"Racing’s integrity? Some officials just don’t give a damn"

[PaceAdvantage]

It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham - Woody Allen, 'Bananas' ... Well said, Woody. It certainly applies to the most recent suspension of Jamie Ness.
.
.
.
Although fans and horsemen can take issue with the length of the suspension, the true mockery of the sport is that Mr. Ness’s wife, Mandy, has been allowed to serve as trainer for her husband at Tampa Bay Downs while he is under suspension. To add insult to this mockery, the horses that Mr. Ness had been racing at Laurel Race Course in Maryland have been transferred to his assistant, Cory Jensen, for the period of his 100-day suspension.You can read the entire piece at this link:

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/racings-integrity-some-officials-just-dont-give-damn/

[thaskalos]

You can read the entire piece at this link:

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/articles/racings-integrity-some-officials-just-dont-give-damn/

What happens if Mrs. Ness is also suspended, while her husband is still sitting out his own suspension? Do the horses get transferred over to her sister?

After 10 starts...Mandy Ness has saddled 3 winners. Who says that genius can't run "in the family"?

[cj]

No reason the rules in Indiana shouldn't be in place everywhere.

[lamboguy]

don't think for 1 second that Ness believes he will be able to extract money out of this game forever. he is treating things like there is no tomorrow and grabbing while the grabbing is good. the man has kids and a mortgage to payoff and there is no other business that he can take down this type of money that he is capable of earning at

[burnsy]

No reason protocol and rules are not nation wide. Including seasons, number of races and infraction rulings................like every other professional sport in the country. Even that is no where near perfect, look at the NFL and the Baseball steroid debacle, but at least over time even these systems have improved and people get punished. To go along with the original Woody Allen quote, its a mockery of a joke and the mockery of a joke falls on the customer. Everyone else goes on vacation and has family members or assistants STILL ENTERING RACES. THE TRAINER AND THE HORSES SHOULD ALL BE OUT FOR THE LENGTH OF THE SUSPENSION. Want to see some owners and trainers change their ways? With this deal, who really gives a damn? Did I mention its a mockery of a joke on the public? Oh yeah, I did. Then they sit there and wonder why there are so many "skeptics" of this game.........:bang:

Ask 10 people why they don't bet horses and 6 or 7 will say because they cheat.........that confirms the "mockery rule". It would be great if those 6 or 7 people were wrong, unfortunately they are not wrong. Its only a dirty little secret when people can't see what goes on, that welcome was worn out years ago.

[thaskalos]

If the most successful trainers in the game cheat...then, who are the honest trainers? The ones who are struggling to pay their bills?

[JustRalph]

This guy ruined Tampa for me........

[cj]

This guy ruined Tampa for me........

This is what I think a lot of tracks don't understand. Sure, these guys help fill fields, at least to the extent they are "filled" in 2017, but they also turn off a lot of bettors and probably cost handle.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This is what I think a lot of tracks don't understand. Sure, these guys help fill fields, at least to the extent they are "filled" in 2017, but they also turn off a lot of bettors and probably cost handle.

My experience here says there is only one opinion that is considered legitimate, but what the hell.

1. Why should the owners be punished for the trainer's transgressions, assuming the owners weren't complicit, as one poster suggested?

2. Doesn't taking the horses away from a trainer effectively create punishment beyond the sentence (which I'm sure people like)? Shouldn't the "death penalty," to borrow a phrase from the NCAA, be limited to say, performance enhancing medications or Class 1 and 2 medications? Maybe the assistant can take over for violations of common therapeutics, but draw a line somewhere. If I was a trainer and an owner moved his horses to me, I'd insist that it not be only until his previous trainer was off suspension.

3. Most serious bettors don't have any problem with Jamie Ness or his ilk. They simply make him a factor. When DJ was winning first off the claim at a huge number, you just stuck his horse in automatically. Handicapping was easy. The more casual crowd - maybe you have a point.

[cj]

My experience here says there is only one opinion that is considered legitimate, but what the hell.

1. Why should the owners be punished for the trainer's transgressions, assuming the owners weren't complicit, as one poster suggested?

2. Doesn't taking the horses away from a trainer effectively create punishment beyond the sentence (which I'm sure people like)? Shouldn't the "death penalty," to borrow a phrase from the NCAA, be limited to say, performance enhancing medications or Class 1 and 2 medications? Maybe the assistant can take over for violations of common therapeutics, but draw a line somewhere. If I was a trainer and an owner moved his horses to me, I'd insist that it not be only until his previous trainer was off suspension.

3. Most serious bettors don't have any problem with Jamie Ness or his ilk. They simply make him a factor. When DJ was winning first off the claim at a huge number, you just stuck his horse in automatically. Handicapping was easy. The more casual crowd - maybe you have a point.

1) I don't think owners should be punished other than having to find a new trainer. Is that what you mean? The whole thing can get pretty hairy. I think many times it is the owner driving the ship, not the trainer. Actually I don't think it, I know it.

2) There is no reason horses can't be moved back after the suspension. I don't think many trainers are going to turn down horses they know will leave in three months or whatever it is. Most can't afford to do that.

3) There really isn't a way to know unless we have actual betting data. You could be right, and I don't care enough to try to figure it out because I know it isn't changing any time soon.

[AskinHaskin]

No reason the rules in Indiana shouldn't be in place everywhere.

While we're at it, they should run the Kudzu Stakes in Indiana too.

[cj]

While we're at it, they should run the Kudzu Stakes in Indiana too.

Yeah, I have no idea what that means.

[thaskalos]

3. Most serious bettors don't have any problem with Jamie Ness or his ilk. They simply make him a factor. When DJ was winning first off the claim at a huge number, you just stuck his horse in automatically. Handicapping was easy. The more casual crowd - maybe you have a point.

