Bill Finley - Cheaters: Lock them up

[forced89]

Catch the suspensions in New Mexico for Quarter Horse Trainers, 21 years, 10 years and the like. Wow! If NM can do it, why not other states?

[bisket]

Originally Posted by andymays

I agree. The thing is that most Horseplayers want these guys to be locked up without due process.

To this day I don't know how Dutrow can be so Evil yet do so well under all the scrutiny he's under. I think he has a big mouth but is one of the best Trainers around.

dutrow's biggest offense is bute overages. there aren't any limits on bute in new york right now. new york's bute rules are: you can't give bute on raceday. you can give bute in large amounts the day before raceday. the only way to know if bute was given to a horse on raceday is the detention barn. which is not used anymore. sooo..... how can anyone get a bute violation for a raceday dose without the detention barn. its now olly olly oxen free in new york. you're horse drug test's for alot of bute. trainer: i didn't give it to him raceday.....

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by bisket

dutrow's biggest offense is bute overages. there aren't any limits on bute in new york right now. new york's bute rules are: you can't give bute on raceday. you can give bute in large amounts the day before raceday. the only way to know if bute was given to a horse on raceday is the detention barn. which is not used anymore. sooo..... how can anyone get a bute violation for a raceday dose without the detention barn. its now olly olly oxen free in new york. you're horse drug test's for alot of bute. trainer: i didn't give it to him raceday.....

I'm not sure if I understand you, but if you give the equivalent of one tab of bute on raceday, you'll get a high test in most jurisdictions where the standard 5micro/mill threshold is in force for most horses. As near as I can tell, not only does NYRA test, but the threshold is significantly lower, -2micro/mill - meaning the same dosage would probably need to be given 24 out and the traditional equivalent of two tabs for pre-race would need to be given even farther out - and the NYRA guideline suggests 48 hours.

EDITED to add a link:

http://www.nyra.com/Aqueduct/RacingI...e%20Letter.pdf

[riskman]

Originally Posted by maclr11

This thread got way off topic
I spend a lot of time on the backside here in Winnipeg and in Minneapolis
The drug game is never going to disappear, the money in the business is so tight that people will take any edge to try to stay afloat.
It's more about adapting to the changes in the game, what people do or do not have is all speculative and very few people ever do know what really is being used.
In five years a new drug or technique will come out and everyone will jump on that bandwagon. To be honest the three things I think are most commonly used around here is ITPP, ventipulmin and bute since it is illegal. (You can race on Dex or Flucourt but not Bute).
The one thing that is difficult to deal with from a handicapping view is some of the pre race things vets do. Blocking throats, calcium, backup bleeders, but most importantly tapping joints.
Injecting cortisone is a major training tool around here since we get all the castoffs, so a trainer who has little money may run a horse twice and he will tire, then he injects the knees and ankles and spends the money and the horse runs way better, the public has no way to know the horse is getting the work done on him and this makes it very tough, but profitable for the insiders haha.
It would be nice to have some system but that will never happen.
My real only thought is that you will never convict someone and that at some point in time almost everyone has tried to get an advantage of some sort and that will never change, there will always be a nice drug or a new technique.

This is a great advertisement for the elimination of all but the medicines that treat illness or injury. Talk about short-term fixes with drugs that have left horses vulnerable. What about the bettors that are vulnerable?
At this point,I have to question my sanity why I continue to wager another dime until the industry makes a serious attempt to right itself.

[NY BRED]

I've previously posted the thought of eliminating purse money
from owners whose horses tested positive for illegal drugs.

While the trainer takes the rap for positives regardless if he or
his crew vet were guilty, eliminating winnings from an owner will
most likely cause the shift of horses to trainers who have
no history of illegal meds and/or have cleaned up their act for
at least five years.

Some of these trainers may not be on par with the magicians,
but then again, the magicians might just turn out to be equal
or less talented when they are forced to "play" the game
under revised h penalties and rulings to trainers and owners.

