Masochistic DQed from BC Sprint

[Big Peps]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Ellis played by the rules. Don't think he is the issue.

You know, the biggest problem is the guys that are destroying the game by improving maiden claimers into graded stakes horses. We all know who they are. These guys are flat out cheating. Others like Ellis, get dirtied up by affiliation.

or all these geniuses that are 40% off the claim, those types

[the little guy]

Let's see....

...from a personal standpoint, I bet this race, and what I needed the most was a Drefong-Mind Your Biscuits exacta ( my picks are a matter of public record and they were my 1-2 choices...I did not like Masochistic at all ). While I have joked with CJ that I wish I could cash my exacta ( who wouldn't? ), I don't feel cheated at all. If Masochistic had not run, Drefong would have been 8:5, and Mind Your Biscuits likely wouldn't have been second, because there would have been little pace, and likely AP Indian would have sucked along for second given the completely different dynamics.

...on the subject of Privman's piece....Jay is a friend, I should be clear on that, but being my friend hardly absolves people from my obnoxious ridiculing ( just ask CJ ). After I read this thread last night, I was prepared to groan when I read Privman's article given the comments here. I read it twice and have no idea how anyone can criticize his reporting. It was fair and balanced, and I really wish people would read it again. You may disagree with the handling of this issue, or Ellis's behavior, and any number of people involved, but how Privman was wrong totally escapes me.

Personally, I don't believe the 200 picogram overage had anything to do with the results of this race. If you want to complain about whether or not you think some medications should or shouldn't be legal, that's fine, but given none of us have drug records for ALL the horses in this race, we don't really know who used what and when, and thus can't hypothesize on how this affected all contestants. Rich Halvey seems to be far and away the most educated person in this thread on matters of medication, and his opinions carry a lot of weight, at least for me.

I agree with CJ that it sucks that using some medications might keep horses from running more frequently. Frequency of starts is a major issue in this game. However, some horses couldn't race at all without some of these legal and therapeutic medications. Now, I know some will say " then maybe they shouldn't race at all" which I suppose is also fine....but wouldn't that be even less starts then? You can't have it both ways...or whichever way suits you the best at some given moment.

[cj]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Let's see....

...from a personal standpoint, I bet this race, and what I needed the most was a Drefong-Mind Your Biscuits exacta ( my picks are a matter of public record and they were my 1-2 choices...I did not like Masochistic at all ). While I have joked with CJ that I wish I could cash my exacta ( who wouldn't? ), I don't feel cheated at all. If Masochistic had not run, Drefong would have been 8:5, and Mind Your Biscuits likely wouldn't have been second, because there would have been little pace, and likely AP Indian would have sucked along for second given the completely different dynamics.

...on the subject of Privman's piece....Jay is a friend, I should be clear on that, but being my friend hardly absolves people from my obnoxious ridiculing ( just ask CJ ). After I read this thread last night, I was prepared to groan when I read Privman's article given the comments here. I read it twice and have no idea how anyone can criticize his reporting. It was fair and balanced, and I really wish people would read it again. You may disagree with the handling of this issue, or Ellis's behavior, and any number of people involved, but how Privman was wrong totally escapes me.

Personally, I don't believe the 200 nanogram overage had anything to do with the results of this race. If you want to complain about whether or not you think some medications should or shouldn't be legal, that's fine, but given none of us have drug records for ALL the horses in this race, we don't really know who used what and when, and thus can't hypothesize on how this affected all contestants. Rich Halvey seems to be far and away the most educated person in this thread on matters of medication, and his opinions carry a lot of weight, at least for me.

I agree with CJ that it sucks that using some medications might keep horses from running more frequently. Frequency of starts is a major issue in this game. However, some horses couldn't race at all without some of these legal and therapeutic medications. Now, I know some will say " then maybe they shouldn't race at all" which I suppose is also fine....but wouldn't that be even less starts then? You can't have it both ways...or whichever way suits you the best at some given moment.

I agree with the race part. I joke about it but I know that no way to know the results without Masochistic, plus he was a large part of the reason Mind Your Biscuits was such a high price anyway. Without him, probably not interested.

Privman's piece was fine. My only problem with it was the huge amount of quotes by Ellis. I guess it makes sense since he gave Privman the story, but it made it as much an Ellis PR piece as it was reporting news.

The amount of the overage isn't the problem. It is the time leading up to the overage. We don't really know the effects. My guess is Ellis was trying to play within the rules, but the rules are a mess.

The race spacing is a major issue. I don't know the answer, but only racing every 60 days to give horses time to get clean is a horrible precedent. What would we have missed this year without Masochistic's three starts really?

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by the little guy

...on the subject of Privman's piece.... but how Privman was wrong totally escapes me.

I don't think he was wrong anywhere in his piece. I thought it was far too slanted in an attempt to excuse what happened. I understand why he went that way given who Ellis is and his record but it felt too much like a piece he had to write but wanted to give Ellis a soft landing.

I also felt he should have been more detailed on what happened with this horse in the debut.

Just my opinion.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by cj

The race spacing is a major issue. I don't know the answer, but only racing every 60 days to give horses time to get clean is a horrible precedent. What would we have missed this year without Masochistic's three starts really?

