Barry Irwin column from Blood Horse

[Valuist]

Unfortunate but true:

http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=36701

[boomman]

Congratulations Barry Irwin for nailing it! This was what I was trying to say in another thread. Important to post this here for those that haven't seen it Valu..He nailed every point! Lets hope folks wake up and listen to him immediately if not sooner!!! Boom

[the little guy]

He has said this stuff before, and it all makes sense, but I am curious what trainers Team Valor uses.

It is, ya know, important to practice what one preaches.

[Valuist]

He has said this stuff before, and it all makes sense, but I am curious what trainers Team Valor uses.

It is, ya know, important to practice what one preaches.

I seem to remember Team Valor firing a trainer in the past year for a positive. I think it was Ralph Nicks.

[fergie]

Well Said.
Fergie

[jma]

Todd Pletcher is one of Team Valor's trainers.

[Suff]

imo, preaching to the choir.


Issue:

How to get a guy that goes to the track twice a year, to go 15 times a year.

How to get a guy that never goes to the track, to go 4-6 times a year?

* Excluding KD, BC, and the occasional business or social get together at a pari-mutual facility.

We're talking about how to get him to spend his lottery money, his entertainment money, and his casino/poker money at a race track??



I would say that the problem highlighted by Irwin is about 6th or 7th on the list of obstacles to achieving the goals I have stated.

[Suff]

Like it or not, the viability of racing depends on gambling. Without sufficient handle, purses suffer and the equation that allows the game to exist no longer balances.



Further, that subtle "like it or not" in his column shines more on the real issue why people don't gamble on horses.

There is an institutional disdain for the customer. Problem #1.

Spend two hours with a trainer who makes 75% of his income from owner fees and you'll undertstand what the other 5 issues are.

[cj]

Unfortunate but true:

http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=36701

This column was linked in a couple other threads, and I responded that Irwin was being hypocritical. Team Valor fired Ralph Nicks for a drug violation, but somehow, Todd Pletcher escaped the axe for his long drug suspension. Double standard I guess. You can cheat for Team Valor if you have a big name and reputation.

[cj]

There is an institutional disdain for the customer. Problem #1.

You hit the nail on the head with a giant effing hammer.

[Tee]

This column was linked in a couple other threads, and I responded that Irwin was being hypocritical. Team Valor fired Ralph Nicks for a drug violation, but somehow, Todd Pletcher escaped the axe for his long drug suspension. Double standard I guess. You can cheat for Team Valor if you have a big name and reputation.

Was the drug positive of Ralph Nicks linked directly to a Team Valor horse?

How bout Pletcher?

I'll take a look & see what I can find out if anyone doesn't readily know.

[Tee]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleindex/article.asp?id=23063

[cj]

I should say I'm not against anything he suggests. I think he has some good ideas.

[Suff]

You hit the nail on the head with a giant effing hammer.

When you think about it, even this topic is indicative of it.

Is Irwin suggesting that the $250K+ gamblers don't know what is going on? I'd say they do. When I interact with these guys it is Trainer watches that drive thier dollars, not horse watch's.

This whole debate of cheating is driven by the backside. Trainer A can't win ( thereby get new owners or keep owners) because Trainer B is cheating.

Or

Trainer A does not have the influence that trainer B has , to avoid the consequences.


So they gripe as if its the #1 issue. Its not. If anything the Gambling whales benefit from it because they are insiders as much as the trainers are.


I've seen the wagering accounts of a few whales up close and personal. They make HAY with trainer watches. Not pik6 watches, or horse watches, or angle watches.....but trainers. They may make the case of DON"T change a thing.

So Barry Irwin may want to rethink his thesis. He may be part and parcel of the problem, if you ask me.

[Show Me the Wire]

His ideas are form over substance (pun intended) and won't change a thing. His original action of firing Nicks is the correct type of action if the firing really resulted because of the zero tolerence policy.

The question remains with a zero tolerence policy why would he have hired Pletcher anyway, as I believe Pletcher had some alleged violations prior to taking over Team Valor's horses and as CJ pointed out why is Pletcher still training as Pletcher has been confirmed as a race day drug violator.

Zero tolerence means no excuses and no second chances. So Team Valor why didn't you wave bye bye to Pletcher?

[Tee]

If every horse owner was to fire or not hire trainers for drug violations past or present - just how many available trainers would there be?

[Valuist]

The assistants would be more than happy to take their places.

One thing I think needs to be addressed is what happens to barns when the trainer gets suspended. Its a joke right now; nothing changes except the name in the program and DRF. Remember Dutrow was winning at 27% and his assistant, Juan Rodriguez I think was the name, comes in and wins at guess what? 27%. I haven't seen any big falloff in the Asmussen/Blasi operation. They were a little cold with first timers for a while but the barn heated up at CD. Not sure what they need to do. Maybe make the owners switch to a different trainer if their current trainer gets caught drugging.

[Show Me the Wire]

Tee:

Every horse owner does not have zero tolerence policy. Actually, I suspect more than a few owners are more pro drugs.

To address the issue, the supply of trainers, there would be a sufficient numbers. Lots and lots of assistant trainers and young trainers looking to break into the business. Maybe the newer trainers will play it closer to the vest if they see the ramifications of using illegal drugs.

I could not justify the use of illegal drugs which damages the integrity of the industry based on a decrease supply of trainer theory.

[JustRalph]

The Top three trainers in the country have turned their barns over to assistants due to positives ............that says it all............

[LaughAndBeMerry]

I seem to remember Team Valor firing a trainer in the past year for a positive. I think it was Ralph Nicks.


How about Dutrow? Pletcher ? Assmussen? Team Valor trainers all.

[kenwoodallpromos]

If every horse owner was to fire or not hire trainers for drug violations past or present - just how many available trainers would there be?
My guess is, more than 1!

"The California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) is a nonprofit, mutual benefit corporation representing the interests of over 800 licensed California thoroughbred racehorse trainers. The CTT is recognized as the official thoroughbred trainer’s organization by the California Horse Racing Board."

[classhandicapper]

He makes a lot of great points, but I'm still not sure what to think about this whole drug issue.

On the one hand, every athlete in the world uses legal drugs to cope with injuries and health issues so they can continue to perform near their peak despite those setbacks. So part of me asks, if that's the case, why is it such a problem if we do the same thing for horses? It's really just a matter of making sure the horses aren't being abused or put at risk in any way.

Personally, I would have no problem with a list of legal drugs that help injured horses perform to their peak as long as they aren't performance enhancers and we can ensure that horses aren't abused.

I would also want to freeze samples of all winners and beaten favorites. If any drugs other than those on the "approved" list are EVER found to be present, the trainer, vet and/or anyone else involved should face extremely stiff penalties. By freezing samples, we would be giving the testing technology a chance to catch up with the cheaters.

