Gill-Shuman Again For The Wrong Reasons

[Figman]

It seems that two of the Gill-Shuman horses that ran so well at Saratoga last Summer were drugged with an anti-psychotic med called fluphenazine. Now from today's DRF story, Michael Gill is not complaining about getting caught, he is complaining that New York had a rule against running on the drug. What a disgrace!
http://www.drf.com/news/article/61692.html

For more info about this drug:
http://tinyurl.com/5kayt

[John]

Yup, He does his thing everywhere he goes. Bad for racing and bad for the players. You never know how his horses will run.

Once this game was knowed as "The sport of kings" Today it is almost like The sport of drugs.

[Tom]

Maybe Sccott Peterson can sue California for making double murder illegal?
Sheez...they guy has kuhunas to dope horses and then sue!

[John]

A bunch of his horses showed up at Suffolk this past meet. Some horses were claimed for $40.000 and now running at Suffolk for $5.000 [ non winners of a race in 6 months ] No trainer or owner claimed any that I can recall.

[Suff]

A bunch of his horses showed up at Suffolk this past meet. Some horses were claimed for $40.000 and now running at Suffolk for $5.000 [ non winners of a race in 6 months ] No trainer or owner claimed any that I can recall.

Carlos Figueroa put Michael Gill in the racing Businesss years ago... He started him out claiming Cheap Stock at Suffolk and The Rock. As a Favor to Figueroa , Gill gave him 10 Horses to Fiddle with at the Recent Suffolk Meet. They were and are all Beaters... walking wounded types.

But thats how and why 10 of Gills Horses showed up at Suffolk this year.

In an Ironic Twist... The last week of the meet Figueroa sold 3 of them privately on the backside to ...none other than Burton Sipp... I think he gave him 12 Grand for all 3. And they're Lame.

[Suff]

Btw... One of them you West Coast Guys May Know. A Horse by the name of Shuffling Kid. Was 5 for 15 Lifetime at Sanita and DEl_mar with 150 grand earned. Horse Could run. Showed up here at Suffolk and could'nt get it done for 5 grand open going 3/4'rs. But raced For Big Money out west in 2002-2003. Was a Nice colt with lots of Upside at one time

[John]

Suff, Maybe Sipp is not the dynamic trainer he was years ago.He is older now and I am sure he has mellow some. Training horses could just be a hobby to him now. At Suffolk Sipp ran 390 horses and won only 51 races less than 13% not a very good percentage for running the most horses at the meet.

I tried to call you at the motel since before Christmas. I talked with Peter. Peter and me want to wish you a very Happy New Year.

John

[Suff]

Jim Pambianchi , the racing Secratary at Suffolk Downs described Burton Sipp as

"A Racing Secrataries Dream"..

He filled more races as a Favor to Jimmy. If Jimmy needed a Horse to make a race go he'd call Sipp.... as many as 2 to 3 times a week Sipp Made races go. So he probably ran 50 times he really did'nt plan to.

Suffolk ran more "Alternate Distances" races this year than you would Believe. Most Trainers would enter thier stock at "Only x Distance"... But Sipp always went in "Either or"...

For those don't know... at the smaller tracks a racing secratary will write the condition book with Alternate Distances to help races Fill. In other words he may write a 12,500 Claiming race and make it Both a Mile and 70 Yards and 6 furlongs. If it Fills at 6 Furlongs.. it goes at 6 furlongs.. If it Fills at a Mile 70 , it goes at a Mile 70. A key Local Handicapping angle is to find out what Horses were entered "either-or" and then know what distance the Trainer "TRULY" wanted the race to go at... If A guy was looking to go a Mile/70 but was forced to go 6 Furlongs... Thats good to know.

So maybe Sipp was on the "On how to win Friends and influence people program" this year. But They really liked him at Suffolk. He's welcome back in 2005 and I expect him to show with 50+ Head and have a good meet.

As Far as Sipp Making money... you can kind of get a Rough Idea this way.

He had 40 Head. So a Groom gets 5 or so Horses.. so he had 7 Grooms.. @ $350 a week... 40 Head needs 4 Hot Walkers at $200 a week... PLus Grroms get Stakes... $50.00 for a claiming win... $100.00 for an Allownace win and $500 for a Stakes win. Jockeys get thier 10%, 5%, 5%... AND he sends at least 10 a ay to the track in the AM for a Jog or Gallop or Breeze at $10.00 per ride for the exercise Boy.

So his labor was running him about 5 grand a week. The meet was what ? about 30 weeks. So he went down for $160 grand in Labor....Probaly another 100 grand in VET, Shoeing, Feed, Hay and the like. Meaning he Made himself somewher North of a 100+ Grand in 7 months time...

Could be a Little more. Little less... But for a Rough Math guesstimate... I'd say I'm Close..

Sorry FiG.. I know this is a Gill Shuman Thread and I'm off Course... so that'll be it for Sipp in this thread for me.

[plainolebill]

Shufflling Kid won the Baldwin G3 6.5f turf at SA in Feb 02. Was claimed a few times and won a couple of more races: 80K clm, 40k clm. Was off for 14 months, came back at the bottom at SA a year ago for Mullins and ran 2nd.

