View Full Version : this gets me
lamboguy
04-04-2017, 01:16 PM
at Parx on January 16 i bet $200 to win on HASHTAG ALEX, J. J'S CANDY gets up and beats him.
today i look at the 3rd race at Parx and see that J.J'S CANDY is in again for MSW. the horse got a bad test and they took away his purse money and paid HASHTAG ALEX for the win. but my $200 is gone but not forgotten.
i am sick
Robert Fischer
04-04-2017, 01:28 PM
at Parx on January 16 i bet $200 to win on HASHTAG ALEX, J. J'S CANDY gets up and beats him.
today i look at the 3rd race at Parx and see that J.J'S CANDY is in again for MSW. the horse got a bad test and they took away his purse money and paid HASHTAG ALEX for the win. but my $200 is gone but not forgotten.
i am sick
That stinks.
Also weird that they didn't catch/reverse his MSW win until after he raced in an OC50/n1x last time.
EMD4ME
04-04-2017, 01:33 PM
parx
Notice the RX IN paRX.....
Murph
04-04-2017, 01:42 PM
at Parx on January 16 i bet $200 to win on HASHTAG ALEX, J. J'S CANDY gets up and beats him.
today i look at the 3rd race at Parx and see that J.J'S CANDY is in again for MSW. the horse got a bad test and they took away his purse money and paid HASHTAG ALEX for the win. but my $200 is gone but not forgotten.
i am sickI noted this situation occurring about mid meeting at Delta Downs. It is alarming to see this in the PP lines. As a bettor we have no recourse when this happens to us. Very frustrating.
jay68802
04-04-2017, 01:53 PM
Ruling Number: 17075PP
Ruling Date: 03/20/2017
On the report of the Pennsylvania Equine Toxicology and Research Laboratory, the Official Chemist for the Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission, that the Plasma of the horse “J.J.'S CANDY” (Sample #314678-F,IM), which finished first (1st) in race #6 on January 31,2017 was positive for GLYCOPYRROLATE. “J.J.'S CANDY” is disqualified for all purposes except wagering and the purse is redistributed as follows: 1st. Hashtag Alex 2nd. Teakwood 3rd. Baseline 4th. Graymond 5th. Emoticon The purse money for “J.J.S CANDY” is forfeited. This is in accordance with Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission Section 163.303(A)(B)(C) which reads as follows: 163.303(A) A HORSE PARTICIPATING IN A RACE MAY NOT CARRY IN ITS BODY A SUBSTANCE EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN 163.304 (RELATING TO SUBSTANCES OF THERAPEUTIC VALUE). 163.303(B) A FINDING BY THE CHEMIST THAT A FOREIGN SUBSTANCE IS PRESENT IN THE TEST SAMPLE SHALL BE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE FOREIGN SUBSTANCE WAS ADMINISTERED AND CARRIED IN THE BODY OF THE HORSE WHILE PARTICIPATING IN A RACE. THIS FINDING SHALL ALSO BE TAKEN AS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE THAT THE TRAINER AND HIS AGENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OR CUSTODY OF THE HORSE HAS BEEN NEGLIGENT IN THE HANDLING OR CARE OF THE HORSE. 163.303(C) A FINDING BY THE CHEMIST OF A FOREIGN SUBSTANCE OR AN APPROVED SUBSTANCE USED IN VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION AND 163.301, 163.302 AND 163.304--163.308 IN A TEST SAMPLE OF A HORSE PARTICIPATING IN A RACE MAY RESULT IN THE HORSE BEING DISQUALIFIED FROM PURSE MONEY OR OTHER AWARDS EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING, WHICH SHALL BE IN NO WAY AFFECTED. The Stewards, Investigators of the PSHRC, and the TRPB are continuing their investigation into this matter. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS DECISION IN WRITING TO THE PA. HORSE RACING COMMISSION WITHIN 48 HOURS FOR RULINGS THAT INVOLVE ENTRIES, QUALIFICATIONS…AND TEN (10) DAYS FOR ALL OTHER INFRACTIONS, AFTER NOTICE OF THE DECISION AS SET FORTH IN 58 PA. CODE, SECTION 163.481. APPEALS MUST BE PERFECTED AS REQUIRED IN 58 PA. CODE, SECTION 165.214.
lamboguy
04-04-2017, 01:55 PM
this is the second time the same horse just beat me, i bet on Linder's horse to the race. it just keeps getting worse and worse for me over there.
F--- me
Dahoss9698
04-04-2017, 01:56 PM
Just won again. Ill never complain about NYRA riders again after seeing how awful the riding is at Parx. Wow.
EasyGoer89
04-04-2017, 03:22 PM
at Parx on January 16 i bet $200 to win on HASHTAG ALEX, J. J'S CANDY gets up and beats him.
today i look at the 3rd race at Parx and see that J.J'S CANDY is in again for MSW. the horse got a bad test and they took away his purse money and paid HASHTAG ALEX for the win. but my $200 is gone but not forgotten.
i am sick
Sue the trainer of the winner in small claims court.
whodoyoulike
04-04-2017, 03:53 PM
Sue the trainer of the winner in small claims court.
I think you mean the DQ'd trainer in small claims court.
I've always wondered why this avenue hasn't been pursued in these situations before since there's proof of wrongdoing and you can prove damages.