I also think it might be in the interests of the sport if all graded stakes were run drug free.

[kenwoodallpromos]

"http://www.chrb.ca.gov/Rulings_Bay_Meadows/Ruling_BM_06_06_33.pdf"
This trainer, who's horse was later found to have drug violation, was fined $100 for "use of Marijuana".
Maybe Ca is lax!!
"http://www.chrb.ca.gov/Rulings_Golden_Gate/Ruling_GG_06_03_32.pdf"
leading trainer Hollendorfer fined $1,000 for totally banned Methocarbol (later fined $1,500 for too much Bute).

[Indulto]

Once again our heroes have hunted down hypocritical hyperbole. In obvious contrast to the offering of only one-liners over such supposed sanctimony, the following series of Suff-offered insights should also be submitted to the Blood Horse rather than suffer in solitude here:Originally Posted by Suff
imo, preaching to the choir.

Issue:

How to get a guy that goes to the track twice a year, to go 15 times a year.

How to get a guy that never goes to the track, to go 4-6 times a year?

* Excluding KD, BC, and the occasional business or social get together at a pari-mutual facility.

We're talking about how to get him to spend his lottery money, his entertainment money, and his casino/poker money at a race track??

I would say that the problem highlighted by Irwin is about 6th or 7th on the list of obstacles to achieving the goals I have stated. Perhaps, but one that might have the greatest immediate impact.Originally Posted by SuffLike it or not, the viability of racing depends on gambling. Without sufficient handle, purses suffer and the equation that allows the game to exist no longer balances.Further, that subtle "like it or not" in his column shines more on the real issue why people don't gamble on horses.

There is an institutional disdain for the customer. Problem #1.

Spend two hours with a trainer who makes 75% of his income from owner fees and you'll undertstand what the other 5 issues are. Too cryptic, complicated, and cynical for this old cyberfart to comprehend. ;) Originally Posted by Suff
When you think about it, even this topic is indicative of it.

Is Irwin suggesting that the $250K+ gamblers don't know what is going on? I'd say they do. When I interact with these guys it is Trainer watches that drive thier dollars, not horse watch's.

This whole debate of cheating is driven by the backside. Trainer A can't win ( thereby get new owners or keep owners) because Trainer B is cheating.

Or

Trainer A does not have the influence that trainer B has , to avoid the consequences.

So they gripe as if its the #1 issue. Its not. If anything the Gambling whales benefit from it because they are insiders as much as the trainers are.

I've seen the wagering accounts of a few whales up close and personal. They make HAY with trainer watches. Not pik6 watches, or horse watches, or angle watches.....but trainers. They may make the case of DON"T change a thing.

So Barry Irwin may want to rethink his thesis. He may be part and parcel of the problem, if you ask me. Seems to me that you have made his case for him, rather than discredit it. I WOULD ask you, but your refusal to answer IS the problem.

It’s always impressed me that Irwin went from horse racing columnist to horse owning capitalist. Furthermore, what he writes is reasonable. I would take his continued support for Pletcher as an indication that he believes the trainer is not guilty of intent to cheat. IMO Irwin is too smart to risk his own credibility by retaining Pletcher if he thought otherwise. :ThmbUp:

[classhandicapper]

I would take his continued support for Pletcher as an indication that he believes the trainer is not guilty of intent to cheat. IMO Irwin is too smart to risk his own credibility by retaining Pletcher if he thought otherwise. :ThmbUp:

He made some clarifying comments on the drug issue and the tariners he uses during the last year while posting on the TG board.

[LaughAndBeMerry]

Furthermore, what he writes is reasonable. I would take his continued support for Pletcher as an indication that he believes the trainer is not guilty of intent to cheat. IMO Irwin is too smart to risk his own credibility by retaining Pletcher if he thought otherwise. :ThmbUp:

Nor did Asmussen have any intent to cheat. And if you're really good this year Santa will bring you presents on Christmas Eve.

[arkansasman]

Would you want to comment on why quite a few of Pletcher's horses have had colic in the past?

[Show Me the Wire]

After digesting this thread, IMO Team Valor has lost all credibility. I base this on the trainers he is currently using in violation of Team Valor's own self imposed zero tolerence policy.

His article, in this light, seems like a big PR effort to cover the fact he is part of the problem, by continuing to allow suspended trainers, suspended for drig positives, to profit off Irwin's stable.

Team Valor you want integrity in racing step up to the plate and remove your horses from the barns of currently suspended trainers, which have been suspended for violating race day drug rules. Actions speak volumes. The removal of your horses would send a message and possibly motivate other owners to follow suit, even if the other major owners comply because of good public relations.

You either have a zero tolerence policy or not.

[LaughAndBeMerry]

Would you want to comment on why quite a few of Pletcher's horses have had colic in the past?

Had a conversation a few years back with the owner of a KY Derby winner right after Pletcher lost Left Bank, Warners and Freedom's Daughter in about a three week period. I told him I thought it was EPO gone wrong. His response was "I don't know Pletcher other than in passing, all I can tell you is that [his hall of fame trainer] suggested we try EPO with [Kentucky Derby] winner a few years ago when we were freshening him. He colicked and nearly died. It's one of the side effects (colic) if you don't do it just right. I never let [his hall of fame trainer] use it on any of my horses again."

[Indulto]

He made some clarifying comments on the drug issue and the tariners he uses during the last year while posting on the TG board.DO you remember what the nature of those comments were, or better yet, have a direct link to them?

Nor did Asmussen have any intent to cheat. And if you're really good this year Santa will bring you presents on Christmas Eve.Santa ALWAYS brings me something for Christmas. He usually socks it to me with something combustible. I think I'm married to his sister, Escape. :D

If Asmussen did train for Irwin prior to his suspension, will he continue to do so once he is eligible? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[LaughAndBeMerry]

I don't know how I left hay,oats & water Dale Romans off the Team Valor list. He trains "brilliant prospect" Early Vintage.

" Irwin said that Romans did a tremendous job preparing the filly for (her debut) race. She was the epitome of cool in the paddock before the race and when she returned from the race not a hair was out of place," said Team Valor's president. "Everything came together in this one - the horse, the rider and the trainer. It was a grand day all around." (from Team Valor website)

[LaughAndBeMerry]

If Asmussen did train for Irwin prior to his suspension, will he continue to do so once he is eligible? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

To the best of my knowledge those horses went to hall of fame trainer in waiting Scott Blasi.

[Indulto]

To the best of my knowledge those horses went to hall of fame trainer in waiting Scott Blasi.Assuming your anecdote was as accurate as it was applicable, I'd have thought you'd be supportive of Irwin's statements.

