PDA

View Full Version : Woodbine’s Leading Trainer: Cheater or Unfairly Accused?


Zman179
12-19-2018, 11:38 AM
Very interesting article, it’s quite a good read. Your thoughts?

https://torontosun.com/sports/horse-racing/hard-work-or-cheating-successful-thoroughbred-trainer-norm-mcknight-says-unproven-allegations-are-taking-their-toll

biggestal99
12-19-2018, 01:25 PM
Uses Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy.


I avoid McKnight horses like the Plague on the exchange.


horses improve many lengths when they come to him.


horses that are claimed from him are a laying goldmine.


they almost never run the same as when the horse was under his care.


Allan

cj
12-19-2018, 01:34 PM
Does it really matter to gamblers? I think worrying about whether a guy is cheating or not is bad for the bottom line. Just be aware of what the trainer is good at (and not so good at) and use that info. The "why" doesn't really matter to us as bettors.

jk3521
12-19-2018, 02:03 PM
Does it really matter to gamblers? I think worrying about whether a guy is cheating or not is bad for the bottom line. Just be aware of what the trainer is good at (and not so good at) and use that info. The "why" doesn't really matter to us as bettors.

:ThmbUp:

Back in the day I used to relish in trying to figure out what Oscar Barrera and Gil Puentes were up to.

ronsmac
12-19-2018, 02:48 PM
:ThmbUp:

Back in the day I used to relish in trying to figure out what Oscar Barrera and Gil Puentes were up to.
By the summer of 83 were any of Oscar's horses paying anything? Just asking. I remember that well starting to dry up.

Andy Asaro
12-19-2018, 03:04 PM
https://twitter.com/DougieSal/status/1074455237820325888

jk3521
12-19-2018, 05:21 PM
By the summer of 83 were any of Oscar's horses paying anything? Just asking. I remember that well starting to dry up.

Yeah, but I started watching he and others years before that happened. That was my specialty, watching clever trainers. With trainer stats incorporated in Past Performances, that killed me.

ultracapper
12-19-2018, 06:54 PM
https://twitter.com/DougieSal/status/1074455237820325888

4X as many didn't run back as won.

Run away. Run away as fast as you can.

chadk66
12-19-2018, 07:10 PM
pretty staggering numbers. but I would have to think that in two years if he was doping they would have caught something. Seems strange.

Spalding No!
12-19-2018, 07:19 PM
Very interesting article, it’s quite a good read. Your thoughts?

https://torontosun.com/sports/horse-racing/hard-work-or-cheating-successful-thoroughbred-trainer-norm-mcknight-says-unproven-allegations-are-taking-their-toll
Not sure why it's being presented as a question mark.

McKnight clearly violated the rules when he had multiple horses treated with shockwave therapy within the allowed timeframe (no closer than 96 hours). By the way, in other jurisdictions the cutoff time is 10 days.

There were 3 horses--that the stewards/investigators knew about--treated illegality (i.e., cheating) that had to be scratched. These were only discovered after Woodbine started to conduct surveillance on his barn and even then one of them had to be 'fessed up by McKnight himself. Is it far-fetched to think he was doing this with his other runners?

The treatment is performed by a private veterinarian retained by McKnight. The vet in this case claimed he thought the 96-hour rule was only a "guideline"...I suppose in the same way that a bag of Oreos says 3 cookies is a single serving...but go ahead and down the whole package if you feel like it.

Meanwhile, McKnight put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the vet. Any decision on treatments are made by the vet supposedly. I would call BS on that excuse. Shockwave treatments cost between $350-600 per session. Are we really supposed to believe that McKight--on behalf of his owners--gave the vet carte blanche to go to town--in an illegal fashion, mind you--on his horses without his own input?

It's fair for the article to present a question mark regarding the use of illegal substances--that hasn't been proven here--but to wave off the illegal use of shockwave therapy as a mere misunderstanding or minor infraction is completely irresponsible and suggests a distinct bias on the part of the author.

chadk66
12-19-2018, 08:48 PM
I was totally unfamiliar with shockwave therapy. So I did some research on it. I don't understand why it is isn't allowed right up to and including race day. It's really in the same ball park as icing, therapeutic ultrasound, laser treatments, magna wave, etc. That totally baffles me.

Spalding No!
12-19-2018, 09:29 PM
I was totally unfamiliar with shockwave therapy. So I did some research on it. I don't understand why it is isn't allowed right up to and including race day. It's really in the same ball park as icing, therapeutic ultrasound, laser treatments, magna wave, etc. That totally baffles me.
Not sure of your sources, but the AAEP has this to say:

In a study funded by the Grayson Foundation at Iowa State University, we found that in the horse, a period of analgesia appears to be present for about four days after treatment.

Anything that imparts a pain-killing effect on a horse should be off limits on the day it is to perform, at the very least. Ideally it wouldn't be allowed for as long as the pain-killing effect lasts. In the case of shock wave therapy, it has been shown to be about 4 days.

Without the ability to perceive pain, the horse is at risk of further injury if asked to perform at full capacity.

...the indications for shock wave therapy would indicate most horses should be on a decreased level of activity while healing.

That is, horses undergoing this therapy should be resting or in light training and not in full work and actively racing.

Shock wave therapy is meant to promote healing over the long term. It is not meant as a pre-race treatment administered as close to the race as the rule allows. That sort of mentality (i.e., throw the kitchen sink at the horse) is one of the reasons this sport gets a (justifiably) bad rap.

lamboguy
12-19-2018, 09:42 PM
shocking can have a similar type of effect as tapping. you are not allowed to tap the same day as the race and you shouldn't be allowed to shock the same day either..

anyway, this guy in Canada is taking some kind of an edge to win like that. its just another reason why racing needs a complete overhaul.

chadk66
12-19-2018, 09:55 PM
Not sure of your sources, but the AAEP has this to say:

In a study funded by the Grayson Foundation at Iowa State University, we found that in the horse, a period of analgesia appears to be present for about four days after treatment.

Anything that imparts a pain-killing effect on a horse should be off limits on the day it is to perform, at the very least. Ideally it wouldn't be allowed for as long as the pain-killing effect lasts. In the case of shock wave therapy, it has been shown to be about 4 days.

Without the ability to perceive pain, the horse is at risk of further injury if asked to perform at full capacity.

...the indications for shock wave therapy would indicate most horses should be on a decreased level of activity while healing.

That is, horses undergoing this therapy should be resting or in light training and not in full work and actively racing.

Shock wave therapy is meant to promote healing over the long term. It is not meant as a pre-race treatment administered as close to the race as the rule allows. That sort of mentality (i.e., throw the kitchen sink at the horse) is one of the reasons this sport gets a (justifiably) bad rap.I didn't read very much. Just a couple short segments. Didn't dive into it that much. So if they're claiming four days why are they allowing it to be used up to two days out. For all intents and purposes bute does the same then. it's anelgesic.

chadk66
12-19-2018, 09:58 PM
shocking can have a similar type of effect as tapping. you are not allowed to tap the same day as the race and you shouldn't be allowed to shock the same day either..

anyway, this guy in Canada is taking some kind of an edge to win like that. its just another reason why racing needs a complete overhaul.I can see that angle. But tapping is something that benefits the horse for quite a period of time in comparison. Not just for that day. And with tapping you usually don't get results for at least 48 hours. And that's pretty much what I've seen with myself over the years. I've had at least half a dozen cortisone shots. A couple took a couple days. The rest took from two weeks to two months to get good results from.

Spalding No!
12-19-2018, 10:05 PM
I didn't read very much. Just a couple short segments. Didn't dive into it that much. So if they're claiming four days why are they allowing it to be used up to two days out. For all intents and purposes bute does the same then. it's anelgesic.
Who allows it 2 days out? Most jurisdictions follow ARCI guidelines of a 10-day ineligibility period. It's 4 days at Woodbine.