My feeling is that most serious bettors would rather handicap horses, than handicap veterinarians.

[cj]

My feeling is that most serious bettors would rather handicap horses, than handicap veterinarians.

This is 100% true in my case and plenty others I know.

[EMD4ME]

My feeling is that most serious bettors would rather handicap horses, than handicap veterinarians.

AMEN

[Jeff P]

My feeling is that most serious bettors would rather handicap horses, than handicap veterinarians.

From The Jockey Club Website |
Perspectives on Medication and Integrity What the Polls Say:
http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=RT&year=2013&area=10

When we breakout the biggest bettors, those who bet more than $10,000 a month, we learned that an overwhelming 80%, four out of five big bettors say that drugs as well as takeout rates are the most important problems for the industry to address. We also learned that these issues don't just affect the way that bettors and fans view horse racing as a sport.

They also affect the way they wager on races.



-jp

.

[EMD4ME]

From The Jockey Club Website |
Perspectives on Medication and Integrity What the Polls Say:
http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=RT&year=2013&area=10





-jp

.



I lost $26,000 or $30,000 (can't remember) in Mid December on a race where I ran 2nd and 3rd in the only race I lost in the pick 5.

Undoubtedly in my mind, I AM 10000% sure the winner was so HIGH on drugs/juice/milkshake etc that I would bet my car or 401K on that fact.

Besides jockey stiffs, NOTHING BURNS ME MORE.

[linrom1]

My feeling is that most serious bettors would rather handicap horses, than handicap veterinarians.


No they don't! The hypocrites huff and puff and DON'T DO SHIT about it.

I on the other hand will bet Tampa Bay on 3/11 with relish? Just how many stake horses does this shit and his lot have in Florida Oaks, Tampa Bay Derby or Hillsborough?

You can wine all you want, but until you stop betting ALL claiming and cheap races, you get what you pay for.

I bet GP last week, how many races i am going to bet this week? Zero! I won't bet a penny into their 13 race cheap crap that they keep carding day after day at 6 -7 1/2f.

[thaskalos]

No they don't! The hypocrites huff and puff and DON'T DO SHIT about it.

I on the other hand will bet Tampa Bay on 3/11 with relish? Just how many stake horses does this shit and his lot have in Florida Oaks, Tampa Bay Derby or Hillsborough?

You can wine all you want, but until you stop betting ALL claiming and cheap races, you get what you pay for.

I bet GP last week, how many races i am going to bet this week? Zero! I won't bet a penny into their 13 race cheap crap that they keep carding day after day at 6 -7 1/2f.

Is the effectiveness of these drugs limited to the cheap horses?

[cj]

No they don't! The hypocrites huff and puff and DON'T DO SHIT about it.

I on the other hand will bet Tampa Bay on 3/11 with relish? Just how many stake horses does this shit and his lot have in Florida Oaks, Tampa Bay Derby or Hillsborough?

You can wine all you want, but until you stop betting ALL claiming and cheap races, you get what you pay for.

I bet GP last week, how many races i am going to bet this week? Zero! I won't bet a penny into their 13 race cheap crap that they keep carding day after day at 6 -7 1/2f.

I can't speak for others, but I rarely ever bet a claiming race any longer. I'm just not that interested in handicapping people. It isn't what drew me to the sport and never will be.

I realize that the people matter at all levels of racing, and that is ok. But when they are the overriding factor, no thanks.

[EMD4ME]

At the risk of sounding like Nitro, that is why I bet Emerald Downs.

What I politely mean by "most formful racing in America" is no juice job trainers and no BS amongst riders.

I got people at Belmont to bet EMD and I can't tell you how many say:

WOW. Is that what real racing looks like? :lol::lol::lol:

(No rating, riders riding, duels, close to no herding).

You all will think I am nuts but it truly is America's best product after Saratoga and Keeneland.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

1) I don't think owners should be punished other than having to find a new trainer. Is that what you mean? The whole thing can get pretty hairy. I think many times it is the owner driving the ship, not the trainer. Actually I don't think it, I know it.

2) There is no reason horses can't be moved back after the suspension. I don't think many trainers are going to turn down horses they know will leave in three months or whatever it is. Most can't afford to do that.

3) There really isn't a way to know unless we have actual betting data. You could be right, and I don't care enough to try to figure it out because I know it isn't changing any time soon.

Yes. Someone had suggested banning the owner and horse. That seemed arbitrarily punitive.

I agree that it is fine to move horses after the suspension period. I just think it is less likely an owner would do that unless the new trainer was a dud. I was really suggesting you reserve keeping the trainer's assistant (or his wife) from training for violations above a certain level because it can take away a lot of the trainer's livelihood.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

My feeling is that most serious bettors would rather handicap horses, than handicap veterinarians.

If I knew why DJ used to win at a high percentage first off the claim I'd say so. But the data had to influence your wagering. Whether is was chemistry or horsemanship, he had a run.

[dilanesp]

My feeling is that most serious bettors would rather handicap horses, than handicap veterinarians.

Not only that, there are animal welfare issues as well. Dopers are basically poisoning horses.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

As many old guys that post here, I'm betting that if I checked medicine cabinets I'd find more than bandaids and rubbing alcohol. I'd only suggest that most of the therapeutics (I won't say all because I don't have the definitive evidence to say so) aren't toxic and don't have long term health impacts. Just like that blood pressure/cholesterol/thyroid pill you take.

I'm at the HBPA meeting this week and the head of ARCI once again reinforced the statistic on drug/medication positives.

Out of 370,000 post race blood/urine tests, less than 1% came back positive, and almost all those positives were for legal, approved therapeutics.

I can only say if you think legal therapeutics are the problem, then I guess that statistic means nothing.

[Nitro]

At the risk of redundancy, I’ll just remind everyone about why I prefer to play the best racing product on the planet.

