of hall of fame trainers.

Anyone else remember this story about Jane Cibelli from 2013?:

Cibelli Suspended 2 Months for Deadening a Horse’s Leg:
https://horseracingwrongs.com/2013/09/26/cibelli-suspended-2-months-for-deadening-a-horses-leg/



I also found a link about the same story (but with less detail) on The BloodHorse.com site here:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/118424/suspension-track-sanctions-for-cibelli

After reading every post in this thread up to this point, I decided to reach back into my database and take a look at trainer stats for Jane Cibelli from 2013:

Here's what I have in my database for trainer Jane Cibelli at Tampa Bay Downs from opening day of the 2012-2013 meet up through and including the day of the incident:

query start: 1/17/2017 2:13:05 PM
query end: 1/17/2017 2:13:05 PM
elapsed time: 0 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2_2012-2013-2014.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
SQL UDM Plays Report: Hide

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE TRACK='TAM'
AND TRAINER='CIBELLI JANE'
AND [DATE] >= #12-01-2012#
AND [DATE] <= #01-27-2013#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 86.20 67.20 54.10
Bet -66.00 -66.00 -66.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L 20.20 1.20 -11.90

Wins 14 18 19
Plays 33 33 33
PCT .4242 .5455 .5758

ROI 1.3061 1.0182 0.8197
Avg Mut 6.16 3.73 2.85
And here's what I have in my database for trainer Jane Cibelli at Tampa Bay Downs from 01-28-2013 (the day after the incident) through the end of the 2012-2013 meet:

query start: 1/17/2017 1:36:07 PM
query end: 1/17/2017 1:36:07 PM
elapsed time: 0 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2_2012-2013-2014.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None
SQL UDM Plays Report: Hide

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE TRACK='TAM'
AND TRAINER='CIBELLI JANE'
AND [DATE] >= #01-28-2013#
AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2013#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 45.80 86.80 88.10
Bet -112.00 -112.00 -112.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -66.20 -25.20 -23.90

Wins 7 21 30
Plays 56 56 56
PCT .1250 .3750 .5357

ROI 0.4089 0.7750 0.7866
Avg Mut 6.54 4.13 2.94

Based on the above stats, it looks like Jane Cibelli went from being a 40 percent trainer to a 12 percent trainer almost overnight.

Which begs the question: Do regulators really need positive tests to shine a spotlight in the right place?


Jeff Platt
President, HANA


.
I love this post. I've seen this happen many times. Does anyone remember when Jamie Ness went something like 1 for 132 after some violation? My memory is weak on this but I do recall this HOF, better-than-Whittingham, master of training, Jamie Ness had a run that is impossible to have if you spend your life winning at near 40%.

Common sense. Common sense. Common sense. Where has it gone? If someone wants to debate what is being used to get these results, fine. But if anyone is honestly going to say these guys are winning cleanly, I check out of those discussions.

We are in the "data analysis-formulate a hypothesis" game when it comes to handicapping. The same methodology can be used to draw conclusions on what is happening with these high percentage outfits.

[Ruffian1]

you missed my point, Im not comparing a game of skill to a game of chance, I'm pointing out you have to play with what is given to you

And at what cost?

Changing who you are and what you feel is right. How you were taught to see right from wrong.

Cheating and breaking rules to keep playing?

Not allowing compassion for the people you work with and their families to be considered for the sake of a race and the possibility of winning?

Living with the results of the link I provided but writing it off to "lead, follow or get out of the way"?

Cute words but real life and reality quickly override that nonsense.

Seeing Bobby's family after the fact would cure most of that.

So for me it was no thanks.

Sorry if I missed your point. This whole subject hits real close to home for me.

[SuperPickle]

I was very much hoping to read this thread and see that common sense prevails. Instead, I could only get half-way through with the same people drilling down to the granular level of the drugs, idiotic responses about needing failed test results and typical back and forth oneupmansship.

Is there cheating going on? Yes.
Is the cheating bigger than we probably imagine? Yes.
Are so-called clean trainers taking an edge (illegal or not yet identified as illegal)? Yes.
Will we see failed test results to see it as fact? No. (The cheaters have found a way to get past the post race testing and the sport has neither the financial means or desire to "clean it up").

Forget about all of this absolute proof to make a point. Use common sense. It is illogical to think the same trainers can claim horses off of anyone and move up maiden claimers to graded stakes winners consistently.

I've long given up on giving a shit about this issue. The sport won't change it. The trainers/owners/vets/riders that are a part of the cheating are not going to police themselves. It's NEVER going to change. EVER.

So, either live with the game as is and stop wasting cycles trying to push for a change (if it didn't change when Eight Belles died on the track after running 2nd in the Ky Derby and the Dutrow/Big Brown fiasco, it's never changing) or give up the game.

Two options.


He's right. The amount of money and regulation it would cost to clean this game up is counter productive. Its never going to happen. There's less than 10 racetracks in the U.S. who are firm on long-term financial ground. All the others are fighting off being shopping malls or apartments by 2025. Do you think massive out of competition testing is something they'd do?

[EMD4ME]

WOW EMD has finally reached the Mount Everest of dumb statements. Do we have a parade? Does he do a George Costanza and leave the forum on a high note? There's simply no where to go from here. This is his Mona Lisa of posts. His legacy.

Not my fault, I win despite all the "cheating".

Yes Superpickle, if all races were on the up and up, I'd make more than I do working.

Don't forget, I make sizeable wagers in picks. It only 1 takes 1 no go, 1 juice job to screw me.

(It happened closing holiday weekend at the BIG A. Good ol Jason Servis turned a complete stopper into a freak in the penultimate race of the day. )

Only cost me about $35,000.

You don't like that (that yes, I can make 6 figures yearly), too bad. Let your ego learn to deal with it.

That horse was so hopped up, if you watch the race, you would swear the horse broke the gate open as they were dispatched.

[appistappis]

And at what cost?

Changing who you are and what you feel is right. How you were taught to see right from wrong.

Cheating and breaking rules to keep playing?

Not allowing compassion for the people you work with and their families to be considered for the sake of a race and the possibility of winning?

Living with the results of the link I provided but writing it off to "lead, follow or get out of the way"?

Cute words but real life and reality quickly override that nonsense.

Seeing Bobby's family after the fact would cure most of that.


So for me it was no thanks.

Sorry if I missed your point. This whole subject hits real close to home for me.


hits close to home for a lot of us who are close to the game....but i have to separate my feelings in a attempt to make money off of it.....so thats what I do.

[cj]

I assume you're alluding to Hong Kong and Singapore because they're the only ones racing clean. There's been scandals everywhere else.



Ass/u/me

[SuperPickle]

Ass/u/me

Alright I'm stumped. Where is this clean racing?

[SuperPickle]

Not my fault, I win despite all the "cheating".

Yes Superpickle, if all races were on the up and up, I'd make more than I do working.

Don't forget, I make sizeable wagers in picks. It only 1 takes 1 no go, 1 juice job to screw me.

(It happened closing holiday weekend at the BIG A. Good ol Jason Servis turned a complete stopper into a freak in the penultimate race of the day. )

Only cost me about $35,000.

You don't like that (that yes, I can make 6 figures yearly), too bad. Let your ego learn to deal with it.

That horse was so hopped up, if you watch the race, you would swear the horse broke the gate open as they were dispatched.


There's like 50 different things wrong with your logic but I'll take the lowest piece of fruit on the tree of insanity.

Your silly statement isn't a hypothetical. Hong Kong racing by all accounts is the cleanest racing you can pretty much get until Jesus opens Heaven's Downs. And its has huge pools. Lots of betting options. Available through most of U.S. ADWs. Clean racing exists. So if you think "juicing" (which some would simply label as horses EMD didn't come up with on his pick 5 tickets) costs you lots of money why are you betting NYRA and not Hong Kong.

Because I don't know but if someone claimed "juicing" costed them lots of money and there a track that didn't featured this "juicing" and the person still bet the track with the "juicing" and not the track without the "juicing" some people might question the intelligence of that individual.

Just me using the logic of a child.

[Spalding No!]

It is possible that there are effective PEDs for which tests have not been developed, but not likely.
Why not likely? Are you suggesting that there are no designer PEDs out there that were not originally developed and approved under federal regulations? The Department of Justice seems to be concerned about clandestine laboratories and you yourself mentioned BALCO, but yet you say its unlikely that effective PEDs exist that don't already have tests developed for their detection?

Doesn't a low post-race testing violation rate mean the same thing? And doesn't a low post-race testing violation rate mean that out-of-competition testing will also show a low rate, perhaps even making it a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere?
No, post-race testing and out-of-competition testing complement one another, they don't necessarily overlap. The main purpose of OOC testing is to deter the use of banned substances, as cj pointed out, those that clear the system at the time of performance but have long-lasting effects that enhance performance.

The inference in the article is that without out-of-competition testing, the post race violation rate will skyrocket.
OOC testing is the only mechanism to enforce the regulations on banned substances, so no it is not a waste of money. Whether violations would skyrocket or not were it abandoned is another matter. It would certainly be a step backwards, as known PEDs or other banned substances might re-emerge with lack of enforcement.

I won't say a lot about that, other than Gorajec was on a crusade to get Ross Russell. There is quite a bit to that story that never came out, but it is reasonable to say it helped hasten his demise.
Meanwhile you ignore the point of the reference, that it was indeed evidence of an instance (actually, it was systematic and long-standing) of "cheating" that you seem skeptical of.

If there is a poster boy for the ills of racing, Penn National may be it.
There you have it. Rampant, widespread cheating. Is it unique to this one jurisdiction?

And there is the rub. Speculation without facts serves no one well.
1999: At Saratoga, the odds-on favorite for a graded stakes was illegally treated on raceday at Saratoga by a veterinarian (and subsequently a licensed-trainer). The horse was scratched by the NY stewards. The trainer passed the buck and said he wasn't on the grounds and that the vet--who was based in KY--wasn't his regular vet...never mind that said trainer also had a string training in KY at the time. Drug in question was a creatine-based product.

The trainer also told the media repeatedly that the horse was scratched due to a fever, then later recanted when the truth came out. When asked why he lied to the press about a fever his response was to the effect of, "It just came to my mind. What was I supposed to say?"

2004: At Belmont a horse was illegally treated on raceday in NY and subsequently scratched. The claim was that the horse supposed to have been scratched by the trainer prior to the injection but that the vet treated the horse (for what purpose if the horse wasn't supposed to be running is not clear) before that happened. The drug in question was calcium-based, commonly used to "calm" horses prior to competition--again, the horse was supposedly not going to run.

2007: At Del Mar, a horse entered in a stakes was scratched after it was administered a substance orally. The connections identified the substance as anti-ulcer medication and also admitted that it was illegal to administer on raceday. Horse was scratched.

2007: At Del Mar, a Grade 1 entrant was scratched after it was administered a substance orally on raceday. The trainer was shocked it was subsequently scratched and claimed not to know the rules regarding raceday administration of substances and furthermore claimed that all 6,000+ of his previous winners over the years were treated the same way. Substance was a glycerine-based throat spray.

2009: At Aqueduct, a graded stakes horse was scratched when it was administered a substance orally on raceday. The trainer claimed he didn't know the rules in NY and that it was a standard "pre-race" treatment for his runners in CA...never mind that such administration was also illegal in CA. Substance was Air Power, a common treatment for throat issues. When asked if the horse had a throat issue, the trainer said it did not. When asked why then did he give the substance he replied, "Why do you wear socks underneath your shoes?"

2013: At Hollywood and Del Mar, two runners tested positive for overages of testosterone. Both horses in question were fillies, and yet they tested for overages of male hormone. The positives were traced to a feed supplement called "Equine-BOLIC" which claimed to enhance muscle mass and speed. The supplement was obtained from the internet. The trainer was shocked to be suspended and fined.

These instances say a lot. First, all occurred on major circuits. Second, they showed flagrant disregard or feigned ignorance for the rules of sanctioned racing. Third, in some cases they suggest a standard protocol of administering these substances on raceday (w/in the 24-hour cutoff of most jurisdictions). Fourth, they show a pathologic adherence to a "pre-race" mentality where all horses, regardless of condition, are treated with medication.

This last highlight shows why the apologetic "just following the withdrawal guidelines" doesn't hold water. Throwing the kitchen sink at a horse and/or purposefully giving medication at the last possible moment in order to clear a post-race test to me seems indicative of someone who is actively seeking an edge (regardless of whether the substance in question is truly beneficial/performance enhancing or not). The sad part is, most of the substances used illegally are useless for performance, but the fact that they're used shows the mentality and intention of the people involved.

If there is rampant cheating, then give us a plan to root it out.
As far as the Mickey Mouse stuff goes, the ideal would be to be able to identify illegal administration at the time of treatment (i.e., stall side). It is essentially immaterial what substance is being given if it is done illegally. Such horses should be declared from competing and there should be strict penalties.

As far as PEDs and banned substances goes, it will always be cat-and-mouse. Things like EPO, dermorphin, and cobalt come and then go once they become detectable in blood and urine samples. Hair testing and retrospective testing of frozen samples would add support to the current system if the techniques could be perfected (and funded).

[cj]

Alright I'm stumped. Where is this clean racing?

I never said racing was totally clean anywhere. Rich gave some reasons OOC would be hard. I said others have and are doing it, including horse racing. There are places other than Hong Kong and Japan doing this.

[EMD4ME]

There's like 50 different things wrong with your logic but I'll take the lowest piece of fruit on the tree of insanity.

Your silly statement isn't a hypothetical. Hong Kong racing by all accounts is the cleanest racing you can pretty much get until Jesus opens Heaven's Downs. And its has huge pools. Lots of betting options. Available through most of U.S. ADWs. Clean racing exists. So if you think "juicing" (which some would simply label as horses EMD didn't come up with on his pick 5 tickets) costs you lots of money why are you betting NYRA and not Hong Kong.

Because I don't know but if someone claimed "juicing" costed them lots of money and there a track that didn't featured this "juicing" and the person still bet the track with the "juicing" and not the track without the "juicing" some people might question the intelligence of that individual.

Just me using the logic of a child.

It would take me a year to study Hong Kong racing. Plus I'm not up in the wee hours as much anymore.

Call me crazy but I like to wager at the tracks that are 10 minutes from home, that I grew up at since I was 6. I've adjusted and only follow a select few. You ever wonder why I wager on the tracks I do? I don't remember the last time I watched a race at Emerald or Portland and said, WOW, how did that horse win? OR WOW, that horse was juiced to the gills.

You're obviously miffed at me, so I don't see any point to our interactions.

Continue your view from high up "there" and continue enjoying the blissful denial you're in :ThmbUp:

[SuperPickle]

It would take me a year to study Hong Kong racing. Plus I'm not up in the wee hours as much anymore.

Call me crazy but I like to wager at the tracks that are 10 minutes from home, that I grew up at since I was 6. I've adjusted and only follow a select few. You ever wonder why I wager on the tracks I do? I don't remember the last time I watched a race at Emerald or Portland and said, WOW, how did that horse win? OR WOW, that horse was juiced to the gills.

You're obviously miffed at me, so I don't see any point to our interactions.

Continue your view from high up "there" and continue enjoying the blissful denial you're in :ThmbUp:


I don't have any problem with you. I actually enjoy you being here. I enjoy pointing out b.s. when you state b.s. And there's nothing more b.s. that the statement "I would win more money with if they didn't juice."

Aside from my above statement of why not bet the cleanest track and prove it out here's another reason its b.s.

If Patrick Biancone thing taught us anything is we have no idea who's clean. So when you say juicing us costing you money the reality is you have no idea who was juicing. Biancone was a top trainer in Hong Kong the cleanest racing on earth. He took All Along a filly to four Grade's One's in open company including the Arc in three countries in 41 days. It's possibly the greatest example of horsemanship in the history of the game. But yet he was "juicing."

So Patrick Biancone taught us anyone is suspect. Anyone can be "juicing." So the idea you can pinpoint who's "juicing" and know how this is costing you money is simply impossible.

The reality is none of us know. So you don't know what its costing you.

[BCOURTNEY]

<snip>
Based on the above stats, it looks like Jane Cibelli went from being a 40 percent trainer to a 12 percent trainer almost overnight.

Which begs the question: Do regulators really need positive tests to shine a spotlight in the right place?

<snip>


Perfect. When six sigma events occur this should be the clue. :ThmbUp:

[Grits]

They are at Fairgrounds on NCIS New Orleans. There discussing juicing horses. Performance drugs like cobalt.

We are so screwed!!!!!!!!!

[cj]

They are at Fairgrounds on NCIS New Orleans. There discussing juicing horses. Performance drugs like cobalt.

We are so screwed!!!!!!!!!

I watched a few minutes and heard the guy was going to bet two million on a horse at the Fair Grounds and that you "could bet any sport" through an OTB. That was enough for me. :)

[thaskalos]

I watched a few minutes and heard the guy was going to bet two million on a horse at the Fair Grounds and that you "could bet any sport" through an OTB. That was enough for me. :)

I wonder if that was Cratos...

[EasyGoer89]

I watched a few minutes and heard the guy was going to bet two million on a horse at the Fair Grounds and that you "could bet any sport" through an OTB. That was enough for me. :)

Lol FG can't handle 2 million pennies much less 2 million dollars! :D

[Grits]

I watched a few minutes and heard the guy was going to bet two million on a horse at the Fair Grounds and that you "could bet any sport" through an OTB. That was enough for me. :)

I know I laughed my butt off when I heard it. :lol: Did you hear Pride say, "Let it ride" when he was in the van and the team asked him about moving in? At least they got that line right.

I coulda cried on hearing COBALT. ... Our game can't catch a break! :(

[Grits]

I wonder if that was Cratos...

It coulda been. Cratos or EMD, either one. Both got deep pockets you know...

SRU, that was the other reason I laughed.... 2 Mill.

It was good amusement for an hour. :lol:

[EasyGoer89]

It coulda been. Cratos or EMD, either one. Both got deep pockets you know...

SRU, that was the other reason I laughed.... 2 Mill.

It was good amusement for an hour. :lol:

Yes, coulda been EMD, in fact, it probably was! :D

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Why not likely? Are you suggesting that there are no designer PEDs out there that were not originally developed and approved under federal regulations? The Department of Justice seems to be concerned about clandestine laboratories and you yourself mentioned BALCO, but yet you say its unlikely that effective PEDs exist that don't already have tests developed for their detection?
What even speculative proof do you have that there are designer PEDs floating around out there? The designer-drugs-are-rampant folks have a pretty easy sell without the slightest amount of actual proof. It happened once, it can happen again. However, for the most part, as I said, this is BS. A few things intervene for me. One, testing machines are far more sophisticated than they were even a few years ago. Two, scientists have a much greater idea what to look for. It's not like there is one smart guy designing these substances and scientists everywhere else are scratching their heads about what these substances could possibly look like. Three, why do you need designer PEDs when you have perfectly legal natural steroids? You only want designer drugs when you are trying to avoid detection, but when detection doesn't mean violation, you are really dependent on designer drugs. The thing about catching designer labs, is that the good guys learn. Like I said, do what I've done and ask the experts. Humans are not horses, and human standards don't necessarily parallel equine standards. You have access to the Rick's. Go get an opinion from them.


No, post-race testing and out-of-competition testing complement one another, they don't necessarily overlap. The main purpose of OOC testing is to deter the use of banned substances, as cj pointed out, those that clear the system at the time of performance but have long-lasting effects that enhance performance.
Well, at least you think they would use substances that we can identify. Good luck designing the program. Let me tell you the major issue with your OOC. You don't have to use illegal substances or designer drugs because it is perfectly legal to use natural steroids. This is unlike other sports where the use is illegal (for most athletes, but not all). So if you get a positive for testosterone for a horse not scheduled to run, you haven't broken a racing law. OOC is useful if you are testing for actual illegal substances or if you have chart for acceptable levels based on withdrawal times. I'll say it again. Why use illegal substances when you can use natural substances that are legal?

OOC testing is the only mechanism to enforce the regulations on banned substances, so no it is not a waste of money. Whether violations would skyrocket or not were it abandoned is another matter. It would certainly be a step backwards, as known PEDs or other banned substances might re-emerge with lack of enforcement.
Since PED use is rampant, I'm sure we'll get them all. You have inside access. Give me an idea if the one-half of one percent that come up positive is indicative of what we would find with OOC testing. And since you are in a position to know, how many corrupt trainers and vets do you think are out there? Just an educated guess. How rampant is illegal steroid use pre-race?

1999: At Saratoga, the odds-on favorite for a graded stakes was illegally treated on raceday at Saratoga by a veterinarian (and subsequently a licensed-trainer). The horse was scratched by the NY stewards. The trainer passed the buck and said he wasn't on the grounds and that the vet--who was based in KY--wasn't his regular vet...never mind that said trainer also had a string training in KY at the time. Drug in question was a creatine-based product.