EMD4ME
04-04-2017, 04:05 PM
Sue the trainer of the winner in small claims court.
I volunteer to represent you :)
ultracapper
04-04-2017, 05:16 PM
this is the second time the same horse just beat me, i bet on Linder's horse to the race. it just keeps getting worse and worse for me over there.
F--- me
If they take him down again, that's when you're really F....D!
JayTris07
04-04-2017, 06:29 PM
I stopped betting on Parx years ago. Donate your money to the homeless or the guys begging for a bet at the track before placing a bet at Parx.
:ThmbDown::ThmbDown:
EasyGoer89
04-04-2017, 06:44 PM
I think you mean the DQ'd trainer in small claims court.
I've always wondered why this avenue hasn't been pursued in these situations before since there's proof of wrongdoing and you can prove damages.
Yes. Prob should have put original winner, my bad.
EMD4ME
04-04-2017, 06:47 PM
I stopped betting on Parx years ago. Donate your money to the homeless or the guys begging for a bet at the track before placing a bet at Parx.
:ThmbDown::ThmbDown:
Ditto....
My boycott is say....15 years going.
EasyGoer89
04-04-2017, 06:49 PM
I think you mean the DQ'd trainer in small claims court.
I've always wondered why this avenue hasn't been pursued in these situations before since there's proof of wrongdoing and you can prove damages.
I ageee.
It's fascinating to me that racing 'infractions' don't carry over all that often to real life laws, I guess technically you would have to prove the drugging was on purpose and not accidental, but you're right, it's still a form of fraud, maybe the track can get sued too. Maybe gamblers don't pursue this stuff because they don't want to be blackballed from the track on a suit they probably will lose anyway.
johnhannibalsmith
04-04-2017, 06:51 PM
I ageee.
It's fascinating to me that racing 'infractions' don't carry over all that often to real life laws, I guess technically you would have to prove the drugging was on purpose and not accidental, but you're right, it's still a form of fraud, maybe the track can get sued too. Maybe gamblers don't pursue this stuff because they don't want to be blackballed from the track on a suit they probably will lose anyway.
More likely its just easier to post here all the time about it.
Nitro
04-04-2017, 07:05 PM
at Parx on January 16 i bet $200 to win on HASHTAG ALEX, J. J'S CANDY gets up and beats him.
today i look at the 3rd race at Parx and see that J.J'S CANDY is in again for MSW. the horse got a bad test and they took away his purse money and paid HASHTAG ALEX for the win. but my $200 is gone but not forgotten.
i am sickWhen I read crap like this it only gives me more impetus to stay thoroughly involved with the racing in Hong Kong. These sort of things aren’t tolerated at all, because the HK Jockey Club understands exactly how it will impact the morale of it’s patrons and of course its handle. Their patrons obviously value the integrity of HKJC racing program and its overall transparency.
whodoyoulike
04-04-2017, 07:06 PM
I ageee.
It's fascinating to me that racing 'infractions' don't carry over all that often to real life laws, I guess technically you would have to prove the drugging was on purpose and not accidental, but you're right, it's still a form of fraud, maybe the track can get sued too. Maybe gamblers don't pursue this stuff because they don't want to be blackballed from the track on a suit they probably will lose anyway.
Why would they probably lose?
Being DQ'd, I would think would have some value.
If Lamboguy does decide to pursue it in small claims, he should proceed in one of those TV judge shows. In Cali the claim max is around $10k but it does vary in different states.
I've seen those shows and some of the plaintiffs don't seem to be afraid of losing, embarrassing themselves or even showering.
And, we can all follow along. Besides, it's been kind of slow lately.
EMD4ME
04-04-2017, 07:18 PM
I'd bring Spalding NO and Dilanesp to that small claims court trial.
I want to win :headbanger:
HalvOnHorseracing
04-04-2017, 07:40 PM
I ageee.
It's fascinating to me that racing 'infractions' don't carry over all that often to real life laws, I guess technically you would have to prove the drugging was on purpose and not accidental, but you're right, it's still a form of fraud, maybe the track can get sued too. Maybe gamblers don't pursue this stuff because they don't want to be blackballed from the track on a suit they probably will lose anyway.
Not often, mainly because 99% of positives are for legal, therapeutic medication. It's much harder to file a criminal case when the substance is not illegal, and you'd have to prove there was an intent to defraud. But, it does happen, especially in PA.
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/CriminalInvestigations/ucm505280.htm
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that a federal grand jury brought additional criminal charges yesterday against a thoroughbred horse trainer already under indictment for wire fraud and criminal conspiracy.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Murray L. Rojas, age 50, of Grantville, Pennsylvania was charged in a 21 count superseding indictment with additional charges relating to the dispensing of misbranded drugs and criminal conspiracy. Rojas was previously indicted in August 2015 on charges of wire fraud and criminal conspiracy for conduct related to 11 races in which she had horses entered at Penn National Race Course in early 2013. Two additional wire fraud charges were brought relating to two additional races bringing the total to 13 races.
EasyGoer89
04-04-2017, 08:21 PM
Not often, mainly because 99% of positives are for legal, therapeutic medication. It's much harder to file a criminal case when the substance is not illegal, and you'd have to prove there was an intent to defraud. But, it does happen, especially in PA.
https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/CriminalInvestigations/ucm505280.htm
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that a federal grand jury brought additional criminal charges yesterday against a thoroughbred horse trainer already under indictment for wire fraud and criminal conspiracy.