At this point, Mr Dutrow's "suspension" signals a green light to trainers and vets to continue their illegal tactics ,which creates a wider window for more injuries or fatalities to horses and jockeys,including further loss of fans to this sport.

While Jeff's recommendation makes a lot of sense, couple that with
owner penalties and maybe we will have a game that is safer
for all the described parties.

The reality of these thoughts and discussions is we need a
major host of racing to implement such rulings to save this game.


At this point, the odds appear to be against such a decision.

[rastajenk]

What about "purse money from owners whose horses tested positive" for legal drug overages, which is by far the most common type of drug-related ruling? Do you want to ding them for those kinds of offenses?

Do all of you, or any of you, have enough pharmacological knowledge to truly connect medication usage to performance, even, as Jeff P suggests, to incorporate it into your handicapping decisions? And yet, so many of you are willing to call the use of almost any medication "cheating," and that pp's of today are more fraudulent than they were in the past.

I hold the contrarian view that this obsession with drugs is as hurtful to the game as the use of medications themselves. It is based on hyperbole, exaggeration, and unrealistic absolutes. I prefer that owners make their own decisions regarding their property, and that trainers make their own decisions, not some state- or track-appointed team of vets. I don't want to see us go the way of greyhounds, and the Hong Kong method seems completely distasteful to me, but that sounds like what some of you want.

As some of you like to point out, it's the gambling that makes the game go. Remember, it's gambling, not investing. If you think a tab of bute one day out vs. two days out is somehow affecting your ability to cash tickets, maybe it is time for you to find another pursuit.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

What about "purse money from owners whose horses tested positive" for legal drug overages, which is by far the most common type of drug-related ruling? Do you want to ding them for those kinds of offenses?

Do all of you, or any of you, have enough pharmacological knowledge to truly connect medication usage to performance, even, as Jeff P suggests, to incorporate it into your handicapping decisions? And yet, so many of you are willing to call the use of almost any medication "cheating," and that pp's of today are more fraudulent than they were in the past.

I hold the contrarian view that this obsession with drugs is as hurtful to the game as the use of medications themselves. It is based on hyperbole, exaggeration, and unrealistic absolutes. I prefer that owners make their own decisions regarding their property, and that trainers make their own decisions, not some state- or track-appointed team of vets. I don't want to see us go the way of greyhounds, and the Hong Kong method seems completely distasteful to me, but that sounds like what some of you want.

As some of you like to point out, it's the gambling that makes the game go. Remember, it's gambling, not investing. If you think a tab of bute one day out vs. two days out is somehow affecting your ability to cash tickets, maybe it is time for you to find another pursuit.

Its only gambling to people who turn it INTO gambling. For people who make a living betting, its investing.

Why do bettors need to have a degree in medicine to know that they prefer to bet on clean races?

[Hambletonian]

No private vets. All horse medical records available online.

The only ones laughing to the bank are the vets, and the cleanest racing is at county fairs where you cannot afford to prerace.

[A. Pineda]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

...I hold the contrarian view that this obsession with drugs is as hurtful to the game as the use of medications themselves. It is based on hyperbole, exaggeration, and unrealistic absolutes. I prefer that owners make their own decisions regarding their property, and that trainers make their own decisions, not some state- or track-appointed team of vets....maybe it is time for you to find another pursuit.

I agree with this. There is no reason why the foxes can't guard the hens, and any suggestion of diminished egg production is pure hyperbole. When there are fewer eggs to go around I'm sure that the affected owners will find another pursuit.

[Tom]

We can make it better.
We have the technology. (6 million dollar man?)

What we lack is the desire.

Each horse could have a file - be it a computer or a chip implant.
All relative data is entered in real time - you give a shot of anything, it goes in, how much, who gave it..... What you end up with is a database of each horse's medial record, the vet's records with every horse, the owner trainer.....who knows what you will uncover with that info.

It is not impossible. Maybe to pay for it, we use the slots money instead of putting it towards purses. and as long we are at it, use it to put in Trakus, to put in scales so we can weight horses every race.....you know, start acting like a billion dollar industry in the 21st century.

