New Frontier of cheating

[karlskorner]

Paul Moran/Newsday

www.geocities.com/nywagering/

2nd article

Sometimes I wonder why ?

[Dick Schmidt]

Karl,

??? Could find nothing about cheating. Second article is about opening OTBs in Mich.

Dick

[karlskorner]

Dick;

I looked, your right, I guess they took it off. It was about epoghen (I think that's the spelling) and other drugs and how the Lab's are having trouble catching it etc.

I read it 7 AM this morning, I guess you late risers in Calif. don't get to read it.

Remember: IT'S THE EARLY BIRD THAT CATCHES THE WORM.

Karl

[so.cal.fan]

http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-moran132745479jun13.column?coll=ny%2Dsports%2Dcolu mnists

[CumberlandBluesHSH]

Originally posted by karlskorner
Remember: IT'S THE EARLY BIRD THAT CATCHES THE WORM.



Well, yeah....but the second mouse gets the cheese.

[karlskorner]

Thank you so.cal.fan, that's it. Now Dick can read it.

[Dick Schmidt]

Another alarmist "the-sky-is-falling" article on drugs. Just when did all racing in KY become unbetable? It was OK just this afternoon.

As long as I've been in racing, I've been reading articles like this. The newest wonder drug is going to destroy the sport, make betting impossible. I'm not saying that drugs are a good thing, but the dire warnings never seem to come true. The labs will catch up, a few trainers will be fined or barred and life will go on.

Little noted fact: in random drug tests, most of the horses testing positive are NOT winners. As many come from the back half of the field as the top half. Just where are these super-drugs?

Dick

[Dave Schwartz]

I mostly agree with Dick except I'd go on record as saying that the cheating (whatever form it takes) should be treated more seriously.

There is a bone in my head that tells me if a guy got caught cheating once (stiffing a horse, drugs, whatever) he probably got away with it a hundred times before.

That makes the problem serious enough to warrant a penalty just shy of execution.

Personally, I'd like to see a no-tolerance rule... intentionally break a rule in order to cheat and wear a lifetime suspension. Then the game will become more honest. I know it will never happen, but I can dream, can't I?

Honesty... What a concept.

regards,
Dave Schwartz

[GameTheory]

"No-tolerance" rules of any kind scare me. There are 3rd graders kicked out of school for kissing a girl on the cheek because of "no-tolerance" sexual harassment rules.

Also, as far as people getting away with things, it is hard to say. They very well could be, but maybe the majority of them get caught -- it's a unknown. Take me, for example. I'm a very well-behaved fellow. Why? For one thing, when I was growing up, if I ever did anything I shouldn't have been doing, I got caught EVERY time. I'm just no good at being bad.

My gut tells me though that there is plenty of illegal drug use, and as the article states there is plenty of anecdotal evidence as well. I don't think this makes the sport "unbettable", but I'm quite sure it hurts the breed. Isn't it true that in Australia, where no drugs are allowed, there are basically no bleeders because they've been "breeded" out?

[JustRalph]

From the article: "Kentucky's ridiculously permissive medication rules have made racing in that state essentially unbettable. The growing perception that things are not much different anywhere else can only further erode the confidence of an already cynical group."

Race Seven Today (Friday June 15) at Churchill:
Kris Prather Pick up ride

White Flag wins at 48.90 to 1 Pays 99.80

This horse had only one decent race ever. The rest were absolute lay downs. He couldn't have run any worse unless he fell in most races. Came out and Wired em at 48-1 and nobody ever got close. The chart says he beat the favorite by a 1/2 but it was an easy win. No good workouts, nothing. Looked like freakin Secretariat out there.

I want somebody to take that blood sample to the Lab. Oh yeah, I have never even thought about a trainer doping one up until this horse today. It was the only explanation I could find. I know Prather has picked up a few mounts and made em into part time champs before........but this one was outside of the realm.

I saw that N. Drysdale has been hit with a positive today.....
It is an interesting game I can say that.