If Suff is correct that gambling insiders don't want change, it would make sense for Irwin's opponents to criticize him circumstantially. You sound as if you're in a better position than I am to evaluate whether Irwin is indeed disingenuous, so what would be his motivation to aggravate already aired suspicions about alleged descrepency between his advocacy and his practice?

[ELA]

You have a problem here that is multifaceted. Some will look to the owners and blame them, others will blame the trainers, and still some others will blame the vets. Perhaps all three are contributors to the problem.

In dealing with a multifaceted problem, you are forced to deal with issues on many levels and fronts. There is no simple solution. The hypocrisy will always exist -- it will just be coupled with rationalization, vacillation, justification, etc. You cannot call one Hall of Fame trainer, or another very well known trainer a "juice" guy or a "chemist", call for harsh treatment, etc.; and then on the other hand use, support and look to justify the violation(s) of others -- and you certainly not do it based upon your own business model and intent. In my opinion, that is part of the problem as well.

Eric

[LaughAndBeMerry]

Assuming your anecdote was as accurate as it was applicable, I'd have thought you'd be supportive of Irwin's statements.

Indulto,

I don't write the news, just report it. On the one hand you have Barry Irwin railing against drugs in the industry (as he has before in other forums), on the other a group of Team Valor trainers with a laundry list of drug positives and/or suspected malfeasance.

I can't reconcile it.

[classhandicapper]

DO you remember what the nature of those comments were, or better yet, have a direct link to them?

Here are some of Barry's comments about drugs and Team Valor on the TG board. You should really read the whole thread.

http://www.thorograph.com/phorum/read.php?1,25384,25393#msg-25393

[cj]

Regardless of what he says, and I'm sure you know I'm familiar with the thread, the fact remains he employs known cheaters. Asmussen is serving one suspension and is about to be slapped with yet another 6 months on top of that. Of course, I'm sure he only cheats for the other guys, not Team Valor.

[kenwoodallpromos]

From his Thorograph comments it sounds like he has no problem using known cheaters beyond just overages, as long he tells them they can cheat with everyone else's horses but not with his (but his horses still cost $50k per year and 51% reach stakes level!!) Some big longshots with no pedigree?LOL!!

[kenwoodallpromos]

From his Thorograph comments it sounds like he has no problem using known cheaters beyond just overages, as long he tells them they can cheat with everyone else's horses but not with his (but his horses still cost $50k per year and 51% reach stakes level!!) Some big longshots with no pedigree?LOL!!
Another "contamination"? (from Florida) Pletcher:

"2001506043 Drug Positives - Performance Enhancing ( Closed Consent Order 08/06/2002"
__
From FLorida (license expired 6-06):
"Name: ASMUSSEN, STEVEN M
Number Class Incident Date Status Disposition Disposition Date Discipline Discipline Date
2003001675 Drug Positives - Non-performance enhanci 01/05/2003 Closed Judges/Stewards Ruling 02/01/2003 Fine 02/01/2003
2003003727 Drug Positives - Non-performance enhanci 01/20/2003 Closed Judges/Stewards Ruling 02/16/2003 Fine 02/16/2003
2003003811 Drug Positives - Non-performance enhanci 01/23/2003 Closed Judges/Stewards Ruling 02/16/2003 Fine"
His last renewal was 2003-2006.

[classhandicapper]

From his Thorograph comments it sounds like he has no problem using known cheaters beyond just overages, as long he tells them they can cheat with everyone else's horses but not with his (but his horses still cost $50k per year and 51% reach stakes level!!) Some big longshots with no pedigree?LOL!!

If I understand him correctly, "intent" is a major issue.

So I presume he would be willing to excuse even a series of "positives" depending on whether the intent of the trainer was to break the rules and cheat or whether the trainer was treating the horse in a legal fashion but a got a drug positive because it wasn't totally out of the horse's system yet by race day etc....

It's subjective.

In any case, considering he is using several trainers with positives while being so vocally anti-drug, he should be asked about his reasoning in each and every case. I think he clarified his feelings on the Nicks and Pletcher cases.

I don't know Barry well (he wouldn't even remember me), but I owned a horse through Team Valor at one time. They seemed like an honest group and handled the horse well.

[ELA]

Barry has never been one who is afraid to voice his opinion, and stand behind it. Personally, I think the "intent" aspect is a very troublesome one and is problematic by nature. Shoot a guy one time or shoot a guy 12 times with two different guns -- sure, there are some black and whites here. I am far from an expert here but I see a few problems that go unresolved when relying on "intent" -- first, would it be so clear cut and easy to severely punish and penalize a trainer with a positive test for one of these designer/exotic/illegal drugs? Contamination could still be a defense, although it wouild be a tough one to make. If a case such as this ever got to the court systems, remember for someone to be guilty they must be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Second, what would happen with the positive tests of something like clenbuterol? It is a drug that has a place on the backstretch. It has legitimate uses. Are you going to hand out long suspensions, or lifetime suspensions because of a clenbuterol positive?

Third, you still don't address one of the major issues -- which personally I don't think is a major issue -- which is much of what I read about here and on other BB's, and that is for the people who "know" that certain trainers are doing or using something, but they just haven't got caught. I have always felt that there must be integrity in the process and you cannot convict a person as gulity for something they haven't been caught doing. It would just usurp the entire legal system. All I hear about is that Scott Lake should be banned -- because even though he has only had clenbuterol positives, "everyone" knows he is doing something else. Personally, I say that's BS.

That is why with "intent" you can't have it both ways. You cannot use "intent" or any other justification as a shield and as a sword.

Eric

[The Judge]

This reminds me of the whole Bonds thing and the track and field stars. What to do when others are cheating you know it. You must cheat too or at least give it some serious consideration.

Stuff hit it on the head #1 the track treats its customers as if they are doing us a favor by allowing us to bet.

I must also add I don't trust the drug test or the labs. Clean them up first.

They are after money and what are the consequences if they make a mistake? Which they do ,remember womens track star Marion Jones she was cleared ,faulty test but who knows about it. She started loosing races she would nomally win after the drug use charges broke as people saw that as a sign of sure guilt. "Well they are on to her now so she can't use which means she can't run without them. See I told you so!

[classhandicapper]

That is why with "intent" you can't have it both ways. You cannot use "intent" or any other justification as a shield and as a sword.
Eric

Personally, I have no problem with an owner using judgement to evaluate one of his trainers if he/she gets a positive. "Intent" would be one of the criteria I would use. We really don't want to start tossing every trainer with a positive under every condition.

1. There are some drugs that are legal for treatment and training, but not for racing. So an unintended and inconsequential positive is possible days after treatment stopped.

2. The trainer is ultimately responsible, but there has to be instances of assistants and others doing things that the trainer had no knowledge of. That's especially true now that so many trainers have strings at many tracks.

If I used my judgement on a case by case basis, I would expect that other people would then evaluate my decisions to see if I was being fair or finding excuses to cheat.

I think that's exactly what people should do with BI.

He has set out his thinking and discussed a few cases, but there are a few others he hasn't commented on that he probably should given his strong anti-drug stance. If he does, everyone can then decide whether his standards were reasonable and justified in each case or whether he's being a hypocrite.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Intewnt is irrelevant, neither is how the stuff got in the horse- the whole court ruling is online, Pletcher says it depends on your definition of "administer" judge said BS!
Some trainers want full credit, even though the only training they do is putting on the saddle at the Breeder's Cup, but they refuse to tke blame. Sounds like any other company executive!
You cannot blame owners ; or vets or anyone else paid by the trainer. As it is it took 2 1/2 yeatrs and Pletcher is still not suspended.
Irwin was right that cheating goes to the core but he refuses to believe he, his outfit, or Pletcher is "its core". I know PR- this is PR. Unless you believe in Irwin had no idea that the court ruling swas coming down and this PR article is extreme coincidence. Irwin is not stupid enough to not know what the timing of the "everbody is guilty but me and my trainer" BS article is about.
Classhandicapper- the 2003 Fl conviction of Pletcher was for "performance enhancing drug". I take that as "intent" and milkshaking or drugs that are supposed to have "0" are banned drugs- throw the book at them and have a national database of convictions open to the public. The NTRA needs to advocate all North American tracks adhere to ANY state's rulings.
This year Ca fined Lukas for running a vet list horse in a race in another state.

[Indulto]

Personally, I have no problem with an owner using judgement to evaluate one of his trainers if he/she gets a positive. "Intent" would be one of the criteria I would use. We really don't want to start tossing every trainer with a positive under every condition.

1. There are some drugs that are legal for treatment and training, but not for racing. So an unintended and inconsequential positive is possible days after treatment stopped.

2. The trainer is ultimately responsible, but there has to be instances of assistants and others doing things that the trainer had no knowledge of. That's especially true now that so many trainers have strings at many tracks.

If I used my judgement on a case by case basis, I would expect that other people would then evaluate my decisions to see if I was being fair or finding excuses to cheat.

I think that's exactly what people should do with BI.

He has set out his thinking and discussed a few cases, but there are a few others he hasn't commented on that he probably should given his strong anti-drug stance. If he does, everyone can then decide whether his standards were reasonable and justified in each case or whether he's being a hypocrite.CH,
Thanks for the TG link and for expressing some of what I felt about all this, but couldn’t articulate. It’s clear from many other responses that BI deserves to be questioned, but in the end it’s a judgment call on our part regarding him just as it’s one on his part regarding trainers.

Your statement, “I also think it might be in the interests of the sport if all graded stakes were run drug free.” reminded me of this article:

A Level Field Within By Fred A. Pope
http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleindex/article.asp?id=29326 (http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleindex/article.asp?id=29326)
… A small number of like-minded racehorse owners can create Level Field racing. The first step is when they say: "We would rather lose than cheat." Then they must back up those words. First, with higher standards to convince each other and bettors they will not cheat. And secondly, by packaging their races to win in the simulcast market.

Handicappers believe "past performance" is key to predicting the outcome of the race. Cheating destroys handicapping. Level Field racing will empower it.

… That's what Level Field racing requires now--men and women with the means and love of the sport to step forward together. It is ironic that the breeders' lofty goals of only hay, oats, and water can provide the basis for such a solid marketing strategy.

Every sport has a beacon, a brand within the sport, that leads the way. We need a beacon within the sport of Thoroughbred racing. There is no downside to establishing Level Field racing. The upside is something many thought was long gone. Please take time to read "A Level Field Within" at http://www.bloodhorse.com/pdf/LevelField.pdf (http://www.bloodhorse.com/pdf/LevelField.pdf). Get U.S. racing off drugs -- Outsource Aqueduct to Hong Kong.:D

[ELA]

Personally, I have no problem with an owner using judgement to evaluate one of his trainers if he/she gets a positive. "Intent" would be one of the criteria I would use. We really don't want to start tossing every trainer with a positive under every condition.

1. There are some drugs that are legal for treatment and training, but not for racing. So an unintended and inconsequential positive is possible days after treatment stopped.

2. The trainer is ultimately responsible, but there has to be instances of assistants and others doing things that the trainer had no knowledge of. That's especially true now that so many trainers have strings at many tracks.

If I used my judgement on a case by case basis, I would expect that other people would then evaluate my decisions to see if I was being fair or finding excuses to cheat.

I think that's exactly what people should do with BI.

He has set out his thinking and discussed a few cases, but there are a few others he hasn't commented on that he probably should given his strong anti-drug stance. If he does, everyone can then decide whether his standards were reasonable and justified in each case or whether he's being a hypocrite.

Using judgement -- I agree, and I am not sitting in judgement of Barry Irwin, or any other owners, or anyone for that matter. However, beyond judgement -- and that can be a very ambiguous benchmark -- is where we begin to get into the more controversial areas. I agree with you about the legal for training and treatment but not for racing element. However, I have seen time and time again people virtually taking great pride in the Lake suspension and calling for more severe punishment -- as I said, because "they know" he is doing something else (aside from the clenbuterol positive). The critics come out of the woodwork, the name calling starts, and the pack mentality takes over. I feel that is very wrong. I see it happen to trainers who don't come up positive.

The second element to me is more dangerous. If you call for zero tolerence then you call for zero tolerence. To me that is a very definitive policy. Now, I am sure without question Barry Irwin had his reasons for writing the article the way he wrote it. His position is his position -- I don't question that. However, the way it lands with me is the unfortunate "my guy" and the "other guy" scenario. I for one would have liked to see that addressed in print within the article. Now Barry Irwin made his position(s) very clear, and has done that in the past as well.

By being a supporter and an advocate for a certain policy or position, I would think that many people might question the integrity and credibility of that position if one didn't practice what he preached so to speak. Am I suggesting that Barry Irwin and Team Valor fire Pletcher? Of course not. That is his business and as I said I am not sitting in or passing judgement. That is not my place and never will be. I don't think that should even be a discussion. I do think a discussion as to his position is appropriate though.

But here is what I don't want to see -- I don't want to see a future situation where Barry Irwin gets very quiet or even silent, when one of his trainers come up positive -- and then when one of my trainers, or someone elses trainer comes up positive, he then starts being the very outspoken critc, judge and jury. Calling names, calling for a lifetime ban, etc., when it's my guy and not his guy is not fair. That should call into question the credibility of one's position. Furthering one's platform/position at someone else's expense, yet not holding yourself to the same standard would make me question a person's motivations and credibility as it relates to their position.