In Hong Kong there are no Maiden Claiming, Claiming, or Allowance races. In other words, the 95% of ALL races available for play in the States aren’t even considered for play in HK.
All the action there involves either Handicap or Stakes races.

Imagine that!
Fields filled consistently with 12 to 14 entries in every race.
Added running weight variations from 134 to 105 lbs. (True handicaps)
Jockeys held accountable for not only for blatant interference, but lethargic rides as well.
And best of all – NO Drugs of ANY KIND are permitted with heavy penalties and suspension.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a player’s paradise!

Someday it will become obvious that the only way to resolve all of the current issues regarding the racing in the States is to create a central organization and chairman to regulate and control all of racing on even terms across the entire playing field.
All other major Sports have done it. Why not horse racing? It's LONG overdue!

[lamboguy]

This is what I think a lot of tracks don't understand. Sure, these guys help fill fields, at least to the extent they are "filled" in 2017, but they also turn off a lot of bettors and probably cost handle.
those big trainers have a strangle hold on the game. they have to many horses, and they control the condition books. today if you get rid of a trainer that has 80 horses, you have a problem filling races. if you don't fill races the tracks will run less, if the tracks run less those paychecks will fall apart.

VICIOUS CIRCLE

[AskinHaskin]

I bet Emerald Downs.

...close to no herding



You do understand the prerequisite for there to be herding among animals, right??

[AskinHaskin]

Yeah, I have no idea what that means.



OK, lets run the North Dakota Derby in Indiana then.

[cj]

OK, lets run the North Dakota Derby in Indiana then.

You're much too witty for me. Spell it out or move on.

[Track Phantom]

...Out of 370,000 post race blood/urine tests, less than 1% came back positive, and almost all those positives were for legal, approved therapeutics.
I would alter that stat to read "1% situations where trainers were either careless or didn't get the memo on how to beat the drug test".

Not sure what you're implying but there is no way in hell that 99% of the horses running are 100% clean. Not a chance in hell. Could care less about what some self-serving report says.

I have eyes and went past the third grade.

[VeryOldMan]

It wasn't mentioned in this article, but Cory Jensen also happens to be Ness' cousin. So the horses are with his wife and cousin.

What a joke.

[AskinHaskin]

Out of 370,000 post race blood/urine tests, less than 1% came back positive, and almost all those positives were for legal, approved therapeutics.






The problem is, there were probably three million starters from which they bothered to cull 370,000 samples.


Do you know how they administer race day drug testing in low-budget 2017??


At one certain track they test each winner, and then a whopping three random horses on the entire card. So anybody working with illegal substances to have an adverse effect on a horse's performance could play the percentages for quite a long while before getting caught. (then you just have your next-of-kin train your string for 6 months... (or 1 1/2 weeks?) before going back to play the percentages all over again).

In an ideal-but-expensive world, all starters would be tested (perhaps both pre- and post-race).

But that cheap band-aid application strongly hints at how lax the rest of the testing likely tends to be. So why bother to talk about testing unless you are... well... y'know...testing!!


You're not testing 80% of the starters.

The stats you cite are on the path toward those used to establish global warming. ("Weather data has been kept since 1880" - so you're taking 1/33,000,000th of the sample and making declarations about the whole set based on your 1/33,000,000th of the data) (that while everyone knows and agrees that the earth was much warmer than in the present when dinosaurs roamed the planet)

That would be the statistical equivalent to surveying the votes of four human voters and calling the U.S. Presidential election based on who they voted for. (at least weather, and the horse's drug test would give you more accurate data, even though your sample size is minute)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I would alter that stat to read "1% situations where trainers were either careless or didn't get the memo on how to beat the drug test".

Not sure what you're implying but there is no way in hell that 99% of the horses running are 100% clean. Not a chance in hell. Could care less about what some self-serving report says.

I have eyes and went past the third grade.

I'm not implying anything. I cited a statistic that the head of ARCI presented.

Depends on what you mean by clean. They are obviously running with approved therapeutics in their system, including about 95% on Lasix. If you believe horses are running with undetectable performance enhancing drugs in their system, you should push racetracks to spend more time looking for the dealers rather than testing horses that have already been dosed.

[onefast99]

No reason protocol and rules are not nation wide. Including seasons, number of races and infraction rulings................like every other professional sport in the country. Even that is no where near perfect, look at the NFL and the Baseball steroid debacle, but at least over time even these systems have improved and people get punished. To go along with the original Woody Allen quote, its a mockery of a joke and the mockery of a joke falls on the customer. Everyone else goes on vacation and has family members or assistants STILL ENTERING RACES. THE TRAINER AND THE HORSES SHOULD ALL BE OUT FOR THE LENGTH OF THE SUSPENSION. Want to see some owners and trainers change their ways? With this deal, who really gives a damn? Did I mention its a mockery of a joke on the public? Oh yeah, I did. Then they sit there and wonder why there are so many "skeptics" of this game.........:bang:

Ask 10 people why they don't bet horses and 6 or 7 will say because they cheat.........that confirms the "mockery rule". It would be great if those 6 or 7 people were wrong, unfortunately they are not wrong. Its only a dirty little secret when people can't see what goes on, that welcome was worn out years ago.
So what proof do you have the owners have any knowledge what the trainer or anyone else associated with the trainer did to these horses that caused Ness to get suspended? Have you ever owned a horse? If so you would need to sleep in the stall to make sure nothing improper is being done to your horse. The issue here is simple, if a trainer is suspended the horses must go to a trainer who is not affiliated with the suspended trainer. Please stop thinking the owners are the ones telling the trainers or vets what to do.

[dilanesp]

I'm not implying anything. I cited a statistic that the head of ARCI presented.