According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, Murray L. Rojas, age 50, of Grantville, Pennsylvania was charged in a 21 count superseding indictment with additional charges relating to the dispensing of misbranded drugs and criminal conspiracy. Rojas was previously indicted in August 2015 on charges of wire fraud and criminal conspiracy for conduct related to 11 races in which she had horses entered at Penn National Race Course in early 2013. Two additional wire fraud charges were brought relating to two additional races bringing the total to 13 races.
I guess the key would be if the original winning trainer broke a real life law or just broke a racing rule. Why nobody files is a mystery.
Murph
04-04-2017, 10:07 PM
I guess the key would be if the original winning trainer broke a real life law or just broke a racing rule. Why nobody files is a mystery.
The fraud perpetrated on bettors is sanctioned by the state. They give the finger to bettors early on in this ruling. Good luck trying to litigate against your legislators, horse owners included.
“J.J.'S CANDY” is disqualified for all purposes except wagering and the purse is redistributed as follows:"
So quick question for everyone here who wants some sort of parimutuel retribution when a horse is taken down well after the fact for a positive test - are you cool with winning a race & then waiting a few weeks to cash your tickets until all drug tests have come back? What about any appeals, want to just sit on those tickets for a few months then? Get real everybody, do we have an imperfect system? perhaps, but what would be the actual end game here to make it fairest to the bettors?
Fager Fan
04-04-2017, 11:36 PM
I think you mean the DQ'd trainer in small claims court.
I've always wondered why this avenue hasn't been pursued in these situations before since there's proof of wrongdoing and you can prove damages.
I agree. I've mentioned it several times in various forums, except that my idea is to sue the track. It's not so much the collection from the one bet that is important, but the impact it can have on the sport. They may start caring a whole lot that the races are clean and no positive drug tests come back if they have to pay out of their pocket to a second group of winners (we know they won't get their money back from the people they already paid out to).
If for some reason you can't sue the track, then I guess the trainer could work.
EasyGoer89
04-04-2017, 11:58 PM
So quick question for everyone here who wants some sort of parimutuel retribution when a horse is taken down well after the fact for a positive test - are you cool with winning a race & then waiting a few weeks to cash your tickets until all drug tests have come back? What about any appeals, want to just sit on those tickets for a few months then? Get real everybody, do we have an imperfect system? perhaps, but what would be the actual end game here to make it fairest to the bettors?
If I win I want the money. If I'm 2nd (and bet win) I have no problem waiting.
Murph
04-05-2017, 07:34 AM
So quick question for everyone here who wants some sort of parimutuel retribution when a horse is taken down well after the fact for a positive test - are you cool with winning a race & then waiting a few weeks to cash your tickets until all drug tests have come back? What about any appeals, want to just sit on those tickets for a few months then? Get real everybody, do we have an imperfect system? perhaps, but what would be the actual end game here to make it fairest to the bettors? Officials could fix it so illegal runners are not sent to the starting gate in parimutuel contests?! They way it is done now will be difficult to change. Better it seems for us all to watch passively as we stand over horseracing watching it die, choking on it's own excrement.
Maybe someone smarter than me has a better idea. Looking at the last meeting handle for Gulfstream Park, many folks are not having a problem with this issue. IDK
lamboguy
04-05-2017, 07:45 AM
i swear i used to love the racing at Philly Park. today its nothing but a jungle. these big guys have a picnic.
its high time for for Sam Elliott to step down as racing secretary, he has no clue whatsoever what he is doing there. its way above his head. to give a guy like this the racing secratary's job is a disgrace to begin with.
they should implement a policy when the guy gets a bad test for a legal or illegal drug after the mutuel money gets paid, they should have to pay the bettors who have records of placing money on 2nd place horse.
this will do 2 things. firstly it will eliminate cheaters, 2nd of all this will equate to limiting trainers and owners on the amount of horses they can have. trust me here it will result in more people being interested in the game as a byproduct of these possible new regulations.++
EMD4ME
04-05-2017, 07:59 AM
i swear i used to love the racing at Philly Park. today its nothing but a jungle. these big guys have a picnic.
its high time for for Sam Elliott to step down as racing secretary, he has no clue whatsoever what he is doing there. its way above his head. to give a guy like this the racing secratary's job is a disgrace to begin with.
they should implement a policy when the guy gets a bad test for a legal or illegal drug after the mutuel money gets paid, they should have to pay the bettors who have records of placing money on 2nd place horse.
this will do 2 things. firstly it will eliminate cheaters, 2nd of all this will equate to limiting trainers and owners on the amount of horses they can have. trust me here it will result in more people being interested in the game as a byproduct of these possible new regulations.++
I like that idea ! Make em pay the bettors who have proof...... that's good stuff Lamboguy :ThmbUp:
Problem is there's no pools :)
Murph
04-05-2017, 08:26 AM
I like that idea ! Make em pay the bettors who have proof...... that's good stuff Lamboguy :ThmbUp:
Problem is there's no pools :)
I really like this idea. Fines could help maintain a fund to pay bettors refunds (at least). Took about 12 seconds for a reasonable person to post a better idea.