[Dick Schmidt]

JR,

Here's a bit of redboarding for your consideration. Dave Schwartz has developed a new way of rating horses in the HSH program that I have been working on with him. Though he didn't show well on pace or speed, White Flag was a standout on recent form and was an obvious bet. Doesn't often happen this way, but you only need one or two a day. Like I said, it seemed to me that CD was very betable today. At least for me, the horse didn't come from outer space.

Dick

[ranchwest]

Gosh, I wish I knew how to rate form to get this horse. My form ratings, normally quite good, show this horse to be awful. Last work 160 days. Last time on the lead 76 days. I don't get it.

[karlskorner]

I think this story fits in the post.

www.geocities.com/nywagers

45 days for the use of drugs.

WHERE HAVE ALL OUR HEROS GONE ?

[andicap]

link didn't work Karl

[karlskorner]

andicap;


My fault.

www.geocities.com/nywagering

Last article under Pari Mutual

[Observer]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Personally, I'd like to see a no-tolerance rule... intentionally break a rule in order to cheat and wear a lifetime suspension.

A no-tolerance rule in racing would be a crime. At times, I sometimes feel it is unfair that the trainer takes the heat whenever anything is found .. even if he is in another state when the infraction happens. Of course, I do understand that the horses are the trainer's responsibility, but to hold it against a trainer by removing his career from him would just be wrong. Afterall, how could you prove the trainer had intentionally broken a rule?

I do not believe all the drug positives we hear about are done purposely, sometimes I think mistakes really do happen. Of course, obviously some of the mistakes are that some of the trainers have gotten caught, but I do not believe every trainer who has ever had a positive is doing something crooked.

As for the article, I didn't read it and probably won't. I am personally tired of all the negativity that goes on in all of media. In racing media, when do these people ever look at the great things going on in the sport? Too often they are always digging for more dirt and trash, or knocking even winning performances of horses or humans. "If they're winning, they're using, if they're losing, they're just a bum," is the impression I often get. Or, when a horse wins, his performance is torn apart as to how it wasn't really that good, or how the horse beat "nothing," unless, of course, the horse is one of the "chosen" ones the media decides to like. How can a sport ever build itself up, as racing is trying to do, when the media that covers it has a tendency to lean heavily into promoting the negative.

Now, I'm not saying they should close their eyes to what they see wrong with the game, but some writers just leave you pondering why they're in this game, because the impression they give leads you to believe they don't like it. How can any sport or event attract new people when the people covering it don't even seem to enjoy it, or have lots of bad thoughts or negativity toward it. This does not go for each individual in the racing media, but it's my general feeling of the group.

[Dave Schwartz]

Observer,

I cannot disagree with your point and perhaps I should have been a little more clear when proposing such a black-and-white solution. My point is that when a jockey (for example) is caught in a fixing scam he should be history. Forever. We trust these people to try. We bet our money on them.

The same should go for trainers that are caught without a plausible excuse. And twelve-time offenders should simply not be tolerated even if it is because someone in their employ is doing it. Someone has to take responsibility for policing them and it has to be the trainer. I believe that in racing today, crime pays.

Of course, whenever I mention my viewpoint to horse people they tell me how dumb and/or naive I am being. They remind me that a person should not have their livelihood taken away "so easily." My contention is that INTENTIONAL dishonesty should not be tolerated. Period. Intent is everything.

Just my opinion, but I believe we have the right to wager into an "honest" game.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[ranchwest]

Maybe one of the first things we need is a better rule about who the trainer is. Maybe the trainer should be required to be on hand and thereby be held to a higher accountability due to his proximity to what is happening.

[Observer]

Originally posted by ranchwest
Maybe the trainer should be required to be on hand and thereby be held to a higher accountability due to his proximity to what is happening.

This type of requirement would really seem to hurt the big, successful outfits that regularly have horses in stake races nationwide in the same day. Guys like Lukas, Baffert, Frankel, Pletcher and Mott can have big things going on at several tracks on the same afternoon. To expect them to scale back so that they can be on-hand would be a tremendous restriction.

