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

[Bluto Blutarsky]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ra...-to-cooperate/

[lamboguy]

i am totally glad that so many people are reading the Paulick Report. i have been reading it since the incidents in Pennsylvania with Michael Gill were going.

there are a lot more subject matter's that he could take on, but he does a great job with whatever he is doing.

[onefast99]

"At the time of the incident, Cibelli was winning at a 39% rate at Tampa Bay Downs (13 wins from 33 starts). Her win percentage dropped considerably thereafter through the balance of the meeting. She won eight of her next 56 starts."
So the smoking gun theory doesn't apply here?, and now the vet is going to “expressly agree to cooperate with the division’s continuing investigation or prosecution of other parties/ licensees”. Good stuff Bluto!

[Bluto Blutarsky]

Ray's relentless determination in seeking the facts on this alleged doping incident at Tampa bay Downs involving a Cibelli trained horse is journalism at its best. It just so happens his reporting involves thoroughbred racing. He deserves an incredible amount of credit. Bloodhorse, DRF and other industry publications have looked the other way on this story.

As of this morning, Jane is 0-for-16 at the 2013 Monmouth Park meeting and a combined 0-for-27 at Monmouth, Belmont Park, Parx, Penn National, and Pimlico since leaving Tampa Bay Downs.

[VeryOldMan]

Thanks for the link. I had wondered what happened to this case - a little dismaying, though, to realize the incident happened 4 months ago and Cibelli still hasn't been disciplined. Not exactly swift justice.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by Bluto Blutarsky

Ray's relentless determination in seeking the facts on this alleged doping incident at Tampa bay Downs involving a Cibelli trained horse is journalism at its best. It just so happens his reporting involves thoroughbred racing. He deserves an incredible amount of credit. Bloodhorse, DRF and other industry publications have looked the other way on this story.

As of this morning, Jane is 0-for-16 at the 2013 Monmouth Park meeting and a combined 0-for-27 at Monmouth, Belmont Park, Parx, Penn National, and Pimlico since leaving Tampa Bay Downs.

Ray Paulick is about the only guy that tells it like it is in horse racing. he deserves all the credit for his courageous reporting.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by Bluto Blutarsky

Ray's relentless determination in seeking the facts on this alleged doping incident at Tampa bay Downs involving a Cibelli trained horse is journalism at its best. It just so happens his reporting involves thoroughbred racing. He deserves an incredible amount of credit. Bloodhorse, DRF and other industry publications have looked the other way on this story.

As of this morning, Jane is 0-for-16 at the 2013 Monmouth Park meeting and a combined 0-for-27 at Monmouth, Belmont Park, Parx, Penn National, and Pimlico since leaving Tampa Bay Downs.

The numbers speak for themselves. Hopefully the vet tells the truth on who requested him to inject that horse on the day of the race.

[Robert Fischer]

To be as fair as possible, 33 and 56 starts are small samples.

You also have to consider the progression of the meet(early winners often have to step up in class).

And look at the period of time when she brought some of her string to Gulfstream.

I'm not making a case for this trainer specifically, but when these things are considered, it isn't really fair to put a heavy weighting on to these specific stats, as bad as they seem on the surface.

Originally Posted by onefast99

"At the time of the incident, Cibelli was winning at a 39% rate at Tampa Bay Downs (13 wins from 33 starts). Her win percentage dropped considerably thereafter through the balance of the meeting. She won eight of her next 56 starts."
So the smoking gun theory doesn't apply here?, and now the vet is going to “expressly agree to cooperate with the division’s continuing investigation or prosecution of other parties/ licensees”. Good stuff Bluto!

[RXB]

Originally Posted by VeryOldMan

Thanks for the link. I had wondered what happened to this case - a little dismaying, though, to realize the incident happened 4 months ago and Cibelli still hasn't been disciplined. Not exactly swift justice.

She is at least for now suffering consequences in terms of much lower win % and a bit of bad press. And it's better that the investigators be thorough and careful if they think they have cause to really throw the book at her-- although Florida hasn't exactly been known as a state that metes out strong penalties against cheating trainers.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

To be as fair as possible, 33 and 56 starts are small samples.

You also have to consider the progression of the meet(early winners often have to step up in class).

And look at the period of time when she brought some of her string to Gulfstream.

I'm not making a case for this trainer specifically, but when these things are considered, it isn't really fair to put a heavy weighting on to these specific stats, as bad as they seem on the surface.

Yes it is a small sample but one that sticks out like a sore thumb. She brought some horses to GP right after the Florida Derby when many outfits leave and the fields are smaller and less competitive.

[johnhannibalsmith]

This despicable tale of selective justice and under-the-rug sweeping deserves as much sanitizing light available and yet, Paulick has really been the only journalist interested in pushing the story. Couple this coverage with a few other recent stories in this vain that Paulick has been pursuing and even though his style of editorializing has pissed me off in the past, it's safe to say that he's actually one of about two, maybe three, legitimate journalists left covering the thoroughbred racing industry. I've been a critic in the past and for good reason, in my opinion, but this thread reminds me that I'm long overdue for a post of gratitude to Paulick for his unparalleled coverage of topics that make the industry wince. When you're pissing off the right people, you're doing a good job. Good job.

[MightBeSosa]

It's a small sample if you're tossing dice.

Not so for a trainer.

Turn it around.

It's a small sample for Davie J in NY. Would you discount the win %?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by onefast99

Yes it is a small sample but one that sticks out like a sore thumb..

And a good thumb too.

Assuming that I've calculated a chi square test correctly, there is a .049 probability of that happening by chance even in this small sample. The difference between before and after the incident is significant from a probability perspective.

[Robert Fischer]

i'm honestly not even familiar with the math involved, and not motivated to refresh on it .

13/33 = 39%
8/56 = 15%

meet halfway = 26.5%

maybe someone is into these numbers and will do the work[looks like Greyfox just did a calculation], but for such a small sample, it doesn't seem that far fetched that it's very possible she was never as good as 39% or as bad as 15%.

She probably did get worse over the course of the meeting.

But without looking at the math, my instinct is that those small numbers would have a good chance of amplifying any drop-off and shouldn't be taken at face value.

That is without even looking at things like class structure, field size, actual performance, targeting some of the Gulfstream races(such as maiden claiming) etc...


I'm in no way defending this trainer. These stats just don't seem to carry a ton of weight given my rough understanding of small numbers and contributing factors.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

i'm honestly not even familiar with the math involved, and not motivated to refresh on it .

13/33 = 39%
8/56 = 15%

meet halfway = 26.5%

maybe someone is into these numbers and will do the work[looks like Greyfox just did a calculation], but for such a small sample, it doesn't seem that far fetched that it's very possible she was never as good as 39% or as bad as 15%.

She probably did get worse over the course of the meeting.

But without looking at the math, my instinct is that those small numbers would have a good chance of amplifying any drop-off and shouldn't be taken at face value.

That is without even looking at things like class structure, field size, actual performance, targeting some of the Gulfstream races(such as maiden claiming) etc...


I'm in no way defending this trainer. These stats just don't seem to carry a ton of weight given my rough understanding of small numbers and contributing factors.

The question is why would you be averaging the numbers from before and after? Throw in the 0-27 since departing the safe haven and she is clearly headed south no matter where you stand on her involvement in this matter. If you want to break down the numbers even further just look at MP, 0-16. let's see where she is after racing this weekend at MP she has one in today 3 in tomorrow and 5 in on Monday!