Beyer on Drug Use

[cj]

Beyer-Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37263-2003Feb20.html)

CJ

[rrbauer]

Here we go again. Beyer states:
The betting public believes that the use of illegal drugs is out of control at U.S. tracks. From Aqueduct to Santa Anita, once-obscure trainers regularly perform "miracles" and compile extraordinary win percentages.

Comment:
Not a single fact presented. No examples. Just innuendo.

I play the horses every day at Santa Anita and the other SoCal tracks and can say without exception that obscure trainers are not performing miracles and are not compiling extraordinary win percentages. It is very seldom that a horse wins that I can't make a case for it from a conventional handicapping perspective.

I would be interested in input from other fulltime players on other circuits as to their experience within the context of the above.

[cj]

rrbauer,

I have to agree with you on this one. I don't really ever see this sort of thing in SoCal, or even NoCal though I don't follow that circuit much.

I would say on the East Coast, the perception is there, especially at Lrl, GP (this year), and NYRA.

CJ

[cj]

One thing about SoCal, they sure have some dumb rules regarding betting entries. Why is it that Baffert, (among others, but he does it most) can run uncoupled entries while in today's feature there is an actually entry while the trainers are Baffert and Mandella. I'm sure it has something to do with ownership of the horses, but it's a stupid rule. Where is there more conflict of interest? One trainer running two horses, or two different trainers running horses for the same owner, or as is usually the case, partially the same ownership.

CJ

[GameTheory]

After reading what Richard relayed in the other thread about Passero, I have to interpret this latest article as:

"I'm Andy Beyer. Please ban Gill from the grounds of Florida tracks."

Just substitute the word "public" with "I" and you'll get a truer picture of what he is trying to say...

[azibuck]

Bullseye GT. Every time I read Beyer and he makes some sweeping inclusion like "the betting public" or "most horseplayers" or "the vast majority think..."

He's never, ever talking about me. I may be only a casual player, but it's a serious hobby, which means I read tons of opinions and read forums like these. I'm confident saying his opinion on some things (conspiracy theories mostly), is in the minority.

Remember after Fusaichi Pegasus did almost nothing of note after winning the Derby? At the end of that year and beginning of the next, he harped on how the "horse racing public" shouldn't be so quick to hype the next big thing. He was the freaking drum major for that band.

I'd say that it's he and his circle of cronies, but I've read he's kind of a loner, so it's basically just him. He's raised valid questions about the issue, but now he's just beating it to death, and it's kind of obvious it's a personal crusade.

[andicap]

Beyer certainly looked like a loner when i sat in the press box for the BC at Belmont two years ago. In a room full of people maybe 1 or 2 people came up to him to talk the entire day.
I called him once to ask him to c omment on a story I was writing on racing for my newspaper and he didn't call back.

The other guy who was really unfriendly that day was Jody McDonald from WFAN. He was with John DaSilva, an old Prodigy board guy I've known for years and now the lead NY Post racing handicapper, and DaSilva introduced me to him. McDonald grumbled something and looked away. A real ass-----.

On the other hand, I spent a delightful afternoon once in the Fair Grounds pressbox with Ira kaplan from the DRF and Roxy Roxborough. They were obviously good friends, but treated me as a colleague even though I wasn't a regular racing writer. Real nice guys.
BTW, the Fair Grounds execs are the nicest people I have ever met at a racetrack.

[Holy Bull]

After writing like 5 articles accusing Gill/Shuman of cheating, anyone want to venture to guess what Beyer's ROI is this Gulfstream meet?

[JustRalph]

Beyer can be a Jerk in a bunch of ways. I always take what he says with a grain.........But......

"One of the vets, Leonard Patrick, was subsequently banned from the track for a minor violation involving the storage of his medications. After the searches, there were no more miraculous improvements by Gill horses, and the once-unstoppable stable lost 19 straight races."