Dave,

I do understand your point about INTENTIONAL dishonesty, that's why I asked how could you prove the trainer had intentionally broken a rule? I believe proving something like that, to a positive certainty, would be nearly impossible.

[ranchwest]

After giving it more thought, my suggestion could also hamper claims.

So, an additional idea would be to have an "owner's trainer" and an "on-hand trainer" actually declared. The on-hand trainer would be responsible for drug violations. The two positions could be the same person.

As far as I can tell, right now an assistant trainer can dope a horse, the trainer takes the blame and the assistant is still working. How is that fair?

Are there flaws in such a system?

[Show Me the Wire]

I was a Chuchill Downs on Friday to claim a horse out of the race in question. After handicapping the race I thought the 4 horse, White Flag, was a bet in a weak field with a weak favorite. The favorite was going backwards in form and it showed in the race. The winner dropped from tougher competition and had no chance in his last race against faster horses and enduring a very wide trip. The trainer found a soft spot on Friday and got lucky.

After handicapping the race and watching it in person I do not believe the winner benefitted from drugs, but benefited from astute management in finding a soft spot.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[so.cal.fan]

Show me the Wire!
Where have you been? We have missed you!
I watched that race from Santa Anita Friday afternoon.
While the tube leaves a lot to be desired, it is better than nothing.
I thought that horse warmed up good and looked pretty sharp.
I didn't know a thing about it, or even have the DRF with me, so I didn't bet him.
I went over to watch a horse in the next race. The turf race.
Generous Gift. I knew this horse when Ron Ellis claimed it late in 2000. It had some sort of a serious injury at that time.....reason for the long layoff.
The horse was sent to Ron's brother in law......McGee. I wanted to take a look at him.
I couldn't tell too much in the paddock off the TV, but in the warm up, he never warmed up a jump. Walked to the gate.
I had to assume his first race back (not too good) was probably going to get even worse. It did.
Did you see him or watch that race?

[Show Me the Wire]

So. Cal Fan:

Didn't see the next race, We were busy checking out our acqusition. I have been busy but I have been checking the board periodically.

I needed to respond to the post about drugs and their rampant use to enhance performance. I wanted to let our fellow board member know the winner had a legitimate chance to win without drugs.

Thanks for missing me.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[JustRalph]

Ok...Just got back from the Nascar race at Michigan....I am whupped! But I must respond here. Lets just say he didn't show any reason for me to bet him. We all have our formula's and methods, but this guy was such an inconsistent performer, no way he gets my money. Whether it be a soft spot or not.........I guess we should watch and see how he runs next time.

[ranchwest]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Ok...Just got back from the Nascar race at Michigan....I am whupped! But I must respond here. Lets just say he didn't show any reason for me to bet him. We all have our formula's and methods, but this guy was such an inconsistent performer, no way he gets my money. Whether it be a soft spot or not.........I guess we should watch and see how he runs next time.

How he runs next time does not have to correlate to how he ran last time.

[Whirlaway]

Anyone interested in the drug factor should read this article (http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_08_10_a_drug.htm), originally printed in the New Yorker. It's about olympic track and field athletes, but it's highly relevant to horse racing as well. Basically one should assume that all the top trainers are employing performance enhancing substances, but there's no way to catch the cheaters unless they're very stupid (i.e. Neil Drysdale, who got caught in Illinois presumably because he didn't realize that IL drug policies were different from California policies.) As the article makes clear, there's no way to prevent the use of EPO, all you can do is prevent the use of MASSIVE doses of EPO.

-- john nichols

[Show Me the Wire]

CD's 7th race on Friday (White Flags win) is an excellent example of perceived problems with this sport.

Two issues are brought forward. The issue of handicapping horse management by a trainer and the usage of drugs are contained in this one race.

First the handicapping issue. The winner fit in this race and its winning was probably influenced by the elusive randomness we discussed in prior threads. Randomness had a big influence in this race because this race contained slow horses, horses not suited for the distance and the biggest factor the fastest animal was not fit to run his normal race. This is a great recipe for the surprising result.