Eric

[LaughAndBeMerry]

However, I have seen time and time again people virtually taking great pride in the Lake suspension and calling for more severe punishment -- as I said, because "they know" he is doing something else (aside from the clenbuterol positive). The critics come out of the woodwork, the name calling starts, and the pack mentality takes over. I feel that is very wrong. I see it happen to trainers who don't come up positive. Eric

FWIW,

I once knew a guy that had horses with Lake. He wasn't long into the relationship when he got a bill with all sorts of vet treatments, medications, etc that he hadn't heard of and didn't really understand. This gentleman had owned horses for a while so he was used to seeing trainer bills before. When he questioned Lake on it he was told words to the effect of 'my rule is that I don't let owners question the bills. If you're not happy just paying me then get your horses out of my barn.' He moved his horses a few weeks later.

Hearsay yeah, but the man in question is a true gentleman (and someone whose name would probably be recognized here) and I don't doubt his word.

[ELA]

FWIW,

I once knew a guy that had horses with Lake. He wasn't long into the relationship when he got a bill with all sorts of vet treatments, medications, etc that he hadn't heard of and didn't really understand. This gentleman had owned horses for a while so he was used to seeing trainer bills before. When he questioned Lake on it he was told words to the effect of 'my rule is that I don't let owners question the bills. If you're not happy just paying me then get your horses out of my barn.' He moved his horses a few weeks later.

Hearsay yeah, but the man in question is a true gentleman (and someone whose name would probably be recognized here) and I don't doubt his word.

While I am not questioning the accuracy of your story, my personal experience is exactly the opposite. I am not defending Scott Lake, nor am I condemning him. He is guilty of a clenbuterol positive -- period. He is paying the price handed out. Whether its a fine, days, combination of the two or otherwise -- he is "doing his time" for what he was caught doing and found guilty of.

Regardless, I had had horses with Scott Lake in the past, and currently as well. I have horses with other top trainers also -- all high percentage trainers who produce results. I've been in the game a long time and am very used to seeing, monitoring, and if need be, questioning training, vet, shipping and other bills. Scott Lake takes my calls, returns my calls and has never failed to answer one question about anything.

More importantly, I will categorically state that the vet bills I have received from horses with Scott Lake are not near the highest I have seen from other vets/trainers. Contrary to the rumors, there are no exorbanant "miscellaneous" or unitemized charges on the training bill and there is nothing "burried" in or outside the bill.

Those are the facts that I have experienced.

Eric

[LaughAndBeMerry]

Eric:

Nor would I question the accuracy of yours. I related the experience of a single owner. I don't know whether the bills from Lake were the highest this owner had received, just that there were charges he didn't understand that Lake really wasn't interested in explaining. The guy was well within his rights to take his business elsewhere, as was Lake as a businessman to say take it or leave.

As far as cheating (or not cheating) goes I am of the position that EVERYONE (or everyone successful) in MD & DEL cheats. I have read too many sheets and seen too many out of the blue 5-10 lengths jump-ups off a claim in those jurisdictions to ever believe anything else, no matter what anyone ever tells me no matter how much I respect their opinion. And I do respect yours, but 30 years in this game tells me to trust what I see.

[ELA]

I have no problem with any of that. I repsect everyone's opinion, for the most part, LOL. My point was that I am not prepared to support banning someone or convicting someone based upon what you or I "see" or "know" -- absent of indisputable facts and proof.

Eric

[classhandicapper]

Intewnt is irrelevant, neither is how the stuff got in the horse- the whole court ruling is online, Pletcher says it depends on your definition of "administer" judge said BS!
Some trainers want full credit, even though the only training they do is putting on the saddle at the Breeder's Cup, but they refuse to tke blame. Sounds like any other company executive!
You cannot blame owners ; or vets or anyone else paid by the trainer. As it is it took 2 1/2 yeatrs and Pletcher is still not suspended.
Irwin was right that cheating goes to the core but he refuses to believe he, his outfit, or Pletcher is "its core". I know PR- this is PR. Unless you believe in Irwin had no idea that the court ruling swas coming down and this PR article is extreme coincidence. Irwin is not stupid enough to not know what the timing of the "everbody is guilty but me and my trainer" BS article is about.
Classhandicapper- the 2003 Fl conviction of Pletcher was for "performance enhancing drug". I take that as "intent" and milkshaking or drugs that are supposed to have "0" are banned drugs- throw the book at them and have a national database of convictions open to the public. The NTRA needs to advocate all North American tracks adhere to ANY state's rulings.
This year Ca fined Lukas for running a vet list horse in a race in another state.

I'm trying to avoid making accusations against trainers, owners or anyone else because I don't know the details of each case and honestly don't know who is cheating. All I have is suspicions.

I'm mostly just expressing the guidelines I would use if I owned a lot of horses and how I would evaluate the commentary of others (like BI) on this issue. I'd like to think that if I was in a position like that I would have the intellectual honesty and integrety to make good judgements and not cheat. In fact, I know I would because that kind of thing is very important to me.

[JustRalph]

I sometimes get consulting work. When I do a job and the customer is a real dick......or they don't pay on time.................the next time they call me about something........... I treat them like shit or raise my rates 100 percent. They go away usually.............. maybe Scott Lake subscribes to my methods.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I'm trying to avoid making accusations against trainers, owners or anyone else because I don't know the details of each case and honestly don't know who is cheating. All I have is suspicions.

I'm mostly just expressing the guidelines I would use if I owned a lot of horses and how I would evaluate the commentary of others (like BI) on this issue. I'd like to think that if I was in a position like that I would have the intellectual honesty and integrety to make good judgements and not cheat. In fact, I know I would because that kind of thing is very important to me.
__________
I make a big distinction between overage and totally banned stuff on raceday, and when I say throw the book at them, I mean because a trainer's reputation and ability to draw owners is based on wins (total, %, and stakes wins) and the ability to get the max performance out of a thoroughbred and because those goals cause cheating (intentional violation), the punishment to be effective must reduce the overall ability of the trainer without punishing owners. Unfortunately that is not possible by fines or suspensions unless the fines ar at least as much as the trainer % of the winning purse and the suspension recognized in other jurisdictions.
That is why the best solution is to cause more inconvenience for the trainer by taking away stalls.
I use Pletcher as an example because he has advantage over other trainers due to the size of his operations, FL violations, and the length of time he has so far skipped out on punishment in the case in the news.
My main complaint against Lake is not drugs, it was overworking Stormy Do to death.
My copmplaint against Irwin is simply that he is the one wearing blinkers.