Shock wave can block pain perception in specific structures in the lower leg of the horse. Not so with bute.

Afleet
12-19-2018, 10:09 PM
Wonder if he is returning to Oaklawn this season? I remember betting against him w/so-so results. He does drop horses down regularly and claims a lot of horses. He did have some horses air there last season at low odds.

Elkchester Road
12-19-2018, 10:22 PM
He raced a big enough sample of starters at Oaklawn last year, and his numbers were much more down to earth. NO trainer can claim from him and move one up...very few can claim from him and win next time out. Many times more were claimed from him and have yet to race again. All of this exists in a bubble. He is somehow "protected" at Woodbine. What amazes me is how the industry...particularly other trainers...allow about 5% of trainers to turn 50% or more of the remaining trainers into bottom feeders.

When these "incredible" statistics exist in a vacuum (one locale)...it isn't by accident. When it happens over multiple seasons...once again, it isn't by accident.

I understand that these "super trainers" put a lot of entries in the box...but do racing offices EVER consider how many trainers, and entries, are run off by these guys? That number is LARGER than the entries of these super trainers.

chadk66
12-19-2018, 10:26 PM
He raced a big enough sample of starters at Oaklawn last year, and his numbers were much more down to earth. NO trainer can claim from him and move one up...very few can claim from him and win next time out. Many times more were claimed from him and have yet to race again. All of this exists in a bubble. He is somehow "protected" at Woodbine. What amazes me is how the industry...particularly other trainers...allow about 5% of trainers to turn 50% or more of the remaining trainers into bottom feeders.

When these "incredible" statistics exist in a vacuum (one locale)...it isn't by accident. When it happens over multiple seasons...once again, it isn't by accident.

I understand that these "super trainers" put a lot of entries in the box...but do racing offices EVER consider how many trainers, and entries, are run off by these guys? That number is LARGER than the entries of these super trainers.I almost wonder if many cases if it isn't who these trainers are training for that is a bigger issue in all that.

Afleet
12-19-2018, 10:26 PM
He raced a big enough sample of starters at Oaklawn last year, and his numbers were much more down to earth. NO trainer can claim from him and move one up...very few can claim from him and win next time out. Many times more were claimed from him and have yet to race again. All of this exists in a bubble. He is somehow "protected" at Woodbine. What amazes me is how the industry...particularly other trainers...allow about 5% of trainers to turn 50% or more of the remaining trainers into bottom feeders.

When these "incredible" statistics exist in a vacuum (one locale)...it isn't by accident. When it happens over multiple seasons...once again, it isn't by accident.

I understand that these "super trainers" put a lot of entries in the box...but do racing offices EVER consider how many trainers, and entries, are run off by these guys? That number is LARGER than the entries of these super trainers.

the article says Woodbine has been going after him

chadk66
12-19-2018, 10:27 PM
Who allows it 2 days out? Most jurisdictions follow ARCI guidelines of a 10-day ineligibility period. It's 4 days at Woodbine.

Shock wave can block pain perception in specific structures in the lower leg of the horse. Not so with bute.how many trainers utilize the shockwave would you think? Can trainers own these things or just a vet?

Spalding No!
12-19-2018, 10:57 PM
how many trainers utilize the shockwave would you think? Can trainers own these things or just a vet?
The California and New York rules require that only licensed vets can perform the treatments, the devices must be registered with the commission, the treatment must be reported to the commission (horse is ineligible to run for 10 days), and the treatment must be performed in a location designated by the commission. Parx made a house rule that prohibited the machines all together.

Some complications with rules:

The biggest problem in terms of enforcement is the use of the machine off racetrack grounds where commissions typically do not have jurisdiction.

...there’s currently no conclusive way to test whether a horse has been administered shockwave therapy.

baconswitchfarm
12-19-2018, 10:58 PM
how many trainers utilize the shockwave would you think? Can trainers own these things or just a vet?