Do you feel this is the reason there is so much time between races with Pletcher runners? He famously has a lot of spacing involved.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

Do you feel this is the reason there is so much time between races with Pletcher runners? He famously has a lot of spacing involved.

It makes you wonder. His horses sure seem to deteriorate and vanish often. That said, I have no idea. He is playing within the rules I think since I can't remember his last positive.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by cj

Regarding #4, did you read the article I cited? People truly believed the earth was flat too, didn't mean you could sail off the edge. Very good chance it absolutely enhances performance long term.

Yes, the muscle building effect the drug may have had remains after the drug has cleared a horse's system. But my discussions with pharmacologists suggest a shot every 60 days is not a sufficient regimen to build the kind of muscle, say, a body builder is looking for. In the article you cited, mice were dosed up for three weeks or something like that. The stanozolol used by track vets is meant as a therapeutic and the dosing reflects it. I did research on the medication back when I was investigating Ferris Allen's case.

But it is also a legal medication, and it is legitimate to ask if it should be a zero-tolerance drug or whether there should be a de minimis level as long as it stays legal. My point is that if you take cocaine and three days later you test positive for the metabolite at picogram levels, you are no longer "high" but clearly you took the drug.

You can solve the problem by making stanozolol illegal.

[cj]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You can solve the problem by making stanozolol illegal.

Seems that is the case many places outside North America.

[o_crunk]

Originally Posted by the little guy

...on the subject of Privman's piece....Jay is a friend, I should be clear on that, but being my friend hardly absolves people from my obnoxious ridiculing ( just ask CJ ). After I read this thread last night, I was prepared to groan when I read Privman's article given the comments here. I read it twice and have no idea how anyone can criticize his reporting. It was fair and balanced, and I really wish people would read it again. You may disagree with the handling of this issue, or Ellis's behavior, and any number of people involved, but how Privman was wrong totally escapes me.

Here's the problem with this type of "fair" reporting, IMO.

Privman goes out of his way to frame Ellis as a clean guy citing his history of being an upstanding trainer with regard to positives. Many turf writers do this when positives come to light. It happened w/ Graham Motion. Bill Mott. I get it.

But here's the problem with that: it confuses the public in understanding the issue, it absolves the trainer of responsibility and it blurs the line of what is a positive and what is not a positive.

This last point, I believe in strongly. When you say..."well, he's a good guy, who has a great history, can't be cheating", it throws into question the rules. And maybe the rules do need to be looked at. However, everyone participating knew the rules before hand and the framing of this article makes a mockery of the rules. It's no wonder the public is batsh*t crazy when it comes to positives. It's no wonder the public can't tell the difference between a real positive and a fake one (what I mean by this: what is truly egregious and what is a minor offense).

It's because of this kind of "friendly" journalism that purposely blurs the line on a rule violation. The history doesn't matter. The horse came back positive. It's should not be up for debate or framed in the article if the guy is good or bad. The rules were broken, the explanation and back story really doesn't matter. It does not need to be "framed" as "good guy". No one needs to know that and further, what happens when Privman decides to report on the same issue where a positive is, in his view, not from a "good guy"?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I should have my article on Graham Motion's positive for methocarbamol finished in two weeks. I'll just say things are not as clear cut as the short articles may have led people to believe.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i think you miss the point here, Ellis and the others that do this are only part of the problem, the system is rotten to the core.

heres another example on the other side of things, Phipps won't allow Shug to use these PED's and he can't win no more. its not because he's not a great trainer either, the game has a big edge over him and he is no longer a part of the 20%. but the man remains classy and never opens up his mouth even though he knows all about it and tries as hard as anyone. he has gone to being a great dirt trainer into running most his horses on turf against weaker now.

Didn't do anything for Jack van Berg when he cried foul.

So Ron Ellis wins the Derby next year by entering a 1000lb mouse that looks like Jack Lalanne ?

[turninforhome10]

The thing that I don't get is how did the vet and said horse get administered a drug that is not even made in the states anymore. Winstrol was banned and not available back shortly after the Big Brown fiasco. Was training at the time and had 3 geldings that would not run a lick and quit eating without it. Had to retire them. If Winstrol was available, it was not advertised that you were using it. So is it even legal and how did he get a drug that is not available in the states?

[cj]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I should have my article on Graham Motion's positive for methocarbamol finished in two weeks. I'll just say things are not as clear cut as the short articles may have led people to believe.

Honest questions...can you point me to an article you've done where you lay the blame at the trainer's feet? Do you have one coming on Ramon Preciado?

[cj]

This makes you wonder every time a horse skips an obvious target for a race "down the road", doesn't it?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by turninforhome10

The thing that I don't get is how did the vet and said horse get administered a drug that is not even made in the states anymore. Winstrol was banned and not available back shortly after the Big Brown fiasco. Was training at the time and had 3 geldings that would not run a lick and quit eating without it. Had to retire them. If Winstrol was available, it was not advertised that you were using it. So is it even legal and how did he get a drug that is not available in the states?

I told you. It is available through compounding pharmacies.