Depends on what you mean by clean. They are obviously running with approved therapeutics in their system, including about 95% on Lasix. If you believe horses are running with undetectable performance enhancing drugs in their system, you should push racetracks to spend more time looking for the dealers rather than testing horses that have already been dosed.


I prefer testing and punishing trainers, because they are responsible for the care of their horses.

[PaceAdvantage]

Please stop thinking the owners are the ones telling the trainers or vets what to do.In a not so insignificant number of cases, I'm betting this is exactly what goes on...

You are making it seem like "hands-on" owners are a rarity in this game :lol:

If only trainers would stop complaining about all the owners who leave them alone and just let them train...:pound:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The problem is, there were probably three million starters from which they bothered to cull 370,000 samples.


Do you know how they administer race day drug testing in low-budget 2017??


At one certain track they test each winner, and then a whopping three random horses on the entire card. So anybody working with illegal substances to have an adverse effect on a horse's performance could play the percentages for quite a long while before getting caught. (then you just have your next-of-kin train your string for 6 months... (or 1 1/2 weeks?) before going back to play the percentages all over again).

In an ideal-but-expensive world, all starters would be tested (perhaps both pre- and post-race).

But that cheap band-aid application strongly hints at how lax the rest of the testing likely tends to be. So why bother to talk about testing unless you are... well... y'know...testing!!


You're not testing 80% of the starters.

The stats you cite are on the path toward those used to establish global warming. ("Weather data has been kept since 1880" - so you're taking 1/33,000,000th of the sample and making declarations about the whole set based on your 1/33,000,000th of the data) (that while everyone knows and agrees that the earth was much warmer than in the present when dinosaurs roamed the planet)

That would be the statistical equivalent to surveying the votes of four human voters and calling the U.S. Presidential election based on who they voted for. (at least weather, and the horse's drug test would give you more accurate data, even though your sample size is minute)

I'm not going to do anything more than report the statistic. You can interpret it however you want. I will say that QA/QC programs at say manufacturing plants do detailed inspections at far less than 100% of the finished products. Statistically you can do calculations that tell you how many inspections to do to be 75%, 80%, 90% or 99% confident. Whatever you are talking about, it is possible to test at less than 100%, maybe as low as 5%, and still have a high level of confidence. Perhaps racetracks don't do that, but if you have a good program you can find quite a few of the violations. The key is statistically designing the testing program.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I prefer testing and punishing trainers, because they are responsible for the care of their horses.

Find the dealers and the users get cut off. Not just one. All of them. Be thorough on that and you've solved your problem across the board.

[dilanesp]

Find the dealers and the users get cut off. Not just one. All of them. Be thorough on that and you've solved your problem across the board.


I consider the trainers to be more morally culpable than the dealers. So I would rather destroy the careers and the lives of trainers who dope their horses.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I consider the trainers to be more morally culpable than the dealers. So I would rather destroy the careers and the lives of trainers who dope their horses.

Remember the Hydra? Cut off one head another grew back. Hercules was only able to kill the Hydra by cutting off the one immortal head. Cut off one trainer, another appears. You don't get the desired outcome until you cut off the person enabling the violations.

[cj]

In a not so insignificant number of cases, I'm betting this is exactly what goes on...

You are making it seem like "hands-on" owners are a rarity in this game :lol:

If only trainers would stop complaining about all the owners who leave them alone and just let them train...:pound:

This is spot on. Hell, we've all seen it. Michael Gill bounced from trainer to trainer. Frank Calabrese does the same thing. He changes trainers like I change socks. There are guys taking 5% instead of the standard 10 for certain owners. No way those guys aren't calling the shots. Midwest Thoroughbreds listening to trainers for how to manage the horses? I don't think so.

[ultracapper]

The problem is, there were probably three million starters from which they bothered to cull 370,000 samples.


Do you know how they administer race day drug testing in low-budget 2017??


At one certain track they test each winner, and then a whopping three random horses on the entire card. So anybody working with illegal substances to have an adverse effect on a horse's performance could play the percentages for quite a long while before getting caught. (then you just have your next-of-kin train your string for 6 months... (or 1 1/2 weeks?) before going back to play the percentages all over again).

In an ideal-but-expensive world, all starters would be tested (perhaps both pre- and post-race).

But that cheap band-aid application strongly hints at how lax the rest of the testing likely tends to be. So why bother to talk about testing unless you are... well... y'know...testing!!


You're not testing 80% of the starters.

The stats you cite are on the path toward those used to establish global warming. ("Weather data has been kept since 1880" - so you're taking 1/33,000,000th of the sample and making declarations about the whole set based on your 1/33,000,000th of the data) (that while everyone knows and agrees that the earth was much warmer than in the present when dinosaurs roamed the planet)

That would be the statistical equivalent to surveying the votes of four human voters and calling the U.S. Presidential election based on who they voted for. (at least weather, and the horse's drug test would give you more accurate data, even though your sample size is minute)

370,000 tested of 3,000,000 starters is more than 12% of all starters. You're saying that is no better sample than 1/33 millionth?

You lose the argument, and credibility, when you blatantly try to sell gross hyperbole to make your point. Regardless of the budget afforded testing facilities, I don't believe for a second that we are on the road to them only testing one horse every 13 years, or whatever it works out to.

And FYI, they do a pretty good job predicting presidential elections on election day by taking exit polls of, oh, say, about 8 to 10 percent of those voting at just the precincts they poll at. They're testing a much larger sample of horses in the study noted.

Keep firing. You'll hit something.

[Hambletonian]

My experience here says there is only one opinion that is considered legitimate, but what the hell.

1. Why should the owners be punished for the trainer's transgressions, assuming the owners weren't complicit, as one poster suggested?