The trainer also told the media repeatedly that the horse was scratched due to a fever, then later recanted when the truth came out. When asked why he lied to the press about a fever his response was to the effect of, "It just came to my mind. What was I supposed to say?"

2004: At Belmont a horse was illegally treated on raceday in NY and subsequently scratched. The claim was that the horse supposed to have been scratched by the trainer prior to the injection but that the vet treated the horse (for what purpose if the horse wasn't supposed to be running is not clear) before that happened. The drug in question was calcium-based, commonly used to "calm" horses prior to competition--again, the horse was supposedly not going to run.

2007: At Del Mar, a horse entered in a stakes was scratched after it was administered a substance orally. The connections identified the substance as anti-ulcer medication and also admitted that it was illegal to administer on raceday. Horse was scratched.

2007: At Del Mar, a Grade 1 entrant was scratched after it was administered a substance orally on raceday. The trainer was shocked it was subsequently scratched and claimed not to know the rules regarding raceday administration of substances and furthermore claimed that all 6,000+ of his previous winners over the years were treated the same way. Substance was a glycerine-based throat spray.

2009: At Aqueduct, a graded stakes horse was scratched when it was administered a substance orally on raceday. The trainer claimed he didn't know the rules in NY and that it was a standard "pre-race" treatment for his runners in CA...never mind that such administration was also illegal in CA. Substance was Air Power, a common treatment for throat issues. When asked if the horse had a throat issue, the trainer said it did not. When asked why then did he give the substance he replied, "Why do you wear socks underneath your shoes?"

2013: At Hollywood and Del Mar, two runners tested positive for overages of testosterone. Both horses in question were fillies, and yet they tested for overages of male hormone. The positives were traced to a feed supplement called "Equine-BOLIC" which claimed to enhance muscle mass and speed. The supplement was obtained from the internet. The trainer was shocked to be suspended and fined.

These instances say a lot. First, all occurred on major circuits. Second, they showed flagrant disregard or feigned ignorance for the rules of sanctioned racing. Third, in some cases they suggest a standard protocol of administering these substances on raceday (w/in the 24-hour cutoff of most jurisdictions). Fourth, they show a pathologic adherence to a "pre-race" mentality where all horses, regardless of condition, are treated with medication.

This last highlight shows why the apologetic "just following the withdrawal guidelines" doesn't hold water. Throwing the kitchen sink at a horse and/or purposefully giving medication at the last possible moment in order to clear a post-race test to me seems indicative of someone who is actively seeking an edge (regardless of whether the substance in question is truly beneficial/performance enhancing or not). The sad part is, most of the substances used illegally are useless for performance, but the fact that they're used shows the mentality and intention of the people involved.


As far as the Mickey Mouse stuff goes, the ideal would be to be able to identify illegal administration at the time of treatment (i.e., stall side). It is essentially immaterial what substance is being given if it is done illegally. Such horses should be declared from competing and there should be strict penalties.

As far as PEDs and banned substances goes, it will always be cat-and-mouse. Things like EPO, dermorphin, and cobalt come and then go once they become detectable in blood and urine samples. Hair testing and retrospective testing of frozen samples would add support to the current system if the techniques could be perfected (and funded).

One half of one percent. Includes all the idiots you mentioned above. I've certainly never contended that the problem is any less than it is. Just that there isn't any proof it is more than what it is.

I know for a fact you aren't ignorant. Fillies and mares have natural testosterone levels, horses have natural estrogen levels. Now there are people here who read that two fillies were found with excess testosterone levels and assumed given your horror, that it is not naturally occurring. Even Hong Kong has a standard for it. There is not a single example you cited where I have a problem with the trainer being punished. Of course since 1999 we've run over a million races in North America, so there is little remarkable about violations.

I also know that you are knowledgeable enough to understand the limited value of EPO and cobalt in most horses, and it would be nice if you could note that so some of the less well educated on the issues could benefit.

I'm sure you also know that most supplements are NOT illegal, and that given the way rules are written, other substances are not illegal as long as they don't show up in post race testing.

[Spalding No!]

What even speculative proof do you have that there are designer PEDs floating around out there? The designer-drugs-are-rampant folks have a pretty easy sell without the slightest amount of actual proof. It happened once, it can happen again. However, for the most part, as I said, this is BS.
From a 2008 study of designer supplements:

The present study again shows that products, containing unapproved steroids that have already been synthesized in the 1960s, nowadays appear on the market of sport supplements, often labeled as “dietary supplement”, even though the products have to be classified as non-licensed pharmaceuticals.

In addition to the enormous health risks, consumers should be aware of the doping risks connected with the use of such products.

From a 2016 review of designer steroids in horses:

The rapid increase in the prevalence of designer anabolic steroids present in ‘dietary’ and ‘nutritional’ supplements available online containing untested and unapproved anabolic agents, or the more recent emergence of selective androgen receptormodulators (SARMs) is likely to pose a significant threat to the integrity of the industry if left unchecked. Both drug classes present several problems for anti-doping laboratories resulting from their widely variable structures that will need to be addressed in the future.

A few things intervene for me. One, testing machines are far more sophisticated than they were even a few years ago.
Still have to be told what to look for.

Two, scientists have a much greater idea what to look for. It's not like there is one smart guy designing these substances and scientists everywhere else are scratching their heads about what these substances could possibly look like.
Yeah, it's more likely that there are a bunch of smart guys designing and synthesizing these drugs. That doesn't mean that anti-doping authorities are spending time and money trying to create designer drugs, too. This isn't the Cold War.

Three, why do you need designer PEDs when you have perfectly legal natural steroids? You only want designer drugs when you are trying to avoid detection
Because you have to report administration of legal natural steroids and are restricted from entering your horse for a certain length of time. You're telling me there is no place for an undetectable designer PED in an environment where using legal medications can keep you out of the entry box for up to 6 months?

This is laughable.

Let me tell you the major issue with your OOC. You don't have to use illegal substances or designer drugs because it is perfectly legal to use natural steroids. So if you get a positive for testosterone for a horse not scheduled to run, you haven't broken a racing law. I'll say it again. Why use illegal substances when you can use natural substances that are legal?
I'm still laughing.

I've certainly never contended that the problem is any less than it is. Just that there isn't any proof it is more than what it is.
Well, proof to you seems to be restricted to only detection on blood and/or urine tests. Given that, I guess people only starting using EPO, dermorphin, and cobalt, after testing was developed to detect those substances?

I just got done laughing...

I know for a fact you aren't ignorant. Fillies and mares have natural testosterone levels, horses have natural estrogen levels. Now there are people here who read that two fillies were found with excess testosterone levels and assumed given your horror, that it is not naturally occurring.
No they aren't. Don't try and blow smoke. The horses, both female, tested for excessive amounts of testosterone. They are probably thinking, what sort of miscreant and/or nimrod would give exogenous testosterone to a filly? whether or not they also knew that fillies have some levels of testosterone naturally.

I also know that you are knowledgeable enough to understand the limited value of EPO and cobalt in most horses, and it would be nice if you could note that so some of the less well educated on the issues could benefit.
More smoke. It doesn't matter if these drugs don't actually have the effect their users purport. In the case of the former, it is banned outright. Period. If you have it or used it, you have done something very illegal.

And just so we don't forget about the horse in general, never mind its athletic performance, both of those drugs can have serious side effects. You asked what good is EPO for a horse that already has a high reserve of red blood cells in its spleen? That's questionable, but what is known is that EPO still increases red blood cell parameters in such horses at rest and as a result can cause serious issues with blood viscosity, namely sudden death. Have we had any issues with aberrant spikes in sudden death recently?

I'm sure you also know that most supplements are NOT illegal, and that given the way rules are written, other substances are not illegal as long as they don't show up in post race testing.
Brilliant. So if I have a dietary supplement and I load it with unapproved steroids and then start to sell it or use it, I have done nothing illegal. Obviously you don't concern yourself with federal regulations regarding controlled substances and labeling compliance.

[CosmicWon]

I was very much hoping to read this thread and see that common sense prevails. Instead, I could only get half-way through with the same people drilling down to the granular level of the drugs, idiotic responses about needing failed test results and typical back and forth oneupmansship.

Is there cheating going on? Yes.
Is the cheating bigger than we probably imagine? Yes.
Are so-called clean trainers taking an edge (illegal or not yet identified as illegal)? Yes.
Will we see failed test results to see it as fact? No. (The cheaters have found a way to get past the post race testing and the sport has neither the financial means or desire to "clean it up").

Forget about all of this absolute proof to make a point. Use common sense. It is illogical to think the same trainers can claim horses off of anyone and move up maiden claimers to graded stakes winners consistently.

I've long given up on giving a shit about this issue. The sport won't change it. The trainers/owners/vets/riders that are a part of the cheating are not going to police themselves. It's NEVER going to change. EVER.

So, either live with the game as is and stop wasting cycles trying to push for a change (if it didn't change when Eight Belles died on the track after running 2nd in the Ky Derby and the Dutrow/Big Brown fiasco, it's never changing) or give up the game.

Two options.


I'm almost to this point too. Clearly we all want clean sport and the horses to be looked after but how these laborious essays, month after month for years now, written by people who can actually make things happen (like The Jockey Club) keep getting published feels so lazy and self-indulgent. (This Paulick one today was pretty dreadful. like the writer should at least pretend to come correct with some facts if he's going to write such Grade A pious bloviating)

Like what are WE, the poor, dumb racing hoi palloi supposed to do about this supposed rampant drug problem? Do I look like the police?! That's what yall relentless op-ed writers (Jim Gagliano, i'm looking at you) are supposed to be fixing, not us!

The people at The Jockey Club, TOBA, etc are supposed to be so powerful that they've deluded themselves into thinking they can just head to Washington and get some pie in the sky piece of legislation passed on Medication Reform and yet still have to continue to appeal to little ol' me to get stuff done?! Gimme a break.

I'm so over this drug stuff and it's because they keep trying to ram it down our throats all the while they continue to get nothing accomplished either within the industry or at the governmental levels. Until they show some actual progress on catching all these "cheaters" they insist are out there, I'm not interested in hearing more about WADA and OTC or any other junk they feel like is a travesty because there is nothing I can do and I'm not about to do their jobs for them.

Make it happen, Jockey Club. You're on the clock...

[ultracapper]

This is a great post and is outside the box thinking, there is a way to sniff out cheats and get rid of them in ways other than a positive that was detected through blood or urine analysis.

Another way to get rid of the cheats is to issue demerits to owners who are involved with such people. Accumulate a certain amount of demerits and you get punished, an owner feigning ignorance is no excuse, If owners know they will have strikes against them they might think twice about moving Their horses from one known cheat to another.

Can't punish the owners. They won't stand for it. The shortage of owners in the game is only eclipsed by the shortage of horses. Start coming down on owners, and they'll just leave the game all together. It's as hard for an owner to "get out" for the year as it is a handicapper. Start making things difficult for them and the owners that put 50, 100, 200 thousand bucks a year into what amounts to a social hobby will dry up from the small trickle that they are at this time.

The industry has a big challenge, one that I don't see it addressing nearly enough, in making horse ownership appealing.

The trainers are the ones, if they learn and ply their trade effectively, that can make a very nice living at their job. The buck has to stop with them, and they need to be encouraged to become good horsemen.

[Fager Fan]

I'm not going to suggest trainers don't use EPO. But, I think EPO is one of the most overblown issues in racing. This from the California boys, Scott Stanley and Rick Arthur

But the fact is that EPO positives are rarely triggered. California, which probably has the country’s most vigilant system in place to detect EPO use, hasn’t had an EPO positive in years. “It’s something we frequently look for and rarely see,” said Stanley. “It’s certainly a lot rarer than other drugs we’ve seen.”
Arthur agreed. “We have not seen any evidence of EPO use in California,” he said samples for EPO. Over the last six years, we've done well over 5,000 samples. And we've seen virtually no use of EPO use out here.”

Second, it is almost all but absent in thoroughbreds. If any trainer is using it, it is most likely for harness horses.

Third, I've mentioned this multiple times, although it is like pulling teeth to get people to believe it. Horses have contractile spleens. You can read about it here.

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/pdf/magazine/Magazine-DrugsinRacing-PartIV.pdf

The bottom line is that most vets and equine pharmacologists believe EPO doesn't have much effect if any, and the article cites the reasons why.

Only 5000 tests in 6 years? That's 833 a year, and 2.28 a day. Shouldn't it be 4 times that if they test only the winner? And they should be testing others than just the winner.

If racing wants to make us believe thatvracing is clean, why not prove it with total transparency? Why not post publicly every horse tested and what was tested for?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Only 5000 tests in 6 years? That's 833 a year, and 2.28 a day. Shouldn't it be 4 times that if they test only the winner? And they should be testing others than just the winner.

If racing wants to make us believe thatvracing is clean, why not prove it with total transparency? Why not post publicly every horse tested and what was tested for?
It's a waste of time to talk with you about EPO. You know a guy who used EPO and saw improvement, and all the vets and pharmacologists in the world aren't going to convince you that it is marginally effective if at all, especially since those dumbos buy into that phony baloney contractile spleen theory. At one time there may have been interest in the substance, but clearly it has fallen out of favor, most likely because (1) it didn't work for most horses and trainers and (2) having too many red blood cells is dangerous. That is why cyclists who were doping got up in the middle of the night to exercise. Perhaps Dr. Fager Fan you don't believe that either since it comes from those lying doctors. 5,000 tests with no evidence of EPO use isn't enough for you. I'd guess 50,000 tests wouldn't have been enough either.

[Redboard]

Can't punish the owners. They won't stand for it. The shortage of owners in the game is only eclipsed by the shortage of horses. Start coming down on owners, and they'll just leave the game all together. It's as hard for an owner to "get out" for the year as it is a handicapper. Start making things difficult for them and the owners that put 50, 100, 200 thousand bucks a year into what amounts to a social hobby will dry up from the small trickle that they are at this time.

The industry has a big challenge, one that I don't see it addressing nearly enough, in making horse ownership appealing.

.......

According to George W. Strawbridge Jr , many of his rich friends don't want to get into the ownership game because of the PEDs. Why should they create an honest barn and treat the athletes according to the rules when it's the cheaters who succeed.

Big challenge is an understatement!

[johnhannibalsmith]

On the subject of punishing owners, the New Mexico Racing Commission recently did just that, hitting an owner with a $15,000 fine for multiple clenbuterol positives.

I know that it will be met with great applause; here's the quote from Steward Pinkie Smith from the article I'll link at the bottom:



“If this doesn't send a strong message, it should,” said Smith. “If an owner doesn't change their way of thinking or does not put distance between them and a trainer with multiple drug violations, then I feel the owner is condoning the trainer's action.”


I like Pinkie Smith and respect her very much, but this is kind of a scary quote. I'm hopeful that she wanted to add a few more caveats in there because if there's a trainer that is in good standing that she and her superiors at the NMRC have decided is worthy of a license, just how in the hell do they figure there's cause to be fining owners for using said trainers that they condone with a damn license?

What is all this song-and-dance asinine bureaucratic mentality driving the adoption of this policy that looks like nothing but a catalyst for litigation?

Why not just run the trainer off that you don't think that the owner should not be using? Why not just run the owner off? If you've decided that this person has committed such an egregious offense as to probably be in the top 2% of fines levied, why not just deny a license as an undesirable? Why even keep around the trainers that are so bad that an owner who gives a horse to them is automatically subject to a fine?



http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/new-mexico-racing-commission-fines-owner-15000-multiple-clenbuterol-positives/

[Fager Fan]

It's a waste of time to talk with you about EPO. You know a guy who used EPO and saw improvement, and all the vets and pharmacologists in the world aren't going to convince you that it is marginally effective if at all, especially since those dumbos buy into that phony baloney contractile spleen theory. At one time there may have been interest in the substance, but clearly it has fallen out of favor, most likely because (1) it didn't work for most horses and trainers and (2) having too many red blood cells is dangerous. That is why cyclists who were doping got up in the middle of the night to exercise. Perhaps Dr. Fager Fan you don't believe that either since it comes from those lying doctors. 5,000 tests with no evidence of EPO use isn't enough for you. I'd guess 50,000 tests wouldn't have been enough either.

What the hell are you talking about? I've never mentioned EPO on this forum, much less this thread. I don't "know a guy who used EPO". If your memory and observation skills are so damn faulty that you don't even know who you're talking to, why shouldnt we believe your opinion on anything isn't likewise faulty?

[EasyGoer89]

Can't punish the owners. They won't stand for it. The shortage of owners in the game is only eclipsed by the shortage of horses. Start coming down on owners, and they'll just leave the game all together. It's as hard for an owner to "get out" for the year as it is a handicapper. Start making things difficult for them and the owners that put 50, 100, 200 thousand bucks a year into what amounts to a social hobby will dry up from the small trickle that they are at this time.

The industry has a big challenge, one that I don't see it addressing nearly enough, in making horse ownership appealing.

The trainers are the ones, if they learn and ply their trade effectively, that can make a very nice living at their job. The buck has to stop with them, and they need to be encouraged to become good horsemen.

The ones that won't stand for it are the cheats, we could do without them. Think of how many owners are sitting on the sidelines waiting to re-enter a clean game, most owners want a clean game and want to win or lose on their own merits, I like my idea, if you're an owner who's using honest trainers you have nothing to worry about.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

From a 2008 study of designer supplements:

The present study again shows that products, containing unapproved steroids that have already been synthesized in the 1960s, nowadays appear on the market of sport supplements, often labeled as “dietary supplement”, even though the products have to be classified as non-licensed pharmaceuticals.

In addition to the enormous health risks, consumers should be aware of the doping risks connected with the use of such products.

From a 2016 review of designer steroids in horses:

The rapid increase in the prevalence of designer anabolic steroids present in ‘dietary’ and ‘nutritional’ supplements available online containing untested and unapproved anabolic agents, or the more recent emergence of selective androgen receptormodulators (SARMs) is likely to pose a significant threat to the integrity of the industry if left unchecked. Both drug classes present several problems for anti-doping laboratories resulting from their widely variable structures that will need to be addressed in the future.

Yeah, it's a cesspool of illegal drugs out there. You're preaching to the converted here on PA. They already knew the sport was rife with cheating trainers. It's a vast conspiracy to cheat. It's great there is someone here like you who can whip up the crowd with nothing but speculation and an article that doesn't document use. I did an article about Roy Sedlacek in which I criticized the RMTC for not doing more testing on supplements. Their response? Too many supplements, not enough money for testing. I keep saying you're smart enough to know this, although I'm starting to wonder, but supplements are not regulated by the FDA in the same way conventional food and drugs are. This not only means the contents are not regulated, but they can vary from batch to batch. Most trainers I know are very selective in their use of supplements. You know why? Because the vast, vast majority of trainers care deeply about their horses and would not want to see them harmed. Perhaps you don't believe that, but at least at the larger tracks, that has been my experience. And frankly you don't indict the profession based on speculation - and that's what you've got - and nothing that actually documents rampant use of supplements or designer drugs.

Still have to be told what to look for.

Right. They are clueless. Keep believing that. It fits your narrative - they are getting fooled and they don't know what to look for. Is there anyone involved with training or testing that isn't cheating?

Yeah, it's more likely that there are a bunch of smart guys designing and synthesizing these drugs. That doesn't mean that anti-doping authorities are spending time and money trying to create designer drugs, too. This isn't the Cold War.

Don't forget that aliens might be stopping by earth dropping them off. No proof of that you say? We don't need no stinking proof. We just need to get a bunch of people believing it.


Because you have to report administration of legal natural steroids and are restricted from entering your horse for a certain length of time. You're telling me there is no place for an undetectable designer PED in an environment where using legal medications can keep you out of the entry box for up to 6 months?

I'm telling you it is your wild speculation. Once in an accidental while we're bound to find one of your designer drugs. When you do, you've got me. Once in a great while we're bound to find one of your designer labs and when we do you've got me. You laugh at a request to take this out of the speculative category and into something where we can take pointed action. Yeah, it's hilarious to indict the sport, complain incessantly and offer speculation as proof. Talk about funny. Trainers would rather use designer drugs than legal drugs because they would rather cheat than have to meet the withdrawal times.

Well, proof to you seems to be restricted to only detection on blood and/or urine tests. Given that, I guess people only starting using EPO, dermorphin, and cobalt, after testing was developed to detect those substances?

No, I'll take a trainer getting caught with a supplement containing an illegal substance. Obviously you wouldn't test for a substance nobody is using, and when EPO, demorphin and cobalt were found to be in use there were studies and testing developed. Find me a supplement that trainers are using and where their horses are showing measurable improvement, and the same thing will happen. Your hypothesis seems to be there are supplements that contain substances that we can't test for because we don't know what they are. You pretty much can't lose with that logic. Oh, they're using the juice but we don't know what it is, where it comes from, or how to test for it. No wonder you feel so righteous.


No they aren't. Don't try and blow smoke. The horses, both female, tested for excessive amounts of testosterone. They are probably thinking, what sort of miscreant and/or nimrod would give exogenous testosterone to a filly? whether or not they also knew that fillies have some levels of testosterone naturally.
Missed my point. You deliberately misled people by inferring females don't have natural levels of testosterone. Read your stuff again. And the people here are not likely to know that females have natural testosterone levels. And again, I say this with less confidence, you know why testosterone would be used therapeutically on females. In their case, if they were overdosed to gain an edge, of course the trainer should have been punished.

More smoke. It doesn't matter if these drugs don't actually have the effect their users purport. In the case of the former, it is banned outright. Period. If you have it or used it, you have done something very illegal.
I never disagreed with the fact that EPO is illegal, and I've pointed out the down side of using it on multiple occasions. I was basically just saying that since Fager Fan thinks you are an expert, just let him know it doesn't work and the side effects are not worth taking a chance.

And just so we don't forget about the horse in general, never mind its athletic performance, both of those drugs can have serious side effects. You asked what good is EPO for a horse that already has a high reserve of red blood cells in its spleen? That's questionable, but what is known is that EPO still increases red blood cell parameters in such horses at rest and as a result can cause serious issues with blood viscosity, namely sudden death. Have we had any issues with aberrant spikes in sudden death recently?

The CA boys have said that their program of EPO testing has revealed no EPO use in over 5,000 tests. That sounds like pretty good proof to me.

Brilliant. So if I have a dietary supplement and I load it with unapproved steroids and then start to sell it or use it, I have done nothing illegal. Obviously you don't concern yourself with federal regulations regarding controlled substances and labeling compliance.

Way to misquote me. The supplement is not illegal to use per se. If it contains an illegal substance the RMTC can recommend a ban. Check the RMTC web site and let me know which supplements are banned. Perhaps you didn't know that supplements are regulated under a different set of regulations than those controlling conventional food and drugs. Manufacturers and distributors of dietary supplements and dietary ingredients are prohibited from marketing products that are adulterated or misbranded. That means that these firms are responsible for evaluating the safety and labeling of their products before marketing to ensure that they meet all the requirements of DSHEA and FDA regulations. What that means is that FDA doesn't test supplements. It is up to the manufacturer to essentially self-certify. Learn your federal law.

Many supplements vary from batch to batch, and it is not uncommon for them to not even contain the ingredients listed on the label. And do you know what FDA does about it? They are authorized to take action, whatever that means. I know about supplements, and I've written about supplements. And I guarantee you that if any company is adding controlled substances to supplements and they get caught, there are stiff penalties. Naturally, over in your world these companies have no problem taking a chance at putting themselves out of business and risking prison by adding controlled substances to supplements. Speculate, speculate, speculate and make sure to destroy the sport and it's participants in the process.

[lamboguy]

you guys are arguing back and forth over just 2 things that go on. there are other things that get pumped into these race horses that are just as bad for them. like substances that mask pain, stop hearburn and acid reflux, and substances that stop bleeding cold.

none of this can be any good for the horse either.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What the hell are you talking about? I've never mentioned EPO on this forum, much less this thread. I don't "know a guy who used EPO". If your memory and observation skills are so damn faulty that you don't even know who you're talking to, why shouldnt we believe your opinion on anything isn't likewise faulty?
Sorry. You quoted my response to Gate to Wire and I did mistakenly confuse you two. Not exactly a hard mistake to make. As for what you believe, I really don't care.

[Fager Fan]

Sorry. You quoted my response to Gate to Wire and I did mistakenly confuse you two. Not exactly a hard mistake to make. As for what you believe, I really don't care.
You called me by name in your post so you hardly thought I was gate to wire.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You called me by name in your post so you hardly thought I was gate to wire.
Continuation of the same error.

[thaskalos]

Continuation of the same error.

Not your only "error" in this thread...IMO. :)

[Spalding No!]

Yeah, it's a cesspool of illegal drugs out there. You're preaching to the converted here on PA. They already knew the sport was rife with cheating trainers. It's a vast conspiracy to cheat. It's great there is someone here like you who can whip up the crowd with nothing but speculation and an article that doesn't document use.
I understand you want to wave off violations and illegal activity that don't involve PEDs, but abuse of even "harmless" substances still comes under the blanket of "cheating". If you want to focus on the big guns then that's your prerogative, but that doesn't mean the backstretch culture in regards to all medications is on the up and up.

I did an article about Roy Sedlacek in which I criticized the RMTC for not doing more testing on supplements. Their response? Too many supplements, not enough money for testing.
What's so hard to stomach about that? Why does the onus of determining if a supplement is on the level fall at the feet of the RMTC? Of course they will prioritize with a limited budget.

But that shouldn't stop a trainer who wants to use a supplement from getting it tested on his own accord. There are plenty of laboratories out there...and they're not even clandestine...

I keep saying you're smart enough to know this, although I'm starting to wonder, but supplements are not regulated by the FDA in the same way conventional food and drugs are. This not only means the contents are not regulated, but they can vary from batch to batch.
That was exactly my point. Unscrupulous producers exploit these distinctions in order to circumvent the strict rules on controlled substances. If you don't believe me or need more proof, just take a gander at the Department of Justice or the FDA websites.

Right. They are clueless. Keep believing that. It fits your narrative - they are getting fooled and they don't know what to look for.
Easier said than done. "Widely variable structures"-- even if they can figured out ahead of time, tax already limited resources.

From the FDA:

From the laboratory perspective, the steroid analysis is complicated due to the vast array of known steroids (over 7,000), which are all variations of the same basic steroid chemical “skeleton.” These variations are caused by the locations and numbers of substituent and double bonds. As a result, while determining the molecular weight may be a useful first step toward identifying a chemical compound, there could be twenty steroids with the same molecular weight, each representing a unique chemical compound. Differences in stereochemistry further complicate the challenges faced by the laboratory. There are so many different steroid compounds that in many instances reference standards, which are needed for the laboratory to conclusively identify the chemical, are not available. In these situations the laboratory’s only option is to have the compound custom-made at a cost that is frequently prohibitive.

And we're only talking about steroids here...

Don't forget that aliens might be stopping by earth dropping them off. No proof of that you say? We don't need no stinking proof.
Yep, November 2015:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in partnership with other government agencies, today announced the results of a yearlong sweep of dietary supplements to identify potentially unsafe or tainted supplements. The sweep resulted in civil injunctions and criminal actions against 117 various manufacturers and/or distributors of dietary supplements and tainted products falsely marketed as dietary supplements.

The FDA continues to warn consumers about the risks associated with some over-the-counter products, falsely marketed as dietary supplements, which contain hidden active ingredients that could be harmful. In the last year, the agency has warned of more than 100 products found to contain hidden active ingredients. These products are most frequently marketed for sexual enhancement, weight loss and body building.

Remember, FDA cannot test all products on the market that contain potentially harmful hidden ingredients. Enforcement actions and consumer advisories for tainted products only cover a small fraction of the tainted over-the-counter products on the market.

I'm telling you it is your wild speculation.
Yep.

No, I'll take a trainer getting caught with a supplement containing an illegal substance. Obviously you wouldn't test for a substance nobody is using, and when EPO, demorphin and cobalt were found to be in use there were studies and testing developed. Find me a supplement that trainers are using and where their horses are showing measurable improvement, and the same thing will happen. Your hypothesis seems to be there are supplements that contain substances that we can't test for because we don't know what they are. You pretty much can't lose with that logic. Oh, they're using the juice but we don't know what it is, where it comes from, or how to test for it. No wonder you feel so righteous.
I don't understand your logic. What were you saying before tests were developed for EPO, dermorphin, and cobalt? That they didn't exist? That they weren't being used? You're simply talking in circles demanding us to solve a double bind.

Missed my point. You deliberately misled people by inferring females don't have natural levels of testosterone. And the people here are not likely to know that females have natural testosterone levels.
I didn't miss your point. You were simply being disingenuous. Whether or not fillies produce low levels of endogenous testosterone is irrelevant. The horses had overages of testosterone. That means in all likelihood, the horses received exogenous testosterone.

All people need to know to realize the situation was an instance of "cheating" (intentional or otherwise) is the difference between endogenous (from within) and exogenous (from without).

I never disagreed with the fact that EPO is illegal, and I've pointed out the down side of using it on multiple occasions. I was basically just saying that since Fager Fan thinks you are an expert, just let him know it doesn't work and the side effects are not worth taking a chance.
This is disingenuous, too. What, because it doesn't make sense in your mind to use EPO, that no one else is willing to try? Sorry, but EPO was a real problem a few years back. Maybe it isn't now, but does that mean regulators should stop testing for it? More double binds and catch-22s from you.

Way to misquote me. The supplement is not illegal to use per se. What that means is that FDA doesn't test supplements. It is up to the manufacturer to essentially self-certify. Learn your federal law.
Back-pedal much? In your haste to be lead apologist for all positive tests, you simply made a blanket statement that ignored the fact that federal law supersedes any regulation a horse racing commission might have in place. I simply pointed out this reality because you tend to pigeon-hole these discussions with the goal posts inches apart rather than keeping your perspective on the bigger picture.

Naturally, over in your world these companies have no problem taking a chance at putting themselves out of business and risking prison by adding controlled substances to supplements.
See above for 117 non-speculative instances.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I understand you want to wave off violations and illegal activity that don't involve PEDs, but abuse of even "harmless" substances still comes under the blanket of "cheating". If you want to focus on the big guns then that's your prerogative, but that doesn't mean the backstretch culture in regards to all medications is on the up and up.

From a personal perspective, I think some supplements are useful. I had a dog with joint issues, and his quality of life improved on glucosamine. I don't have any problem at all if a trainer uses feed with glucosamine. It's not a masking agent. I don't have a problem with vitamin supplements. I don't have a problem with balancing minerals in horses that are off. It improves their health, and that is a good thing. If we separate at that point, agree to disagree.

What's so hard to stomach about that? Why does the onus of determining if a supplement is on the level fall at the feet of the RMTC? Of course they will prioritize with a limited budget.

I have made the point we need to find problems before the tote is official. If supplements are adding to those problems, racing has a responsibility to deal with that. Nice of you to let RMTC off the hook. I think they should be more aggressive about testing supplements, and if that means more money, racing should work to find ways of doing that testing.

But that shouldn't stop a trainer who wants to use a supplement from getting it tested on his own accord. There are plenty of laboratories out there...and they're not even clandestine...

That's the answer. Racing should abdicate its responsibility to the trainers. And when the trainer has a test that shows the supplement he tested was clean, you know what that wins him if he gets a positive? A fine and a suspension.

I don't understand your logic. What were you saying before tests were developed for EPO, dermorphin, and cobalt? That they didn't exist? That they weren't being used? You're simply talking in circles demanding us to solve a double bind.

What I said was when racing authorities found that trainers were using EPO, demorphin, and cobalt, they did studies and developed tests. What was so hard to follow about that? First EPO, then study, then test. Read it again. It still says that. You need to have substance, trainers need to be using the substance to enhance performance, then someone does a study on the substance, then they develop a test to detect the substance, unless of course the test already existed.

I didn't miss your point. You were simply being disingenuous. Whether or not fillies produce low levels of endogenous testosterone is irrelevant. The horses had overages of testosterone. That means in all likelihood, the horses received exogenous testosterone.

All people need to know to realize the situation was an instance of "cheating" (intentional or otherwise) is the difference between endogenous (from within) and exogenous (from without).

No, you were disingenuous when you inferred fillies don't have natural levels of testosterone. We both agreed from the get go that above a certain concentration the horse was juiced. I never disagreed the trainer cheated. Perhaps that was a little too subtle for you to get.


This is disingenuous, too. What, because it doesn't make sense in your mind to use EPO, that no one else is willing to try? Sorry, but EPO was a real problem a few years back. Maybe it isn't now, but does that mean regulators should stop testing for it? More double binds and catch-22s from you.

Seriously. WTF are you talking about? You probably missed it, but there have been a few threads where I have talked about EPO. The equine spleen. The very small likelihood that EPO has any effect on horses. The problems of too many red blood cells. The 5,000 tests CA has done where they haven't found EPO use. Where did I ever say they should discontinue testing? All I said is exactly the facts. It's not effective as a PED in most horses and they aren't finding it anymore.

Back-pedal much? In your haste to be lead apologist for all positive tests, you simply made a blanket statement that ignored the fact that federal law supersedes any regulation a horse racing commission might have in place. I simply pointed out this reality because you tend to pigeon-hole these discussions with the goal posts inches apart rather than keeping your perspective on the bigger picture.

Hard to talk with someone who makes up facts. I've never been an apologist for all positive tests. You on the other hand are happy to indict what seems to be the vast majority of trainers with no more proof than what comes out of your brain. Read my stuff. I defended no trainer arbitrarily. I do the job the apologists for incompetent racing authorities and half-assed standard setters don't do. I keep them honest. I've been unequivocal. Cheat and get caught, I have no sympathy for the punishment. But I'm going to push back against the cheap-shot artists like you who seem to think killing the patient is the only way to make him survive. You have the ear of most here because you are expressing the popular speculation. And while I've been tagged as an apologist, it doesn't bother me because what I want is scientifically defensible standards that are enforced fairly, where there is due process, and where there are thorough and fair investigations. I don't want to see the truly guilty go free. I want to see trainers who do everything they can to follow the rules treated fairly. I want to see racing do more to stop violations from happening in the first place instead of focusing all their enforcement on post-race analysis. Racing is only clean when the number of post race positives approaches zero and substances being used pre-race are either fully therapeutic or not performance enhancing. I've got nothing to apologize for, and those who know my work know that I stand for clean racing.

See above for 117 non-speculative instances.

[Spalding No!]

From a personal perspective, I think some supplements are useful. I had a dog with joint issues, and his quality of life improved on glucosamine. I don't have any problem at all if a trainer uses feed with glucosamine. It's not a masking agent. I don't have a problem with vitamin supplements. I don't have a problem with balancing minerals in horses that are off. It improves their health, and that is a good thing.
This is not the issue at hand. This thread is in response to the article about a presumed cheating culture in racing. The author laid out a spectrum of alleged cheating that on one end, involves what some may call petty infractions involving additional race day treatments that are administered along with lasix. On the other end was the alleged high-end cheating involving PEDs.

At no point have I suggested that therapeutic drugs be eliminated from racing. But again, that is not to say that all use of therapeutic drugs is legal or appropriate. The infractions I mentioned contribute dramatically to public perception about cheating in horse racing.

Furthermore, if I have focused on supplements, it has been in response to your demand for proof that designer PEDs exist at all. Supplements are certainly not the only source of potential PEDs.

I have made the point we need to find problems before the tote is official. If supplements are adding to those problems, racing has a responsibility to deal with that. Nice of you to let RMTC off the hook. I think they should be more aggressive about testing supplements, and if that means more money, racing should work to find ways of doing that testing.
I guess in an ideal world with unlimited budgets and readily-available resources and trained staff, the RMTC can commit to testing every single product available that a trainer may choose to experiment with. But I'm sure you can see how unrealistic this really is. Does that mean racing should give up trying to implement a testing program to identify and deter cheating?

That's the answer. Racing should abdicate its responsibility to the trainers. And when the trainer has a test that shows the supplement he tested was clean, you know what that wins him if he gets a positive? A fine and a suspension.
News flash. If the pre-entry testing was cleared by the racing commission and the horse subsequently tested positive in a race, the trainer would still be fined and suspended. There is no guarantee either way.

What I said was when racing authorities found that trainers were using EPO, demorphin, and cobalt, they did studies and developed tests. What was so hard to follow about that? First EPO, then study, then test. Read it again. It still says that. You need to have substance, trainers need to be using the substance to enhance performance, then someone does a study on the substance, then they develop a test to detect the substance, unless of course the test already existed.
What you are pushing for is passive surveillance rather than active surveillance. Regulators should wait until a substance is handed to them, confirm it is being used, is being used illegally, and is providing an edge before they will take an appropriate steps to control it. I would agree that sometimes that's all that can be done. But you are ignoring the huge window of use and abuse that went on before the substance became detectable. And you are essentially declaring that this window of use is not illegal.

It is not rational.

No, you were disingenuous when you inferred fillies don't have natural levels of testosterone. We both agreed from the get go that above a certain concentration the horse was juiced. I never disagreed the trainer cheated. Perhaps that was a little too subtle for you to get.
I never inferred anything. Its a detail I ignored, because once again, it is irrelevant. The point of bringing up the case was that it was an instance of cheating plain and simple. You were just bogging it down because your focusing on trees and not the forest. It was a simple overage case...pretend that it was a banamine overage if it helps you.

Seriously. WTF are you talking about? You probably missed it, but there have been a few threads where I have talked about EPO. The equine spleen. The very small likelihood that EPO has any effect on horses. The problems of too many red blood cells. The 5,000 tests CA has done where they haven't found EPO use. Where did I ever say they should discontinue testing? All I said is exactly the facts. It's not effective as a PED in most horses and they aren't finding it anymore.
More of the same. No one cares about the physiology or the pharmacokinetics. The substance is banned, therefore it is illegal to use. And you did declare that OOC testing was "a waste of money".

But I'm going to push back against the cheap-shot artists like you who seem to think killing the patient is the only way to make him survive. You have the ear of most here because you are expressing the popular speculation.
No one here has responded to my posts beyond Ruffian's comment about breaking the 24-hour rule, which was one of the highlights of the original article. I'm not bringing much original material into the discussion. In fact, I have only challenged the things you say in a blanket fashion. I am merely filling the gaps that you conveniently ignore. Most of my contradictions of your statements were readily available with a simple internet search.

I want to see racing do more to stop violations from happening in the first place instead of focusing all their enforcement on post-race analysis. Racing is only clean when the number of post race positives approaches zero and substances being used pre-race are either fully therapeutic or not performance enhancing. I've got nothing to apologize for, and those who know my work know that I stand for clean racing.

To here you tell it, racing is already clean and regulators should rest on their laurels and presume all violations are the fault of the thresholds in place.

[NorCalGreg]

War of the words? Biggest, longest post wins? :D

I declare it a draw

[cj]

War of the words? Biggest, longest post wins? :D

I declare it a draw

You should read them. You could learn something.

[mountainman]

Here's a curveball for you guys: lots of owners get into the game fully expecting some secret decoder ring for setups and fixed races.


Aside from photo ops, heavy petting sessions, a turn in the spotlight, and pipe dreams of profits, many had fetid dreams of membership in some super-secret, graveyard-at midnite "insider's club" that simply doesn't exist.

So don't use too broad a brush in painting t-bred owners as altruistic and pure of heart.

And I've known hundreds of owners.

[NorCalGreg]

You should read them. You could learn something.


I already know how to read

[cj]

I already know how to read

???

Where did I say differently? I just don't see a reason to try to curtail knowledgeable guys from discussing something because you don't like the length.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

War of the words? Biggest, longest post wins? :D

I declare it a draw
You might be on to something. Frankly it's devolved into, You said this, no I didn't. I think someone needs to watch the watchers, and apparently it is me. If anyone wants to know why, review the Princess of Sylmar case from the 2014 Delaware Cap. Innocent people go to jail. It isn't that hard to believe trainers were treated poorly. I just want racing to get it right on both ends.

[NorCalGreg]

You might be on to something. Frankly it's devolved into, You said this, no I didn't. I think someone needs to watch the watchers, and apparently it is me. If anyone wants to know why, review the Princess of Sylmar case from the 2014 Delaware Cap. Innocent people go to jail. It isn't that hard to believe trainers were treated poorly. I just want racing to get it right on both ends.

I more enjoy your articles in the Handicapper's Monthly--personally.

But please continue :)

[ultracapper]

You should read them. You could learn something.

Yep. Whether these two posters agree with one another or not, they both are passionate about their position and are presenting their opinions very open and articulately. It's been a great thread.

[ultracapper]

Here's a curveball for you guys: lots of owners get into the game fully expecting some secret decoder ring for setups and fixed races.


Aside from photo ops, heavy petting sessions, a turn in the spotlight, and pipe dreams of profits, many had fetid dreams of membership in some super-secret, graveyard-at midnite "insider's club" that simply doesn't exist.

So don't use too broad a brush in painting t-bred owners as altruistic and pure of heart.

And I've known hundreds of owners.

That's exactly why my father-in-law wanted to buy a horse in the late 1980's. He was excited about the access to the backstretch and to the movers and shakers that would open up their minds to us on a daily basis. Anyway, he and my brother-in-law (his son) went 50/50% on a cheap 3yo filly at Longacres in '87 or '88, spent a lot of money getting her ready for her debut, she ran up the track in a very non-competitive first out, was informed the next day by their trainer that he had drummed up some interest from some other mover and shaker, and sold her the day after that for $800, losing $1000s over a 9 month ownership adventure that netted them exactly ZERO connections or "secrets" of any value.The best tip we ever got from anybody was, "my horse is ready and is training as well as he's ever trained". We got that same tip about 60 times from 40 or 50 different trainers/owners/friends of owners/backstretch sharpies.

My father-in-law was very disappointed and years later, when I was finally in a financial condition where I could join some kind of ownership group or syndicate, he had absolutely no interest in taking part with me in finding another horse to own. That's as close as I've ever been to being "backstretch connected", and frankly, I'm glad my efforts and energy have gone into being the best handicapper I can be rather than a bottom end owner. I still have interest in owning one day, but don't reasonably see it happening as things now stand.

[mountainman]

That's exactly why my father-in-law wanted to buy a horse in the late 1980's. He was excited about the access to the backstretch and to the movers and shakers that would open up their minds to us on a daily basis. Anyway, he and my brother-in-law (his son) went 50/50% on a cheap 3yo filly at Longacres in '87 or '88, spent a lot of money getting her ready for her debut, she ran up the track in a very non-competitive first out, was informed the next day by their trainer that he had drummed up some interest from some other mover and shaker, and sold her the day after that for $800, losing $1000s over a 9 month ownership adventure that netted them exactly ZERO connections or "secrets" of any value.The best tip we ever got from anybody was, "my horse is ready and is training as well as he's ever trained". We got that same tip about 60 times from 40 or 50 different trainers/owners/friends of owners/backstretch sharpies.

My father-in-law was very disappointed and years later, when I was finally in a financial condition where I could join some kind of ownership group or syndicate, he had absolutely no interest in taking part with me in finding another horse to own. That's as close as I've ever been to being "backstretch connected", and frankly, I'm glad my efforts and energy have gone into being the best handicapper I can be rather than a bottom end owner. I still have interest in owning one day, but don't reasonably see it happening as things now stand.


lol....love it

[EasyGoer89]

That's exactly why my father-in-law wanted to buy a horse in the late 1980's. He was excited about the access to the backstretch and to the movers and shakers that would open up their minds to us on a daily basis. Anyway, he and my brother-in-law (his son) went 50/50% on a cheap 3yo filly at Longacres in '87 or '88, spent a lot of money getting her ready for her debut, she ran up the track in a very non-competitive first out, was informed the next day by their trainer that he had drummed up some interest from some other mover and shaker, and sold her the day after that for $800, losing $1000s over a 9 month ownership adventure that netted them exactly ZERO connections or "secrets" of any value.The best tip we ever got from anybody was, "my horse is ready and is training as well as he's ever trained". We got that same tip about 60 times from 40 or 50 different trainers/owners/friends of owners/backstretch sharpies.

My father-in-law was very disappointed and years later, when I was finally in a financial condition where I could join some kind of ownership group or syndicate, he had absolutely no interest in taking part with me in finding another horse to own. That's as close as I've ever been to being "backstretch connected", and frankly, I'm glad my efforts and energy have gone into being the best handicapper I can be rather than a bottom end owner. I still have interest in owning one day, but don't reasonably see it happening as things now stand.

Everyone 'loves' everyone 'likes' it's the 'he won't hit the board today's'that can get u the money, that kind of info is as rare as the hope diamond.

I would say personally after decades spent around racetracks the 'likes' outnumber the 'dislikes' 1000-1.

[lamboguy]

That's exactly why my father-in-law wanted to buy a horse in the late 1980's. He was excited about the access to the backstretch and to the movers and shakers that would open up their minds to us on a daily basis. Anyway, he and my brother-in-law (his son) went 50/50% on a cheap 3yo filly at Longacres in '87 or '88, spent a lot of money getting her ready for her debut, she ran up the track in a very non-competitive first out, was informed the next day by their trainer that he had drummed up some interest from some other mover and shaker, and sold her the day after that for $800, losing $1000s over a 9 month ownership adventure that netted them exactly ZERO connections or "secrets" of any value.The best tip we ever got from anybody was, "my horse is ready and is training as well as he's ever trained". We got that same tip about 60 times from 40 or 50 different trainers/owners/friends of owners/backstretch sharpies.

My father-in-law was very disappointed and years later, when I was finally in a financial condition where I could join some kind of ownership group or syndicate, he had absolutely no interest in taking part with me in finding another horse to own. That's as close as I've ever been to being "backstretch connected", and frankly, I'm glad my efforts and energy have gone into being the best handicapper I can be rather than a bottom end owner. I still have interest in owning one day, but don't reasonably see it happening as things now stand.most of the time the backstretch knows less about how their horses will run than you do.

one of the biggest edges are with the vets when they tap horses. they know if the horse is responding and doing better after they injected them. the other edges that i know about is the barn knows when a horse is attacking his feed tub as opposed to being a poor or mediocre eater. good exercise riders know how the horse feels underneath him and can judge from one day to the other. there are lots of other things but none as big as these.

[cj]

http://www.theracingbiz.com/2017/01/17/md-racing-commission-upholds-struth-dq/

[johnhannibalsmith]

http://www.theracingbiz.com/2017/01/17/md-racing-commission-upholds-struth-dq/

Thanks for that.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

http://www.theracingbiz.com/2017/01/17/md-racing-commission-upholds-struth-dq/
This is the sort of stuff I take on. I'm just using your post to make my point. When racing commissions say a trainer is not responsible but still guilty, that points to a need to revisit the rules. How do you fix it? There are plenty of smart people that can collaborate on that. This really isn't about drugs in racing. The regulation of or the standard for Clenbuterol may be exactly right, but that doesn't mean you stain Trombetta. I've said over and over that racing commissions need to do more complete investigations, perhaps in concert with the trainer. If we knew exactly how the clenbuterol got into the horse's system, we could assign punishment in a fairer way. Instead what we get is what I've often pointed out - the Commission stopping at the post race positive, invoking the absolute insurers rule, and doling out a punishment. System preserved.

Trainers and the commissions keep themselves on opposite sides of the table instead of cooperating to find the truth and achieve justice. The system is broken for lots of reasons, this being one of them.

I can't understand why I take the crap I do for defending trainers in this sort of situation. I can't be the only one who thinks the treatment Trombetta got was both not justice and bad for racing.

[cj]

This is the sort of stuff I take on. I'm just using your post to make my point. When racing commissions say a trainer is not responsible but still guilty, that points to a need to revisit the rules. How do you fix it? There are plenty of smart people that can collaborate on that. This really isn't about drugs in racing. The regulation of or the standard for Clenbuterol may be exactly right, but that doesn't mean you stain Trombetta. I've said over and over that racing commissions need to do more complete investigations, perhaps in concert with the trainer. If we knew exactly how the clenbuterol got into the horse's system, we could assign punishment in a fairer way. Instead what we get is what I've often pointed out - the Commission stopping at the post race positive, invoking the absolute insurers rule, and doling out a punishment. System preserved.

Trainers and the commissions keep themselves on opposite sides of the table instead of cooperating to find the truth and achieve justice. The system is broken for lots of reasons, this being one of them.

I can't understand why I take the crap I do for defending trainers in this sort of situation. I can't be the only one who thinks the treatment Trombetta got was both not justice and bad for racing.

That is fair. But really, this isn't the kind of stuff most horseplayers care about. Since real offenders are rarely dealt just sentences, I'm not sure you can blame people for not worrying much when it goes the other way.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Since real offenders are rarely dealt just sentences, I'm not sure you can blame people for not worrying much when it goes the other way.

That should be exactly when people worry the most. Imagine thinking that since campus sexual assault is a real serious problem that too often goes unpunished that what happened to the Duke team (who never even endured an actual conviction) is worthy of a shrug.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

That is fair. But really, this isn't the kind of stuff most horseplayers care about. Since real offenders are rarely dealt just sentences, I'm not sure you can blame people for not worrying much when it goes the other way.
I agree. Even though horseplayers may not appreciate it, I'm happy to take on the system in their best interest. You're right. The system is broken on both ends - the real scofflaws get inconsistent punishment, and there are too many cases of trainers that tried to do everything right and still got punished. Somebody's got to stir the soup and I'm fine doing that.

[johnhannibalsmith]

That should be exactly when people worry the most. Imagine thinking that since campus sexual assault is a real serious problem that too often goes unpunished that what happened to the Duke team (who never even endured an actual conviction) is worthy of a shrug.

I want to point out that yes this is probably overkill for an analogy since the guy did technically commit the crime, but I couldn't make my point better on short notice. :D

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I want to point out that yes this is probably overkill for an analogy since the guy did technically commit the crime, but I couldn't make my point better on short notice. :D
I liked the analogy. But technically, the horse tested positive and the racing commission found he didn't commit a crime. He was guilty on a technicality, aka, the absolute insurers rule.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... He was guilty on a technicality, aka, the absolute insurers rule.

Yeah, just wanted to be clear that I knew I was comparing tomatoes and tomahtoes when it came to that particular standard. I meant to issue a disclaimer acknowledging such within the post itself but apparently I even forgot the word 'lacrosse'.

[cj]

That should be exactly when people worry the most. Imagine thinking that since campus sexual assault is a real serious problem that too often goes unpunished that what happened to the Duke team (who never even endured an actual conviction) is worthy of a shrug.

Not really the same to me because the horses did test positive. It isn't like these guys are sent to jail or anything, usually a small fine and/or a paid vacation.

[Fager Fan]

I liked the analogy. But technically, the horse tested positive and the racing commission found he didn't commit a crime. He was guilty on a technicality, aka, the absolute insurers rule.

As he should've been.

How many times do trainers say, "Hell yeah, I gave that drug to my horse!"?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

As he should've been.

How many times do trainers say, "Hell yeah, I gave that drug to my horse!"?
Most of the time actually, especially if it is a legal therapeutic. Since there are records, it is often hard to deny. More often the trainer will contend he followed the dosing and withdrawal guidelines (like Ron Ellis).

[Fager Fan]

Most of the time actually, especially if it is a legal therapeutic. Since there are records, it is often hard to deny. More often the trainer will contend he followed the dosing and withdrawal guidelines (like Ron Ellis).

Exactly. In other words, declaring their innocence. None admit to doing anything wrong which resulted in their positive. Isn't it amazing how many trainers don't need excuses and declarations of innocence? They quietly take all the precautions needed to not get a positive.

[Spalding No!]

http://www.theracingbiz.com/2017/01/17/md-racing-commission-upholds-struth-dq/
A few interesting things not mentioned or fleshed out in the blog:

(1) Trombetta maintained that he didn't use clenbuterol nor did he have it in his possession. But that does not mean that he has never used clenbuterol.

When the New York State Racing and Wagering Board implemented stricter regulation of clenbuterol, extended the restriction of use from 4 days out to 14 days:

Mike Trombetta is a Maryland-based trainer who has started 32 horses in New York the last two winters. Since the rules in Maryland and Pennsylvania allow clenbuterol to be given within four days, Trombetta said he will have to be "extremely selective" in what horses he can send to run in New York.

"What is okay practice in most places is now forbidden in New York. I don't understand what the purpose is."

(2) Trombetta had a drug violation only a few months before in Pennsylvania. He also had one back in 2008.

(3) While much was made about the defense lawyer's theory that the horse was exposed to clenbuterol in the few minutes after the running of the race, there is no mention of the equally possible chance that the horse was administered clenbuterol just before the running of his race.

Note the quote from the UC Davis-based Dr. Scott Stanley does not specify timing with respect to the race:

“This horse either has a small recent exposure, or I can’t explain the measurements."

This does not imply the exact timing of the administration, although the blogger uses the quote to back the opinion of the lawyer.

In fact, small dose raceday administration (given directly in the trachea) of clenbuterol has long been alleged as a common raceday "cheat" at racetracks. The anecdotal evidence for this was so pronounced that there was more than one scientific study done exploring this method of administration.

Furthermore, the exact reason why regulators use a two-pronged threshold (one for blood and one for urine) is in order to identify raceday administration of clenbuterol. In that respect, the laboratory findings are not particularly surprising. A recent exposure is likely to be picked up in blood but not urine.

None of this is to serve as proof that Trombetta was the one who administered clenbuterol to the horse, but all-in-all, this case is not particularly unique unless you buy into the lawyer's theory.

[cj]

A few interesting things not mentioned or fleshed out in the blog:

(1) Trombetta maintained that he didn't use clenbuterol nor did he have it in his possession. But that does not mean that he has never used clenbuterol.

When the New York State Racing and Wagering Board implemented stricter regulation of clenbuterol, extended the restriction of use from 4 days out to 14 days:

Mike Trombetta is a Maryland-based trainer who has started 32 horses in New York the last two winters. Since the rules in Maryland and Pennsylvania allow clenbuterol to be given within four days, Trombetta said he will have to be "extremely selective" in what horses he can send to run in New York.

"What is okay practice in most places is now forbidden in New York. I don't understand what the purpose is."

(2) Trombetta had a drug violation only a few months before in Pennsylvania. He also had one back in 2008.

(3) While much was made about the defense lawyer's theory that the horse was exposed to clenbuterol in the few minutes after the running of the race, there is no mention of the equally possible chance that the horse was administered clenbuterol just before the running of his race.

Note the quote from the UC Davis-based Dr. Scott Stanley does not specify timing with respect to the race:

“This horse either has a small recent exposure, or I can’t explain the measurements."

This does not imply the exact timing of the administration, although the blogger uses the quote to back the opinion of the lawyer.

In fact, small dose raceday administration (given directly in the trachea) of clenbuterol has long been alleged as a common raceday "cheat" at racetracks. The anecdotal evidence for this was so pronounced that there was more than one scientific study done exploring this method of administration.

Furthermore, the exact reason why regulators use a two-pronged threshold (one for blood and one for urine) is in order to identify raceday administration of clenbuterol. In that respect, the laboratory findings are not particularly surprising. A recent exposure is likely to be picked up in blood but not urine.

None of this is to serve as proof that Trombetta was the one who administered clenbuterol to the horse, but all-in-all, this case is not particularly unique unless you buy into the lawyer's theory.

Thanks for the info. To read the blog, you'd think he would never even consider using clenbuterol and never had.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Thanks for the info. To read the blog, you'd think he would never even consider using clenbuterol and never had.

See, when I read it, I see a guy that acknowledged not wanting to risk getting a positive when New York changed the rule and he was probably still using it therapeutically under old guidelines where he was stabled and eventually phased it out completely for the same reason when most states tightened up. I never got the impression that the guy was trying to pretend like his reasons for not using it were due to any moral high ground. I guess maybe we each see what we want to some degree. Or maybe I just read it too fast.

[Spalding No!]

See, when I read it, I see a guy that acknowledged not wanting to risk getting a positive when New York changed the rule and he was probably still using it therapeutically under old guidelines where he was stabled and eventually phased it out completely for the same reason when most states tightened up. I never got the impression that the guy was trying to pretend like his reasons for not using it were due to any moral high ground. I guess maybe we each see what we want to some degree. Or maybe I just read it too fast.
The quote regarding the New York rule was not in the original blog though. Like you, I didn't think that Trombetta personally was trying to take any moral high ground, but the blog in my opinion was heavily slanted a certain way.

To me, the case (as far as one can understand it from the blog and other sources) is simply an example of how the absolute insurer rule is employed (whether one agrees with it or not). Beyond that, it wasn't a extraordinary case.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
To me, the case (as far as one can understand it from the blog and other sources) is simply an example of how the absolute insurer rule is employed (whether one agrees with it or not). Beyond that, it wasn't a extraordinary case.

I think that was roughly my takeaway as well. Perhaps it wasn't his intent, but I replied to CJ with a thanks mainly because I thought that it added a little balance to some of the stereotype that gets bandied about whereby trainers always seem to come out smelling like roses and not getting days is a terrible punishment because you don't get to order pina coladas on the beach or however the rest of it goes. The system is imperfect in many ways and it seemed like a healthy acknowledgement that it can go both ways.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

A few interesting things not mentioned or fleshed out in the blog:

(1) Trombetta maintained that he didn't use clenbuterol nor did he have it in his possession. But that does not mean that he has never used clenbuterol.

When the New York State Racing and Wagering Board implemented stricter regulation of clenbuterol, extended the restriction of use from 4 days out to 14 days:

Mike Trombetta is a Maryland-based trainer who has started 32 horses in New York the last two winters. Since the rules in Maryland and Pennsylvania allow clenbuterol to be given within four days, Trombetta said he will have to be "extremely selective" in what horses he can send to run in New York.

"What is okay practice in most places is now forbidden in New York. I don't understand what the purpose is."

Since we are talking about things not mentioned or not fleshed out, lets start with the clenbuterol rule. You conveniently left out the date that NY changed the clenbuterol withdrawal time from 96 hours to 14 days. That was adopted in December 2012. At the time Maryland had not changed, but a year later they also adopted the 14 day withdrawal time. Same with Pennsylvania. 14 days. They've all been the same for the last four years.

Now it is possible that at one time Trombetta had used Clenbuterol, but it as long as we are speculating, Trombetta could have just as easily been referencing the fact that he could not send horses he had claimed to NY without first making sure those horses had not been given clenbuterol within the 14 day period. That would have been every trainer's concern if they were shipping to NY from MD or PA.

This is something I find disturbing. You pull a quote out of the air and use it to cast doubt on the trainer. That quote is proof of nothing unless you can put it into the correct context. It is certainly no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Trombetta and his experts.

(2) Trombetta had a drug violation only a few months before in Pennsylvania. He also had one back in 2008.

There you go again. Leak just enough information to make the trainer look like he could be a bad guy. Let me fill in the blanks for you here. I found three violations for Trombetta since 2006. He had one for phenylbutazone at GP in June 2015, one for methylprednisolone at Parx in December 2010 and one for a cocaine metabolite at Philadelphia Park in August 2008. The first two are common therapeutic medications, and it is not uncommon to find violations. Trombetta was fined $750 and given no days for the cocaine violation, a suspiciously light amount for a Class 1 violation. It is the case that almost all the violations for cocaine and meth are suspected environmental contamination based on the levels of the metabolite. Not really the profile of the criminal of the century.

(3) While much was made about the defense lawyer's theory that the horse was exposed to clenbuterol in the few minutes after the running of the race, there is no mention of the equally possible chance that the horse was administered clenbuterol just before the running of his race.

Note the quote from the UC Davis-based Dr. Scott Stanley does not specify timing with respect to the race:

“This horse either has a small recent exposure, or I can’t explain the measurements."

This does not imply the exact timing of the administration, although the blogger uses the quote to back the opinion of the lawyer.

In fact, small dose raceday administration (given directly in the trachea) of clenbuterol has long been alleged as a common raceday "cheat" at racetracks. The anecdotal evidence for this was so pronounced that there was more than one scientific study done exploring this method of administration.

Furthermore, the exact reason why regulators use a two-pronged threshold (one for blood and one for urine) is in order to identify raceday administration of clenbuterol. In that respect, the laboratory findings are not particularly surprising. A recent exposure is likely to be picked up in blood but not urine.

None of this is to serve as proof that Trombetta was the one who administered clenbuterol to the horse, but all-in-all, this case is not particularly unique unless you buy into the lawyer's theory.

I will say you have a dark heart. I, at least, think some of the trainers with horses that test positive are not guilty of actually dosing horses with illegal substances or illegal amounts. But let's for a minute go through where it all got farcical.

First, let me point out that there are a number of cases of cross contamination that have been documented. A groom rubs a treatment for bucked shins on a two year old, doesn't wash his hands, puts a bit into the mouth of another horse, and voila, we have a violation. A stable worker with a meth or coke habit can do the same thing. A horse that has been treated with any therapeutic can contaminate a stall, say in the detention barn, and cross contaminate the next occupant. Barker and others have shown that residual amounts of drugs/medications can remain even after stalls have been thoroughly cleaned. ARCI has recognized this phenomenon and is working on protocols for dealing with it.

So the potential for cross contamination is not wild speculation.

The lawyer suggested that the horse was contaminated between the end of the race and the time of the test. If there was suspicion that the horse was surreptitiously given clenbuterol before the race, it would have been up to the commission to introduce it.

Nice twist on the Scott Stanley quote. Damn straight it backed the opinion of the lawyer. What he said was, and I'm interpreting for you, the horse had a small recent exposure or there isn't an explanation. You can argue about what "small" means, but sometime around race time the horse was exposed. Again you speculate about a small tracheal injection and allude to studies. The obvious question is, are the levels measured post race from tracheal injection correlative to the levels found in Trombetta's horse, or are they correlative to environmental exposure? I know the popular opinion is that everyone cheats, and they are outsmarting the testers left and right, but offering speculation without detail is irresponsible.

Contemplate for a moment that Trombetta and his vet weren't lying. His guilt rested on a technicality that would never hold up in a real court. There was absolutely no proof he or any of his employees dosed the horse. The system needs to be adjusted to account for situations where the trainer didn't actually take an action that resulted in a positive.

I've long argued for full investigations. That would limit the speculative testimony. I've argued for video surveillance at all barns, so the tracheal injection theories could be confirmed or refuted based on the video. If commissions were doing thorough investigations, convictions based solely on the absolute insurers rule might not be as predictable as they are now.

[cj]

I think that was roughly my takeaway as well. Perhaps it wasn't his intent, but I replied to CJ with a thanks mainly because I thought that it added a little balance to some of the stereotype that gets bandied about whereby trainers always seem to come out smelling like roses and not getting days is a terrible punishment because you don't get to order pina coladas on the beach or however the rest of it goes. The system is imperfect in many ways and it seemed like a healthy acknowledgement that it can go both ways.

That was my intent actually :)

[NorCalGreg]

???

Where did I say differently? I just don't see a reason to try to curtail knowledgeable guys from discussing something because you don't like the length.

You're able to decipher all that--from my short post? That's my take on the proceedings. I see no reason for you to try to curtail MY POSTS.

This site provides NO CONTENT--it's posters do. I've provided enough content...perhaps readers are more interested in other than Russel Westbrook or whatever CONTENT you've provided.

If you want to be the bully of the board--knock your self out. I don't appreciate being scolded for what was a light-hearted take on the thread.

And my "I already know how to read" comment...THAT went right over your head as well. THAT WAS FUNNY--to me. I shouldn't have to consider what you will decide after every post.

Later

[cj]

You're able to decipher all that--from my short post? That's my take on the proceedings. I see no reason for you to try to curtail MY POSTS.

This site provides NO CONTENT--it's posters do. I've provided enough content...perhaps readers are more interested in other than Russel Westbrook or whatever CONTENT you've provided.

If you want to be the bully of the board--knock your self out. I don't appreciate being scolded for what was a light-hearted take on the thread.

And my "I already know how to read" comment...THAT went right over your head as well. THAT WAS FUNNY--to me. I shouldn't have to consider what you will decide after every post.

Later

Whatever man, that was like two days ago, time to move on.

[Spalding No!]

Since we are talking about things not mentioned or not fleshed out, lets start with the clenbuterol rule. You conveniently left out the date that NY changed the clenbuterol withdrawal time from 96 hours to 14 days. That was adopted in December 2012. At the time Maryland had not changed, but a year later they also adopted the 14 day withdrawal time. Same with Pennsylvania. 14 days. They've all been the same for the last four years.
Wasn’t the point. The point was to demonstrate that Trombetta most likely had used clenbuterol in the past. The blog was skewed towards Trombetta’s near aversion to the drug, what with his own quotes and those of his attending veterinarian. I was just offering some balance. The exact date of the rule change was irrelevant to that end.

Now it is possible that at one time Trombetta had used Clenbuterol, but it as long as we are speculating, Trombetta could have just as easily been referencing the fact that he could not send horses he had claimed to NY without first making sure those horses had not been given clenbuterol within the 14 day period. That would have been every trainer's concern if they were shipping to NY from MD or PA.
True. I’m sure his priority was worrying, not about his own horses, but horses he may or may not train in the future.

This is something I find disturbing. You pull a quote out of the air and use it to cast doubt on the trainer. That quote is proof of nothing unless you can put it into the correct context. It is certainly no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Trombetta and his experts.
Did it say it was. You are speculating why I “pulled it out of thin air”. By the way, it was published in the Daily Racing Form.

There you go again. Leak just enough information to make the trainer look like he could be a bad guy.
Leak information? You think too much of me. This info was readily at hand as it is public information accessible on the web via the Jockey Club. Anyone on this board has access if they were interested enough.

Let me fill in the blanks for you here. I found three violations for Trombetta since 2006. He had one for phenylbutazone at GP in June 2015, one for methylprednisolone at Parx in December 2010 and one for a cocaine metabolite at Philadelphia Park in August 2008. The first two are common therapeutic medications, and it is not uncommon to find violations.
You missed the one from the Pennsylvania Racing Commission in March of last year, just a few months before this incident. Again, public information readily available.

Trombetta was fined $750 and given no days for the cocaine violation, a suspiciously light amount for a Class 1 violation. It is the case that almost all the violations for cocaine and meth are suspected environmental contamination based on the levels of the metabolite. Not really the profile of the criminal of the century.
No one said he was a criminal, but multiple violations say something about barn management at the very least, no? You are way off base with your hyperbole, by the way. I simply was interested enough in the blog to try and balance what I thought was an obvious slant in the writing.

In fact, you ought to take a deep breath and re-read my conclusion again:

None of this is to serve as proof that Trombetta was the one who administered clenbuterol to the horse, but all-in-all, this case is not particularly unique unless you buy into the lawyer's theory.

I will say you have a dark heart. I, at least, think some of the trainers with horses that test positive are not guilty of actually dosing horses with illegal substances or illegal amounts. But let's for a minute go through where it all got farcical.
A little heavy handed here. Again, re-read the conclusion of my last post.

First, let me point out that there are a number of cases of cross contamination that have been documented. A groom rubs a treatment for bucked shins on a two year old, doesn't wash his hands, puts a bit into the mouth of another horse, and voila, we have a violation. A stable worker with a meth or coke habit can do the same thing.
Gee, who’s really to blame for letting any of that sloppiness perpetuate?

A horse that has been treated with any therapeutic can contaminate a stall, say in the detention barn, and cross contaminate the next occupant. So the potential for cross contamination is not wild speculation.
I guess one way to figure out if this occurred in this specific case is to see if there was another clenbuterol positive that afternoon at Laurel.

The lawyer suggested that the horse was contaminated between the end of the race and the time of the test. If there was suspicion that the horse was surreptitiously given clenbuterol before the race, it would have been up to the commission to introduce it.
Umm, no, the positive test itself serves as enough evidence. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the trainer is held responsible.

It seems as though you have a problem with the absolute insurer rule. That’s fine. But why don’t you just say that and direct your actions towards getting the rule change? Why wait for situations where you presume a trainer is innocent and then cry about the rule being unfair? Why do all these nice guy trainers wait until they get positives before they cry that the system is unfair? An ounce of prevention…

Of course, the absolute insurer rule has come under fire before, in several State Supreme Court cases and been found to not infringe on any constitutional rights. Furthermore, basis of the rule is three-fold: (1) a humanitarian interest in protecting the welfare of the horse, (2) protection of the betting patrons from being defrauded, and (3) protection of the revenue generated from taxing parimutual betting.

To quote one state’s Supreme Court ruling:

“The public is entitled to protection from the continuing danger that one who participates in drugging his horse will do so again, and that one who fails to protect his horse from drugging by others will repeat his negligence.”

Nice twist on the Scott Stanley quote.
In my opinion, the blogger twisted the quote.

Damn straight it backed the opinion of the lawyer. What he said was, and I'm interpreting for you, the horse had a small recent exposure or there isn't an explanation. You can argue about what "small" means, but sometime around race time the horse was exposed.
Yes, and the lawyer and the blogger tried to ram it home that the exposure had to have occurred after the race.

Again you speculate about a small tracheal injection and allude to studies. The obvious question is, are the levels measured post race from tracheal injection correlative to the levels found in Trombetta's horse, or are they correlative to environmental exposure?
Again, I didn’t speculate anything. I stated the reason why a two-pronged threshold has been implemented with regards to clenbuterol and it has to do with raceday administration. I mentioned one alleged route. The other point was that the lawyer’s theory of a post-race exposure was no more likely than a theory of pre-race exposure.

I know the popular opinion is that everyone cheats, and they are outsmarting the testers left and right, but offering speculation without detail is irresponsible.
Whatever. You are a speculating just as much (that something did not happen), and yet there is a positive finding in the horse’s blood.

Contemplate for a moment that Trombetta and his vet weren't lying. His guilt rested on a technicality that would never hold up in a real court. There was absolutely no proof he or any of his employees dosed the horse. The system needs to be adjusted to account for situations where the trainer didn't actually take an action that resulted in a positive.
Again, the absolute insurer rule has repeatedly been challenged in "real" court at the state Supreme Court level and has not been found to be unconstitutional save for a couple of instances that were eventually overturned.

I've long argued for full investigations. That would limit the speculative testimony. I've argued for video surveillance at all barns, so the tracheal injection theories could be confirmed or refuted based on the video. If commissions were doing thorough investigations, convictions based solely on the absolute insurers rule might not be as predictable as they are now.
I enjoy how all of the burden is placed on the regulators. Yes, one way for violations involving therapeutic medications is for the regulators to simply ignore positive findings if they can’t provide video footage or a used syringe to prove how the substance ended up in the horse.

Another way would be for the horsemen to actually be more diligent about protecting their horses (by rule in many states, an attendant is supposed to be with an entered horse at all times—yet this often doesn’t happen), more discerning with which of their horses need to be on medication in the first place, and perhaps also be “extremely selective” with what horses they enter to race…never mind ship to New York.

[ReplayRandall]

CJ, I've read the posts in this thread and have commented a few times to this almost unsolvable problem of drugs in the sport. If you disagree with me with what I comment, that's fine, but I feel you're starting to get a little heavy handed with your replies to Thask, NCG and others who don't agree with you........BTW, I don't appreciate you deleting my previous comment, I wasn't out of line in the slightest, just say whatever you're going to say in a REPLY....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Wasn’t the point. The point was to demonstrate that Trombetta most likely had used clenbuterol in the past. The blog was skewed towards Trombetta’s near aversion to the drug, what with his own quotes and those of his attending veterinarian. I was just offering some balance. The exact date of the rule change was irrelevant to that end.

Where do you come up with most likely, especially in the more recent past? And what relevance would it be if Trombetta used Clenbuterol 10 years ago? If we take Trombetta and his vet at their words, at some point they did make the decision to not use clenbuterol as a therapeutic, but there is nothing in that quote that confirms or refutes that the decision was made after NY changed the withdrawal time. I mean, that is my issue with you. You might think you are offering balance, but you cast an aspersion on Trombetta with nothing but a speculative interpretation of his statement that he needed to be cautious about sending horses to NY.


True. I’m sure his priority was worrying, not about his own horses, but horses he may or may not train in the future.

You truly have a gift in two parts. You have great believe in your own omniscience, meaning you always get the interpretation of an ambiguous statement right. And a smugness that complements it, meaning reasonable alternative explanations must be wrong.

Did it say it was. You are speculating why I “pulled it out of thin air”. By the way, it was published in the Daily Racing Form.

I have no doubt the quote is real. And I have no doubt Trombetta was concerned about the problems of shipping between jurisdictions with different medication standards. My point is you took a quote, didn't give it context, and made a conclusion that wasn't definitive based on the quote. Claiming trainers always run the risk of inheriting another trainer's problems.

Leak information? You think too much of me. This info was readily at hand as it is public information accessible on the web via the Jockey Club. Anyone on this board has access if they were interested enough.

Leak in this case was meant to indicate "trickle out" as in provide incomplete information. It was important information to state the violations. What you can see is no pattern, and two overages for commonly used legal therapeutics in 10 years is hardly proof of a serial abuser. The cocaine violation would be of much greater concern if it hadn't manifested as likely environmental contamination.


You missed the one from the Pennsylvania Racing Commission in March of last year, just a few months before this incident. Again, public information readily available.

The Jockey Club/ARCI database of thoroughbred rulings does not show a violation for Trombetta in March of 2016. www.thoroughbredrulings.com I checked again tonight. Not there. There was a violation for phenylbutazone at GP in June 2015. The latest violation is not yet posted.

No one said he was a criminal, but multiple violations say something about barn management at the very least, no? You are way off base with your hyperbole, by the way. I simply was interested enough in the blog to try and balance what I thought was an obvious slant in the writing.

Multiple violations? Two therapeutics in 10 years and a probable environmental contamination? What is says about barn management is that he is very good. Most trainers rely on the vet to administer all medications. If you want to speculate, it is more likely the vet screwed up than Trombetta mismanaged. At the very least the person writing the article reported on what was said. You threw crap at Trombetta and hoped some of it stuck. As a journalist, you wouldn't last long.

None of this is to serve as proof that Trombetta was the one who administered clenbuterol to the horse, but all-in-all, this case is not particularly unique unless you buy into the lawyer's theory.

Where you miss the boat is that the lawyer's explanation seems to be the most likely explanation. Scott Stanley bought it. His vet bought it. The racing commission bought it. Just because an article points in one direction doesn't make it slanted if it based on the facts. The world is round, and if you don't believe that you don't have an "alternate opinion." You're wrong. You didn't document that Trombetta was using clenbuterol through some known year. You didn't offer any proof for the clenbuterol in the throat offering. The slant is entirely yours.

Gee, who’s really to blame for letting any of that sloppiness perpetuate?

The point here is subtle. You can't keep your eye on everyone every minute. Slopiness is a little harsh. There is a difference between environmental contamination and the EC levels, and actual cheating to gain an edge. I wouldn't argue against punishment, but it should be tempered by the circumstances.

I guess one way to figure out if this occurred in this specific case is to see if there was another clenbuterol positive that afternoon at Laurel.

Bingo. Do a little investigating.


Umm, no, the positive test itself serves as enough evidence. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the trainer is held responsible.

If you've read my stuff, believe me I know the absolute insurer's rule. I do have a problem with it, and I've never made a secret of that. At the very least, tampering that can be shown to be not the result of anything the trainer or his employees did should be excused (as it is in NY). You'd also know that stopping at the positive is often not going to be in the best interests of racing. You're messing with a person's livelihood. He should at the very least deserve the punishment. Say everybody believes Trombetta and his employees were completely innocent of the violation. He still gets punished because of the absolute insurers rule. If you were accused of malpractice and the proof was something you didn't do, I'm not sure you'd just pay the fine.

Of course, the absolute insurer rule has come under fire before, in several State Supreme Court cases and been found to not infringe on any constitutional rights. Furthermore, basis of the rule is three-fold: (1) a humanitarian interest in protecting the welfare of the horse, (2) protection of the betting patrons from being defrauded, and (3) protection of the revenue generated from taxing parimutual betting.

To quote one state’s Supreme Court ruling:

“The public is entitled to protection from the continuing danger that one who participates in drugging his horse will do so again, and that one who fails to protect his horse from drugging by others will repeat his negligence.”

I've read the cases. I know the rationale for the rule. It needs fixing, not by the courts but by the racing commissions. Notice I didn't say repeal. Just fixing.

In my opinion, the blogger twisted the quote.

Agree to disagree on that one.

Yes, and the lawyer and the blogger tried to ram it home that the exposure had to have occurred after the race.

It had to have been close. But I would agree this was definitely speculative.

Again, I didn’t speculate anything. I stated the reason why a two-pronged threshold has been implemented with regards to clenbuterol and it has to do with raceday administration. I mentioned one alleged route. The other point was that the lawyer’s theory of a post-race exposure was no more likely than a theory of pre-race exposure.

Speculate is the right word. I'd love to hear the explanation for why the urine was lower than the plasma.


Whatever. You are a speculating just as much (that something did not happen), and yet there is a positive finding in the horse’s blood.

Here is the difference. You have actual proof - the concentrations - that lead to a conclusion. That is not speculation. That is science. If I see a concentration of a metabolite in the horse, I have a pretty good idea when that horse could have been dosed, if at all. You totally glossed over my point which was that if there was a tracheal injection, the concentrations would have confirmed it was either probable or not probable. The tracheal injection was put speculation in the absence of correlating it to the concentration. That is the element that the racing commissions pass over. How did the result actually occur.


Again, the absolute insurer rule has repeatedly been challenged in "real" court at the state Supreme Court level and has not been found to be unconstitutional save for a couple of instances that were eventually overturned.

Agreed, but it has been modified so that in NY Trombetta might not have been found guilty. I can live with that change in other jurisdictions. The dogmatic application of a rule that should be revisited is irresponsible.

I enjoy how all of the burden is placed on the regulators. Yes, one way for violations involving therapeutic medications is for the regulators to simply ignore positive findings if they can’t provide video footage or a used syringe to prove how the substance ended up in the horse.

Never said that. I said catch them in the act with simple surveillance. If I'm reading your paragraph correctly, it is screw the cheating trainers and throw the book at them after a positive. Me, I'd like to see some investigation and some explanation. And as I've said on multiple occasions, preventing a violation from happening is infinitely more in the interests of racing than catching someone after the official sign has gone up. Talk about hyperbole and misquotes.

Another way would be for the horsemen to actually be more diligent about protecting their horses (by rule in many states, an attendant is supposed to be with an entered horse at all times—yet this often doesn’t happen), more discerning with which of their horses need to be on medication in the first place, and perhaps also be “extremely selective” with what horses they enter to race…never mind ship to New York.

I will never suggest that justice has to involve a lack of diligence. Frankly, if jurisdictions want to ban stanozolol, clenbuterol, Lasix and everything else, fine. Just have a fair system of meting out justice. If you read my stuff I never argue about legal/illegal in terms of medication. I just say, if it is legal, then lets make sure we treat trainers who use it as intended fairly. And if you set standards, make them fair and based on good science.

[Fager Fan]

This is all nonsense. You're not supposed to pick and choose which guys you want to punish.

So what if it was an odd test result? Horses don't all react and/or metabolize the same, right? Didn't we learn that with Ellis? If you somehow didn't know that before?

You want to take someone at their word. Then take everyone at their word, and you may as well quit testing.

Contamination somewhere between the finish line and the test barn my foot. How the hell are you imagining that happened?

[cj]

CJ, I've read the posts in this thread and have commented a few times to this almost unsolvable problem of drugs in the sport. If you disagree with me with what I comment, that's fine, but I feel you're starting to get a little heavy handed with your replies to Thask, NCG and others who don't agree with you........BTW, I don't appreciate you deleting my previous comment, I wasn't out of line in the slightest, just say whatever you're going to say in a REPLY....

I've said many times that the quickest way threads go bust is by having people try to play moderator. That is why I commented to Greg. Seeing how that went over, I just figured it better to delete your post which did the same thing. There was nothing more to it. I don't have any problem with you or Greg.

I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Thaskalos. If I offended him he'd be the first to let me know, and nobody but the two of us would know most likely.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This is all nonsense. You're not supposed to pick and choose which guys you want to punish.

So what if it was an odd test result? Horses don't all react and/or metabolize the same, right? Didn't we learn that with Ellis? If you somehow didn't know that before?

You want to take someone at their word. Then take everyone at their word, and you may as well quit testing.

Contamination somewhere between the finish line and the test barn my foot. How the hell are you imagining that happened?
You're totally missing the boat. This isn't about picking and choosing. This isn't about taking everyone at their word. It's about making sure that when you punish someone you have a good level of certainty that they created the overage. The difference with Ellis is that he clearly created the overage.

I've simply argued that if you demonstrate the trainer or his workers are not responsible for the overage, he falls into a different category than a trainer who created the overage. Essentially, the NY version of the absolute insurers rule. I've argued that you do full investigations for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to figure out how the horse got the substance in its blood. In the case of Ellis, we know how that happened. In the case of Trombetta, we're not so sure.

I'm not saying there is clear proof that cross-contamination occurred, but cross-contamination happens more often than you'd think. You get urine splash from a horse with clenbuterol in its system, the next horse eats some of the contaminated hay, you get a positive. Studies have been done to show that contaminated stalls can remain contaminated even after cleaning. But that's why you do an investigation.

In the real world there is a presumption of innocence. In horse racing it is the opposite. But in either case you don't want to punish the innocent. The long argument about Ellis was about whether the metabolite of stanozolol actually affected the horse during the race. That is a different issue than whether he gave the horse stanozolol. Ellis was always guilty. I just didn't think anyone got cheated in the race.

[cj]

In the real world there is a presumption of innocence. In horse racing it is the opposite. But in either case you don't want to punish the innocent. The long argument about Ellis was about whether the metabolite of stanozolol actually affected the horse during the race. That is a different issue than whether he gave the horse stanozolol. Ellis was always guilty. I just didn't think anyone got cheated in the race.

Treating horse racing with a presumption of innocence would be a disaster for the sport. Innocent can actually be guilty by a lack of due diligence. That can't be allowed, ever.

As for Ellis he used a legal drug to try to get an edge and overdid it. Until this kind of drug is banned, others will try too. It can't be banned soon enough for me.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Treating horse racing with a presumption of innocence would be a disaster for the sport. Innocent can actually be guilty by a lack of due diligence. That can't be allowed, ever.

As for Ellis he used a legal drug to try to get an edge and overdid it. Until this kind of drug is banned, others will try too. It can't be banned soon enough for me.
I tried wording that carefully. I noted horse racing starts with a presumption of guilt, but I didn't say it should have a presumption of innocence. Rather I simply said whichever way you go, we shouldn't punish the innocent (of which Ron Ellis wasn't one).

I'm ok making lack of due diligence relevant in deciding guilt. Where I've separated is in a few areas.

- When the trainer and his workers do everything "right" and everyone agrees he did everything right, that should be in a different category of adjudication. Regardless of the absolute trainer's rule, if someone spiked your horse and you had video and other evidence to prove it wasn't you or your workers, shouldn't you get off? Not according to the absolute insurers rule, except in NY.