This does bother me. Has anybody verified this? I don't follow GP and may play a card there a couple times a year. I played once early in the meet and Gill shuman won 3 races on that day.
:cool:

[aaron]

I play the NY circuit almost every day and I will tell you for a fact that there are certain trainers who are preceived as "juicers".This has been going on for years.This years new "juicer" appears to be Gregory Martin or as we like to refer to him as the new and improved Gregory Martin.I will not pass judgement on whether certain trainers are using illegal drugs,but the perception is that they are.How certain trainers over the years have gone from 25% trainers to 5% trainers and vice a versa is hard to figure.The latest victim is Gasper Moschera who went from leading trainer to retirement in about 2-3 years.Peter Ferriola has dissappeared.Juan Serey is working on a farm.Going back a number of years Oscar Barrera went from a 5% trainer to a 30% trainer and back to about a 3-4 % trainer.These are not normal occurences.
In baseball for example 300 hitters do not generally become 220 hitters. A good hitter is a good hitter,but a good trainer is not always a good trainer.

[Figman]

This little article from NY seems to have escaped the attention of many national racing people. Since Michael Gill has many trainers, the name John Robb is not as familiar as others may be. But Mr. Gill, who has run only a handlful of horses in NY in 2003, found this one testing positive and his trainer was suspended a good amount of days.
http://www.drf.com/news/article/49437.html

[andicap]

Originally posted by aaron
I play the NY circuit almost every day and I will tell you for a fact that there are certain trainers who are preceived as "juicers".This has been going on for years.This years new "juicer" appears to be Gregory Martin or as we like to refer to him as the new and improved Gregory Martin.I will not pass judgement on whether certain trainers are using illegal drugs,but the perception is that they are.How certain trainers over the years have gone from 25% trainers to 5% trainers and vice a versa is hard to figure.The latest victim is Gasper Moschera who went from leading trainer to retirement in about 2-3 years.Peter Ferriola has dissappeared.Juan Serey is working on a farm.Going back a number of years Oscar Barrera went from a 5% trainer to a 30% trainer and back to about a 3-4 % trainer.These are not normal occurences.
In baseball for example 300 hitters do not generally become 220 hitters. A good hitter is a good hitter,but a good trainer is not always a good trainer.

1. How ironic is it that Gregory Martin's claim was voided due to the juicing of the Robb horse. :D

2. As to why trainers go bad --
a) lose owners with all the money to claim horses. Sometimes the owners are the savvy ones with the claims if they can read Sheets numbers well.
b) lose their most talented assistants to other barns or who train themselves.
c) the track finally figures out their hole card and quietly tells them to stop or they will be banned. This happened with Oscar I'm pretty sure.

D) 300 hitters go bad all the time. See Roberto Alomar (OK he's at .260 but ask the Mets about him.) and Frank Thomas. (although he's still driving in runs).
E) Plain old bad luck -- bunch of their horses got sick and the barns never really recovered. A fire, etc.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Equibase says Gil is the leading owner in the U.S.! Shulman was giving myectomys that big trainers were too cheap to pay for and Shulman's claimed horses won!

[delayjf]

I recently had a conversation with a SoCal trainer (who will remain nameless) He related the story of several trainers who were using the then drug of choice, Clenbuterol. Specifically a certain trainer known to win with a good percentage of his claims.

He also told me about the time when he went to his Vet about a horse he couldn't get to run a lick, the Vet gave the horse a shot of what he thinks was Clenbuterol and the horse immediately woke up.

I know Takach has insisted for years that trainers were using lazix to mask other drugs.

So Cal fan is close to some horse people, I'd like to know what she thinks.

[Valuist]

Andicap--

Enough ripping on Alomar and Thomas. True, Robby was a bum in NY but they are in the process of leading the Chisox to a Central Division title.

[horsepower]

I have read the Andy Beyer article from the Wash. Post. And I agree and disagree with his findings. It is true that trainers use the "JUICE"! Is it every trainer? No! Is it done at every race track? No! I have no comment on the Gill/Shuman issue, because I don't see any concrete proof of the fact that drugs were used to win everytime or for that matter half the time? And I do agree with the fact that the penalties DON'T fit the crime. I also know of trainers (who shall remain nameless) in the New York Circuits, who go out of their way to find the "NEW ELIXIR." When I say go out of their way, I mean, fly to different countries, develop clandestine labs with vets and cemists, etc. Lets face it, if money is no problem and integrity is not an issue, the probabilities of foul play increase ten fold.