Lamboguy, you give us the perspective of the small business type horse owner. It looks like you are in a mom n pop vs walmart situation as owner. I have long believed that horse owners are the true gamblers in horse racing. I don't mean in the pools either.
A majority of owners are dealing with the "superbarn" situation and are running out of money and patience to cope with all of this. You offer solutions to problems that could improve the game for many owners. I hope you can find a way to stay in the game.
green80
04-05-2017, 09:41 AM
let's take a closer look
Glycopyrrolate is used to reduce secretions in the airway, mouth, throat and stomach. Did it make the difference between winning and losing? I doubt it.
If I wanted to drug a horse to improve his chance of winning, it would be far from my drug of choice.
johnhannibalsmith
04-05-2017, 09:51 AM
I get it. But, practically speaking as fans of the game, does this sound like it really is a great idea?
I understand that there's a chicken and an egg argument here where some will posit that such repercussions might 'clean up racing' and actually save it.
But, I'm thinking that its more likely to become a cottage industry for attorneys and professional victims if precedent were established the way that some are thinking. And, I'm also thinking that this would probably really expedite the extinction of the game.
onefast99
04-05-2017, 10:31 AM
I get it. But, practically speaking as fans of the game, does this sound like it really is a great idea?
I understand that there's a chicken and an egg argument here where some will posit that such repercussions might 'clean up racing' and actually save it.
But, I'm thinking that its more likely to become a cottage industry for attorneys and professional victims if precedent were established the way that some are thinking. And, I'm also thinking that this would probably really expedite the extinction of the game.BINGO we have a winner! You nailed it John yes just what the racing industry needs now a group of litigious individuals who want to go as deep into the pockets as possible of those who have committed what they believe to be "fraud" against them.
On the other side of the coin how about all of those bettors who had the winner, cashed their tickets, and then the horse got DQ'd due to a drug violation how do you get the money back from them?
EasyGoer89
04-05-2017, 11:28 AM
BINGO we have a winner! You nailed it John yes just what the racing industry needs now a group of litigious individuals who want to go as deep into the pockets as possible of those who have committed what they believe to be "fraud" against them.
On the other side of the coin how about all of those bettors who had the winner, cashed their tickets, and then the horse got DQ'd due to a drug violation how do you get the money back from them?
The people who bet the winner who cheated can also sue saying they were personally defamed by backing a trainer who broke the rules, they can say now that they're branded as supporting cheating and are shunned and blackballed in their community, have lost sleep and encountered personal hardship and stress because of this. Cheating has repercussions, the people who backed the DQd winner are also victims.
onefast99
04-05-2017, 11:37 AM
The people who bet the winner who cheated can also sue saying they were personally defamed by backing a trainer who broke the rules, they can say now that they're branded as supporting cheating and are shunned and blackballed in their community, have lost sleep and encountered personal hardship and stress because of this. Cheating has repercussions, the people who backed the DQd winner are also victims.I did think of a situation where someone could take it to the next level legally and that would be an individual who lost the pick 6 where a huge payout was within their grasp but their horse finished second only to learn 30 days later that the winner of the final leg was DQ'd and placed last for a drug violation. Other than that losing $200 on a win bet and heading to small claims court wont get you anywhere.
stuball
04-05-2017, 11:39 AM
Right we are all the victims or so sayeth the whole world
HalvOnHorseracing
04-05-2017, 11:48 AM
We have been enforcing medication/drug standards the same way for decades. To expect a different result is absurd. There are two obvious issues. One is that most of the thresholds are less related to performance enhancement than you might think. The nature of most thresholds is to identify a level which a horse should be below after dosing a certain period before the race. There are certain medications that have no performance enhancing effect beyond their therapeutic value. While it is fine to set the threshold and call a positive, it makes more sense to treat those violations as a traffic ticket rather than a felony, and the punishment would not involve retroactive disqualification from the finish position and purse. Like traffic tickets, an accumulation of violations within a specified period of time upgrades the punishment. There is no essential difference between a positive for omeprazole (Prilosec) and clenbuterol (a bronchodilator), yet abuse of the later is clearly performance enhancing. Would it really be bad for racing to treat therapeutics that have no real performance enhancing impact differently than therapeutics that have the potential for performance enhancement and to treat those differently than illegal substances?
Second is the vast majority of enforcement money is spent on catching violations after the fact. The key for racing would be to prevent a horse likely to test positive from ever entering the starting gate. And no, out of competition testing is hardly the answer because testing a horse 48 hours out from a race and finding the presence of a legal therapeutic isn't of much value, and that is what almost all the tests will show. The very few cases of finding something illegal a few days before a race - and that would be pretty much only anabolics or Class 1 substances - gets the harsh penalty. The answer is two fold. There needs to be an automated record keeping system that shows exactly which medicines a horse has been given by amount and time. Those records should be available to the track medical director, who would have the power to flag anything suspect. The medical director could order testing if there is time, or recommend to the stewards that the horse be declared. If the trainer is shown to have followed all dosing and withdrawal requirements any subsequent positive moves into the traffic ticket category. If the trainer and vet have altered the records, they both lose their license for some period that makes an impact and the owner is ruled off the track for a similar period. Any honest owner would tell his trainer that real "cheating" will not be tolerated.