- The standards need to be set fairly and using good science. That is not the case for all the standards. If you want the definitive example, Princess of Sylmar in the Delaware Cap. Don't believe that was an aberration.

- There needs to be consideration for finding levels of the a legal medication that have no impact on a horse's performance. That doesn't mean excuse from guilt, but it means the players weren't cheated. Too many of the standards are set not based on the levels that would indicate performance enhancement, but based on the expectation of where that level should be either naturally or after a certain withdrawal period. For example, a horse given lasix is expected not to have more than 37 mml/L of TCO2. But at 37.5 does the performance enhancing effect kick in? 39? 42? Shouldn't that be taken into account as part of the standard? Even the major sports have deminimis levels for illegal drugs, not zero tolerance. In the case of Ellis, I might have said guilty with a fine, loss of the trainer bonus, but no loss of purse to the owner since I believe expert testimony would have confirmed the residual metabolite did not affect performance, and use of stanozolol was legal.

- There needs to be consideration of environmental contamination. This is getting to be a big deal. There are too many people and too many places where a horse can get contaminated. Even if you control your barn well, there are plenty of other places to get an accidental dose.

- There needs to be better investigation. Trombetta claims environmental contamination. There should have been some sort of looking into that to determine if Trombetta's claim could be upheld.

The one place where regular courts have a presumption of guilt is drugs/alcohol, but even those areas have diminimis levels. If you are driving and you blow below 0.08, you don't get a DUI. Why is horse racing not similar?

This is not a black and white issue for me. We haven't visited the absolute insurers rule in 90 years. It's about time.

[chadk66]

I started reading this post at page one and realized it was eleven pages long. don't have time right now to read it all. I have a question but it may have been talked about or not. Has the industry ever talked about doing a 24 hr detention barn for horses entered. Just like the old four hour lasix barn from days long gone. All entrants have to be to the detention barn 24 hours from their post time. 24 hour security and only a groom and trainer/assistant trainer to have access to said horse. The industry would really balk but it's because it would work lol

[SuperPickle]

I started reading this post at page one and realized it was eleven pages long. don't have time right now to read it all. I have a question but it may have been talked about or not. Has the industry ever talked about doing a 24 hr detention barn for horses entered. Just like the old four hour lasix barn from days long gone. All entrants have to be to the detention barn 24 hours from their post time. 24 hour security and only a groom and trainer/assistant trainer to have access to said horse. The industry would really balk but it's because it would work lol

The problem with this is its drops in the bucket. Harness racing did this in response to one particular drop issue which was millshaking. It eliminated that but there's a host of other issues. Race day drugging is only one issue.

The Ron Ellis thing highlights the issue of what drugs a horse uses during training.

Also one of the downsides of detention barns is horses react differently to the process. Horses thrive on routine. Some do not handle changes in that well. There's lots of stories of horses have bad reactions to the process such as tying up or washing out. So by adding a detention bar you're adding another variable to handicap and not necessarily getting clean horses.

[chadk66]

The problem with this is its drops in the bucket. Harness racing did this in response to one particular drop issue which was millshaking. It eliminated that but there's a host of other issues. Race day drugging is only one issue.

The Ron Ellis thing highlights the issue of what drugs a horse uses during training.

Also one of the downsides of detention barns is horses react differently to the process. Horses thrive on routine. Some do not handle changes in that well. There's lots of stories of horses have bad reactions to the process such as tying up or washing out. So by adding a detention bar you're adding another variable to handicap and not necessarily getting clean horses.I trained horses for years, I understand all that. I just think it's a reasonable starting point until they can find a better solution or whatever. It would certainly lead to a better opinion from the general public. I personally don't feel there is as big of a drug problem during regular training as many suspect. For various reasons. Expensive and too hard on horses in general. Tying up in horses is a very common issue. It's not tied to any drug use or anything like that. It's a nervous issue with some horses. I had many that tied up on a frequent basis. Most could be handled with a simple vitamin E/selenium feed supplement. Washing out is also a very common thing and can be handled by various means. There are some on here that will staunchly argue that breeding non bleeders to non bleeders would elminate bleeding. The same could be said then for tying up horses and washy horses could it not?

[PaceAdvantage]

BTW, I don't appreciate you deleting my previous comment, I wasn't out of line in the slightest, just say whatever you're going to say in a REPLY....Posts aren't only deleted because they are "out of line." There are a myriad of reasons why a post might be deleted.

Complaining about the length of particular posts is completely ridiculous.

I for one appreciate when people go in-depth in their replies, especially if I am interested in the subject matter.

Nobody is forcing you to read anything on here...you can easily skip over giant posts...I sometimes do...but I would never tell someone they shouldn't post something simply because it's going to be a long post...

[Pensacola Pete]

My late father said it best:

"Anywhere you find money, you'll find cheats."

[ReplayRandall]

Posts aren't only deleted because they are "out of line." There are a myriad of reasons why a post might be deleted.

Complaining about the length of particular posts is completely ridiculous.

I for one appreciate when people go in-depth in their replies, especially if I am interested in the subject matter.

Nobody is forcing you to read anything on here...you can easily skip over giant posts...I sometimes do...but I would never tell someone they shouldn't post something simply because it's going to be a long post...

I would agree, if that was the case, but it wasn't......Anyone can clearly see there was a "contest" of writing skills, going on between the 2 posters ad nauseam, each pontificating what they were actually writing about.......I was clearly on target with my post, and it shouldn't have been deleted. See what happens when you start "choosing" who you let babble on, and who you stop.....but it is your site, so I guess I'll always be wrong in this spot.

[Fager Fan]

Halv, the only proof that exists is the drug positive. We only have a trainer's and a vet's word as proof of innocence. Everyone proclaims their innocence.

Also, isn't it absurd to think the horse picked up Clen somewhere between the finish line and the test barn? I'd really be interested in hearing a plausible way that could happen as I can't think of one.

Given how insugnificant the punishment was and is for these kinds of infractions, I'm good with the absolute insurer rule.

Remember that it's these same trainers who fight against all the things that could be put into place that would establish their innocence with more than just their word.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Halv, the only proof that exists is the drug positive. We only have a trainer's and a vet's word as proof of innocence. Everyone proclaims their innocence.

Also, isn't it absurd to think the horse picked up Clen somewhere between the finish line and the test barn? I'd really be interested in hearing a plausible way that could happen as I can't think of one.

Given how insignificant the punishment was and is for these kinds of infractions, I'm good with the absolute insurer rule.

Remember that it's these same trainers who fight against all the things that could be put into place that would establish their innocence with more than just their word.
I've not advocated getting rid of the absolute insurers rule, but modifying it like they have in NY.

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.

Tell me what is wrong with an absolute insurers rule that says proof that the trainer or his agents were not responsible gets the trainer off the hook?

If you want to see my positions, see post 165. I know you love to be disagreeable about this, but tell me which one of those suggestions is a bad idea?

I told you how you could have cross contamination of Clenbuterol in post 163. Urine splash from the previous horse and Trombetta's horse eats some of the contaminated hay. You can choose not to believe it, but it is not out of the realm of possibility. As I've said, cross-contamination is more prevalent than the players who are not looking into this realize. His punishment reflected what the commissioners believed about Trombetta's responsibility for the overage.

Ellis' punishment was hardly trivial. He's been banned from the Breeder's Cup next year. The owners lost $900,000 in purse money, and Ellis lost his 10% of that. The overage was for a legal drug at a very low level of a metabolite. What should have happened to Ellis? What would have been fair in your mind?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I would agree, if that was the case, but it wasn't......Anyone can clearly see there was a "contest" of writing skills, going on between the 2 posters ad nauseam, each pontificating what they were actually writing about.......I was clearly on target with my post, and it shouldn't have been deleted. See what happens when you start "choosing" who you let babble on, and who you stop.....but it is your site, so I guess I'll always be wrong in this spot.
There is hardly an issue more important to racing than medication/drugs. If that doesn't deserve a full discussion I don't know what does.

[AndyC]

There is hardly an issue more important to racing than medication/drugs. If that doesn't deserve a full discussion I don't know what does.

It really depends on your perspective. Clean up all the drug and medication problems in racing and you will still have a product unable to compete with other forms of gambling. This may sound cold but as a bettor I couldn't care less about drugs and medication. They are just additional handicapping factors.

Betting aside I am more interested in the horse's welfare than the element of cheating. Drugs and medications that aren't given to improve the health of a horse should be banned.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It really depends on your perspective. Clean up all the drug and medication problems in racing and you will still have a product unable to compete with other forms of gambling. This may sound cold but as a bettor I couldn't care less about drugs and medication. They are just additional handicapping factors.

Betting aside I am more interested in the horse's welfare than the element of cheating. Drugs and medications that aren't given to improve the health of a horse should be banned.
There is a chicken and egg issue. Racing's popularity is very much negatively affected by the perception of rampant drug use. It is compounded by a lack of knowledge about the extent of the problem. There is no reason horse racing couldn't compete with other forms of gambling if people believed it was on the up and up, but there is every reason to believe it can't as long as people believe cheating is common. Most of the traditional Vegas games are less and less popular, with decreasing revenues over the last few years. The games that are on the way up are skill based games where the player is in control - fantasy sports are the prime example. Horseracing falls into that category, and marketed correctly it can certainly do better than what it has done. Don't believe the perception of drug cheating isn't a prime reason for racing's demise. Just look at threads like this one - people who love the sport don't believe it's clean. How can you expect others to believe otherwise.

Other than the 26 approved therapeutic medications, all other drugs are zero tolerance.

[thaskalos]

There is a chicken and egg issue. Racing's popularity is very much negatively affected by the perception of rampant drug use. It is compounded by a lack of knowledge about the extent of the problem. There is no reason horse racing couldn't compete with other forms of gambling if people believed it was on the up and up, but there is every reason to believe it can't as long as people believe cheating is common. Most of the traditional Vegas games are less and less popular, with decreasing revenues over the last few years. The games that are on the way up are skill based games where the player is in control - fantasy sports are the prime example. Horseracing falls into that category, and marketed correctly it can certainly do better than what it has done. Don't believe the perception of drug cheating isn't a prime reason for racing's demise. Just look at threads like this one - people who love the sport don't believe it's clean. How can you expect others to believe otherwise.

Other than the 26 approved therapeutic medications, all other drugs are zero tolerance.

You couldn't be more wrong, IMO. Serious gamblers won't accept the least BIT of "acknowledged cheating" in a gambling game. If you and I enter a poker room, and are told by the proprietor of the place that we shouldn't be overly concerned, because "only a few of the players there were cheating"...do you suppose that we would ever consider sitting down at a table there? HELL no!. We'd head for the exit door as fast as we could.

Why does the serious horseplayer still patronize a gambling game where he knows for a FACT that there is "cheating" going on? Because it's the only game he has any real knowledge of...and he is unwilling to expand his horizons, and venture into other, more "honest" gambling games. Thus...the horseplayer keeps betting on the horses...even as he curses the jockeys and the trainers, under his breath.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You couldn't be more wrong, IMO. Serious gamblers won't accept the least BIT of "acknowledged cheating" in a gambling game. If you and I enter a poker room, and are told by the proprietor of the place that we shouldn't be overly concerned, because "only a few of the players there were cheating"...do you suppose that we would ever consider sitting down at a table there? HELL no!. We'd head for the exit door as fast as we could.

Why does the serious horseplayer still patronize a gambling game where he knows for a FACT that there is "cheating" going on? Because it's the only game he has any real knowledge of...and he is unwilling to expand his horizons, and venture into other, more "honest" gambling games. Thus...the horseplayer keeps betting on the horses...even as he curses the jockeys and the trainers, under his breath.

Wrong about what? Horseracing will never compete successfully with things like fantasy sports as long there is a perception of widespread cheating. The fact that there are people who still play it doesn't make that sentence wrong. As far as I could tell you said the same thing I said.

But if you remember the DRF survey on racing's problems, small players and the outsiders (like PETA) were the ones who believed drugs were racing's number one problem. High dollar players ranked drugs in racing like the 10th most important problem. If the survey is right, most of the experienced horseplayers aren't really buying the rampant drug culture. I personally don't. I do extremely well at the track, and it can only be because either I've figured out the drug culture, or it isn't really affecting my handicapping. I think it is the latter.

Horseracing is a perfect game because it is beatable if your skill is greater than the next guy's, just like fantasy sports. It is not a fixed odds game.

[thaskalos]

Wrong about what? Horseracing will never compete successfully with things like fantasy sports as long there is a perception of widespread cheating. The fact that there are people who still play it doesn't make that sentence wrong. As far as I could tell you said the same thing I said.

But if you remember the DRF survey on racing's problems, small players and the outsiders (like PETA) were the ones who believed drugs were racing's number one problem. High dollar players ranked drugs in racing like the 10th most important problem. If the survey is right, most of the experienced horseplayers aren't really buying the rampant drug culture. I personally don't. I do extremely well at the track, and it can only be because either I've figured out the drug culture, or it isn't really affecting my handicapping. I think it is the latter.

Horseracing is a perfect game because it is beatable if your skill is greater than the next guy's, just like fantasy sports. It is not a fixed odds game.

Rich...even the game itself presents itself as an "entertainment enterprise"...where "only a few of the horsemen cheat". Is this the sort of advertising copy which is apt to appeal to anyone who isn't already a committed horseplayer? Do you YOURSELF think that this game is on the "up-and-up"?

[NorCalGreg]

Rich...even the game itself presents itself as an "entertainment enterprise"...where "only a few of the horsemen cheat". Is this the sort of advertising copy which is apt to appeal to anyone who isn't already a committed horseplayer? Do you YOURSELF think that this game is on the "up-and-up"?

Not answering for Halvey but for myself:

This game is as "up and up" as Wall Street

This game is as "up and up" as Big Pharma

This game is as "up and up" as any Branch of Govt

This game is as "up and up" as pretty much every money-making venture that ever existed.

[thaskalos]

Not answering for Halvey but for myself:

This game is as "up and up" as Wall Street

This game is as "up and up" as Big Pharma

This game is as "up and up" as any Branch of Govt

This game is as "up and up" as pretty much every money-making venture that ever existed.

Look...few guys have played this game as long, or as passionately, as I have. But I still can't condone the "shady" side of the game that's been tolerated by the "industry" for far too long. Am I supposed to ignore all the former trainers and former jockeys that I have personally talked to...and pretend that our game, as it stands today, is on the "up-and-up"...as Rich Halvey seems to think it is?

I am fairly active within the general gambling community...and I've rubbed shoulders with players who have gotten rich betting on sports, playing poker...or playing the stock market. And...whenever I ask about the whereabouts of the "millionaire horseplayers"...I am always pointed towards some guy in some other country. The most successful horseplayer that I've known considers himself fortunate to have been able to put his two daughters through college.

IMO...it isn't the "rumors about cheating" that are keeping the young gamblers away from this game. What's keeping the young gambling crowd away is the total absence of any concrete proof that this game could be beaten in the long run. The game demands a great deal of time and effort, and it has an exorbitant takeout levied against it...but the worst part of it is that there are no visible horseracing WINNERS out there.

Where would poker be without the visible images of Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, Phil Ivey, Phil Galfond, Patrik Antonius, etc? If a gambling game is to be considered "beatable"...then there must be visible WINNERS out there. As it stands right now...horse racing's "winners" are the same sort of "unsubstantiated rumors" as these drugging "rumors" that Rich Halvey likes to rail against.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Rich...even the game itself presents itself as an "entertainment enterprise"...where "only a few of the horsemen cheat". Is this the sort of advertising copy which is apt to appeal to anyone who isn't already a committed horseplayer? Do you YOURSELF think that this game is on the "up-and-up"?
I think it is closer to clean than the popular perception. Do I think it is completely antiseptic? No. But I do think that trainers looking to gain a chemical edge could be identified if racing administrators made a better effort. Whether or not people agree with me, I believe the almost singular emphasis on post-race testing is part of the problem. I've opined that once the tote board is official, finding a subsequent violation does nothing for the players who bet on that race. If a trainer knows he may or may not get "caught" he may pull a Ron Ellis and take a chance. Now Ellis and the owners didn't make $900,000, but they certainly could have made a bit of money betting the race. Even so, the fact that racing let him roll the dice was indicative of the problems racing has. Very simple rule change fixes the problem. If you use any zero tolerance legal drug, you must test clear seven days before the race. Do you see my point? Racing wouldn't have had a scandal.

People here talk about trainers that all of a sudden are at 35% first time off a claim. And investigation by the stewards could reveal why. Again, you find the violation before the race, you never have the scandal.

You can't go two years getting someone a hearing and getting a punishment. That makes racing a joke.

You find someone using an exotic substance, like Nikethamide, you don't stop with the positive. You find out where it is coming from and make sure the distributor is put out of business.

You find an environmental contamination for cocaine or meth, you require all employees that come in contact with the horse to be tested. It can be at the expense of the trainer or the track, I don't care. But you find them, you can them, and you don't have to deal with a positive they might cause.

I think the game is 90% on the up and up, and I agree that last 10% screws racing as competition for the gambling dollar. But I also believe racetracks are doing very little to keep infractions from occurring. Post race testing does one thing very well. It makes racing look bad.

[thaskalos]

I think the game is 90% on the up and up, and I agree that last 10% screws racing as competition for the gambling dollar. But I also believe racetracks are doing very little to keep infractions from occurring. Post race testing does one thing very well. It makes racing look bad.

Well...the game that's only "90% honest", while charging a 17-30% "participation fee", deserves to be made to "look bad"...NO? In today's gambling landscape...a 90% honesty-level not only won't get you any "new customers"...it won't even allow you to keep the "old customers" that you once had. Which is precisely where our game finds itself today...IMO.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Look...few guys have played this game as long, or as passionately, as I have. But I still can't condone the "shady" side of the game that's been tolerated by the "industry" for far too long. Am I supposed to ignore all the former trainers and former jockeys that I have personally talked to...and pretend that our game, as it stands today, is on the "up-and-up"...as Rich Halvey seems to think it is?

As it stands right now...horse racing's "winners" are the same sort of "unsubstantiated rumors" as these drugging "rumors" that Rich Halvey likes to rail against.

Don't misquote me. I think the game is on the up and up more than popular perception suggests. That doesn't mean it is squeaky clean, and I've never argued it is squeaky clean.

Remember when there was a popular story put out that Super Bowl Sunday coincided with the highest day of violence against women? Everybody believed it, but it was totally fabricated. Eventually someone did the work to disprove it. I'm not asking for more than that.

What I rail against is indictment with only anecdote as evidence. When almost all the violations that are detected are for legal therapeutics, that indicates a different issue than if there were a high number of PED positives. You've got people who believe trainers are using undetectable PEDs, again with nothing more than conjecture as evidence. I didn't say it is not possible it could happen, just that you have to find a way of demonstrating it is true.

Speaking of Phil Ivey, did he cheat at Punto Banco or not?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Well...the game that's only "90% honest", while charging a 17-30% "participation fee", deserves to be made to "look bad"...NO? In today's gambling landscape...a 90% honesty-level not only won't get you any "new customers"...it won't even allow you to keep the "old customers" that you once had. Which is precisely where our game finds itself today...IMO.
We're not disagreeing. I'm essentially saying that racing is not doing the right things to fix that part of the game. I think you can get closer to 100% than where we are now. But, if you keep doing the same things you've always done, and you expect a different result, you're insane.

[thaskalos]

Don't misquote me. I think the game is on the up and up more than popular perception suggests. That doesn't mean it is squeaky clean, and I've never argued it is squeaky clean.

Remember when there was a popular story put out that Super Bowl Sunday coincided with the highest day of violence against women? Everybody believed it, but it was totally fabricated. Eventually someone did the work to disprove it. I'm not asking for more than that.

What I rail against is indictment with only anecdote as evidence. When almost all the violations that are detected are for legal therapeutics, that indicates a different issue than if there were a high number of PED positives. You've got people who believe trainers are using undetectable PEDs, again with nothing more than conjecture as evidence. I didn't say it is not possible it could happen, just that you have to find a way of demonstrating it is true.

Speaking of Phil Ivey, did he cheat at Punto Banco or not?

OF COURSE Ivey didn't cheat. The cards and the dealer were properties of the casino...and Ivey asked and received permission from the house in order to have the cards dealt to him in a particular way. In fact...my opinion is that it was the CASINO that cheated...by taking what is known in gambling parlance as a "shot" at Ivey.

The casino pit bosses ain't dumb. When they see a well-heeled player, with a couple of million dollars in chips in front of him, asking to have the cards dealt in a strange, particular way...the pit bosses expect some sort of "cheating" right from the start. But...since it is the casino still dealing out its own cards, they may still choose to allow the gambler to play...thinking that the gambler may still lose. And...if the gambler wins, as Ivey did...then the casino sues him in court, while knowing that the country's casino gambling laws favor the casinos in these instances. What the casino did in this case was put Ivey in the classic "no win situation"...which is a clear act of "cheating"...IMO. If Ivey lost his money...then the casino wouldn't mention a WORD about any "cheating".