[The Judge]

To blame drugs as for the "fall' of racing today misses the point. There were drugs or "juice" then yet there were standing room only crowds. Keep a champion horse around long enough to smoke a cigarette and you might generate some excitement. Campaign a horse, take a champion to lesser tracks and let them run let the tracks or associations supplement the purse.

[PriceAnProbability]

I'm trying to avoid making accusations against trainers, owners or anyone else because I don't know the details of each case and honestly don't know who is cheating.

The "unclaimables" are generally the juicers. You know, the ones that no other barn can claim from and keep a horse at the same level.

[kenwoodallpromos]

To blame drugs as for the "fall' of racing today misses the point. There were drugs or "juice" then yet there were standing room only crowds. Keep a champion horse around long enough to smoke a cigarette and you might generate some excitement. Campaign a horse, take a champion to lesser tracks and let them run let the tracks or associations supplement the purse.
___________________
"http://www.chrb.ca.gov/horsemans_medication_handbook.pdf"
Can you give me an idea of how many of these type of CA approved drugs there were then?
I do not believe there was anabolic steroids. That is the one that most interests me right now as to the amount of usage up to and then after auction time.

[The Judge]

"Handicappers need a level playing field so that we can rely on the pastperformances of the horses". This is true but most people at the track aren't handicappers as such. They have the "Blue Sheet, the paper picks etc." now having said that. There are less of those people around now then before. I guess they are at the movies, at a ball game, playing video games or just out enjoying the day. So it seems as if its us against us but no there are still those who aren't using pastperformances or computer programs.

The point is they aren't at the track. This has nothing to do with dope. Stop dope and the pubic will see that its an honest and fair game and come back to the sport is nonsense. That ship has sailed.

If given a choice between stopping dope (which us handicappers seem to be able to handle ) and reducing the track take which do you think handicappers would want?

As far as the pubic goes maybe Team Valor will encourage there owners to keep a horses in training longer and let them run at lesser tracks. I hate to say it but maybe we need a couple of "match races".

[Indulto]

"Handicappers need a level playing field so that we can rely on the pastperformances of the horses". This is true but most people at the track aren't handicappers as such. They have the "Blue Sheet, the paper picks etc." now having said that. There are less of those people around now then before. I guess they are at the movies, at a ball game, playing video games or just out enjoying the day. So it seems as if its us against us but no there are still those who aren't using pastperformances or computer programs.

The point is they aren't at the track. This has nothing to do with dope. Stop dope and the pubic will see that its an honest and fair game and come back to the sport is nonsense. That ship has sailed.

If given a choice between stopping dope (which us handicappers seem to be able to handle ) and reducing the track take which do you think handicappers would want?

As far as the pubic goes maybe Team Valor will encourage there owners to keep a horses in training longer and let them run at lesser tracks. I hate to say it but maybe we need a couple of "match races".IMO that ship has yet to sail at SAR, DMR, KEE, or wherever and whenever a TC or BC race is run.

Would you bet on a poker hand dealt from the bottom of the deck or with marked cards? How about a weighted roulette wheel or a rigged VLT? Whether we will ever get back fans fed up with "juice," ringers, buzzers, political buzzards, blind stewards, and short-sighted track operators IS moot, but at least you've pointed out another component of the tilted playing field -- rebates.

The first thing tracks could do to level the field would be to offer the best rebates to on-track customers regardless of volume. Does anybody here sell turnstiles? ;)

[The Judge]

I don't think we are in disagreement I just point out that in those games it would be impossilbe for me to win. Here even with dope its not. I don't have to play every race, I might like the dopped horse, I might give certain trainers more weight in certain situations ala Ed Bains, or even if the horse is on dope he may not win.

If you mean from an ethical point it such be level but saying at this late date "see nothing up my sleve" just won't cut it.

I think what needs to be worried about is keeping the fans they already have put them first and build from there.

Here is what I think that article was about and it had very little to do with handicappers or the long lost fan. I think it was 1. self-promotion 2. a warning to other owners and trainers that things are going to change. The reason for the warning is that these are the people that they hang around with and see and set next to at the track so its only fair.

Look the Shieks are taking over racing they have enough money to race world wide and they are 'coming to America". Team Valor needs new investors . There are Americans who can match the Shieks dollar for dollar in the Team Valor pool but why if the sport has a bad reputation it may rub off on them.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Failure is insured with a bad product- success demands a good product and a good business.
There is nothing wrong on the surface with the Thoroughbred business from breeding to sale- the problems all present themselves in training under tack every day and needing tests for 87 drugs, including dozens of pain killers.
A better quality racer will produce more interest and wagering.
Anabolic steroids, running in pain, and a jarring track will not improve the quality of the animal. And neither will excuses and PR alone.

[Indulto]

I don't think we are in disagreement I just point out that in those games it would be impossilbe for me to win. Here even with dope its not. I don't have to play every race, I might like the dopped horse, I might give certain trainers more weight in certain situations ala Ed Bains, or even if the horse is on dope he may not win.

If you mean from an ethical point it such be level but saying at this late date "see nothing up my sleve" just won't cut it.

I think what needs to be worried about is keeping the fans they already have put them first and build from there.

Here is what I think that article was about and it had very little to do with handicappers or the long lost fan. I think it was 1. self-promotion 2. a warning to other owners and trainers that things are going to change. The reason for the warning is that these are the people that they hang around with and see and set next to at the track so its only fair.

Look the Shieks are taking over racing they have enough money to race world wide and they are 'coming to America". Team Valor needs new investors . There are Americans who can match the Shieks dollar for dollar in the Team Valor pool but why if the sport has a bad reputation it may rub off on them.There you go. BI wants to manage horses for Middle Eastern potentates or else run outsourcing Aqueduct to Dubai. :D

[toetoe]

Mr. Irwin's plaint sounds wonderful, but has any sport ever died from lack of integrity? Does any sport even have industrial-strength integrity (boxing thrives, despite everything)? Might the cause of the staying-away-in-droves of the public be something else? Tell me you want uniform drug policies, reliable information, etc. for purposes of confident betting. Fine, but are people deserting the sport in great numbers, and are prospective lifers changing their minds because of scandal? I doubt it.

I think dumbed-down Americans want sports with only human gladiators involved, and the more one-on-one, in-your-face, knock-someone-out situations available, the better. As people age, horse-racing becomes more attractive, but the subtleties and deep thinking, the puzzle of the track --- these things don't do it for the young "sports fans" of today. Too bad, as they only have to wait a minute or so for possible gratification, once the gate opens.