Punish any violation that show a real intent to gain a chemical advantage harshly, but don't make as big a deal over violations that aren't performance enhancing.
whodoyoulike
04-05-2017, 07:05 PM
let's take a closer look
Glycopyrrolate is used to reduce secretions in the airway, mouth, throat and stomach. Did it make the difference between winning and losing? I doubt it.
If I wanted to drug a horse to improve his chance of winning, it would be far from my drug of choice.
This is one of the questions which I had:
1) what is glycopyrrolate and what does it do? Thanks, for providing an answer.
2) Sounds like it is illegal at certain limits. So, how long does it take to pass the horse's system?
3) Did the horse have a workout within this time frame?
4) The vet has to take some responsibility for administering the drug before it can pass the horse's system and the horse's race.
5) Which drug(s) would you use?
whodoyoulike
04-05-2017, 07:19 PM
I get it. But, practically speaking as fans of the game, does this sound like it really is a great idea?
I understand that there's a chicken and an egg argument here where some will posit that such repercussions might 'clean up racing' and actually save it.
But, I'm thinking that its more likely to become a cottage industry for attorneys and professional victims if precedent were established the way that some are thinking. And, I'm also thinking that this would probably really expedite the extinction of the game.
I don't think attorneys are necessary in order to use small claims that's the beauty of this court system.
Maybe, part of the solution is to require the owner / trainer / vet / jockey all to be BONDED for maybe $300k each. If these types of situations occur where it's determined the horse was in a drug violation(s) then the amount of the WIN pool would be required up to from all of their bond monies and placed in a fund which will reduce takeout % related to the owners which is usually split (50/50) of the takeout %.
These four parties can sue each other for recovery of their penalties (IF) they're not a party to the violation.
I would think after one violation their BOND insurance fee would be prohibitive for them to continue their ways.
And, all of these parties should still be liable in small claims.
whodoyoulike
04-05-2017, 07:24 PM
BINGO we have a winner! You nailed it John yes just what the racing industry needs now a group of litigious individuals who want to go as deep into the pockets as possible of those who have committed what they believe to be "fraud" against them.
On the other side of the coin how about all of those bettors who had the winner, cashed their tickets, and then the horse got DQ'd due to a drug violation how do you get the money back from them?
You're only suing in small claims because you really have proof of damages. And, since the connections will be penalized for violations based on a ruling.
I don't see how you can lose.
HalvOnHorseracing
04-05-2017, 08:29 PM
This is one of the questions which I had:
1) what is glycopyrrolate and what does it do? Thanks, for providing an answer.
2) Sounds like it is illegal at certain limits. So, how long does it take to pass the horse's system?
5) Which drug(s) would you use?
It is an ulcer medicine that decreases stomach acid. It also prevents acid reflux.
It has a 48 hour withdrawal and a threshold of 3 pg/mL
Omeprazole is a medication with similar therapeutic effects.
johnhannibalsmith
04-05-2017, 08:44 PM
It is an ulcer medicine that decreases stomach acid. It also prevents acid reflux.
It has a 48 hour withdrawal and a threshold of 3 pg/mL
Omeprazole is a medication with similar therapeutic effects.
And to clarify just a smidge further in a language a bunch of us can probably understand, omeprazole is Prilosec. I've taken 3 today and couldn't outrun C3P0.
SuperPickle
04-05-2017, 08:45 PM
I'm not a lawyer...So two thoughts...
1. Remember the USFL lawsuit which they technically won but the damages were only $1? I think this falls into that area of law. I think you can prove you got cheated but I think you need some form of intent to commit fraud to get damages.
2. I think you might be able to form a legal argument around suing for a refund of lost wagering dollars do to fraud but I don't see an angle to get winnings. I find it impossible to believe a court would ever award you money for a horse that could have won but lost money is a different story.
I think Lambo could maybe get his $200 back but winnings seem impossible.
HalvOnHorseracing
04-05-2017, 08:53 PM
I'm not a lawyer...So two thoughts...
1. Remember the USFL lawsuit which they technically won but the damages were only $1? I think this falls into that area of law. I think you can prove you got cheated but I think you need some form of intent to commit fraud to get damages.
2. I think you might be able to form a legal argument around suing for a refund of lost wagering dollars do to fraud but I don't see an angle to get winnings. I find it impossible to believe a court would ever award you money for a horse that could have won but lost money is a different story.
I think Lambo could maybe get his $200 back but winnings seem impossible.
I'm going to respond because if I do Dilan the legal pit bull will sniff out my post and disagree, but I don't think you win because the racing rules are clear that once the race is declared official for BETTING purposes, that's it.
Franco Santiago
04-05-2017, 09:07 PM
Imagine if the track was held accountable by being required (by law) to refund wagers to those holding tickets on the horse that was subsequently placed first. With all of today's electronic wagering, that type of accountability could easily be accomplished.
How quickly would the drug problem be cleaned up?
Like tomorrow, that's how quickly.
HalvOnHorseracing
04-05-2017, 09:31 PM
Imagine if the track was held accountable by being required (by law) to refund wagers to those holding tickets on the horse that was subsequently placed first. With all of today's electronic wagering, that type of accountability could easily be accomplished.
How quickly would the drug problem be cleaned up?
Like tomorrow, that's how quickly.
You're assuming trainers are misapplying legal therapeutics on purpose since 99+% of violations are legal substances. What exactly would trainers and vets do differently, especially since 98% of races don't yield a positive for any of the horses?
