could this hurt ed bain??

[proximity]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/54186/test-for-blood-doping-agent-developed?source=rss

[Tom]

Why would it?

[proximity]

Why would it?

tom i never took you for being the kind of player who thinks hay, oats, water, and superior condition book reading abilities are the secrets to super-trainer success. :confused:

[Steve 'StatMan']

Oh, there must be a few Ed Bain's. I thought of the one with the Trainer Angle Books.

[Tom]

Me too.

[takeout]

Me too. What am I missing?

[proximity]

ok, i'll dumb this down some.

mr bain only bets on 30%+ trainer statistic situations.

take the drugs out of the game and we see a precipitous drop in the number of these situations where trainers are above 30%.

i know we only care about the handful of races a year that zenyatta runs in though. cleaning up the game isn't important.

[Show Me the Wire]

Maybe not. The test is valid for injectable CERA not all EPO drugs and administrations. Also, science has identified the Erythropoietin Genes.

Means have been developed to send genes into the body for gene therapy. The technology uses gene transporters, called vectors, into muscle or blood.

The test is more than likely too little or too late and too limited to impact Ed bain's strategy.

[proximity]

thanks smtw.

i figured this development was probably nothing when i didn't see anything on jerry brown's site about it, but science isn't my strong suit so i thought i'd ask.

[takeout]

mr bain only bets on 30%+ trainer statistic situations. Thanks for the clarification. :)

It was an interesting article but I doubt that anything will do much good as long as suspensions remain the joke that they are.

[Tom]

ok, i'll dumb this down some.



Maybe if you have clearly posted what you meant originally, someone might have know what you were talking about.

[markgoldie]

I have written about this topic extensively, including a print article in a horse magazine some years ago.

My position is simply this: I am sick and tired of moralists who wag fingers and make accusations about the lack of "integrity" on the behalf of horse trainers. Yes, racing is a sport, but for those on the inside, it's their business and in America, in competitive business, you play to win. That means taking advantage of any possible loophole.

Should it shock the moralists to know that most major American businesses have a "compliance" division that looks at all federal, state, and local laws and rules which govern their conduct? Would it also shock such people to know that said companies do a hard-headed cost analysis of compliance vs. penalty for non-compliance? Maybe not, since safety issues in the auto industry have revealed that car companies in the past have weighed the cost of law suits vs. fixing a specific safety-design flaw. But this is only a high profile compliance issue and there are literally thousands of other rules, regs., laws, etc. that govern business. I can assure you that each one is assessed as to cost of compliance vs. non-compliance.

And so, we should not expect racing, as a business, to be any different.

Contrary, to what many people think and say, racing is one of the most stringently regulated business in which one could possibly participate. For example, when a "normal" business is charged with a violation, the penalty is virtually always restricted to a corporate fine. When's the last time you heard of a corporate CEO who was suspended from his job for a year for the violation of some reg.? How many corporate CEO's have been subject to lifetime bans for violations of regs.? How many drug or auto CEO's have gone to jail when their negligence wound up leading to loss of human life? How many have even been suspended or banned from their jobs? If you said near zero, you had the right answer. So let's get some perspective here.

Additionally, I can't think of ANY corporate law or reg. that results in a personal penalty to a CEO who cannot be proven to have specific and first-hand knowledge of the violation of such law or reg. But in horse racing, we have just such a situation. It's known as the "trainer responsibility rule." This means that whatever happens, even though by sabotage or disgruntled employee, it's the TRAINER's fault. Period. No appeals. Put such a rule into corporate America and you'd have only homeless bums willing to work such a job.

In short. It's time for the whiners to grow up. If there's a drug problem in racing and you want it fixed, develop tests and PROVE IT! Otherwise, shut up. Most of all, get over this holier-than-thou finger wagging that penalizes success to the degree that it makes every 30%+ trainer a scumbag cheater. What's that about? The NEW American dream that applauds mediocrity?

[fmolf]

I have written about this topic extensively, including a print article in a horse magazine some years ago.

My position is simply this: I am sick and tired of moralists who wag fingers and make accusations about the lack of "integrity" on the behalf of horse trainers. Yes, racing is a sport, but for those on the inside, it's their business and in America, in competitive business, you play to win. That means taking advantage of any possible loophole.

Should it shock the moralists to know that most major American businesses have a "compliance" division that looks at all federal, state, and local laws and rules which govern their conduct? Would it also shock such people to know that said companies do a hard-headed cost analysis of compliance vs. penalty for non-compliance? Maybe not, since safety issues in the auto industry have revealed that car companies in the past have weighed the cost of law suits vs. fixing a specific safety-design flaw. But this is only a high profile compliance issue and there are literally thousands of other rules, regs., laws, etc. that govern business. I can assure you that each one is assessed as to cost of compliance vs. non-compliance.

And so, we should not expect racing, as a business, to be any different.

Contrary, to what many people think and say, racing is one of the most stringently regulated business in which one could possibly participate. For example, when a "normal" business is charged with a violation, the penalty is virtually always restricted to a corporate fine. When's the last time you heard of a corporate CEO who was suspended from his job for a year for the violation of some reg.? How many corporate CEO's have been subject to lifetime bans for violations of regs.? How many drug or auto CEO's have gone to jail when their negligence wound up leading to loss of human life? How many have even been suspended or banned from their jobs? If you said near zero, you had the right answer. So let's get some perspective here.

Additionally, I can't think of ANY corporate law or reg. that results in a personal penalty to a CEO who cannot be proven to have specific and first-hand knowledge of the violation of such law or reg. But in horse racing, we have just such a situation. It's known as the "trainer responsibility rule." This means that whatever happens, even though by sabotage or disgruntled employee, it's the TRAINER's fault. Period. No appeals. Put such a rule into corporate America and you'd have only homeless bums willing to work such a job.

In short. It's time for the whiners to grow up. If there's a drug problem in racing and you want it fixed, develop tests and PROVE IT! Otherwise, shut up. Most of all, get over this holier-than-thou finger wagging that penalizes success to the degree that it makes every 30%+ trainer a scumbag cheater. What's that about? The NEW American dream that applauds mediocrity?The other side of the equation is just do not bet any races where the super trainer/suspected cheat has a horse running!Better yet, bet with the trainer in question.Every major sport has drug issues and will continue to have them as long as so much money is at stake.Even golfers and nascar drivers have been caught using performance enhancement drugs.In my opinion the cheats always stay a step ahead of the test on this issue.....
Mark a very well written response and i agree with everything you said except the part about the homeless bums :lol:

[takeout]

Judging from the last two posts I think Ed Bain is VERY safe. :D In fact, it may be too easy to make his list. Lets face it, we’re betting money into a sport where Cobra venom will only get you a year off.

[Old Sparky]

employee, it's the TRAINER's fault. Period. No appeals. Put such a rule into corporate America and you'd have only homeless bums willing to work such a job.

MG do you know any openings ? I may be a homeless bum if I don't start picking better horses. :D :D :D :cool: :lol: :lol: OS ps I don't think I would do that bad :( :(

[markgoldie]

MG do you know any openings ? I may be a homeless bum if I don't start picking better horses. :D :D :D :cool: :lol: :lol: OS ps I don't think I would do that bad :( :(
May have an opening but you have to pass a course, although you can take it online. It's called "Cutting Deals With Federal Prosecutors 101."

[WinterTriangle]

Mark, you seem to be supporting the status quo, then use it as some kind of baseline on which to base "perspective". Faulty logic IMHO.

And so, we should not expect racing, as a business, to be any different.

Ethical considerations should be different in a business that deals with living beings than for businesses dealing with innanimate objects.

Therapeutic use of drugs in sports medicine was designed to keep atheletes sound and conditioned in order to AVOID injury...............not to keep them racing on, and WITH, injuries. The latter is a bastardized form of veterinary medicine..... and unethical.


Would it also shock such people to know that said companies do a hard-headed cost analysis of compliance vs. penalty for non-compliance


Cost analysis not at all foreign to anyone who has worked in the insurance industry. You get a different perspective, though, when you leave the boardroom meetings at work, to find that your sick child, who needs care and/or organ transplant, has been reduced to a mere "monetary value" by an insurance company. Obviously, that hasn't happened to you. (consider yourself blessed.)

When the *cost* of non-compliance versus compliance involves a life, it's not as cut-and-dried as playing to win.


In short. It's time for the whiners to grow up. If there's a drug problem in racing and you want it fixed, develop tests and PROVE IT! Otherwise, shut up. Most of all, get over this holier-than-thou finger wagging that penalizes success to the degree that it makes every 30%+ trainer a scumbag cheater. What's that about? The NEW American dream that applauds mediocrity?

I agree with you that high % trainer doesn't necessarily mean they are cheating.

In short, it's time for people who need to put ethics and business into an either/or box, to understand that they are not mutually-exclusive, and that we can have ethical practices without descending into the mediocrity you speak of.

Other system have amended their regs in a more positive direction with regard to drugging, without descending into "mediocrity". Are you saying they proceeded without the benefit of trials and tests?

Tests are great. So is going to the track and trying to adopt an OTTB, and seeing the films that your veterinarian takes. Overtapped joints and bones that look like swiss cheese in a young horse are not *normal*.

As a student of history, the "whiners" you speak of are the very individuals who have changed things for the better in the world. They are people who are natural "improvers".....they see a win/win situation in making things *better*. It's why we have stuff like air quality index. Some "whiner" housewife was sitting in the park with her infant wondering if the thick air that morning might be bad for her child.

PS. In my world, ethical practices and success are not mutually exclusive. And certainly shouldn't be.

[markgoldie]

WT;

You completely misconstrue the intent of my post. I don't condone, champion, or support any form of unethical conduct- especially, as you say when it comes to life and death propositions.

What I am saying about perspective is that we focus on supposed cheaters in this business, while corporate America gets away with literal murder. The grossest kind of safety violations in industry, the unsafe drugs and automobiles, as well as the denial of insurance companies of life-saving health care are universally treated with fines- and I might add, these fines come from the pockets of the shareholders, who are the owners of the company and not the culpable perpetrators.

Furthermore, before we get on rants about the potential of damage to racehorses by the use of certain drugs, we should consider that ANY RACING of a thoroughbred may be instantly fatal and is NEVER in keeping with the health, safety, and welfare of the animal. Therefore it is not morally satisfactory to say that when a horse breaks down who is trained by a "hay-and-oats" trainer, it's fine and dandy and an unfortunate act of God, whereas if the horse hails from a 30%+ trainer, he should go to jail and be condemned to Hell in the after-life.

Realize this: If you attend the races or bet on horses, you are supporting a sport which has as a byproduct, the often painful death of its equine participants. So let's get off the moralizing nonsense, because they have a word for those who employ selective moralizing. And that word is: "hypocrite."

[Old Sparky]

"Cutting Deals With Federal Prosecutors 101." Where do I apply --at the I love zenatta booth :lol: :lol: :bang: :bang: I couda been a contender :( ;) OS

[proximity]

Maybe if you have clearly posted what you meant originally, someone might have know what you were talking about.

tom i didn't mean anything personal towards you (or anyone else) and apologize if you took it that way. i tried to get cute with the thread title and it backfired. that's life.

i posted the thread for two main reasons: (1) to see how big of a breakthrough this was and (2) to see how handicappers who use trainer stats to varying extents would adjust their games if such testing was implemented and started having an influence on the winning percentages of some trainers. i know in 4+30 mr bain didn't just blindly bet on the statistics and used a lot of filters, so i guess a strict 4+30 player might have less opportunities but could still make plays where the trainer remained hot. for other players who don't read as far into the stats, the answer is less clear.

[proximity]

If there's a drug problem in racing and you want it fixed, develop tests and PROVE IT!

that's what dr catlin is doing. and i guess the industry contributed millions of dollars to the project just because dr catlin is a nice guy.

[proximity]

The other side of the equation is just do not bet any races where the super trainer/suspected cheat has a horse running!Better yet, bet with the trainer in question.

as a handicapper i can adjust my game for these things (although generally the more contentious the race, the greater possibility for an overlay) but ethical trainers and owners have no recourse.

[WinterTriangle]

Thank you for explaining the parts I misconstrued in your post.

Therefore it is not morally satisfactory to say that when a horse breaks down who is trained by a "hay-and-oats" trainer, it's fine and dandy and an unfortunate act of God, whereas if the horse hails from a 30%+ trainer, he should go to jail and be condemned to Hell in the after-life.

100% agree.

before we get on rants about the potential of damage to racehorses by the use of certain drugs, we should consider that ANY RACING of a thoroughbred may be instantly fatal and is NEVER in keeping with the health, safety, and welfare of the animal.

[QUOTE=markgoldie]If you attend the races or bet on horses, you are supporting a sport which has as a byproduct, the often painful death of its equine participants. So let's get off the moralizing nonsense, because they have a word for those who employ selective moralizing. And that word is: "hypocrite."

100% disagree.

I do not have an either/or mentality----I leave that to PETA folks, or the corporate america cheats you mention. They are unbalanced.


Every time I slip behind the wheel of my truck I am supporting an action that may lead to my death, or someone else's.

But---we take care. Sometimes, that costs us money. Ethical duck hunters buy their Labradors water vests when hunting in high water. They take no short-cuts when training them NOT to retrieve off the side of the boat where the propeller is. Over oyster beds, booties are preventative. (If you've ever gotten one of those jagged, bacteria-laden oyster cuts on your own foot, you know what I mean.)

None of this makes me feel hypocritical.

Either did last week, when I took my dogs into the national forest for pure recreation. They ran a bit ahead of me, as dogs will do, coming back to check in. Then, one of my labs comes back with his leg opened up from the ankle to the thigh. I have no idea what he brushed against, but suspected a piece of sheet metal laying in the forest. 24-metal staples, anesthesia, and an emergency surgery later, I realized it wasn't something I could have protected him from. But if it had been within my power, I would have, regardless of the monetary cost. Emergency surgery certainly wasn't cheap, either.

I accept the ethical and financial obligations of owning live beings. (And my dogs don't even supply me with a paycheck.:lol: )

Anyone in the racing industry who can't do that needs to be kicked to the curb. Find some other way to make a paycheck that doesn't involve living beings.

Besides, it's not like there aren't blatant offenders that everyone who works backside doesn't know about.

This is a very simple equation for me, esp. when you remove all the *excuses*. In the restaurant business, shortcuts may poison somebody. Undercapitalization to get you thru slow months will put you out of business. The point is, anyone with a brain can predict this. It's all predicated on a bad business plan. But, when you cut corners and lives are at stake, you are held to a higher standard........by "whining moralists" like me. :)

[Tom]

tom i didn't mean anything personal towards you (or anyone else) and apologize if you took it that way. i tried to get cute with the thread title and it backfired. that's life.



We're cool - hard to judge comments without being there live.
I've laid a few eggs......bwaaaaaccckkkkk!!!! :lol:

[markgoldie]

Thank you for explaining the parts I misconstrued in your post.



100% agree.

[QUOTE=markgoldie]before we get on rants about the potential of damage to racehorses by the use of certain drugs, we should consider that ANY RACING of a thoroughbred may be instantly fatal and is NEVER in keeping with the health, safety, and welfare of the animal.



100% disagree.

I do not have an either/or mentality----I leave that to PETA folks, or the corporate america cheats you mention. They are unbalanced.


Every time I slip behind the wheel of my truck I am supporting an action that may lead to my death, or someone else's.

But---we take care. Sometimes, that costs us money. Ethical duck hunters buy their Labradors water vests when hunting in high water. They take no short-cuts when training them NOT to retrieve off the side of the boat where the propeller is. Over oyster beds, booties are preventative. (If you've ever gotten one of those jagged, bacteria-laden oyster cuts on your own foot, you know what I mean.)

None of this makes me feel hypocritical.

Either did last week, when I took my dogs into the national forest for pure recreation. They ran a bit ahead of me, as dogs will do, coming back to check in. Then, one of my labs comes back with his leg opened up from the ankle to the thigh. I have no idea what he brushed against, but suspected a piece of sheet metal laying in the forest. 24-metal staples, anesthesia, and an emergency surgery later, I realized it wasn't something I could have protected him from. But if it had been within my power, I would have, regardless of the monetary cost. Emergency surgery certainly wasn't cheap, either.

I accept the ethical and financial obligations of owning live beings. (And my dogs don't even supply me with a paycheck.:lol: )

Anyone in the racing industry who can't do that needs to be kicked to the curb. Find some other way to make a paycheck that doesn't involve living beings.

Besides, it's not like there aren't blatant offenders that everyone who works backside doesn't know about.

This is a very simple equation for me, esp. when you remove all the *excuses*. In the restaurant business, shortcuts may poison somebody. Undercapitalization to get you thru slow months will put you out of business. The point is, anyone with a brain can predict this. It's all predicated on a bad business plan. But, when you cut corners and lives are at stake, you are held to a higher standard........by "whining moralists" like me. :)

You 100% disagree with the statement that any racing of a thoroughbred may be instantly fatal and is never in keeping with the health, safety, and welfare of the animal. You also 100% disagree that by attending the races you are supporting the sport in which this might occur.

Okay. Not much point in any further discussion.

Mark

[WinterTriangle]

Okay. Not much point in any further discussion.

Mark

Mark,

Let's be genuine.

I am reasonably sure that you understood the general sentiment and intent of my post, and also what I consider ethical and unethical practices in racing.

My purpose was to express those things to you.

This is a friendly-format conversation, and I see no need for word games and subtle semantics. I'm fully familiar with internet-style debating, pissing matches, and lawyer-style arguments. (It's one of the reasons I didn't go to lawschool after passing my LSATs.) I prefer to deal straightforwardly, not obfuscate with clever verbal skills and "gotcha" land-mine type phrasing.

If there is anything you truly need me to clarify, please ask me.


I support ethical racing, which at its very foundation, features the competition of healthy, non-injured horses.

Within that framework, I fully accept that unforseen "acts of god" may occur.