[jma]

That's true about "integrity" not being the problem that keeps horse racing from being more popular. It is for us, on a practical level of who to bet and why, but it's not keeping the masses away. At least it hasn't affected baseball (steroid scandals yet record attendance) or football (several arrests of players during season, yet TV ratings far surpassing other sports)---no one seems to be scared off by a lack of integrity in the participants.

[Show Me the Wire]

All this talk about integrity of the sport. As far as integrity I want wagering pool integrity and jockey integrity. That is what counts. Drugs, just a side issue.

Why all the whinning about "juice trainers"? The most a horse generally can improve is 5 to 10 lengths. It is fairly simple to come up with your own list of real or imagined juice trainers, the ones who continually improve virtually every acquired horse at least 5 lengths. Makes your 'capping simple, expect the horse to improve at least 5 lengths and expect the improvement to last about three months, or until a "non-juice trainer" claims the horse.

Remember the idea is to win money through the wagering pools, not purse money (Team Valor's goal), as a handicapper.

[The Judge]

I not against it...in England the queen owns horses so any rich people no matter their station in life can own them. The Sheik owns horses but here there is no nobility to say its o.k to do. The game in general maynot have such a pleasant reputation so Oprah might not invest.

I'm not picking on Oprah but alot of people with big bucks can't stand even a hint of scandal especially the "D" words "drugs and dope" even if its horses.

I'm just curious does Micheal Jordan or Tiger Woods have any interest in horses? Who would you say that has a squeaky clean reputation thats own race horses?

[Show Me the Wire]

Integrity is a timely subject, especially in light of Rene Douglas' ban from Calder.

As I asserted before wagering pool and jockey integrity should be the foremost.

Some possible reasons for a ban from the grounds:

fighting,
intoxication,
starting a union or boycott,
dangerous riding,
not being licensed,
or how about a Pete Rose type activity involving the participant's sport.

[Suff]

Integrity is a timely subject, especially in light of Rene Douglas' ban from Calder.

As I asserted before wagering pool and jockey integrity should be the foremost.

,
starting a union or boycott,
.

:lol:

Starting a union? minga,,,your tough.


First of all they have a union already.

Second of all, if they rule him off for Union Organizing it would be a violation of the taft-hartley act.

Lest anyone forget....it was only 18 years ago that New York riders struck so as to get a piece of the 2nd and 3rd place purse money. As well as other insurnace related stuff. Mike Venzia died on track that year.

NYRA tried bullying them back to the track. They even shipped in Lafit Pincay to ride Forty Niner in a big race....

Will Shoemaker walked the line, Bailey walked the line, Angel Cordero walked the line. And they got to Pincay. They talked him off the mount.....Pincay joined the picket line that day.

49'r won by a country mile with some Union busting scab in the saddle.


A couple of days later NYRA crumbled and Jockeys now get a % of the purse for 2nds and 3rds.

[Indulto]

Beyond Barbaro by Ray Paulick
http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=36787 (http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=36787)
.. wishes for the new year:

Courage for racetrack owners to take a stand against trainers with multiple medication violations and the owners who support those trainers living on the edge of the rules.

Now, when a trainer goes off on a suspension-forced vacation and he turns the reins over to an assistant, the beat goes on for the stable. It's business as usual, just under a different name until the suspended trainer returns.

That wouldn't be the case if racetrack management forced a banned trainer's stable to find a new home during the length of a suspension. The assistant trainers who take over a stable were never approved for stall allocations, and they should be forced to apply for stalls as if they were starting out on their own. Losing stalls might convince owners to think twice before employing a trainer simply because he may have the highest winning percentage. ...Which trainer and owner(s) do you think the editor of the B-H had in mind? ;)

[kenwoodallpromos]

Beyond Barbaro by Ray Paulick
http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=36787 (http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=36787)
Which trainer and owner(s) do you think the editor of the B-H had in mind? ;)
________________
All owners pay a day rate, and all owners help support violators if they keep their horse with an assistant. I'm sure many owners know little about their horses or exactly what past violations trainers have had. They just know everything is taken care of. But this idea of denying stall space is easy to do as trainers have to sign agreements to play by the rules to get stall space and whoever originated the idea (!), it is a good one!! This way owners will become very aware of the situation and can choose how close to the action they want their horse.
I believe with Mike Mitchell in the detention barn he may actually have a few More stalls!

[kenwoodallpromos]

"http://www.baymeadows.com/pdf/singlepdf/stallapplication.pdf"
So far every stall application I have seen gives the track right to ban or kick out any trainer and their horses without reason, and trainers must obey all racing rules.

[Indulto]

Not On the Level By Barry Irwin
http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=36701 (http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=36701)

One problem with following posted links to articles is that associated commentary tends to predispose one’s focus. When I first read the editorial at the above link, I was distracted by the implication that the author’s position was hypocritical. I still disagree with that assessment, but after availing myself of CH’s link to a site where vets are vilified due to perception that predictive patterns are placed in peril by conspiratorial chemists, I decided to reread the article from a different perspective. I would submit the following response questioning Mr. Irwin's entire premise if only the B-H accepted and appreciated anonymous alliteration: ;)

Some who see racing’s ship sailing into the sunset have suggested that survival requires restoring a “level playing field” for horse owners and horseplayers. According to them, the table is tilted in favor of those whose horse’s testing indicates the presence -- in varying levels -- of improper and/or illegal race-day medications, so they isolate trainers and vets as imminent threats to the game’s “integrity.” They conveniently ignore the reality that the playing field at any track is invariably inclined by “insider information,” and that its slope is always angled against the uninformed outsider. Should owners really be separated from trainers in such circumstances?

As a horseplayer, I’m amused by their concern that my ability to analyze past performance data may have been compromised. Why aren’t these same reformers railing against rebated, robotic-wagering whales whose wallets widen without the winnings-wilting withholding imposed on the majority of racing’s customers? In my opinion, it’s more important to ensure the playing field is uniform because integrity is as much a function of consistency as intention.

Rules, standards, and penalties regarding both the sport and the game need to be the same wherever and whenever thoroughbred racing is conducted. Whatever statutes are established, all participants -- racing secretaries, owners, trainers, jockeys, stewards, and players -- should enjoy the perception that they are applied with similar rigor and results at every venue. Lack of consistency in presenting pre-race information, race-in-progress viewing and tracking, and post-race results is a common complaint among horseplayers. Consistent collaboration among tracks is crucial to racing’s continued existence, but instead they compete to showcase equine excellence, rather than cooperatively optimize its scheduled exposure for the benefit of all concerned.