[maclr11]

I could never see trainers or vets going along with such an invasion of privacy. Why would myself as an owner want the person claiming my horse to know his vet record, this would absolutely ruin the claiming game for starters. It will never happen with an open vet record. That would be like asking a human to open up his health record for a job interview.
Another thing owners should not be punished for trainers indiscretions. The game is in desperate need of owners and fining them and making them pay will only make them leave the game and spend money elsewhere, hurting the game even more. We are trying as an industry to bring in new owners and new money, not chase away the existing money that's already in the game.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by NY BRED

I've previously posted the thought of eliminating purse money
from owners whose horses tested positive for illegal drugs.

While the trainer takes the rap for positives regardless if he or
his crew vet were guilty, eliminating winnings from an owner will
most likely cause the shift of horses to trainers who have
no history of illegal meds and/or have cleaned up their act for
at least five years.

Some of these trainers may not be on par with the magicians,
but then again, the magicians might just turn out to be equal
or less talented when they are forced to "play" the game
under revised h penalties and rulings to trainers and owners.

At this point, Mr Dutrow's "suspension" signals a green light to trainers and vets to continue their illegal tactics ,which creates a wider window for more injuries or fatalities to horses and jockeys,including further loss of fans to this sport.

While Jeff's recommendation makes a lot of sense, couple that with
owner penalties and maybe we will have a game that is safer
for all the described parties.

The reality of these thoughts and discussions is we need a
major host of racing to implement such rulings to save this game.


At this point, the odds appear to be against such a decision.

The appeals process. Very lengthy and allows the person charged to continue working while the process progresses
That's fine. That is what is called "due process".
Now, when an appeal is denied what's next is the appeal of THAT decision.
And on and on we go.
Well, perhaps horse racing juridictions should take a page out of the books of other sports leagues. Especially NASCAR. Their suspension/fine/appeals process that is internal. They issue penalties hear appeals and their decisions are final. In horse racing, there is a policy of permitting the Courts to become involved. It is common for a suspended horseman to go "judge shopping". That has to stop.
Those who cheat laugh at the process.
Here's a link to a story which illustrates an occurrence of judge shopping.
http://msn.foxsports.com/horseracing...-saddle-052512

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by maclr11

I could never see trainers or vets going along with such an invasion of privacy. Why would myself as an owner want the person claiming my horse to know his vet record, this would absolutely ruin the claiming game for starters. It will never happen with an open vet record. That would be like asking a human to open up his health record for a job interview.
Another thing owners should not be punished for trainers indiscretions. The game is in desperate need of owners and fining them and making them pay will only make them leave the game and spend money elsewhere, hurting the game even more. We are trying as an industry to bring in new owners and new money, not chase away the existing money that's already in the game.

Umm,....A horse has no expectation of privacy. And even if some judge who thinks the 4th Amendment was written in stone decides the "right to privacy" extends to a race horse, the fact is racing jurisdictions have the absolute right to make their own rules. There is no "right to participate" in the sport of horse racing.
If anything, such a use of technology would IMPROVE the claiming game. The answer is simple. The prospective buyer(s) would know EXACTLY what they were getting into. In effect, a claimed horse is the same as a trade of players from one sports team to another. All trades are subject to the subject players passing a physical. Why should a trainer or an owner putting in a claim not be afforded the same protections. So it takes a day or two to finalize the deal for the tract Vet to have a look and examine the electronic record.
24 hours later, horse either goes to new barn, or in the event of an unsoundness which was not disclosed, stays with the current barn. Easy.
Now, As far as owners and penalties are concerned...Unless the owner of a horse has full knowledge and offered to conspire with a trainer to administer or have someone else administer illegal drugs or other performance enhancing substance, the owner should be held liable. IMO it is ludicrous to punish a person for an act of which he had no knowledge.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by maclr11

I could never see trainers or vets going along with such an invasion of privacy. Why would myself as an owner want the person claiming my horse to know his vet record, this would absolutely ruin the claiming game for starters. It will never happen with an open vet record. That would be like asking a human to open up his health record for a job interview.
Another thing owners should not be punished for trainers indiscretions. The game is in desperate need of owners and fining them and making them pay will only make them leave the game and spend money elsewhere, hurting the game even more. We are trying as an industry to bring in new owners and new money, not chase away the existing money that's already in the game.

You have no problem with dumping unsound horse on some other guy, and screwing the betting opublic while you're at it?

And what do you think the drugs doing to the money already in the game?
You do realize that without Bettors, the real money, you have no game, right?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by thespaah

...
Now, when an appeal is denied what's next is the appeal of THAT decision.
And on and on we go.
Well, perhaps horse racing juridictions should take a page out of the books of other sports leagues. Especially NASCAR. Their suspension/fine/appeals process that is internal. They issue penalties hear appeals and their decisions are final. In horse racing, there is a policy of permitting the Courts to become involved. ...

I don't want to belabor this and get sidetracked from the topic at hand, and it's hard to make claims that a guy needs to substantiate without specifics - but I would tepidly argue that part of what led to this universal practice of endless appeals is the fact (okay, preception) that at one time, the decisions of racing's regulators were more or less final - and it was a process that was often abused, or at a minimum, applied far too subjectively.

I have more respect than many do for stewards and the job that they have to do, but in all reality, too many are/were industry veterans with the experience required to understand the game, but also the preconceived biases that come from those years of involvement. Unfortunately, since it is an unavoidable reality that people bring their biases/friendships/whatever to the job with them, when in a position of authority and justice, there needs to be more emphasis on attaining experience in THAT capacity. Furthermore, the "checks and balances" prescribed - that being the ability to appeal a steward's decision to the department and then to the commission or having those departments review the decisions of stewards without appeal - never amounted to much in the form of reassurances that justice was being applied fairly.

My point, such as it is, is that the wild and almost automatic process of appeals through the court systems has as its genesis, in part, the flawed dispensing of justice when racing officials were rarely questioned and decisions were all but final. Like anything else, the appeal process has been exploited, but in my experiences, I have seen stewards and other officials evolve into being MUCH more aware of how they proceed so as to not completely blow their own feet off when a decision is invariably appealed. In some ways, it isn't a great thing, but in many ways, it is a good thing. Yeah, I miss the days when a hefty allegation led to a summary suspension - it wasn't that long ago - but the fact is that procedural shortcuts were so rampant in building these cases that it was hard to argue that being summarily suspended was usually a deprivation of due process on its own when oh so often the court system would side with the appellant on the merit of these procedural gaffes.

The threat of appeal through a "real" judicial system has helped make the racetracks and their regulators much more professional in processing and dispensing justice. No, I'm not saying that I agree with the punishments per se, but I'm speaking to the process that they employ to arrive at the conclusions that lead to those punishments. It's getting harder to win on appeal because there are many fewer mistakes made that can be grounds for winning on appeal. That is a good thing for justice. The biggest problem I see now is that we have gone all the way and now have a microcosm of the broader justice system, where what amount to "plea deals" are used to avoid the lengthy and costly appeal process and when the punishments are already fairly trivial, these gestures of appreciation for taking responsibility can be readily criticized - which kind of sucks, considering someone is actually taking some responsibility.

Ah well, sorry this isn't quite the sort of response that I had in mind and went off to wandering a bit - but let's put it this way - they are supposed to be qualified to make decisions about the running of a horse race more than anything else, and when you consider how much hell they take for that, it's not necessarily a step forward to remove the "check" in the category in which many are not supremely qualified.

For what it's worth, I've argued in the past, here I think, that at some point in the structure (Stews, department, commission) there ought to be an actual attorney that advises on all matters of procedure that may lead to an action against a licensee to avoid the problems faced by judicially challenged regulators. Since then, I believe that most have gotten quite a bit more effective on that front out of necessity.