2. Doesn't taking the horses away from a trainer effectively create punishment beyond the sentence (which I'm sure people like)? Shouldn't the "death penalty," to borrow a phrase from the NCAA, be limited to say, performance enhancing medications or Class 1 and 2 medications? Maybe the assistant can take over for violations of common therapeutics, but draw a line somewhere. If I was a trainer and an owner moved his horses to me, I'd insist that it not be only until his previous trainer was off suspension.

3. Most serious bettors don't have any problem with Jamie Ness or his ilk. They simply make him a factor. When DJ was winning first off the claim at a huge number, you just stuck his horse in automatically. Handicapping was easy. The more casual crowd - maybe you have a point.

And this, my friends, is why horse racing is a dying sport. The so-called customers don't give a crud about the credibility of the game or the welfare of the participants, as long as they can quantify it and make a buck off of it.

[dilanesp]

Remember the Hydra? Cut off one head another grew back. Hercules was only able to kill the Hydra by cutting off the one immortal head. Cut off one trainer, another appears. You don't get the desired outcome until you cut off the person enabling the violations.

I don't have the same desired outcome you do.

I don't like doping at all, but I also know that it's happened throughout the history of organized sports, and that people are always going to find some way to stay ahead of the people policing it. So i am skeptical that anything, including going after dealing and vets, will be anywhere near fully effective.

But what we can do is ruin the lives of people we catch, which both sends a deterrent signal and is completely morally just. It's especially morally just with respect to a trainer, who is a fiduciary who is responsible for the well being of an animal in his or her care.

I like things like 10 year suspensions, Make it impossible for people who poison their horses to work in the sport again. Make them pay huge fines, make their lives miserable. A criminal prosecution and prison sentence for animal cruelty would be a nice thing every once in awhile.

Because horsemen are supposed to be responsible for preventing dope from getting into their charges' bloodstreams. Imagine if my profession said "don't disbar any unethical lawyers, go after the clients that hire them". How convenient.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I don't have the same desired outcome you do.
Yes you do. Get the drugs out of racing. In this country we tried locking up all the weed users and throwing away the key. Didn't stop people from using drugs, and it certainly didn't cripple the cartels. If you suspend a trainer for 10 years and you don't find the dealer, in my opinion you've left half the job undone.


Because horsemen are supposed to be responsible for preventing dope from getting into their charges' bloodstreams. Imagine if my profession said "don't disbar any unethical lawyers, go after the clients that hire them". How convenient.
Not even close. If you lie to win a case and get caught, you should clearly be punished. If the client was in on it with you, he should be punished too. In other words, if you use drugs you get punished, and if you sold the trainer those drugs you get punished. But if you only punish the trainer...well, same as what I said above.

[lamboguy]

my problem lately has been to figure out who the new trainers are taking over for these days. tonight i just found out about DERRYL GOETZ, who happens to be a 31% win trainer so far. he took over for POtts when he tested positive for Benedryl and Naproxin.

i have no idea why they aren't letting us know in the programs that get printed out who the guy is replacing. the game is like playing musical chairs and to easy to make mistakes. that's why this game is going to bust me.

[AskinHaskin]

370,000 tested of 3,000,000 starters is more than 12% of all starters. You're saying that is no better sample than 1/33 millionth?

You lose the argument, and credibility, when you blatantly try to sell gross hyperbole to make your point. Regardless of the budget afforded testing facilities, I don't believe for a second that we are on the road to them only testing one horse every 13 years, or whatever it works out to.

And FYI, they do a pretty good job predicting presidential elections on election day by taking exit polls of, oh, say, about 8 to 10 percent of those voting at just the precincts they poll at. They're testing a much larger sample of horses in the study noted.

Keep firing. You'll hit something.



And you lose all where it comes to actually comprehending what you read.

Nice try though.


You are not trying to predict who the next drug cheat is... you have to catch him with irrefutable evidence in order to (give him today's slap on the wrist).

And the specifics I gave cited a place that is testing something not far from 5% of the losing horses. So you're gonna know that perhaps 1 losing horse in every 3 races has been tested. There are perhaps more than that with ping-pong balls inserted to render them hopeless on race day. :lol:

The, uh, catch is that youuuuuuuuuuuu don't get to know which ones any of those are....

[ultracapper]

And you lose all where it comes to actually comprehending what you read.

Nice try though.


You are not trying to predict who the next drug cheat is... you have to catch him with irrefutable evidence in order to (give him today's slap on the wrist).

And the specifics I gave cited a place that is testing something not far from 5% of the losing horses. So you're gonna know that perhaps 1 losing horse in every 3 races has been tested. There are perhaps more than that with ping-pong balls inserted to render them hopeless on race day. :lol:

The, uh, catch is that youuuuuuuuuuuu don't get to know which ones any of those are....

Who cares about the losing horses? You don't even need to test them. The economics of the game will take care of the losers. If AHaskin owns a horse, and he's slipping a crooked vet or trainer $hundies to give a horse some illegal, designer PED, and the horse runs 4-18, 6-12, and 5th by 5 1/4 lengths, what's owner AHaskin going to do next? I won't wait for the answer here. AHaskin is going to:

1) Quit paying for the expensive designer PED because his horse can run 6th without it

2) Fire the vet/trainer, or

3) Get out of the game

When you cheat, you cheat for one reason, and that's to be successful. If cheating isn't leading to success, you'll either quit cheating, or try cheating another way. If the new way leads to a win, you're going to get tested.

So, the answer is, make the guidelines stringent, and make the penalties even more stringent. You get caught cheating, you're in massive trouble. When you test all the winners, and 3 losers, you're testing 3 more horses than you need to, because owners aren't going to pay to lose. You can lose on the cheap. Owners will police themselves on the losers simply because they're not going to pay to lose. If I were to test any of the also rans, it would be horses at 20-1 or higher filling trifecta spots, other than that, testing the winners, with rock solid criteria and extremely firm penalties doled out, should be enough.