[SuperPickle]

OF COURSE Ivey didn't cheat. The cards and the dealer were properties of the casino...and Ivey asked and received permission from the house in order to have the cards dealt to him in a particular way. In fact...my opinion is that it was the CASINO that cheated...by taking what is known in gambling parlance as a "shot" at Ivey.

The casino pit bosses ain't dumb. When they see a well-heeled player, with a couple of million dollars in chips in front of him, asking to have the cards dealt in a strange, particular way...the pit bosses expect some sort of "cheating" right from the start. But...since it is the casino still dealing out its own cards, they may still choose to allow the gambler to play...thinking that the gambler may still lose. And...if the gambler wins, as Ivey did...then the casino sues him in court, while knowing that the country's casino gambling laws favor the casinos in these instances. What the casino did in this case was put Ivey in the classic "no win situation"...which is a clear act of "cheating"...IMO. If Ivey lost his money...then the casino wouldn't mention a WORD about any "cheating".

Let's just say I'm pretty familiar with the Phil thing.

Honestly it was incompetency on the casino's end. Casinos don't have dealers and pit bosses like they did in the 80's and 90's. By the time they got their crap together he made millions.

The bottom line is casinos write regulations with regulators that favor them. At least 3-5 a times year someone hits a big slot machine and the casinos don't pay. Most state regulations give casinos a fair amount of discretion on not paying you in the event something unusual happens.

Casinos have gotten to the point where they absorb zero risk.

Btw.. supposedly the other people at the table were offered a deal to keep their winnings and sign an NDA and a shocking amount said no.

[EasyGoer89]

You couldn't be more wrong, IMO. Serious gamblers won't accept the least BIT of "acknowledged cheating" in a gambling game. If you and I enter a poker room, and are told by the proprietor of the place that we shouldn't be overly concerned, because "only a few of the players there were cheating"...do you suppose that we would ever consider sitting down at a table there? HELL no!. We'd head for the exit door as fast as we could.

Why does the serious horseplayer still patronize a gambling game where he knows for a FACT that there is "cheating" going on? Because it's the only game he has any real knowledge of...and he is unwilling to expand his horizons, and venture into other, more "honest" gambling games. Thus...the horseplayer keeps betting on the horses...even as he curses the jockeys and the trainers, under his breath.

You're on a roll in your last few posts in here, some of the best I've ever read you couldn't be more accurate, and you're the only one really ramming the point home that the game can't charge filet mignon prices (takeout) and give you mcdonalds hamburger food and yet they do it while not realizing that catering to horsemen over gamblers isn't getting it done.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Identifying the problem is the easy part. You want to be a hero, tell us how to solve the problem.

[thaskalos]

Identifying the problem is the easy part. You want to be a hero, tell us how to solve the problem.

Yeah, Rich...you've got us all figured out. We want to be "heroes". :rolleyes:

You keep asking us for "solutions" to horse racing's problems...as if we don't already know that there is no one within the racing "industry" willing in the LEAST to listen to what the horseplayers have to say.

[cj]

Identifying the problem is the easy part. You want to be a hero, tell us how to solve the problem.

Not drug related, but I've talked with several people over the years about problems that can be fixed that have to power to change them. I get a lot of lip service, told I'm right and thanks for the input, but rarely does anything get done.

If simple things don't get addressed, well, I doubt there is much going to happen on the drug front when it comes to horseplayer input.

[Track Phantom]

I'll be the first to say that drugging (cheating) hurts the game in a variety of ways and I'd certainly prefer to handicap horses, not people.

Having said that, I don't think that part of it stops heavy hitters from participating in the game. The drug component can be helpful from a handicapping perspective and isn't always a deterrent (i.e. singling a high percentage, super-trainer at 2-5 in a large pick 6 ticket....).

I believe the biggest deterrent is three-fold:
1. Participation costs/knowledge/time
2. Takeout
3. Small pools

It requires a hell of a lot of mental exertion just to put yourself into a position to compete with the pari-mutual opponents, saying nothing of actually beating them. In addition, there are a lot of extraneous costs (Formulator, pedigree, clocker reports, etc) that have to be invested in to stay on the same level as the other players.

Too much of the total pool is cut-away. Stating the obvious when you compare it to poker or other.

The pools, at many tracks, are just too small to bet even moderately into. The bigger tracks have bigger pools but I think bigger players would only be enticed by Derby Day sized pools. Maybe I'm wrong.

[AndyC]

You couldn't be more wrong, IMO. Serious gamblers won't accept the least BIT of "acknowledged cheating" in a gambling game. If you and I enter a poker room, and are told by the proprietor of the place that we shouldn't be overly concerned, because "only a few of the players there were cheating"...do you suppose that we would ever consider sitting down at a table there? HELL no!. We'd head for the exit door as fast as we could.

Why does the serious horseplayer still patronize a gambling game where he knows for a FACT that there is "cheating" going on? Because it's the only game he has any real knowledge of...and he is unwilling to expand his horizons, and venture into other, more "honest" gambling games. Thus...the horseplayer keeps betting on the horses...even as he curses the jockeys and the trainers, under his breath.


Is giving a horse a race before going for a win cheating or just being a good horseman? Charlie Whittingham was a master at schooling his horses in races to set them up for a later race. Jockeys countless times have not given winning efforts. Is that also cheating?

Comparing poker to racing is not persuasive. When cheating happens in poker you are the target. There are no other winners other than the cheater. In racing there are 2 events taking place, the race and the betting on the race. While it would be nice to believe that there will be no cheating of any kind in a race some day, that will simply never happen. All that can really be demanded by the players is the integrity of the pools on the betting side.

[thaskalos]

Is giving a horse a race before going for a win cheating or just being a good horseman? Charlie Whittingham was a master at schooling his horses in races to set them up for a later race. Jockeys countless times have not given winning efforts. Is that also cheating?

Comparing poker to racing is not persuasive. When cheating happens in poker you are the target. There are no other winners other than the cheater. In racing there are 2 events taking place, the race and the betting on the race. While it would be nice to believe that there will be no cheating of any kind in a race some day, that will simply never happen. All that can really be demanded by the players is the integrity of the pools on the betting side.

Yes...when a jockey does not "persevere" with a horse, to make sure that the horse attains the best possible placing...that has to be considered "cheating". And, unless I am mistaken, there are already rules in the books meant to ensure that the jockeys give their best effort aboard these horses. Why the jockeys are allowed to break these rules "countless times" is something that's beyond my comprehension. The "darkening of the horse's form" that is done on the part of the trainer is also something that cannot avoid skepticism...IMO. The trainer should not be allowed to instruct the jockey to "take it easy" on a horse...in favor of more "favorable" spots down the road. The horses should either be entered to compete to their best ability...or be declared non-betting entities before the race goes off.

The "integrity" of the betting pools is only ONE of the concerns when running a gambling game. There is also the matter of making sure that the game itself is run in a manner which does not arouse the ridicule of the betting public. When the jockey of a contending horse is stiff as if he were stricken by rigor mortis as the horses are nearing the finish line...then actions are supposed to be taken to ensure that the integrity of the game remains intact. If these injustices are ignored...then the game deserves whatever ill fortune comes its way.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Is that also cheating?

...

I don't want to steer the conversation but I'm glad you brought this up. If people ask me how many trainers I think cheat, I usually say 100%. And is one of the reason why I laugh at trainers that act holier than thou talking about the 'cheats'. I've run horses that I knew had zero chance. I've run horses that I knew were two works from being ready to be competitive. I've claimed horses that I thought really needed to prioritize doing something right in a race for the long view over going all out to win first time at the expense of accomplishing the priority.

I'm a cheater.

Like most everyone else. And we'll never get a ruling despite the fact that in the rules trainers and jocks alike are charged with running a horse with the intent to win, to have the horse ready to win, and to expect to win. It's the right policy. But it has never been enforced except out of convenience. And part of it is because some of the behavior has been normalized for centuries, part of good horsemanship if your intent isn't to cheat but rather to do right by the horse.

So when trainers talk about getting rid of cheaters, they want to get rid of the cheaters that are costing them. Not the ones that are costing you.

[thaskalos]

I don't want to steer the conversation but I'm glad you brought this up. If people ask me how many trainers I think cheat, I usually say 100%. And is one of the reason why I laugh at trainers that act holier than thou talking about the 'cheats'. I've run horses that I knew had zero chance. I've run horses that I knew were two works from being ready to be competitive. I've claimed horses that I thought really needed to prioritize doing something right in a race for the long view over going all out to win first time at the expense of accomplishing the priority.

I'm a cheater.

Like most everyone else. And we'll never get a ruling despite the fact that in the rules trainers and jocks alike are charged with running a horse with the intent to win, to have the horse ready to win, and to expect to win. It's the right policy. But it has never been enforced except out of convenience. And part of it is because some of the behavior has been normalized for centuries, part of good horsemanship if your intent isn't to cheat but rather to do right by the horse.

So when trainers talk about getting rid of cheaters, they want to get rid of the cheaters that are costing them. Not the ones that are costing you.

IMO...running a horse that "isn't yet ready for a competitive effort", or running a horse that has a "zero chance of winning"...can't be considered "real cheating". The "out-of-form" horses still have to race SOMEWHERE. REAL cheating, to me, is when your entry HAS a decent chance of running a "competitive race"...but you instruct your rider to "take it easy on the horse", in favor of a "better spot" that you have decided might be coming along in the future.

The pitiful sight of a jockey acting in a conspicuously "incompetent" manner during the race CANNOT be tolerated...IMO.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yeah, Rich...you've got us all figured out. We want to be "heroes". :rolleyes:

You keep asking us for "solutions" to horse racing's problems...as if we don't already know that there is no one within the racing "industry" willing in the LEAST to listen to what the horseplayers have to say.
I remember when I first got here. You were one of the revered. It's really too bad you couldn't live up to your press.

You misquote me and misrepresent what I say, and ultimately come up with a smarmy remark, playing on my use of the word heroes.

You're pretty much a glass half empty person - actually, a glass mostly empty person - and that's fine if it works for you. I'm just going to keep doing what I've been doing, and if it has an effect great. If not, it's my time to waste.

[ReplayRandall]

I remember when I first got here. You were one of the revered. It's really too bad you couldn't live up to your press.

You misquote me and misrepresent what I say, and ultimately come up with a smarmy remark, playing on my use of the word heroes.

You're pretty much a glass half empty person - actually, a glass mostly empty person - and that's fine if it works for you. I'm just going to keep doing what I've been doing, and if it has an effect great. If not, it's my time to waste.

I'll bet you thought the same of Boxcar when you first got here, too....:cool:

[johnhannibalsmith]

IMO...running a horse that "isn't yet ready for a competitive effort", or running a horse that has a "zero chance of winning"...can't be considered "real cheating". The "out-of-form" horses still have to race SOMEWHERE. REAL cheating, to me, is when your entry HAS a decent chance of running a "competitive race"...but you instruct your rider to "take it easy on the horse", in favor of a "better spot" that you have decided might be coming along in the future.

The pitiful sight of a jockey acting in a conspicuously "incompetent" manner during the race CANNOT be tolerated...IMO.

I don't disagree with the sentiment here. But, when someone is doing as I described and what you have labeled as not 'real cheating', someone somewhere is watching it and thinking that they are doing what you describe later as real cheating. All you have to do is read some of the different interpretations of events in-race that are posted here. Nobody trusts what the trainer says, just read this thread. The rules are the rules, enforce them balls to the wall and catch the low hanging fruit to make up for not penalizing the big stories to someone's satisfaction. We've read that too over and over.

Who gets to draw all the lines that decide one rule-breaker is a cheat but the next is some kinda true horseman?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Not drug related, but I've talked with several people over the years about problems that can be fixed that have to power to change them. I get a lot of lip service, told I'm right and thanks for the input, but rarely does anything get done.

If simple things don't get addressed, well, I doubt there is much going to happen on the drug front when it comes to horseplayer input.
It's easy to ignore any one person. It's harder to ignore a movement. Of course, it's harder still to convince horseplayers to form a movement.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'll bet you thought the same of Boxcar when you first got here, too....:cool:
No, I thought boxcar was an a-hole from the get go. If I could think of a characterization below that, I'd use that.

Speaking of zero-tolerance.....

[cj]

No, I thought boxcar was an a-hole from the get go. If I could think of a characterization below that, I'd use that.

Speaking of zero-tolerance.....

No off topics carrying over into horse racing guys, please. CC ReplayRandall.

[cj]

It's easy to ignore any one person. It's harder to ignore a movement. Of course, it's harder still to convince horseplayers to form a movement.


In racing I'm not so sure it would matter.

[thaskalos]

I don't disagree with the sentiment here. But, when someone is doing as I described and what you have labeled as not 'real cheating', someone somewhere is watching it and thinking that they are doing what you describe later as real cheating. All you have to do is read some of the different interpretations of events in-race that are posted here. Nobody trusts what the trainer says, just read this thread. The rules are the rules, enforce them balls to the wall and catch the low hanging fruit to make up for not penalizing the big stories to someone's satisfaction. We've read that too over and over.

Who gets to draw all the lines that decide one rule-breaker is a cheat but the next is some kinda true horseman?

To quote the inimitable Andy Beyer..."unless the jockey is giving the horse at least a vigorous hand ride to the wire, I harbor dark suspicions in my mind about the true motives of the corresponding jockey and trainer".

Every horse in the race must be ridden in a vigorous manner while the horse is still in a contending position...or the horse shouldn't be allowed to race at all. The trainer's argument that "my horse can't win or place, so, it may as well finish 5th so it could be saved for the better spot in two weeks" cannot be defended, because the track is booking trifecta and superfecta bets too...so, there is an "integrity factor" encompassing the minor placings too. If only the top two finishing placings are deemed "important" in a race...then the deeper vertical wagers should be abolished.

[thaskalos]

I remember when I first got here. You were one of the revered. It's really too bad you couldn't live up to your press.

You misquote me and misrepresent what I say, and ultimately come up with a smarmy remark, playing on my use of the word heroes.

You're pretty much a glass half empty person - actually, a glass mostly empty person - and that's fine if it works for you. I'm just going to keep doing what I've been doing, and if it has an effect great. If not, it's my time to waste.

Your memory is faulty. You first came here in order to attack me for some criticism that I posted here about an article of yours that some poster had presented to this site. If I remember correctly...you were railing then against the "unfair punishment" that you felt some trainer had received as a result of some drug overage...same as you are now.

I too had initially thought that you were someone of true "intellectual substance" here, so...you weren't the ONLY one here who was "misled", or "disappointed".

[thaskalos]

You're pretty much a glass half empty person - actually, a glass mostly empty person - and that's fine if it works for you.

It has worked for me so far. In the places where I spend my time...only the PARANOID survive.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Your memory is faulty. You first came here in order to attack me for some criticism that I posted here about an article of yours that some poster had presented to this site. If I remember correctly...you were railing then against the "unfair punishment" that you felt some trainer had received as a result of some drug overage...same as you are now.

I too had initially thought that you were someone of true "intellectual substance" here, so...you weren't the ONLY one here who was "misled", or "disappointed".
My memory wasn't faulty. You were da man as evidenced by many posts.

Yes, that was you who wrote a piece on my article, although it was more likely Chad when he referred to me as an "ass-clown" for noting that all but a few scientists said climate change was real that induced me me to join. I didn't much see your posting as an attack, but ass-clown - that required a response. That day was AKA, the other day that will live in infamy. If I knew then what I know now, I'd have just stayed on Twitter where I can honestly say I've never made a political remark. I often regret spending time here instead of writing more articles about trainers who weren't really guilty (that was humor). If they had a 12-step program I might sign up.

The trainer was Kellyn Gorder and he had been found guilty of a methamphetamine positive. I have to say, in a couple of years I haven't changed your mind about drugs in racing. But, on the other hand, even back then I was fighting the charge that my belief that drug problems in racing are not out of control and are manageable somehow meant I was for a chemical free-for-all on the backside.

My perception is the you haven't passed on an opportunity to take a shot at me, and it feels more personal, sort of like the fights Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer used to have. Both really smart guys who found ways to bring out the worst in each other. I'd rather it wasn't like that.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... Both really smart guys who found ways to bring out the worst in each other. I'd rather it wasn't like that.

Here, here.

Edited because I didn't want to give the impression that "I'm with Rich" in this little battle but rather that I agree that you are both smart guys with a lot to offer, especially when you disagree. I wish it stays like that.

[AndyC]

To quote the inimitable Andy Beyer..."unless the jockey is giving the horse at least a vigorous hand ride to the wire, I harbor dark suspicions in my mind about the true motives of the corresponding jockey and trainer".

Every horse in the race must be ridden in a vigorous manner while the horse is still in a contending position...or the horse shouldn't be allowed to race at all. The trainer's argument that "my horse can't win or place, so, it may as well finish 5th so it could be saved for the better spot in two weeks" cannot be defended, because the track is booking trifecta and superfecta bets too...so, there is an "integrity factor" encompassing the minor placings too. If only the top two finishing placings are deemed "important" in a race...then the deeper vertical wagers should be abolished.

There are many ways to stiff a horse a make it look like you're trying. A good jockey is not only skilled at avoiding trouble but also skilled at finding trouble if need be.

Because horses run much fewer races today than they did years ago the workout races are seen less and less.

[thaskalos]

My perception is the you haven't passed on an opportunity to take a shot at me, and it feels more personal, sort of like the fights Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer used to have. Both really smart guys who found ways to bring out the worst in each other. I'd rather it wasn't like that.

I don't get into personal-type verbal sparring, unless I am coerced...as I was by your "It's too bad you couldn't live up to your press" comment. Truth be told...I go out of my way in order to avoid tangling with the more "sophisticated" members of this site...which might be the reason why I enjoy debating with YOU as much as I do (that was humor too). :)

I don't want you to view me as someone who won't "pass on an opportunity to take a shot at you", Rich...and I regret that this is the impression that I've given you here. From now on, I will be more mindful of my posting...in order to be more aware of how my posts are perceived by the other person. I may not necessarily seek to be "revered" here...but I certainly want to avoid being misunderstood and, consequently, despised.

Whatever "quarrel" you've felt existed between us ends right now...as far as I am concerned.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I don't get into personal-type verbal sparring, unless I am coerced...as I was by your "It's too bad you couldn't live up to your press" comment. Truth be told...I go out of my way in order to avoid tangling with the more "sophisticated" members of this site...which might be the reason why I enjoy debating with YOU as much as I do (that was humor too). :)

I don't want you to view me as someone who won't "pass on an opportunity to take a shot at you", Rich...and I regret that this is the impression that I've given you here. From now on, I will be more mindful of my posting...in order to be more aware of how my posts are perceived by the other person. I may not necessarily seek to be "revered" here...but I certainly want to avoid being misunderstood and, consequently, despised.

Whatever "quarrel" you've felt existed between us ends right now...as far as I am concerned.

You have my commitment it's done as well.

[Fager Fan]

I've not advocated getting rid of the absolute insurers rule, but modifying it like they have in NY.

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.

Tell me what is wrong with an absolute insurers rule that says proof that the trainer or his agents were not responsible gets the trainer off the hook?

If you want to see my positions, see post 165. I know you love to be disagreeable about this, but tell me which one of those suggestions is a bad idea?

I told you how you could have cross contamination of Clenbuterol in post 163. Urine splash from the previous horse and Trombetta's horse eats some of the contaminated hay. You can choose not to believe it, but it is not out of the realm of possibility. As I've said, cross-contamination is more prevalent than the players who are not looking into this realize. His punishment reflected what the commissioners believed about Trombetta's responsibility for the overage.

Ellis' punishment was hardly trivial. He's been banned from the Breeder's Cup next year. The owners lost $900,000 in purse money, and Ellis lost his 10% of that. The overage was for a legal drug at a very low level of a metabolite. What should have happened to Ellis? What would have been fair in your mind?

The horse isn't eating hay between the finish line and the test barn. Nor is he getting splashed by another horse's pee. I'm asking you for a plausible scenario as to how the horse possibly got contaminated, and those aren't even plausible on a normal day at the barn, much less between the finish line and test barn.

I don't mind if proof gets someone out of the absolute insurer's rule, but such proof is going to be hard to come by without third party eyes on a horse 24/7.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The horse isn't eating hay between the finish line and the test barn. Nor is he getting splashed by another horse's pee. I'm asking you for a plausible scenario as to how the horse possibly got contaminated, and those aren't even plausible on a normal day at the barn, much less between the finish line and test barn.

I don't mind if proof gets someone out of the absolute insurer's rule, but such proof is going to be hard to come by without third party eyes on a horse 24/7.
I'll try it one more time. Trombetta's horse goes to the test barn at say 5:00. One of the horses who was previously in the test barn that day had clenbuterol in its system. When the previous horse peed, some of the sample splashed out of the collection bucket onto the hay on the floor. Trombetta's horse ate some of the hay that had been contaminated, passing into the horse's system. At 5:30 Trombetta's horse pees and the clenbuterol from the previous horse shows up in its system. Why is that not plausible? It's not like there is a toilet and the horse knows exactly how to pee into it. You ever watch them collect a sample? Mind you, I'm not saying it's highly probable, but it is plausible.