[John]

Sorry Fig for getting off of your topic.

It will be interesting to see how the court will handle this. Anyway One thing Gill is bringing to light is there must be a zillon drugs that can be used on horses that the track does not about.
How many drugs can a track lab look for ? I guess when the Lab finds a drug that is not on the list. The track will take the Initiative and ban that drug from use. Figman, is that the way it is done, Pleas correct me if I am wrong.

John

[Figman]

John, You're right. You can't test for all drugs that there are tests for....it's just too expensive for any state racing commission. Some states test for as few as six commonly used equine drugs while others test for many dozens per sample including drugs not approved for equine use. Gill-Shuman probably got caught because New York tests for some more esoteric drugs like fluphenazine. More than likely, NY is one of very few states to test for this drug.

It all depends on three things; 1)How affluent the racing state is and 2) how strong the regulator desires to keep illegal medication out of their races; and finally, 3)the type of drug testing equipment the labs associated with the state commissions possess or have access to. The liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) testing machine costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not every lab has that kind of money nor can the commissions supply their lab with one. This machine that accomplishes what is called "instrument testing" can find or confirm drug presence more readily than less sophisticated methods in common use.

[John]

Figman, very good answer.

I was not aware that each state differs on what drugs and how many to test for.So a little track like Suffolk has to turn their back on some drugs like fluphenazine or they would get no entries to fill the races.

But Figman, this is what I don't get.... You and I are trainers at the same track. Both our horses are fit and in the same race. So we want an edge over each other. you give your horse a little something and I give mine a little something. Does it come down to who gives the strongest drug.That is sad.

I know it sounds like I think it goes on in every race.I am sure it doesn't. But Gill/Shuman every time they are in the press it is because of something that
the racing commission disapproves or is illegal.

Maybe I will wake up to racing in my area,ask Maxspa and you to teach me how to Handicap Aqueduct. That would be a challenge for me.

"Happy New Year" Figman

[Figman]

Often there is a thin line between therapeutic drugs and outright cheating against the rules. That is where the problem with formulating a national set of equine medication rules is bogged down. Of course horses with infirmities should be helped but if the horse industry is going to continue racing in certain jurisdictions year around, numerous medications to keep these horses going are necessary. In every instance that medical help through drug therapy has to be within the applicable rules.

John, it isn't who gives the strongest drug. It is all about which trainers and their vets are not cheaters. Cheaters willfully perform illegal acts. The good trainers can afford the "necessary" medication bills and are the best managers. In that proper management they have an edge. They may get caught once in a while with a post race positive for a therapeutic medication in what can be determined by investigation or administration record to be "an honest mistake". They still pay the price with a fine or suspension...trainer responsibility.

Many states like NYand NJ allow certain medications up to 24 hrs. prior to raceday, other meds 48 hrs. out, some 72 hrs. out and some 96 hrs. out. All useable drugs and their times of use are listed within the rules. If a drug or classification of drug is not listed, it cannot be used seven days or less prior to raceday. Among all drugs, only furosemide (known as Salix or Lasix) is allowed on raceday.

In the NY rulebook what meds are allowed and when the latest administration before raceday is allowed are listed. Virtually all drugs have scientifically discovered "half-lives". The "half life" of a drug determines how long it lasts within a human or an equine. Research scientists have discovered the half-lives of most drugs and how long these drugs have an effect within a horse's system can be determined, thus the 24 hrs., 48 hrs., etc. "out" times. The few good equine scientists around the country, mainly at universities and colleges, have horses that they actually test their theories on drug withdrawl and come to conclusions on what equine drugs can be used and when for the good of the horse while NOT affecting raceday performance.

The problem with some is that either these trainers or their vets love to "live on the edge" with their drug administrations or they use drugs that are of no therapeutic value to a horse. In the final wash, these are the people that cheat. The majority of drug positives may very well be honest mistakes. It could be a horse with a slow metabolism for eliminating its medication, etc. However, when you see numerous rulings against the same trainers, something is amiss. Using an anti-psychotic drug on horses like fluphenazine or other drugs listed as Class One or Two drugs by the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) certainly is counter to a therapeutic use. These type drugs have no place in racing as they affect performance. Fluphenazine is a Class Two drug that is powerful enough to be used outside of the seven days and often outside of three weeks prior to raceday and still test positive from a raceday urine or blood sample.

[CryingForTheHorses]

Its very nice to read from a poster who knows what he is talking about, Suff you are also a very good poster,These posts should be read by everyone and absorbed as this is very true, I couldnt explain it better myself, Yes the testing is expensive but its something that needs to be done, If they can give the owners 12k for winning a 5k race, Im sure they can well afford to upgrade their testing procedures.I was once told how some tracks were months behind on their raceday tests..I wouldnt be so quick to blame Mr Gill, I would first and foremost blame the trainer!..Then the vet!..Proper procedure is for the trainer or assistant to go to the stall with the vet,The vet usally has a upgraded stall list.I have seen many trainers rely on the vets to give the shot as the vet assistant hold the horse, If another horse has been put in that certain stall without the vet knowing, You are going to have a problem, Bottom line, Its the trainer's responiblity

[John]

Very informative Figman, and nicely written. Thank you