And why exactly do you hold the track accountable? What did they do to cause the violation? It's like punishing them for enforcing the thresholds, or like they were in on it with the trainer.
That's not accountability. That's revenge.
Murph
04-05-2017, 09:50 PM
You're assuming trainers are misapplying legal therapeutics on purpose since 99+% of violations are legal substances. What exactly would trainers and vets do differently, especially since 98% of races don't yield a positive for any of the horses?
And why exactly do you hold the track accountable? What did they do to cause the violation? It's like punishing them for enforcing the thresholds, or like they were in on it with the trainer.
That's not accountability. That's revenge. You always assume (and defend) that trainers have positive intentions when using drugs in training. That's not accountablilty either, that's some kinda bs.
HalvOnHorseracing
04-05-2017, 10:02 PM
You always assume (and defend) that trainers have positive intentions when using drugs in training. That's not accountablilty either, that's some kinda bs.
Then you don't know my stuff very well. I've come down on plenty of trainers, and the one's I've defended deserved to have their stories told.
I can't educate those who wish to remain ignorant. If you understood the substances, how they are used, and what the thresholds actually mean, perhaps you might have a little more objectivity.
You could have answered the questions I asked instead of giving me the dogma.
Murph
04-05-2017, 10:13 PM
Then you don't know my stuff very well. I've come down on plenty of trainers, and the one's I've defended deserved to have their stories told.
I can't educate those who wish to remain ignorant. If you understood the substances, how they are used, and what the thresholds actually mean, perhaps you might have a little more objectivity.
You could have answered the questions I asked instead of giving me the dogma.
I stated from the beginning that I have no answers for this issue. I can't answer your questions (that seem to never end). I've based my opinion on what you post here at PA, Halv. I am not familiar with your greater body of work.
HalvOnHorseracing
04-05-2017, 10:34 PM
I stated from the beginning that I have no answers for this issue. I can't answer your questions (that seem to never end). I've based my opinion on what you post here at PA, Halv. I am not familiar with your greater body of work.
You're right. I ask a lot of questions when people say things that haven't been thought through very well, like let's punish the race track for disqualifying a horse weeks after the race was run by making them pay off tickets on the horse that finished second. Simple question. How does that make the trainers and vets keep from having a positive exactly? I'd like to understand why that makes is the answer.
In the piece I just posted at the web site, I said
- Standardize the medication list and thresholds nationally. It makes no sense to have 37 different permissible medication lists and thresholds. Get every jurisdiction together, have them agree on the list and the thresholds, and trainers will not be able to complain about not being aware of differing thresholds between jurisdictions.
Frankly, there is no "story" when a trainer violates and is clearly guilty. If you want to read the news about it, go read Paulick. But I actually posted a short piece on one of the threads today about Murray Rojas, a trainer under federal indictment in PA. I'm not defending her by the way.
And I also posted this on one of the threads here today.
The answer is two fold. There needs to be an automated record keeping system that shows exactly which medicines a horse has been given by amount and time. Those records should be available to the track medical director, who would have the power to flag anything suspect. The medical director could order testing if there is time, or recommend to the stewards that the horse be declared. If the trainer is shown to have followed all dosing and withdrawal requirements any subsequent positive moves into the traffic ticket category. If the trainer and vet have altered the records, they both lose their license for some period that makes an impact and the owner is ruled off the track for a similar period. Any honest owner would tell his trainer that real "cheating" will not be tolerated.
That was just today. That's not exactly Mr. Let-the-trainers-off-the-hook. I've thought a lot about medications/drugs, written about it, and talked to dozens of owners, trainers, pharmacologists and vets about it, so I do have both strong, but informed opinions. If you want to criticize me on what I post here, just be accurate.
Murph
04-05-2017, 10:42 PM
OK man. I am uninformed. You are right. I am wrong. OMG
I just like to bet on the races once in awhile. I can only share here how this makes me feel about it.
PaceAdvantage
04-05-2017, 11:43 PM
OK man. I am uninformed. You are right. I am wrong. OMG
I just like to bet on the races once in awhile. I can only share here how this makes me feel about it.And you can call other's posts bs too...
Murph
04-06-2017, 12:41 AM
And you can call other's posts bs too...
but .. I was responding to a single quoted post and commenting on accountability. There was no generalization or reference to anything else.
green80
04-06-2017, 09:53 AM
This is one of the questions which I had:
1) what is glycopyrrolate and what does it do? Thanks, for providing an answer.
2) Sounds like it is illegal at certain limits. So, how long does it take to pass the horse's system?
3) Did the horse have a workout within this time frame?
4) The vet has to take some responsibility for administering the drug before it can pass the horse's system and the horse's race.
5) Which drug(s) would you use?
I would say this trainer got some bad information from his vet on " how far out" he needed to use glycopyrrolate. 99% of the time the trainer ask his vet if he doesn't know how close to racetime he can administer a drug. If the vet was fined instead of the trainer, we would see a lot fewer of these bad test. All this drug was used for is to relieve a little discomfort, not anything to enhance performance. I see no nefarious intent here.
Now if he tested for Frog Juice, well that would be a different story.
whodoyoulike
04-06-2017, 04:55 PM
You're right. I ask a lot of questions ...
And I also posted this on one of the threads here today.