And all this contaminated buckets and hoses and whatever excuses need to be called what they are, horse manure. If a trainer has a crew full of coke heads looking over his horses, that's not an excuse to get him off the hook. He's responsible for that horse's well being. He needs to be damn sure about all the people he has watching over his animals. If a grocery clerk breaks a bottle of wine and comes up positive for weed on the pee test, he's out the door. Yet trainers can have guys heating the pipe around back and then feeding their $thous investment, and maybe a slap on the wrist if the horse catches a buzz. It's nonsense.

[Jeff P]

Who cares about the losing horses?...

...When you cheat, you cheat for one reason, and that's to be successful. If cheating isn't leading to success, you'll either quit cheating, or try cheating another way...

Because there's betting involved - and because sometimes that betting can amount to insider trading - allow me to throw out a scenario you may not have considered.

I know from analyzing race results using my databases - that in races where the favorite did not win:

I can generate profits in the win pool by dutching all horses in the race except the favorite to win.

I also know that in races where the favorite does not win - by applying a little handicapping - I can generate even bigger profits by dutching all horses in the race other than the favorite who are also logical contenders to win.

I also know that in races where the favorite does not win - I can generate still bigger profits by employing similar strategies in high end exotics pools.

I recall several incidents from the early 2000's where it was reported that horses racing in California were found post race to have had sponges inserted into their noses. (The intent being it would be difficult for them to breathe.)

If I recall correctly, the last thing that I read about these cases was that the CHRB was conducting an ongoing investigation. (But I cannot recall ever seeing anything published about the outcome of that investigation.)

FYI, I just tried Googling it, and came up with this LA Time article written by Bill Christine - Sponge Found in Another Horse:
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/oct/21/sports/sp-59905

A trainer at Hollywood Park found a sponge in a horse's nose, about a week after three horses were discovered to have sponges in their noses at Santa Anita.

Trainer Pico Pedermo told the Daily Racing Form that he discovered a sponge in one of Yukon Charley's nostrils a week after the horse ran third in a race on Oct. 4 at Santa Anita. Yukon Charley is stabled at Hollywood Park and was vanned to Santa Anita for the race.

Two horses were scratched from races at Santa Anita on Oct. 10 after sponges were found in their noses. Earlier that week, another horse came back from a workout with a sponge in her nose.

Horses can breathe only from their noses and a sponge would limit that ability. The California Horse Racing Board has been reluctant to comment specifically about the sponges.


Consider for a second that Santa Anita and Del Mar occasionally both have days when the pick six has a significant carryover. As did Hollywood Park back in 2001 when these incidents were reported to have taken place.

What if you had access to inside information on a day when the pick six had a large carryover?

For example, what if you knew that the morning line favorite in one leg of the pick six had been "treated" with a sponge?

Obviously, the temptation to do something nefarious like that will always exist among a certain criminal element.

Recently lots of tracks have been practically falling all over themselves to introduce single jackpot carryover bets like the Rainbow Six. Which only ups the ante on the temptation factor.

Even Mahoning Valley now has a a single jackpot pick six.

Yup. That's the same Mahoning Valley where apparently a paddock judge mailed it in last year when it came to actually checking lip tatoos.

3 suspended after wrong horse wins at Mahoning Valley race track:
http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/dec/10/3-suspended-after-wrong-horse-wins-mahoning-valley/

The commission's executive director says a stable worker brought the wrong horse out for the race in early November and another employee failed to properly check the horse before it ran.

The horse that was supposed to race was a winless filly listed as a 110-1 longshot. Instead, a male from the same stable won by nearly eight lengths.

The mix-up wasn't discovered until after the bets had been paid out.



The article says that the racing commission concluded there was no intentional wrongdoing.

Maybe so. But please forgive me if I have a hard time believing that.

Let's take this a step further.

What if the same thing were to happen again in one of the last six races on this Saturday's Mahoning Valley card? (Their pick six jackpot is now what $60-$70k?)

But what if - instead of sneaking a "ringer" from a higher condition who is ready to run - as was the case in the incident last year...

What if someone nefarious were to intentionally sneak a horse into the paddock from a lower condition? A horse who is nowhere near ready to run in place of the morning line favorite?

Think they couldn't gain a significant advantage in a single jackpot carryover pool armed with that kind of knowledge?

Let's take this one final step further.

What if, instead of treating a horse with a sponge -- or instead of sneaking the wrong horse into the paddock:

What if someone nefarious were able to get five minutes alone with the morning line favorite shortly before a race where the outcome will decide the payout of a significant carryover or jackpot pool?

What if someone nefarious were to inject that morning line favorite with a substance that would prevent it from winning?

Do you think someone nefarious armed with that kind of knowledge couldn't gain a significant advantage over the rest of us "schmoes" in a large carryover or single jackpot exotic pool?

Please understand that I'm not saying this is happening.

I am simply saying what if.



-jp

.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

ARCI is seriously looking at shifting enforcement efforts to designer drugs and away from spending most of its money on post-race testing. The obvious reason is that the number of post race positives is so low. Out of 370,000 tests last year, less than 1% came back positive, and almost all of those were for legal therapeutics. While a case like Ron Ellis and the unfortunate Masochistic gets headlines and may skew opinions, the fact is that those positives are rare. On the other hand, if there are undetectable designer drugs available to nefarious trainers, they could be getting away with cheating.

I know that ARCI has gone to the RMTC with a list of potential designer substances, and it is only a matter of time before laboratories will have reliable detection tests.

Of course the question is, how widespread can these drugs be? There has to be someone with training responsible for compounding the substances, there has to be a distribution system, and of course on a backside where it seems everybody knows everybody's business even if they don't talk about it, the whole system has to be kept secret from the racing authorities.