Sometimes when we do not understand the result it is a natural to try and explain why a certain outcome happened. Consequently we make conjectures. Unfortunately it is easy to say drug usage had a direct influence on the outcome of a race. By no means am I attacking anyone's handicapping and I personally did not believe the #4 horse would be a certain winner, but he certainly fit in this field and was playable on his past performance.

Second the drug usage issue. This issue should be separated into two categories, performance enhancing drugs and medicinal drugs.

PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS:

Performance enhancing drugs are usually narcotics or stimulants i.e. heroin, morphine, cocaine etc. These drugs have no place in racing and anyone caught using them to enhance a horse's performance must be held accountable.

MEDICINAL DRUGS:

Medicinal drugs used for treatment or for the benefit of the horse should be tolerated. These are the drugs that reasonable threshold limits should be set. The threshold issue should really be a non-issue. It is easily verifiable how much of a drug must be present in the blood before it has physical or psychological effect on the subject. Therefore, any quantifiable amount under an effective dosage should be disregarded.

ADDITIONAL DRUGS:

I believe clenbuteral or similar drugs should be allowed on race day. Bronchial dilators allow a horse to run to its natural ability without enhancing its performance. A horse should be allowed to breath when we ask it to exert itself fully during a strenuous activity. Additionally it has to be better for the betting public to know a horse will be able to breath during a race so that it may perform up to its expectations.

The reality of the situation is racehorses in training live in an urban environment in dusty moldy confined quarters. This is prime environment to incubate bronchial complications. By effectively denying medicinal relief to these animals it is cruelty at its worst. It is akin to asking a human athlete with asthma to perform to his natural capabilities with out the use of his asthma medication. The only difference in this situation is the human athlete can talk and tell his trainer he is short of breath and the horse athlete cannot tell his trainer about its breathing problems. Is that why we do not understand the difference between beneficial medication and performance enhancing drugs? If so. We must understand horses are athletes and they should be allowed to perform under fair and humane conditions and we should not treat them differently because they cannot verbally communicate with humans.

Well that is my diatribe on what I believe are two major perceived issues relevant to our sport today and my understanding of a way to equate reality with perception.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Reality has many forms and as such seems to cause confusion.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
Honesty... What a concept.

regards,
Dave Schwartz

Dave,
I don't know if you're intentionally being funny, but it gave me a good chuckle, your call to honesty when your corporation doesn't even offer a money-back guarantee on its products! How can this be? Would you tolerate that from the business concerns you patronize? Did you learn that from Sartin and his fellows?

Speaking of "honesty," I do distinctly remember when Barry Meadow took to his newsletter to openly question one of your claims, I think one you posted right here.

Whatever happened to the old business about charity beginning at home, eh? I guess it doesn't extend to the office! When in doubt, the cliche "Do as I say, not as I do" pretty much applies wherever you go.

[Dave Schwartz]

Ignatius,

So, declining to have a money-back guarantee is dishonest? While your posting here under an assumed name is honest?

Yeah, I get this.

Dave Schwartz

[so.cal.fan]

Reality has many forms and as such seems to cause confusion.


I think Taoists should definetly run horseracing, if not the world.


Show me the Wire:
Several horseman at Hollywood Park made the same comments you did about Clenbuterol.
Thanks for the thoughtful post.
;)

[PaceAdvantage]

Tough to have a money back guarantee when you're selling software that can so easily be copied.

Go to any CompUSA and try and get your money back on any software you've opened......won't happen....


==PA

[Derek2U]

hehe i laff when barrie meadows APPLAUDS money back software. That guy wouldnt return ur check if u paid twice by
error & like HE rATES Veracity hehe .. whatta sense of comic cosmic ... neways .. all i will say is this ... its amazing how logically
horses sort themselves out ... its just so like horseReality mimic
ing theatre.

[Tom]

So what is the connection between money-back and honesty? The upfront claim is no money back. What part of that don't you understand???????? It is a free country - don't buy it, bright-eyes!
Simple concept. Study it. There will be a quiz later on.
:eek: