NYRA Horsemen Want Security Barn Eliminated.

[andymays]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/114670.html

Excerpt:

Horsemen anger over the security barns at New York Racing Association tracks has reached a point where a possible boycott of entries during the final days of Belmont Park meet is a possibility.

"There has been some discussion of that," said Rick Violette, president of the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association. "But that is putting the cart before the horse. That is certainly the last thing that horsemen want to do."

Excerpt:

Violette points to sophisticated state-of-the-art drug testing and random out-of-competition testing that can be employed to crack down on drug cheating.

Violette called an entry box boycott a "last resort. "Hopefully, we will all be able to look at this and a take a step forward."

[Brogan]

If there was a boycott of the entry box at Belmont...would anyone notice?

[Tom]

Look at it this way, all they need one or two guys to boycott! :lol:

Too bad the barn has to be there in the first place, to protect the betting public from some of these people. I guess the question to the horsemen is now, "What have you guys to earn our trust? What is different now than before the need to have the cheating speed bump? How have you people rehabilitated yourselves?"

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Spend the money on random checks instead if you want to stop cheaters. The best way to get them is by surprise.

Oh, and when you catch one, throw the book at them, or whats the point?

[Java Gold@TFT]

Can anyone point to one quality horse disabled to run? Stop th edrugs where they start - as close to the gate as possible.

[Bruddah]

Spend the money on random checks instead if you want to stop cheaters. The best way to get them is by surprise.

Oh, and when you catch one, throw the book at them, or whats the point?

I agree, and the best use of that extra money would be to test the first four finishers of every race. Then mandate a 3rd stike rule. Get caught the 3rd time and your out for 1 year. If you come back and are caught again, you're out for two years. Come back a third time, after serving two years and get caught, you're out for life. No exceptions.

[Tom]

Who pays for the testing?
Shouldn't that be an owner fee?

[thaskalos]

The sophisticated, "state of the art", drug testing procedures have been available for a long time...but, unfortunately, the words "SOPHISTICATED" and "HORSERACING" don't go together...

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I agree, and the best use of that extra money would be to test the first four finishers of every race. Then mandate a 3rd stike rule. Get caught the 3rd time and your out for 1 year. If you come back and are caught again, you're out for two years. Come back a third time, after serving two years and get caught, you're out for life. No exceptions.
Test for different things at anytime. Not just after the race, but just out of the blue. If Lasix masks certain drugs, testing after the race doesn't do as good as testing between races.
Give the odd snake venom tests at random too.
And the three strike rule you propose doesn't have enough teeth to scare cheaters straight.

[thaskalos]

Andy Beyer has already reported that prestigious races are sometimes won by horses which fail their post-race drug tests...and the matter is handled "quietly" - with "slap on the wrist" fines, and NO suspensions - in order to preserve the "integrity" of the game.

Unless we have an independent "watchdog" in this industry...the whole truth about drug testing will never be revealed to the horseplayer...

[fmolf]

Andy Beyer has already reported that prestigious races are sometimes won by horses which fail their post-race drug tests...and the matter is handled "quietly" - with "slap on the wrist" fines, and NO suspensions - in order to preserve the "integrity" of the game.

Unless we have an independent "watchdog" in this industry...the whole truth about drug testing will never be revealed to the horseplayer...
as long as quick money can be made trainers will cheat.they will come up with new drugs and just as in baseball staying one step ahead of the testers.Even when one is caught they never get more than a slap on this wrist!In my opinion a suspension means you should not be allowed at the track or to have any contact with anyone at the track...assistants..grooms...owners...etc..etc....

[thaskalos]

as long as quick money can be made trainers will cheat.they will come up with new drugs and just as in baseball staying one step ahead of the testers.Even when one is caught they never get more than a slap on this wrist!In my opinion a suspension means you should not be allowed at the track or to have any contact with anyone at the track...assistants..grooms...owners...etc..etc.... I agree...the difference, of course, is that in baseball...the drug factor doesn't cost the baseball fan any money.

In OUR game...when the trainers go after the "easy money", it's at the expense of the horseplayer...

[BELMONT 6-6-09]

I agree...the difference, of course, is that in baseball...the drug factor doesn't cost the baseball fan any money.

In OUR game...when the trainers go after the "easy money", it's at the expense of the horseplayer...

Correct. It's all a joke....at the players expense. Until the punishments are swift and severe the 'games' will continue marching always one step ahead of the testing.

[Hanover1]

Look at it this way, all they need one or two guys to boycott! :lol:

Too bad the barn has to be there in the first place, to protect the betting public from some of these people. I guess the question to the horsemen is now, "What have you guys to earn our trust? What is different now than before the need to have the cheating speed bump? How have you people rehabilitated yourselves?"

Tom, I run your fractions with ease, but this time, I fell at the gate. This is not a cry to the betting public that we have rehabbed sucessfully, because in fact, the cheaters are well known, caught, for the most part. Its about the pain in the ass of having to take the horse to the barn, period. Nothing more. Check us in our own habitat, please, anytime, in fact. The fellas that have to take the horse to the barn, and know they run clean, are the ones bitching here......seems we have been placed in the same entry box as the cheaters here......

[Hanover1]

I agree...the difference, of course, is that in baseball...the drug factor doesn't cost the baseball fan any money.

In OUR game...when the trainers go after the "easy money", it's at the expense of the horseplayer...

Still trying to figure out how trainers are responsible for the losses of horseplayers...........do we force you to make any selections?

[Hanover1]

Correct. It's all a joke....at the players expense. Until the punishments are swift and severe the 'games' will continue marching always one step ahead of the testing.

See above.....The penalty of murder is death, yet it still happens. There is a segment of cheating in every sport, and it will always be so...it is human weakness that drives this issue, not horsetrainers.

[thaskalos]

Tom, I run your fractions with ease, but this time, I fell at the gate. This is not a cry to the betting public that we have rehabbed sucessfully, because in fact, the cheaters are well known, caught, for the most part. Its about the pain in the ass of having to take the horse to the barn, period. Nothing more. Check us in our own habitat, please, anytime, in fact. The fellas that have to take the horse to the barn, and know they run clean, are the ones bitching here......seems we have been placed in the same entry box as the cheaters here...... If the check-ups in the natural habitat had gone as planned...the detention barns would have never been instituted...

[Hanover1]

Andy Beyer has already reported that prestigious races are sometimes won by horses which fail their post-race drug tests...and the matter is handled "quietly" - with "slap on the wrist" fines, and NO suspensions - in order to preserve the "integrity" of the game.

Unless we have an independent "watchdog" in this industry...the whole truth about drug testing will never be revealed to the horseplayer...

Examples of races won that are handled in this manner please.....or else I am tempted to accuse you of heresay.......

[Hanover1]

If the check-ups in the natural habitat had gone as planned...the detention barns would have never been instituted...

How were they planned?? Enlighten us some more.....

[thaskalos]

Examples of races won that are handled in this manner please.....or else I am tempted to accuse you of heresay....... I have the article in front of me...if only I could figure out how to "paste" it on this page...

I also have a "Bloodhorse" article, reporting the same thing...

[Hanover1]

as long as quick money can be made trainers will cheat.they will come up with new drugs and just as in baseball staying one step ahead of the testers.Even when one is caught they never get more than a slap on this wrist!In my opinion a suspension means you should not be allowed at the track or to have any contact with anyone at the track...assistants..grooms...owners...etc..etc....
Several rulings of late have been exactly as you have described.....fact. A high profile harness case of late comes to mind as example...PM for exact evidence of this...not my place to post names of litigants on public forums. I know these folks.
Severe rulings are/have been in place in several jurisdictions for some time now...the fact that bettors cannot/will not be privy to every single case in order to satisfy themselves with the integrity of the sport is not the fault of any horsepeople at all, but rather a lack of a national regulatory system that we have all been crying for, for ages now....the info IS out there if you know where to look.

[Hanover1]

I have the article in front of me...if only I could figure out how to "paste" it on this page...

I also have a "Bloodhorse" article, reporting the same thing...

And we are to believe that specific races are named??

[Tom]

Check us in our own habitat, please, anytime, in fact. The fellas that have to take the horse to the barn, and know they run clean, are the ones bitching here......seems we have been placed in the same entry box as the cheaters here......

I see no other way but to suspect everyone until they prove themselves clean. Maybe you guys should consider boycotting against known cheaters running horses instead of your inconvenience. You guys need to start going public with stuff you know is going on.

Or this...your horse gets a blood sample drawn in the paddock. If it comes back positive, you get a year off and a fine the size of the winner's share of the purse? Two offense you find a new line of work. Zero tolerance.

If you bought two dozen clams, would you accept one of them being bad?

[thaskalos]

And we are to believe that specific races are named?? Of course not Hanover...but do specific races HAVE to be named?

Beyer states that he is convinced that IF the winner of a major race fails a post-race drug test...the matter would be handled "privately"...to protect the integrity of the game. He supplies the "bloodhorse" article as proof...in which it is reported that, in California, major races have been handled in exactly that manner.

Minor fines have been levied against the offenders...but no suspensions, or publicity...in order to protect the integrity of the sport.

[Hanover1]

I see no other way but to suspect everyone until they prove themselves clean. Maybe you guys should consider boycotting against known cheaters running horses instead of your inconvenience. You guys need to start going public with stuff you know is going on.

Or this...your horse gets a blood sample drawn in the paddock. If it comes back positive, you get a year off and a fine the size of the winner's share of the purse? Two offense you find a new line of work. Zero tolerance.

If you bought two dozen clams, would you accept one of them being bad?

We always get back to the same answer here, Tom, and it stems from a lack of a unified, national, oversight system, that eliminates the tons of loopholes and varied threshhold levels that are in place in various jurisdictions. I wonder how many players are actually aware of the fact that a LARGE percentage of so called positives are a result of varied threshhold levels? What is legal in one state is not in another, in other words....As for the clams, I have had many, and a few were bad, but took them all ;)

[thaskalos]

Still trying to figure out how trainers are responsible for the losses of horseplayers...........do we force you to make any selections? I suspect that this is some sort of joke...

[Hanover1]

Of course not Hanover...but do specific races HAVE to be named?

Beyer states that he is convinced that IF the winner of a major race fails a post-race drug test...the matter would be handled "privately"...to protect the integrity of the game. He supplies the "bloodhorse" article as proof...in which it is reported that, in California, major races have been handled in exactly that manner.

Minor fines have been levied against the offenders...but no suspensions, or publicity...in order to protect the integrity of the sport.

Fuzzy math it seems. Beyers "convictions" (see big IF in your post...) are assumptions based on what he read somewhere else? Thats it? Journalism at its finest here folks........

[Hanover1]

I suspect that this is some sort of joke...

Dead serious here my friend.....

[thaskalos]

Fuzzy math it seems. Beyers "convictions" (see big IF in your post...) are assumptions based on what he read somewhere else? Thats it? Journalism at its finest here folks........ Who is going to give the horseplayer the whole truth...when EVERYBODY involved has a financial interest in keeping this game going as smoothly as possible?

Who can be relied upon for "true" investigative reporting?

DRF, and Bloodhorse...they would both be out of business if the sport fails.

Beyer's voice is often alone when it comes to exposing the injustices of the game...but he is quickly ridiculed for supposedly defending the accuracy of his speed figures, whenever a "Rudy Rodriguez" situation presents itself...

We need an independent "watchdog" in this industry...

[Hanover1]

Who is going to give the horseplayer the whole truth...when EVERYBODY involved has a financial interest in keeping this game going as smoothly as possible?

Who can be relied upon for "true" investigative reporting?

DRF, and Bloodhorse...they would both be out of business if the sport fails.

Beyer's voice is often alone when it comes to exposing the injustices of the game...but he is quickly ridiculed for supposedly defending the accuracy of his speed figures, whenever a "Rudy Rodriguez" situation presents itself...

We need an independent "watchdog" in this industry...

First off, I hope you don't feel that this is a personal attack....not at all. I respect the opinions and statements of others, including yourself.
As I pointed out to Tom, and you yourself alluded to here, it all comes back to the need for a central command of sorts, rather that the multi jurisdictional system currently in place, to address the multitude of issues threatening the sport today. Having said that, even if this central command theory ever became reality, there would still be a segment of players who would say a rose smells bad because it does not please the eye.
Truth is as much about perception as it is reality........

[Bruddah]

Who pays for the testing?
Shouldn't that be an owner fee?

Tom, this should be shared by the top 4 placers receiving money from the purse. Win receives 59% plc 19% show 9% 4th 5%.

The trainers and owners should bare the cost, plain and simple.

[Robert Goren]

The problem is not with some horse having a bit too much of an approved drug in its system. The problem is with drugs that nobody has a test for yet. No national body is going to change that. From a bettor's point of view, it becomes pretty obvious pretty fast who has come into possession of a magic wand and most adjust their wagering accordingly. Being a non believer in the magic is really costly.

[Stillriledup]

Hey, no wisecracks about Rudy Rodriguez...this guy has been in the game a long time as an asst trainer learning the training game from the ground up. He's worked diligently under a bevy of hall of fame trainers and was being 'groomed' as the next great training prodigy. Rudy is the Tiger Woods, Serena Williams and Ichiro of horse training. I saw Rudy on the Mike Douglas show as a 2 year old child and he was rubbing and grooming a horse already, we all knew that he was going to be one of the great ones, it was just a matter of him working about 20 years under HOF trainers in order to get good enough to go out on his own and win some races. Rudy is right on schedule to the HOF.

Rudy Rodriguez will someday have plaque in Saratoga Springs next to Woody Stephens.

[rastajenk]

Tom, this should be shared by the top 4 placers receiving money from the purse. Win receives 59% plc 19% show 9% 4th 5%.

The trainers and owners should bare the cost, plain and simple.
I'd say the horseplayers should pay, they're the ones demanding it.

If I raced clean, I sure wouldn't support a plan where I had to pay to prove it.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Horseplayers pay for most of the show. Purses and track operations are paid for from horse player losses and concession/admission sales and casino losses (where applicable).

So drug testing is paid for by the Horseplayer more or less already.

Increased testing would just mean the losses would need to be split differently. But if anyone is thinking of raising takeout to do this, they are nuts as raising takeout will shrink the pie inevitably.

I have an idea, lower takeout and use some of the extra money the tracks and horsemen will wind up with to do more tests.

Rastajenk, actually if you were a trainer who raced clean, why wouldn't you support more testing? One would think it would mean that the clean trainer would do a lot better if not having to compete with cheaters.

[Robert Goren]

Horseplayers pay for most of the show. Purses and track operations are paid for from horse player losses and concession/admission sales and casino losses (where applicable).

So drug testing is paid for by the Horseplayer more or less already.

Increased testing would just mean the losses would need to be split differently. But if anyone is thinking of raising takeout to do this, they are nuts as raising takeout will shrink the pie inevitably.

I have an idea, lower takeout and use some of the extra money the tracks and horsemen will wind up with to do more tests.

Rastajenk, actually if you were a trainer who raced clean, why wouldn't you support more testing? One would think it would mean that the clean trainer would do a lot better if not having to compete with cheaters. Best idea yet.

[rastajenk]

I don't know. But I do wonder how many non-positive tests would have to occur, and at what expense, before we realized that cheating isn't as rampant and widespread as disgruntled bettors believe it is. Or that, what is defined as cheating, medication-wise, of course, isn't really that much of a performance enhancer.

For example, I participate in random pre-race CO2 blood testing. Rarely is a horse found to be "high"; three or four times in over two years. If the logic is that a horse over the limit has some kind of advantage, then wouldn't it follow that a horse close to the limit also has some kind of advantage, even though it would not be defined as an unfair advantage, over horses with low readings? And what would be the effect of such an advantage - that a horse might finish fourth instead of fifth, or that an abject loser with no interest in racing might suddenly win? Most likely, something in between. But as I test and then watch the race that I tested, I have never seen any kind of correlation between the test results and the official order of finish. I don't keep records, it's an anecdotal kind of observation. But one thing I am sure of: the integrity of the races I test isn't any greater than those that aren't tested.

So, if I were an owner or trainer, would I support having to pay for more and more testing if I wasn't convinced of its value? Probably not.

[Tom]

Dead serious here my friend.....

So you say that does not happen?
And how would you know that it doesn't?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

So you say that does not happen?
And how would you know that it doesn't?
It didn't happen here: http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/racing-news/2009/October/11/Hollywood-Hit-tests-positive-for-Acepromazine.aspx

Normally Beyer has good info on this kind of stuff though, so I tend to think he is probably right or he wouldn't have written it.

On the other hand, I just have to shake my head that any state or stewards group can get away with not disclosing this stuff.

The other thing is the matter of purse distribution, it is hard to sweep that under the rug. I don't think you can get the second place finisher, or the breeder of that horse to shut up and quietly take a check every time it occurs.

The more I think about it, this is one huge conspiracy theory and when it comes to integrity, if Beyer is right, it could be ugly the day someone actually squawks.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

But if anyone is thinking of raising takeout to do this, they are nuts as raising takeout will shrink the pie inevitably.

I disagree.

If NY raised their takeout 4% on the already 26% bets to 30%, they could use the extra money to.......

1. Have the security barn
2. Pay a starting fee to each horse like Monmouth
3. Strengthen drug testing procedures
4. Hire more people to work in management postions
5. Fund studies to answer questions about how to proceed in the future with the racing product.
6. More funding for horsemen's groups and horsemen's projects.


I don't think handle would drop at all. Think about it. If somebody is already paying $26 for a Big Mac...Would a raise in price to $30 stop them from buying a Big Mac? Probably not.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I disagree.

If NY raised their takeout 4% on the already 26% bets to 30%, they could use the extra money to.......

1. Have the security barn
2. Pay a starting fee to each horse like Monmouth
3. Strengthen drug testing procedures
4. Hire more people to work in management postions
5. Fund studies to answer questions about how to proceed in the future with the racing product.
6. More funding for horsemen's groups and horsemen's projects.


I don't think handle would drop at all. Think about it. If somebody is already paying $26 for a Big Mac...Would a raise in price to $30 stop them from buying a Big Mac? Probably not.
You know what kills me? There are people (generally, breeders, other horsemen and some racetrack execs) that agree 100% with you here even though I know you are joking.