No, he doesn't get contaminated on the track or between the finish line and test barn.

No, it isn't easy to prove the trainer or his agents had nothing to do with the positive, but there are things that can be done to help the trainer maintain security. One trainer I know has a full video surveillance system that shows every stall in the barn. Another trainer has a full time security guard who has documents any non-worker who shows up at the stable. There's your third party eyes and 24/7 surveillance.

[Fager Fan]

There's no hay in the test barn, for starters. And where's your horse who tested positive for Clen from the previous race?

[chadk66]

My memory wasn't faulty. You were da man as evidenced by many posts.

Yes, that was you who wrote a piece on my article, although it was more likely Chad when he referred to me as an "ass-clown" for noting that all but a few scientists said climate change was real that induced me me to join. I didn't much see your posting as an attack, but ass-clown - that required a response. That day was AKA, the other day that will live in infamy. If I knew then what I know now, I'd have just stayed on Twitter where I can honestly say I've never made a political remark. I often regret spending time here instead of writing more articles about trainers who weren't really guilty (that was humor). If they had a 12-step program I might sign up.

The trainer was Kellyn Gorder and he had been found guilty of a methamphetamine positive. I have to say, in a couple of years I haven't changed your mind about drugs in racing. But, on the other hand, even back then I was fighting the charge that my belief that drug problems in racing are not out of control and are manageable somehow meant I was for a chemical free-for-all on the backside.

My perception is the you haven't passed on an opportunity to take a shot at me, and it feels more personal, sort of like the fights Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer used to have. Both really smart guys who found ways to bring out the worst in each other. I'd rather it wasn't like that.I will take full credit for your being here :ThmbUp:

[chadk66]

There's no hay in the test barn, for starters. And where's your horse who tested positive for Clen from the previous race?you are correct. No hay in the test barn. not even allowed. and I don't know of any that even use straw, only shavings usually or nothing at all, just dirt. No reason for either of them actually. They only spend a few minutes in a stall to collect the urine. The other time they are walking to cool out and drinking. Now contamination in the water is an outside possibility but after each horse is done the buckets get cleaned/sanitized and refilled. So it is extremely unlikely.

[Jeff P]

Keep in mind, that for the case I cited back in post #64 on page 5 of this thread (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2103663&postcount=64), despite her private vet being caught red handed injecting a nerve block called P Bloc into a horse named Raven Train on race day, trainer Jane Cibelli was quoted as follows by The Blood-Horse:

"I accept what it is but I am not guilty," Cibelli said. "If you read the consent order, I had no admission of guilt. It's only under the ultimate trainers' insurer rule that I am guilty."
Link here:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/118424/suspension-track-sanctions-for-cibelli


Personally, I'm glad that an absolute insurer's rule exists.

I just wish the penalties handed out by racing commissions were much harsher.

In my opinion Cibelli was given a slap on the wrist.



-jp

.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Keep in mind, that for the case I cited back in post #64 on page 5 of this thread (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2103663&postcount=64), despite her private vet being caught red handed injecting a nerve block called P Bloc into a horse named Raven Train on race day, trainer Jane Cibelli was quoted as follows by The Blood-Horse:


Link here:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/118424/suspension-track-sanctions-for-cibelli


Personally, I'm glad that an absolute insurer's rule exists.

I just wish the penalties handed out by racing commissions were much harsher.

In my opinion Cibelli was given a slap on the wrist.



-jp

.
As I've often noted, the articles in the BH or Paulick don't always give you enough detail to put all the pieces together.

For example, reading between the lines, it sounded like Cibelli's defense was, the veterinarian was doing it on his own with no consent from me. That was why she said she was only guilty under the absolute insurers rule.

Now before anybody goes off on me, I am NOT defending Cibelli. I was just trying to understand why she said what she did.

My position has been that the NY trainer responsibility rule makes the most sense, and even in the case of Cibelli, the NY rule would have ensured her guilt since the vet was her agent.

Everyone I've met, even trainers believe there should be an absolute insurer's rule.

[PaceAdvantage]

Where would poker be without the visible images of Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, Phil Ivey, Phil Galfond, Patrik Antonius, etc? If a gambling game is to be considered "beatable"...then there must be visible WINNERS out there. As it stands right now...horse racing's "winners" are the same sort of "unsubstantiated rumors" as these drugging "rumors" that Rich Halvey likes to rail against.And how many of those guys, plus a host of other "name" poker players, end up blowing up and require to be staked by someone else in order to get going again?

It happens more than is let on...

Do you really think there are massive amounts MORE people playing poker for a living vs. horseplayers doing it for a living? You think the game is that easy to beat, such that you can do that and nothing else and make a nice living?

[thaskalos]

And how many of those guys, plus a host of other "name" poker players, end up blowing up and require to be staked by someone else in order to get going again?

It happens more than is let on...

Do you really think there are massive amounts MORE people playing poker for a living vs. horseplayers doing it for a living? You think the game is that easy to beat, such that you can do that and nothing else and make a nice living?
Yes...I think that there are WAY more professional poker players than there are professional horseplayers...even though poker is still largely illegal or "inconvenient" in this country. And, NO...I don't mean to imply that it's "easy" to make a living in poker...or in ANY other form of "gambling".

You are wrong in your assessment of the poker players whom I mentioned by name in my earlier post. Those are poker LEGENDS...and they don't go out looking for "backers". Why there are no known horseplaying equivalents to these men in this country is a question that I would like YOU to ponder.

[onefast99]

you are correct. No hay in the test barn. not even allowed. and I don't know of any that even use straw, only shavings usually or nothing at all, just dirt. No reason for either of them actually. They only spend a few minutes in a stall to collect the urine. The other time they are walking to cool out and drinking. Now contamination in the water is an outside possibility but after each horse is done the buckets get cleaned/sanitized and refilled. So it is extremely unlikely.
I did see a horse eat a box of coffee Nips, he was scheduled to run the following day and the trainer scratched him, the program said stewards scratch. You would be amazed at the crap they eat that fall out of peoples pockets or just end up in their stalls. In this case the owner who gave her the Nips didn't know any better.

[chadk66]

I did see a horse eat a box of coffee Nips, he was scheduled to run the following day and the trainer scratched him, the program said stewards scratch. You would be amazed at the crap they eat that fall out of peoples pockets or just end up in their stalls. In this case the owner who gave her the Nips didn't know any better.they eat all kinds of things. just not in the test barn;) I've actually seen one eat fish. A guy that lived down the road from me had a boarding stable. He kept his daughters horse in a pasture by itself. The gal came home with a young bear cub one day that she bought from some exotic pet guy. She ran three strands of electric fence in the pasture and put him in with the horse. they became best friends. They would go catch a pail of sun fish and crappies once a week to feed the bear. One day they walked by and the horse was eating the fish. never seen anything like it. Seattle Slew loved Luden's cough drops too. I had a mare one time at the track that loved the peppermint candies. She was the only one that would eat em at the start of the meet in MN one year. But by the end of the meet they were all eating em. It was simply learned behavior.

[aaron]

Yes...I think that there are WAY more professional poker players than there are professional horseplayers...even though poker is still largely illegal or "inconvenient" in this country. And, NO...I don't mean to imply that it's "easy" to make a living in poker...or in ANY other form of "gambling".

You are wrong in your assessment of the poker players whom I mentioned by name in my earlier post. Those are poker LEGENDS...and they don't go out looking for "backers". Why there are no known horseplaying equivalents to these men in this country is a question that I would like YOU to ponder.
You have really make a great deal of sense. I have known many players who at one time or another were considered professionals and big time players. I have never witnessed any of them reach the heights of the successful poker player. A couple who I have known just got burned out by the game, others went broke. A few continue to make a living. For the amount of time put in,I don't know if it would be considered a significant living. Probably,the best way to make a living in horse racing,is the way Beyer did it. Another way to do it is to sell your product as Thorograph and the Sheets do, while also betting.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yes...I think that there are WAY more professional poker players than there are professional horseplayers...even though poker is still largely illegal or "inconvenient" in this country. And, NO...I don't mean to imply that it's "easy" to make a living in poker...or in ANY other form of "gambling".

You are wrong in your assessment of the poker players whom I mentioned by name in my earlier post. Those are poker LEGENDS...and they don't go out looking for "backers". Why there are no known horseplaying equivalents to these men in this country is a question that I would like YOU to ponder.
I'd add a couple of things. One, a lot of the poker legends are given big appearance fees to participate in certain games, sort of like what used to happen with Tiger Woods. He was especially given a lot of money to show up for Asian tournaments (the Asians saw him as half Asian).

I remember when NBC used to air "the Skins Game" for pro golfers. They'd try to add to the drama by telling viewers how much was on the line on a respective hole. What went through my mind was, NOTHING was on the line. They were gambling other people's money. I have a guess that happens with the poker legends quite a bit.

I'm sure that horseplayers have never gotten the exposure that poker legends did especially considering there was a time they saturated the airwaves with tournaments. You couldn't help but know the names of these guys. Horseplayers had "legends" but they were wholly within the sport. Andy Beyers, Steve Davidowitz, Mark Cramer, Dick Mitchell, and Bill Quirin were legends within the sport, but as Thask notes, not outside the sport in the way the poker legends were.

I don't know who said it, but someone could learn the basics of Texas Hold 'Em in an hour. That alone is going to be appealing to people looking for a gambling game.

[thaskalos]

I'd add a couple of things. One, a lot of the poker legends are given big appearance fees to participate in certain games, sort of like what used to happen with Tiger Woods. He was especially given a lot of money to show up for Asian tournaments (the Asians saw him as half Asian).

I remember when NBC used to air "the Skins Game" for pro golfers. They'd try to add to the drama by telling viewers how much was on the line on a respective hole. What went through my mind was, NOTHING was on the line. They were gambling other people's money. I have a guess that happens with the poker legends quite a bit.

I'm sure that horseplayers have never gotten the exposure that poker legends did especially considering there was a time they saturated the airwaves with tournaments. You couldn't help but know the names of these guys. Horseplayers had "legends" but they were wholly within the sport. Andy Beyers, Steve Davidowitz, Mark Cramer, Dick Mitchell, and Bill Quirin were legends within the sport, but as Thask notes, not outside the sport in the way the poker legends were.

I don't know who said it, but someone could learn the basics of Texas Hold 'Em in an hour. That alone is going to be appealing to people looking for a gambling game.

That's not exactly what I meant. Those racing "legends" that you mention above...could any of them state conclusively that they accumulated any sustained monetary wealth AT THE TRACK?

IMO..."gambling legends" aren't created IN PRINT. They are created in the GAMBLING ARENAS...where it COUNTS.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

That's not exactly what I meant. Those racing "legends" that you mention above...could any of them state conclusively that they accumulated any sustained monetary wealth AT THE TRACK?

IMO..."gambling legends" aren't created IN PRINT. They are created in the GAMBLING ARENAS...where it COUNTS.
There was My $50,000 Year at the Races. It would be pretty ironic if Cramer and Davidowitz didn't make a living at the track.

I think horseplayers as a rule are mostly anonymous and a closed mouthed group. There are a lot of whales out there - Maury Wolff comes to mind - who make good livings betting the races, although you might argue a significant slice of their profit is in the form of rebates.

There are different ways to play the races, and I'm not sure how many of us play to maximize profit. Be interesting to hear some opinions on the best way to do that.

[cj]

And how many of those guys, plus a host of other "name" poker players, end up blowing up and require to be staked by someone else in order to get going again?

It happens more than is let on...

Do you really think there are massive amounts MORE people playing poker for a living vs. horseplayers doing it for a living? You think the game is that easy to beat, such that you can do that and nothing else and make a nice living?


I certainly don't, but the illusion is much more prevalent than it is in horse racing, at least in my opinion.


I've run into countless young guys here in OKC that thought they could make it playing poker. There is practically a casino on every corner. All I ever heard about was "bad beats". Of course, they aren't really bad beats, they are just part of the game like losing a photo in racing or getting DQed from a winner.

[cj]

There was My $50,000 Year at the Races. It would be pretty ironic if Cramer and Davidowitz didn't make a living at the track.

I think horseplayers as a rule are mostly anonymous and a closed mouthed group. There are a lot of whales out there - Maury Wolff comes to mind - who make good livings betting the races, although you might argue a significant slice of their profit is in the form of rebates.

There are different ways to play the races, and I'm not sure how many of us play to maximize profit. Be interesting to hear some opinions on the best way to do that.

Yeah, in poker most people know who wins at the end of the day/night. In racing, nobody really knows. There is no upside to telling people you win, and certainly no upside to telling people you lose.

[Track Phantom]

In my opinion, this game isn't built to provide long term success but rather shorter term peaks and valleys. There are just way too many uncontrolled variables that limit someone from being positive on their end of X balance sheet.

It's an interesting question. I've lost many more years than I won. Much of that was due to "action" play vs "disciplined" play. I don't take the betting part all that seriously (probably should) but I also don't lean on the game in any way to pay my bills.

I've always felt there should be a different metric used, one that incorporates the entertainment value, as a benchmark for success. To me, the entertainment piece of the game is what keeps me involved, more so than the actual profitability quotient.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I don't think I know a horseplayer going to the track as a hobbyist who if he bet as he wanted to and lost $100 total for the year wouldn't think he had a great year.

Phantom is right. A good time at the track doesn't require profit every time.

[thaskalos]

In my opinion, this game isn't built to provide long term success but rather shorter term peaks and valleys. There are just way too many uncontrolled variables that limit someone from being positive on their end of X balance sheet.

It's an interesting question. I've lost many more years than I won. Much of that was due to "action" play vs "disciplined" play. I don't take the betting part all that seriously (probably should) but I also don't lean on the game in any way to pay my bills.

I've always felt there should be a different metric used, one that incorporates the entertainment value, as a benchmark for success. To me, the entertainment piece of the game is what keeps me involved, more so than the actual profitability quotient.

That may be true, but, unfortunately...the "long-term success" probability is precisely the guideline that's used when determining if a game is "beatable" or not.

[Track Phantom]

That may be true, but, unfortunately...the "long-term success" probability is precisely the guideline that's used when determining if a game is "beatable" or not.
Correct. I'm not sure that it is.

Saying it another way, the longer duration you measure, the likelihood of profitability drops. It's even harder when you factor in extraneous costs that accrue.

If someone showed profit year over year for say, 5 years, while betting (or at least tee'd up to bet) daily, I'd love to know their strategy.

[traynor]

That's not exactly what I meant. Those racing "legends" that you mention above...could any of them state conclusively that they accumulated any sustained monetary wealth AT THE TRACK?

IMO..."gambling legends" aren't created IN PRINT. They are created in the GAMBLING ARENAS...where it COUNTS.

I agree. Small arena, small fish. Big arena, big fish. Nowhere is it written that someone who is winning (relatively routinely, relatively serious amounts, over extended periods) must eschew all other aspects of his or her life to be considered a "full-time" gambler (handicapper/whatever).

I don't think winners are all that rare. Perhaps winners who need to boast of some (real or imagined) prowess to garner attention/admiration/approval are more rare than those who just do it, but have little or no need to talk about it. Which may well be because there are more interesting things to talk about.

You might consider looking for those difficult-to-find winners in the places THEY frequent. Spend a bit of time in Hong Kong (especially). Macau. Monaco. Even Cannes when the sun is shining. The Land of Oz is getting better and better, as the below might indicate:

"Sydney's housing prices shot up because foreign investors are buying trophy assets, in places like Bondi," says Elliot. "It's not sustainable growth because they're not being rented out and they're completely pricing people in the local market out of buying."

"The problem in Australia is that the only people who can afford to play the market in Sydney and Melbourne are Russians, Chinese and Middle Eastern investors."
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/architecture/2017-most-expensive-cities-hong-kong/index.html

And don't forget lowly Vancouver, tied with Sydney for second place (after Hong Kong) for "least affordable." There is more to do there than bowhunting (which is one of my favorites). Nice place, nice people. A bit on the pricey side, but you are more likely to find "real winners" there by accident than in most other places on purpose. Helps to know a bit more Mandarin than "ni hao," but not essential.

[no breathalyzer]

In my opinion, this game isn't built to provide long term success but rather shorter term peaks and valleys. There are just way too many uncontrolled variables that limit someone from being positive on their end of X balance sheet.

It's an interesting question. I've lost many more years than I won. Much of that was due to "action" play vs "disciplined" play. I don't take the betting part all that seriously (probably should) but I also don't lean on the game in any way to pay my bills.

I've always felt there should be a different metric used, one that incorporates the entertainment value, as a benchmark for success. To me, the entertainment piece of the game is what keeps me involved, more so than the actual profitability quotient.


Sure it is but you have to be willing to adjust.. angles that worked 5-10 yrs ago might not work today.... people that get stuck in there old ways unwilling to adjust get left behind chasing the $$$.

I can't expect to read and apply Harrington on Hold'em from 2005 in 2017. Shit gets out dated... Same thing goes in horse racing.. if it were that simple every horse would be 2.80

[Twin Double]

Sure it is but you have to be willing to adjust.. angles that worked 5-10 yrs ago might not work today.... people that get stuck in there old ways unwilling to adjust get left behind chasing the $$$.

I can't expect to read and apply Harrington on Hold'em from 2005 in 2017. Shit gets out dated... Same thing goes in horse racing.. if it were that simple every horse would be 2.80

But the basics fundamentals usually stay static and consistent. I agree to a small point on your Harrington on Holdem example. But I think Action Dan did a great job teaching the basics of No-Limit fundamentals in his series of books. For that reason, I believe his series of books will stand the test of time, kind of like Tom Brohammers Modern Pace Handicapping.

[thaskalos]

Sure it is but you have to be willing to adjust.. angles that worked 5-10 yrs ago might not work today.... people that get stuck in there old ways unwilling to adjust get left behind chasing the $$$.

I can't expect to read and apply Harrington on Hold'em from 2005 in 2017. Shit gets out dated... Same thing goes in horse racing.. if it were that simple every horse would be 2.80

Are you speaking from EXPERIENCE?

[Twin Double]

Yes...I think that there are WAY more professional poker players than there are professional horseplayers...even though poker is still largely illegal or "inconvenient" in this country. And, NO...I don't mean to imply that it's "easy" to make a living in poker...or in ANY other form of "gambling".

You are wrong in your assessment of the poker players whom I mentioned by name in my earlier post. Those are poker LEGENDS...and they don't go out looking for "backers". Why there are no known horseplaying equivalents to these men in this country is a question that I would like YOU to ponder.

What do you mean? What about the guys from the Esquire Horseplayers show from a couple years ago. If those aren't legends of the game then call me crazy :D . Especially that 22-year-old kid on the show that said he started handicapping like a year ago and was talking like he's an expert pace handicapper, hell I think he even give seminars nowadays. :lol: . :lol:

[no breathalyzer]

Are you speaking from EXPERIENCE?

It's limited but its from experience.. live juicy angles dry up and switch up all the time.. its your job to be ahead of the curve and know when to bail out or to catch on to a much lesser unknown one in time to be profitable.

[upthecreek]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/arcis-martin-cheating-not-ubiquitous-racing/

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I hope all of you who gave me crap for having the same position as Martin give him an equal dose.

[cj]

I think this guy made a lot of assumptions with no proof just like the first guy did.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I think this guy made a lot of assumptions with no proof just like the first guy did.
It's an interesting situation. What Martin seems to be saying is that the proof racing is not the cesspool of cheating Gorajec wants people to believe is the absence of proof it is. As I've mentioned a lot of the "proof" is isolated incidents, hyperbole and anecdote. You've got one guy here who doesn't believe how a horse's spleen works. How do you convince people racing is more on the up and up than not when you can't convince them veterinary science is real?

If the proof isn't positive tests, whether pre-race or post-race, what is it? Martin said a lot of the same things I'd been saying about where we need to do.

As one who has been in the trenches on these issues for the past 20 years, what is needed is: increased electronic surveillance; more boots-on-the-ground investigators; aggressive research into designer drugs and emerging threats; a dedicated way to pay for all this as well as expanded testing; AND a lot less politics.

If the idea is to catch 100% of the cheaters, best we give up now. It's not that some level of violation is acceptable, but if we clean out the trainers who go from 12% to 40% overnight through illegal means, keep the rate of violation for legal therapeutics below one-half of one percent, keep the rate of violation of Class 1 and 2 substances (including steroids) to less than 50 a year, that's probably about as close to perfection as you are going to get. You certainly wouldn't hold the police department to a higher standard than that.

I've criticized (I believe deservedly) racing commissions for not doing enough to build public confidence. They are great about putting out press releases when they get a positive. I'd like to see some press releases on how they prevented them from ever happening.