And then we have LASIX! Can it mask SOME other drugs? Yes it can! And for Gods sake; all these first time two year old starters CAN'T all be bleeding? And that's the rule (in New York). A horse must bleed before Lasix can be administered. We have three workouts in the horses life and first time Lasix, how many times have we seen that. Of course at the discretion of the vet!


Marty Parisella

[VetScratch]

When you evaluate the performance of a public stable that operates throughout the claiming ladder and normally has a preponderance of claimers as opposed to older allowance/stakes horses and well-bred two/three-year-olds, some of the claiming "miracles" certainly defy straightforward explanation.

On some circuits, claimed horses can be immediately dropped in class. A stable that wins by consistently taking big drops after claims is not miraculous; however, it is financially foolhardy unless this pattern can be justified by inflated purses subsidized by slot machines or by a mad desire to win races without regard to financial considerations other than gambling.

When only claiming races are considered, I don't think it is feasible to sustain a win percentage much above 25% without routinely jamming most claims down in class, being extremely selective on a limited scale, or resorting to "unorthodox" means.

For the average claim, honest instant miracles should be rare because the enabling circumstances are rare. In a few cases, instant miracles are honestly attained because of privileged information known to the parties making the claim but unknown to the parties losing the horse. This happens because barns claim or otherwise acquire horses without finding out about unusual health problems or behavioral idiosyncrasies.

Secrets to success are never passed on when horses are claimed away, and some sellers have been known to withhold such information from buyers. Thus, horses entering a new barn may flounder unless their peculiar secrets are discovered. Meanwhile, one or more parties who know the secrets wait for an opportunity to claim the horse at a bargain price.

Health secrets may include allergies, hypertension, a predisposition for recurring ulcers, or a predisposition to be anemic. Unless symptoms are pronounced, new barns often fail to diagnose problems that are readily treatable and may require sustained attention. A horse with allergies may thrive when bedded on wood chips and fed commercial pellets in a stall at the end of the shedrow (near the big doors and away from the baled feed). When you lose such a horse, you hope the new barn fails to recognize the problem until you have a chance to claim him back a notch or two beneath the price at which you lost him. After resuming his old regimen for a week or two, you may wind up back in the winner's circle with him.

Similar scenarios are possible with horses that need sustained special attention to ward off recurring hypertension, ulcers, anemia, or other conditions, and response times to proper treatment will vary by horse and type of ailment. Because inept trainers are most likely to overlook problems in horses that fail to exhibit pronounced symptoms for common problems, good trainers have a supplementary edge when they claim a problem horse back from a bad barn. In addition, little tricks that shunt hyperactive stall behavior may also be secret keys to a horse's well being, and some horses run better when they are sedated for a couple days before a race.

All things considered, however, the majority of claimed horses cannot be miraculously turned around to show "truly dramatic" improvement in a matter of days without benefit of some "catalyst" that produces positive results faster than improved care, nutrition, and conditioning (in accordance with legal sanctions). Discounting very unusual circumstances and possible quick fixes for bleeding problems, instant miracles should be rare rather than commonplace, no matter who does the claiming. Barns that routinely perform instant claiming miracles on a large scale have "discovered" a secret that deserves notoriety and scrutiny.

On a limited scale, some circumstances do permit honest trainer/owner teams to do very well year after year. If the owner has a farm where claims can be routinely freshened and conditioned at wholesale costs, some teams do very well, especially with mares, by claiming backclass at or near the bottom and then bringing them back in two or three months in much improved condition.