Racing can’t decide whether it’s a sport or a financial market. Traditional on-track experiences with enthusiastic attendance are now confined to locations and periods supporting both recreation and racing product at its highest level. Saratoga, Del Mar, and Keeneland continue to thrive as resort venues. Fans still turn out in droves for Triple Crown events and the Breeders’ Cup. Holiday weekends including Memorial, Independence, and Labor Days still attract great interest, as do commercially televised multi-track simulcasts on Arlington Million Day, Travers Day, etc. On those days, racing is obviously a sport. On the others, it is the rebated professionals, degenerate gamblers, and retired cyberfarts who invest their time and capital venturing into racing’s dens of uncertainty.

Racing’s resurgence will occur once the industry decides it is back in the entertainment business, and concentrates on giving their customers what they really want which is to see racing’s finest become familiar and faster as they face each other frequently.

Consistency may be the “hobgoblin of little minds,” but the alternative hobbles horseracing.

[skate]

Barry Irwin states

Our sport is not ready for prime-time exposure because it is corrupt at its very core. The essence of racing is handicapping a race and betting on it. If one cannot present a level playing field, what is there to promote?

If you don't believe me, take a newcomer to the races, start teaching him how to read the Form, and listen to yourself when you start talking about having to cast aside everything you have ever been taught about handicapping because the four horse is making his first start for a new trainer that might have an edge. (Barry Irwin is president of Team Valor


skate deciphers;

Barry Irwin, lacks maturity, plays people like an accordion.
he is unable to state emphatically , any one point. he ends by saying "if you don't believe me"... and so on...

what the heeellll do you mean "if i don't believe you"? WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU SAYING, NOTHING.

he thinks hes making a point when he finishes with... "because the four horse in making his first start for a new trainer that might have an edge".

oh yah, ok barry, now WE understand exaCTLY JUST WHAT you arte saying. would you like to take yourself on a trip, say Mt. Hood.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Sport or business? From breeding to intial sale, the business is booming! afgter retirement, physically capable horses' chances are improving.
Assumiong the health and attrition rate od the athlete equine improves, racing is "sports entertainment"!
Color, sound, and motion define entertainment. The biggest USA spectator sports are basketball and footblall, the worst in the pros are golf and tennis.
What sells in sports is personal experience involvment (as a kid), constant activity, and contact/risk. In racing, the object is no contact, 5 hours, and activity 3-7 % of the time. Either handicap between races or watch paint dry.
Racing exists at the pleasure of the various state governments, and is really over regulated now as to racing rules. Eliminating independence in the sectors and among connections is the only way to exert more control over the sport. Then racing would have the power to demand better from owners, trainers, and jockeys.
I think having 1 track per circuit would go a long ways toward consistency. COnsider single-track circuits now in existence and compare for your values.

[Indulto]

… What sells in sports is personal experience involvment (as a kid), constant activity, and contact/risk. In racing, the object is no contact, 5 hours, and activity 3-7 % of the time. Either handicap between races or watch paint dry.Was that written by someone sitting in their boxer shorts? ;)

You’ve got to get out to the track more. Going to the paddock between races is one of the really worthwhile rituals. Even P-Val got a kick out of it.

One just never knows when one’s going to see one of those once–a-year visions of a contender that just can’t wait to run; jitter-stepping side-to-side without washiness or nervousness.

The video game generation members I’ve been to the track with can’t seem to savor the game live, but they sure like Trakus. Usually their funds dry up faster than their horses can run. :D

[kenwoodallpromos]

[/font][/color]Was that written by someone sitting in their boxer shorts? ;)

You’ve got to get out to the track more. Going to the paddock between races is one of the really worthwhile rituals. Even P-Val got a kick out of it.

One just never knows when one’s going to see one of those once–a-year visions of a contender that just can’t wait to run; jitter-stepping side-to-side without washiness or nervousness.

The video game generation members I’ve been to the track with can’t seem to savor the game live, but they sure like Trakus. Usually their funds dry up faster than their horses can run. :D
______________
Your paddock point of view is from a long-time bettor who studys physicality to a great extent; what % of attendees could potential get a good view of the paddock? 1,000?
My view in that statement was from a newbie to racing who does not bet. Old people go for the slots and young people for cards because they is more excitement and more constant action.
The most exciting thing people remember about racing is when a "fan" went on the track during a BC race and took a swing at a jockey- and there was not even contact!!!It is still being shown on ESPN highlight reels!LOL!!
When paddock cams make the top 10 viewed on YouTube I will apologize.

[Indulto]

Your paddock point of view is from a long-time bettor who studys physicality to a great extent; what % of attendees could potential get a good view of the paddock? 1,000?
My view in that statement was from a newbie to racing who does not bet. Old people go for the slots and young people for cards because they is more excitement and more constant action.
The most exciting thing people remember about racing is when a "fan" went on the track during a BC race and took a swing at a jockey- and there was not even contact!!!It is still being shown on ESPN highlight reels!LOL!!
When paddock cams make the top 10 viewed on YouTube I will apologize.Good point. My practice stems from the pageantry at Saratoga where I broke my maiden. We'd immerse ourselves in the Morning Telegraph the night before each Saturday card until we couldn't see straight, and then wake up and run down all the races over breakfast. We'd roar up the Northway to park in some private yard across from the track, and then run the tout gauntlet on the way to the entrance to get our doubles in.

Then we'd go out back where the horses were being saddled in the open and eyeball the horses, trainers and owners until it was time for riders up. Then we'd go to the rail and watch the jockeys warm the horses up. Couldn't wait until the last minute to bet though or we'd get shut out at the $2 window and not have time to get back to our seats. I'll never forget the colorful language directed at tellers and bettors in slow lines. Not even the jockeys were subject to such verbal abuse. If the race started on the grandstand side, we'd watch it from the rail.

At last, the minute or two everybody was waiting for ...

Then it was over to the replay monitor for photo finishes, disqualifications, replays, and post mortems. Finally, a trip to the cashier's window, if there were any transactions to be made. Watching the tellers pay in slow motion preceded my watching race replays in slow motion by several years. ;)

The script was rehearsed nine times, but the nitecap always seemed to come too soon. No dinner tasted better than one paid for with winnings. We couldn't wait until the Telegraph showed up the following Friday night.

Now that was entertainment!

Not a contact sport, eh? I'll bet if anyone had caught P-Val's paddock encounter with the equine place kicker on video, it'd have made your YouTube Top 10 and then some.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Maybe it is the racing industry using the word "fans" that perplexes me! Since a very high % of onlookers are bettors, the use of the word "fan" tells me either they are trying to soften the idea that their followers are bettors, or expecting interest to multiply overnight!

[JPinMaryland]

Mr. Irwin's plaint sounds wonderful, but has any sport ever died from lack of integrity?

Gladiators? Cock fighting?? There are certain card games that aquired a bad reputation. The english game, Put seems to ring a bell.

Do they still play Dungeons and Dragons?