The answer is two fold. There needs to be an automated record keeping system that shows exactly which medicines a horse has been given by amount and time. Those records should be available to the track medical director, who would have the power to flag anything suspect. The medical director could order testing if there is time, or recommend to the stewards that the horse be declared. If the trainer is shown to have followed all dosing and withdrawal requirements any subsequent positive moves into the traffic ticket category. If the trainer and vet have altered the records, they both lose their license for some period that makes an impact and the owner is ruled off the track for a similar period. Any honest owner would tell his trainer that real "cheating" will not be tolerated.. ...
You think you ask a lot of questions!
As far as drug violations are concerned these two will work. But, if the trainer and/or vet alters the records their penalties should be stiffer. And, I would hope all owners are honest and would never tolerate "cheating". And I agree, as the owner/principal they should incur some penalty from these violations.
Considering their investment(s) in the horses by cheating using drugs doesn't make any sense.
HalvOnHorseracing
04-06-2017, 08:08 PM
You think you ask a lot of questions!
As far as drug violations are concerned these two will work. But, if the trainer and/or vet alters the records their penalties should be stiffer. And, I would hope all owners are honest and would never tolerate "cheating". And I agree, as the owner/principal they should incur some penalty from these violations.
Considering their investment(s) in the horses by cheating using drugs doesn't make any sense.
I don't have any problem with a severe punishment for trainers or vets who alter medication records.
Often the owner gets punished through loss of purse. I have a feeling punishment beyond that would be really hard to get through.
Spalding No!
04-07-2017, 03:45 AM
Glycopyrrolate is used to reduce secretions in the airway, mouth, throat and stomach. Did it make the difference between winning and losing? I doubt it.
There is no essential difference between a positive for omeprazole (Prilosec) and clenbuterol (a bronchodilator), yet abuse of the later is clearly performance enhancing.
It is an ulcer medicine that decreases stomach acid. It also prevents acid reflux. Omeprazole is a medication with similar therapeutic effects.
All this drug was used for is to relieve a little discomfort, not anything to enhance performance. I see no nefarious intent here.
Actually, glycopyrrolate is used in a racing context as a bronchodilator, hence--like Clenbuterol--it is a Class 3 drug that is considered to have potential to affect performance.
The trainer of record also had a pair of clenbuterol violations within the last year as well.
HalvOnHorseracing
04-07-2017, 09:21 AM
Actually, glycopyrrolate is used in a racing context as a bronchodilator, hence--like Clenbuterol--it is a Class 3 drug that is considered to have potential to affect performance.
The trainer of record also had a pair of clenbuterol violations within the last year as well.
Just for the record, I compared omeprazole to clenbuterol with regard to performance enhancement.
Coincidentally, I happened to be talking with a (human) pulmonologist yesterday about the the relationship between reflux and breathing, and one of the problems is that the stomach acid that gets into the esophagus can migrate into the lungs and make breathing more difficult.
I also seem to recall that the bronchodilation from glycopyrrolate is fairly short lived. Certainly the threshold of 3 pg/mL at 48 hours is very tight.
lamboguy
04-07-2017, 11:55 AM
Just for the record, I compared omeprazole to clenbuterol with regard to performance enhancement.
Coincidentally, I happened to be talking with a (human) pulmonologist yesterday about the the relationship between reflux and breathing, and one of the problems is that the stomach acid that gets into the esophagus can migrate into the lungs and make breathing more difficult.
I also seem to recall that the bronchodilation from glycopyrrolate is fairly short lived. Certainly the threshold of 3 pg/mL at 48 hours is very tight.as far as the omeprazole goes, horses and humans all have acid that goes through their digestive tract, some extreme cases do get acid reflux. with the diet that horses have it is very rare for a horse to have acid reflux. now by treating a horse with omeprazole you are risking damage for little reason other than to clear up all the acid in his system so that it never blocks his breathing while he runs.
the main reason for using clenbuterol other than for a PED because it contains steroids, is to clear up mucus in the horses lungs.
there is always an argument that if you can't give the horses all these medications you will not be able to fill races. i think if that truly is the case we would be better off with less horses in the race and less races in total than to subject these horses to all these different medications.
johnhannibalsmith
04-07-2017, 12:14 PM
as far as the omeprazole goes...
Omeprazole treats and will help ulcers tremendously. I think you know that most people treating horses are treating for ulcers, which are quite common.
HalvOnHorseracing
04-07-2017, 12:46 PM
as far as the omeprazole goes, horses and humans all have acid that goes through their digestive tract, some extreme cases do get acid reflux. with the diet that horses have it is very rare for a horse to have acid reflux. now by treating a horse with omeprazole you are risking damage for little reason other than to clear up all the acid in his system so that it never blocks his breathing while he runs.
the main reason for using clenbuterol other than for a PED because it contains steroids, is to clear up mucus in the horses lungs.
there is always an argument that if you can't give the horses all these medications you will not be able to fill races. i think if that truly is the case we would be better off with less horses in the race and less races in total than to subject these horses to all these different medications.
Based on what I have read, omeprazole is also commonly used to treat ulcers, which are quite common in horses living in a stall. Horses in the wild will constantly graze, keeping the stomach from being completely empty very often, and keeping acid from building up. With exercise, the feeding schedule can leave the horse's stomach empty, leading to excess of hydrochloric acid, also leading to ulcers. I understand that bute and flunixin can also lead to ulcers.