I only have reference from the standardbred business, but I doubt there is much difference. Almost all trainers use them. Most training centers have multiple ones floating around owned by trainers thus eliminating the exorbitant mark ups by vets. If every horse that had been shock waved in the last ten days couldn't race you would have to cancel the card.

JustRalph
12-19-2018, 11:18 PM
https://twitter.com/DougieSal/status/1074455237820325888


Devastating info.......answers any question I might have

Immanuel Kant
12-20-2018, 10:33 AM
He will be at OP this winter.

He was under surveillance more than any other trainer at WO all meet long.

What is the point of continually casting aspersions if they cannot be proven?

I agree with CJ........use the info as you will

chadk66
12-20-2018, 02:05 PM
I don’t know what rules are at each track but back when I was training you could ship in day of the race. That would pretty much negate preventing it from being used within 48 hours.

Fager Fan
12-20-2018, 04:13 PM
Does it really matter to gamblers? I think worrying about whether a guy is cheating or not is bad for the bottom line. Just be aware of what the trainer is good at (and not so good at) and use that info. The "why" doesn't really matter to us as bettors.

I was under a misconception that handicappers do care if a trainer cheats.

I guess we just have to clean up the sport for the trainers and owners if handicappers don’t care.

cj
12-20-2018, 04:56 PM
I was under a misconception that handicappers do care if a trainer cheats.

I guess we just have to clean up the sport for the trainers and owners if handicappers don’t care.

I think you are taking that farther than I intended. Of course I want a clean sport. I just don't happen to think it helps me one bit as a bettor.

And, to be frank, there isn't a damn thing I can do about it about any cheating that is going on. I'm not the Don Quixote type.

Elkchester Road
12-20-2018, 08:06 PM
the article says Woodbine has been going after him

Yes...that's what the article SAYS. The eye test says different. It is the same old, same old.

ubercapper
12-21-2018, 11:02 AM
I used Stats Race Lens to query his off claim stats for the past five years. The images are part of this tweet
https://twitter.com/Ubercapper/status/1075056916450238469


Statistically it's possible on small numbers, & could just as easily go the other way. For example this year the numbers are 21/56, last year 12/37. If this year's numbers were 18/56 (just 3 less wins) the % would be the same both this year & last.

I tried to be objective, looking at the numbers, and reminding myself "improbable is not impossible."

My conclusion is these percentages are possible on small numbers, & could just as easily go the other way. For example this year the numbers are 21/56, last year 12/37. If this year's numbers were 18/56 (just 3 less wins) the % would be the same both this year & last.

ubercapper
12-21-2018, 11:05 AM
Here's the link
https://twitter.com/Ubercapper/status/1075056916450238469

chadk66
12-21-2018, 10:37 PM
I kind of did some snooping on these shockwave machines. Appears that now you can get them for as low as $1200. It's like anything electronic, they start to plummet in price really fast. These will be used by everybody really soon if they aren't already. If these things work as well as some claim, those running off the farm or training center will def. have an advantage. If there are any number in use yet betters should be able to nail on horses shipping in that are using these. But I'd bet you they are being used right up till race day in more barns than anybody would like to admit. There are so many different machines/devices being used now days that nobody probably pays any attention anymore.

Elliott Sidewater
12-22-2018, 12:32 PM
Yeah, but Barrera was mostly winning and Puentes was mostly losing.

Robert Fischer
12-22-2018, 01:31 PM
I only have reference from the standardbred business, but I doubt there is much difference. Almost all trainers use them. Most training centers have multiple ones floating around owned by trainers thus eliminating the exorbitant mark ups by vets. If every horse that had been shock waved in the last ten days couldn't race you would have to cancel the card.

Thanks. Eye-opening post.

Appy
12-24-2018, 05:03 PM
I've always look with skepticism on anyone accused who responds by saying "nothing has been proven".