The drug conspiracy theorists have one thing going for them. Nobody seems to be able to prove or disprove undetectable substances are being given to horses, but anecdotal evidence allows for speculation. Still, more often than not, a trainer winning at a high percentage is using legal therapeutics - Jamie Ness, for example, who was using clenbuterol - to gain an advantage.

Despite years of testing, the ARCI cannot convince horseplayers that the game is 99% clean. Taking a different tack can't hurt.

[ultracapper]

Jeff, all but your last scenario would be addressed, and resolved, in pre-race inspections. You wouldn't need post race testing for any of that.

I can agree that ML favs that run unexplainably up the track could be targeted for post race tests just as the 20-1 trifecta finishers could be. Maybe targeted testing is smarter than random testing.

Whenever I hear handicappers scream "stiff job", I always cringe a little. I know it happens, there can be no doubt. But in this day and age, from the owner's perspective, when their horse is ready to go, when the horse is sharp and is a real contender, they have to push the "go" button for the most part. You just can't throw away winning opportunities, hoping that next time the horse will be just as ready, but now the price will be juicier. I know it happens, and I know there are some real sharpy type people involved in horse racing, but as an owner, I have to think that they want their horse to get into a position to win, and then take advantage of it. When something goes wrong, I would think they'd be asking the trainer some hard questions.

[onefast99]

In a not so insignificant number of cases, I'm betting this is exactly what goes on...

You are making it seem like "hands-on" owners are a rarity in this game :lol:

If only trainers would stop complaining about all the owners who leave them alone and just let them train...:pound:
Some are too hands on and that makes the trainers job a lot tougher. How many owners even know what the vet is giving the horse each and every month and its right on the vet bill! I never questioned Murray Rojas when we had her as a trainer and she is looking at a lot of jail time!:eek:

[cj]

Some are too hands on and that makes the trainers job a lot tougher. How many owners even know what the vet is giving the horse each and every month and its right on the vet bill! I never questioned Murray Rojas when we had her as a trainer and she is looking at a lot of jail time!:eek:


I know a few owners that basically run the whole show and are very successful. They could change "trainers" tomorrow and it wouldn't change a thing other than the name in the program. The trainer is a caretaker and is good at it. That is about it.

Trainers come and go for some owners. When an owner dumps them, they fall back to obscurity where they were previously, never to return. This isn't a rare situation either. There are a few at most every track.

[SuperPickle]

I know a few owners that basically run the whole show and are very successful. They could change "trainers" tomorrow and it wouldn't change a thing other than the name in the program. The trainer is a caretaker and is good at it. That is about it.

Trainers come and go for some owners. When an owner dumps them, they fall back to obscurity where they were previously, never to return. This isn't a rare situation either. There are a few at most every track.

This is a very true statement.

I have a friend who has a couple horses with Marcos Zulleta at Parx. I asked him about him. He told me he supposedly speaks very little English so his primary contact is another employee. I asked him if he was sure the person he thinks is Marcos is REALLY Marcos. His response "I wouldn't bet my life on it."

Imagine having horses with a guy and not even being confident who THAT guy is.

That's where we are at Parx.

[SuperPickle]

You know there's really no way to fix this problem. If you look at guys like Jacobson and Ness they own most of their horses. Once these guys get to that level they're essentially bullet proof. All you can do is ban a name on the program.

Your only solution is to to take discipline against both the horse and the owner. The problem is that would drive owners from the sport. Imagine if Michael Dubb, Drawing Away or Robert Cole had to serve days with their trainer. They'd leave the sport.

Suspending horses doesn't sit well at all with horse people. They consider them innocent in these things so suspending them will never fly.

I feel like we're Japanese soldiers still fighting WW@ after its over. I think these issue has been settled and we lost.

[Tom]

Heh, heh, heh, you used integrity and racing in the same sentence.

[mountainman]

.


3. Most serious bettors don't have any problem with Jamie Ness or his ilk. They simply make him a factor. When DJ was winning first off the claim at a huge number, you just stuck his horse in automatically. Handicapping was easy. The more casual crowd - maybe you have a point.

I like your posts and respect your opinions, but what about the many, many, smaller, less successful outfits that cover the nut by cheating for much shorter durations during the long season??? The ones that get inexplicably hot (no change in methods , influx of live stock, or wave of freshened horses) for a few days and then retreat to mediocrity.

In these instances, while checking entries at my desk, I can almost COUNT on a call from the stewards to inform me a certain purse (or purses) is "on hold."

These phenomenon are much harder for handicappers to factor in and capitalize on. And serious bettors should have a BIG problem with that.

[onefast99]

This is spot on. Hell, we've all seen it. Michael Gill bounced from trainer to trainer. Frank Calabrese does the same thing. He changes trainers like I change socks. There are guys taking 5% instead of the standard 10 for certain owners. No way those guys aren't calling the shots. Midwest Thoroughbreds listening to trainers for how to manage the horses? I don't think so.
You name three owners who had the horse power to run and demand a different fee structure with their respective trainers. How come you didn't mention Winning Move? Or IEAH? Or the Ramseys? You think Paul Pompa Jr tells Chad what to do? They all probably do the same thing tell the trainers how to train, tell the vets what to inject in their horses and search the world over for "vitamins" that will make their horses run better and it wont ever be detected by any standard tests for substance abuses. Sure they do, keep dreaming.

[onefast99]

You know there's really no way to fix this problem. If you look at guys like Jacobson and Ness they own most of their horses. Once these guys get to that level they're essentially bullet proof. All you can do is ban a name on the program.

Your only solution is to to take discipline against both the horse and the owner. The problem is that would drive owners from the sport. Imagine if Michael Dubb, Drawing Away or Robert Cole had to serve days with their trainer. They'd leave the sport.

Suspending horses doesn't sit well at all with horse people. They consider them innocent in these things so suspending them will never fly.