In addition, by specializing in claiming mares with fashionable pedigrees, residual broodmare values can give owners a financial hedge to fall back on because many problems that end racing careers do not preclude broodmare careers. Indeed, the residual value of broodmares is less sensitive to racetrack performance than many handicappers might imagine. Unless a filly or mare has severe confirmation flaws, fashionable pedigrees have a floor value that is fairly dependable. Even mares who are unraced or fail at the racetrack maintain their residual floor values by virtue of fashionable pedigrees.

As a matter of fact, the Stronach team used this approach to build his huge broodmare band. Using a computer database, they routinely evaluated pedigrees in claiming races for fillies and mares, looking for fashionably-bred females running for a claiming tag at or below estimated broodmare values (partially derived from auction results for broodmare prospects). At many tracks around the country, designated trainers acted as agents to make claims for Stronach (and affiliates) or make claims via agreements which guaranteed that Stronach (or affiliates) would subsequently purchase the claimed females. Thus, a trainer would claim a female, might run her until the end of the meet, and then ship her to a Stronach farm or to another Stronach trainer at another track.

On a much smaller scale, this approach has worked for many trainer/owner teams. When you claim residual value, you can naturally invest more time bringing a female back into top form with respect to blood counts, weight, and conditioning. July and August are considered prime months for finding claiming values among the female ranks.

For example, if you claim a mare with a $15K pedigree for $15K, invest sixty to ninety days freshening and rebuilding, come back and win two races out of three or four starts, and then lose the mare for $20-30K, you have turned a nice profit (especially where purses are inflated by slot machine revenues).

Of course, the key to success is being very selective with your claims. If you are not Gill or Leatherbury... that is, if you are a typical owner making a few claims per year, you should be looking for reasons to tear up more claim slips than you actually drop. With all backclass claims, you must have a plausible argument to suggest that you can move a horse back up the class ladder. The best claims are generally taken away from bad barns and placed in good hands. Sometimes, a few bucks wisely spent (or good backside connections) can steer you away from serious problems that may not be evident when you watch potential claims gallop in the morning or come to the paddock for races. Finally, on very rare occasions, shrewdly claimed horses may turn out to be useful in allowances and minor stakes.

However, I think Beyer was right in asserting that some barns have exceeded all reasonable expectations by honest means to the extent that racing would benefit from his suggested remedies:
(1) Make penalties for violations meaningful so that it isn't uninterrupted business as usual after a barn has committed violations.
(2) Use the power of exclusion and/or stall assignments to weed out undesirables such as the crew of black hat trainers that almost ruined racing at Remington after being ruled off at several other tracks (FG, LAD, OP, etc.). There should be no place to run for repeated violators (i.e., after gambling fixes or drug abuse).

[kenwoodallpromos]

Very thoughtful posts. All I can add is I think testing would have to get better yet to support Bever or anyone else with unproven claims opf doping. Today at BM I saw Warren's lead being shortened in the stretch buj he waited way too long to use the whip. It did not take drugs for the longshot closer to win that one!

[VetScratch]

Ken,
Today at BM I saw Warren's lead being shortened in the stretch buj he waited way too long to use the whip. It did not take drugs for the longshot closer to win that one!

... and the longshot may have had a better chance of testing clean than Ronnie would have! :) :) :)

Most (but not all) huge longshots win by default because others falter. Few "huge" longshots run par times or better when they win non-maiden events (at least according to my "dumb broad" analysis of longshot results in my database). :D :D :D

[kenwoodallpromos]

A lot of longshots I see are going up in class and the speed bettors bet another horse- what you say makes sense.
Can you check your database for % wins by Russell Baze dirt vs. turf like this summer? His dirt % cannot be very good nowadays.

[hurrikane]

Vet


Most (but not all) huge longshots win by default because others falter.


bs

[VetScratch]

Originally posted by kenwoodallpromos
A lot of longshots I see are going up in class and the speed bettors bet another horse- what you say makes sense.
Can you check your database for % wins by Russell Baze dirt vs. turf like this summer? His dirt % cannot be very good nowadays. Sorry, I don't download NO-CAL more than a few times a year. Five or six tracks are the most that I download in a single day.

Other PA members do build complete national databases from result charts, and they may be able to answer your Baze question.