Trainer Jane Cibelli's vet about to sing...

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by showbet

You should contact him regarding the "Harrington gate punchers". That story would be right up his alley.

Good one showbet!

[RunForTheRoses]

Race 7 at Bel the #2 goes Cibelli>Clement. I expect a good race, using in my P4, although Vet Off could be a bad thing.

[MightBeSosa]

No conclusions can be drawn until 100 race samples are available. Until then its just random.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by MightBeSosa

No conclusions can be drawn until 100 race samples are available. Until then its just random.

I don't think another 35 races will help her dismal numbers at all.

[Rise Over Run]

Originally Posted by MightBeSosa

No conclusions can be drawn until 100 race samples are available. Until then its just random.

What is the statistical significance of 100? Other than being an easily identifiable number, I'm guessing none.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Rise Over Run

What is the statistical significance of 100? Other than being an easily identifiable number, I'm guessing none.

There is no statistical significance to 100.
The higher the number of subjects for a study the more reliable the data is from parametric statistics.
Having said that there are instances when only very small numbers are available and non-parametric statistics have to be relied on.
For example, in cases of very rare diseases, a clinician may only be able to study a handful of people in the world.
The belief is that the use of larger cell sizes, the chance of random factors intervening lessens. Arguments can be made against that idea to.
It is the nature of parametric statistical tests that the larger your sample size, the easier it is to reach a .05 level of significance or lower.
That looks good in research papers, but it is partly an artifact of the confidence level of the statistic itself.
In the case of horse trainers, many do not have steeds that race 100 times a year.
That doesn't give them an escape route, if you buy the idea that I do, cell sizes can be as low as 25 and you can see patterns forming that will likely be significant if it continued through a 100 or many more trials.

Having said that, statistics, while interesting cannot convict this trainer.
In an earlier thread I said that the change of her horses winning so frequently before the vet was caught, and after the vet was caught were .049 on a Chi Square test.
That's an interesting fact and does throw a cloud of suspicion.
But really, it does not demonstrate her guilt.
Let's face it.
The vet was caught red-handed. That is a far better proof of his guilt.
It does not demonstrate that she was party to it, unless he starts "singing."

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

There is no statistical significance to 100.
The higher the number of subjects for a study the more reliable the data is from parametric statistics.
Having said that there are instances when only very small numbers are available and non-parametric statistics have to be relied on.
For example, in cases of very rare diseases, a clinician may only be able to study a handful of people in the world.
The belief is that the use of larger cell sizes, the chance of random factors intervening lessens. Arguments can be made against that idea to.
It is the nature of parametric statistical tests that the larger your sample size, the easier it is to reach a .05 level of significance or lower.
That looks good in research papers, but it is partly an artifact of the confidence level of the statistic itself.
In the case of horse trainers, many do not have steeds that race 100 times a year.
That doesn't give them an escape route, if you buy the idea that I do, cell sizes can be as low as 25 and you can see patterns forming that will likely be significant if it continued through a 100 or many more trials.

Having said that, statistics, while interesting cannot convict this trainer.
In an earlier thread I said that the change of her horses winning so frequently before the vet was caught, and after the vet was caught were .049 on a Chi Square test.
That's an interesting fact and does throw a cloud of suspicion.
But really, it does not demonstrate her guilt.
Let's face it.
The vet was caught red-handed. That is a far better proof of his guilt.
It does not demonstrate that she was party to it, unless he starts "singing."

If the vet was there as an uninvited party he would have been arrested for trespassing. He was there because someone asked him to be there. Now in Janes defense maybe she told him to be there the prior day and he forgot!

[MightBeSosa]

One things for sure, sarcasm doesn't play well on the inet.

[Stillriledup]

The Cibelli's at Monmouth running in quicksand.

Rustler Hustler coming off a sharp 2nd at Belmont, gets a letter perfect trip in the 9th at Mth, looms up and hangs for all he's worth and finishes a well beaten 3rd after looming to be the winner turning for home.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

The Cibelli's at Monmouth running in quicksand.

Rustler Hustler coming off a sharp 2nd at Belmont, gets a letter perfect trip in the 9th at Mth, looms up and hangs for all he's worth and finishes a well beaten 3rd after looming to be the winner turning for home.

Once Pompa got rid of him he wasn't the same horse.

[Citation1947]

Monmouth trainer standings
Jane Cibelli 38 2 5 11 $126,541 5%

It must really suck for these cheat trainers when get caught, are then watched very closely and the final result shows that they weren't/aren't really much of a horse trainer after all.

[chadk66]

pretty amazing isn't it?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Citation1947

Monmouth trainer standings
Jane Cibelli 38 2 5 11 $126,541 5%

It must really suck for these cheat trainers when get caught, are then watched very closely and the final result shows that they weren't/aren't really much of a horse trainer after all.

Careful. You're bordering on libel.
Let's be clear here.
No one has offered proof that she has cheated or caught her cheating.
So far there have not been any posts about what the vet has said or will say that might incriminate the trainer.
Besides those stats above show that 45% of her steeds are in the top 3.
I've seen a lot worse than those numbers.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Careful. You're bordering on libel.
Let's be clear here.
No one has offered proof that she has cheated or caught her cheating.
So far there have not been any posts about what the vet has said or will say that might incriminate the trainer.
Besides those stats above show that 45% of her steeds are in the top 3.
I've seen a lot worse than those numbers.

3rd place finishes at this Monmouth meet are nothing to write home about, the last 2 weeks have had some really small fields. Considering she won at a 23% over the last 2 yrs at Monmouth, and her Tampa Bay winning % went down after the scandal, You'd have to have your head in the sand not to see what's obvious.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

3rd place finishes at this Monmouth meet are nothing to write home about, the last 2 weeks have had some really small fields. Considering she won at a 23% over the last 2 yrs at Monmouth, and her Tampa Bay winning % went down after the scandal, You'd have to have your head in the sand not to see what's obvious.

You can think whatever you want.
Stating "it," about a person who is not an elected public figure, is another story.
It will be Mike of PA who "carries the can" in situations where posts here are libelous.
I'm just saying "think twice" about posts which are insinuating someone is doing something wrong unless you have concrete proof.