The action of omeprazole is to block the release of acid, thus limiting ulcers and acid reflux. I'm not sure about horses, but millions of people take proton pump inhibitors. There are always side effects, but omeprazole has a very low occurrence of serous side effects.
I'm not really a clenbuterol person. If expectoration of mucous is necessary, there is always guaiphenesin.
One answer to fewer horses is fewer races, which is something I suggested in my 10 Ways to Fix Racing.
lamboguy
04-07-2017, 12:56 PM
Based on what I have read, omeprazole is also commonly used to treat ulcers, which are quite common in horses living in a stall. Horses in the wild will constantly graze, keeping the stomach from being completely empty very often, and keeping acid from building up. With exercise, the feeding schedule can leave the horse's stomach empty, leading to excess of hydrochloric acid, also leading to ulcers. I understand that bute and flunixin can also lead to ulcers.
The action of omeprazole is to block the release of acid, thus limiting ulcers and acid reflux. I'm not sure about horses, but millions of people take proton pump inhibitors. There are always side effects, but omeprazole has a very low occurrence of serous side effects.
I'm not really a clenbuterol person. If expectoration of mucous is necessary, there is always guaiphenesin.
One answer to fewer horses is fewer races, which is something I suggested in my 10 Ways to Fix Racing.in horses they call the drug Ulcerguard or Gastroguard. yet all the drug does is dry up acid. but they do claim that it treats ulcers because ulcer's come from acid. in reality they are treating the cause of the ulcer.
whodoyoulike
04-07-2017, 03:38 PM
... I also seem to recall that the bronchodilation from glycopyrrolate is fairly short lived. Certainly the threshold of 3 pg/mL at 48 hours is very tight.
One of my concerns is the dosage was actually given a week ago instead of 50 hrs ago and on race day the horse still had an overage. So, the original dosage IMO was much greater than 3 pg/ml.
green80
04-07-2017, 03:45 PM
One of my concerns is the dosage was actually given a week ago instead of 50 hrs ago and on race day the horse still had an overage. So, the original dosage IMO was much greater than 3 pg/ml.
If you gave clenbuterol 2 weeks before the race you would get a bad test, long after any effects of the medicine were gone.
johnhannibalsmith
04-07-2017, 04:31 PM
I'll be the only person on the forum to admit that I thought clenbuterol was one of the greatest additions to therapies ever. I don't mean for its steroidal properties or the later permutations that wrecked it as legit (Red Bull, Hawaiian Punch, etc.), but as a therapy for what it designed to be used as. I don't think people realize how often after a lousy race or work you scope and fund mucus. Its just not very easy to detect a lot of the time without taking a look - which isn't cheap, so you it (scope) was rarely used as a prophylactic if there are no outward signs - and it just seems like such an aggravating waste to work your ass off and spend money to run a headscratchingly poor race and find out you were gunked up with mucus. Using clenbuterol as you knew you were getting close to entering was such a nice luxury to avoid that. Too bad a good thing was, but of course, ruined by those that can't let a good thing be in the quest for great.
HalvOnHorseracing
04-07-2017, 05:56 PM
One of my concerns is the dosage was actually given a week ago instead of 50 hrs ago and on race day the horse still had an overage. So, the original dosage IMO was much greater than 3 pg/ml.
3 pg/mL is the residual 48 hours after dosing. The total dose is recommended at 1 mg.
HalvOnHorseracing
04-07-2017, 06:20 PM
If you gave clenbuterol 2 weeks before the race you would get a bad test, long after any effects of the medicine were gone.
The 3 pg/mL pertains to glycopyrrolate. The threshold for Clenbuterol is 140 pg/mL in urine or LOD (level of detection) in plasma or serum against a recommended dose of 0.8 mcg/kg twice daily (max. 30 days), with a recommended withdrawal of 14 days.
I said this before. One of the issues with the studies used to establish thresholds is that they usually represent the residual amounts that are supposed to be left after some period of withdrawal. What the studies don't tell us is whether the residual has performance enhancing effects at that value. But, if the horsemen go along with the published thresholds, it is their problem when a test comes back positive.
lamboguy
04-11-2017, 01:12 PM
i had a bottom claimer run a few months ago in a good track and finished a poor 5th.
today i got a letter stating that my horse has been moved up TWO positions due to 2 others in the race testing over the legal amount for the same drug.
seriously, enough is enough already. this is just no good for the game, it is going to blow up in smoke if things don't change.
Racey
04-11-2017, 09:41 PM
And always play simulcasting never even look out at the track complete garbage track:puke:
lamboguy
04-12-2017, 02:25 AM
If you gave clenbuterol 2 weeks before the race you would get a bad test, long after any effects of the medicine were gone.
the stuff should not be allowed period. whose to say that the horse was not getting winstrol or equipoise instead of clen, they all test the same and build up bigger rear ends vs. horses that don't use any of that stuff.
i have learned that the definition of a good trainer is the guy that can administer this stuff and get it out of the horses bodies so that they don't test for it.
i think its pretty hard to sell this sport to new people because of drugs. the drugs scare them away, it produces results that are close to impossible to predict in any consistent manor. most people that still wager on this game realize that certain trainers use stuff and others don't. so instead of handicapping the star of the sport, the horses, they have to handicap the trainer.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.