I feel like we're Japanese soldiers still fighting WW@ after its over. I think these issue has been settled and we lost.
Well said. Not one owner wants to spend on the average of $3000 a month on his or her horse(s)and sit in a penalty box because a trainer got a positive for a substance that the owner had no idea was being used to gain an advantage on their horse(s).

[cj]

You name three owners who had the horse power to run and demand a different fee structure with their respective trainers. How come you didn't mention Winning Move? Or IEAH? Or the Ramseys? You think Paul Pompa Jr tells Chad what to do? They all probably do the same thing tell the trainers how to train, tell the vets what to inject in their horses and search the world over for "vitamins" that will make their horses run better and it wont ever be detected by any standard tests for substance abuses. Sure they do, keep dreaming.

I never came close to saying all owners do it. I said it isn't unheard of for the owner to run the show. It isn't rare either. I could easily name more.

I certainly never mentioned drugging horses as.part of it either.

[onefast99]

This is spot on. Hell, we've all seen it. Michael Gill bounced from trainer to trainer. Frank Calabrese does the same thing. He changes trainers like I change socks. There are guys taking 5% instead of the standard 10 for certain owners. No way those guys aren't calling the shots. Midwest Thoroughbreds listening to trainers for how to manage the horses? I don't think so.

I never came close to saying all owners do it. I said it isn't unheard of for the owner to run the show. It isn't rare either. I could easily name more.

I certainly never mentioned drugging horses as.part of it either. [/QUOTE]

These three outfits probably gave their trainers a long needed break when they left them, that is a given.
I'm not disagreeing with you that there are a few owners who do over step their boundaries and constantly harass the trainer and their staff, that we have all seen from the owners side. I don't think this is going on a lot more than normal and the owner as you mentioned has the right to go wherever he/she wants to with his horse(s)

[cj]

These three outfits probably gave their trainers a long needed break when they left them, that is a given.
I'm not disagreeing with you that there are a few owners who do over step their boundaries and constantly harass the trainer and their staff, that we have all seen from the owners side. I don't think this is going on a lot more than normal and the owner as you mentioned has the right to go wherever he/she wants to with his horse(s)

We are miscommunicating here. I'm not saying anyone is overstepping boundaries.

A guy like Danny Caldwell at Oaklawn is certainly calling all the shots for his barn. He does well there and dominates at Remington and Prairie Meadows. He can recite the condition books. He knows nearly every horse on the grounds and what races they are and aren't eligible to run in. He decides which horses get claimed and where the horses run. He is very successful. Is he "overstepping"?

He is not unique either. There are guys like him on every circuit. He'd be a fool to listen to the trainer about which horses to claim and where to run his horses, whether his trainer was Federico Villafranco, his current one, or Todd Pletcher or Chad Brown.

[onefast99]

We are miscommunicating here. I'm not saying anyone is overstepping boundaries.

A guy like Danny Caldwell at Oaklawn is certainly calling all the shots for his barn. He does well there and dominates at Remington and Prairie Meadows. He can recite the condition books. He knows nearly every horse on the grounds and what races they are and aren't eligible to run in. He decides which horses get claimed and where the horses run. He is very successful. Is he "overstepping"?

He is not unique either. There are guys like him on every circuit. He'd be a fool to listen to the trainer about which horses to claim and where to run his horses, whether his trainer was Federico Villafranco, his current one, or Todd Pletcher or Chad Brown.
Now he is a rarity! A needle in the haystack. Do you think IEAH when they were the King of the Hill did any of this? Maybe Gill did it since he had a business that printed money and it gave him the time to do so. I'm sure Lapenta doesn't have the time or desire, but hey you know a lot more about the owners who have 100% control than anyone else I know. All good, enjoy the day.

[cj]

Now he is a rarity! A needle in the haystack. Do you think IEAH when they were the King of the Hill did any of this? Maybe Gill did it since he had a business that printed money and it gave him the time to do so. I'm sure Lapenta doesn't have the time or desire, but hey you know a lot more about the owners who have 100% control than anyone else I know. All good, enjoy the day.

Rare is all relative. Where you can win big purses with cheaper horses, i.e. the slots tracks, there are owners making big money. These are the guys that do the most work. They take advantage of those that don't.

I imagine there are plenty of owners that are hobbyist that leave it all to the trainer. They also probably lose most of the money they put into the game. Nothing wrong with that, it is a hobby for them. I personally will own horses one of these days and I will definitely have a big say in what races they run in. What is good for the owner isn't always in the best interest of the trainer.

[onefast99]

Rare is all relative. Where you can win big purses with cheaper horses, i.e. the slots tracks, there are owners making big money. These are the guys that do the most work. They take advantage of those that don't.

I imagine there are plenty of owners that are hobbyist that leave it all to the trainer. They also probably lose most of the money they put into the game. Nothing wrong with that, it is a hobby for them. I personally will own horses one of these days and I will definitely have a big say in what races they run in. What is good for the owner isn't always in the best interest of the trainer.I hope you do own a few one day. I also hope you find the right trainer who you can tell what races your horses belong in. If you plan on using Todd or Chad or one of the big name big dollar guys, see how fast they off you to an assistant who will screen every call unless you happen to be a Repole or Pompa or Dubb. Funny things happen when you have a lot of skin in the game! Good luck I can't wait to see how this works out for you.

[cj]

I hope you do own a few one day. I also hope you find the right trainer who you can tell what races your horses belong in. If you plan on using Todd or Chad or one of the big name big dollar guys, see how fast they off you to an assistant who will screen every call unless you happen to be a Repole or Pompa or Dubb. Funny things happen when you have a lot of skin in the game! Good luck I can't wait to see how this works out for you.

I don't think I'll ever be in a situation to use guys like that, and to be honest I don't think I'd want to even if I were.