Cheating in Racing Today

[cj]

http://www.theracingbiz.com/2017/01/...lds-struth-dq/

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by cj

http://www.theracingbiz.com/2017/01/...lds-struth-dq/

Thanks for that.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by cj

http://www.theracingbiz.com/2017/01/...lds-struth-dq/

This is the sort of stuff I take on. I'm just using your post to make my point. When racing commissions say a trainer is not responsible but still guilty, that points to a need to revisit the rules. How do you fix it? There are plenty of smart people that can collaborate on that. This really isn't about drugs in racing. The regulation of or the standard for Clenbuterol may be exactly right, but that doesn't mean you stain Trombetta. I've said over and over that racing commissions need to do more complete investigations, perhaps in concert with the trainer. If we knew exactly how the clenbuterol got into the horse's system, we could assign punishment in a fairer way. Instead what we get is what I've often pointed out - the Commission stopping at the post race positive, invoking the absolute insurers rule, and doling out a punishment. System preserved.

Trainers and the commissions keep themselves on opposite sides of the table instead of cooperating to find the truth and achieve justice. The system is broken for lots of reasons, this being one of them.

I can't understand why I take the crap I do for defending trainers in this sort of situation. I can't be the only one who thinks the treatment Trombetta got was both not justice and bad for racing.

[cj]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

This is the sort of stuff I take on. I'm just using your post to make my point. When racing commissions say a trainer is not responsible but still guilty, that points to a need to revisit the rules. How do you fix it? There are plenty of smart people that can collaborate on that. This really isn't about drugs in racing. The regulation of or the standard for Clenbuterol may be exactly right, but that doesn't mean you stain Trombetta. I've said over and over that racing commissions need to do more complete investigations, perhaps in concert with the trainer. If we knew exactly how the clenbuterol got into the horse's system, we could assign punishment in a fairer way. Instead what we get is what I've often pointed out - the Commission stopping at the post race positive, invoking the absolute insurers rule, and doling out a punishment. System preserved.

Trainers and the commissions keep themselves on opposite sides of the table instead of cooperating to find the truth and achieve justice. The system is broken for lots of reasons, this being one of them.

I can't understand why I take the crap I do for defending trainers in this sort of situation. I can't be the only one who thinks the treatment Trombetta got was both not justice and bad for racing.

That is fair. But really, this isn't the kind of stuff most horseplayers care about. Since real offenders are rarely dealt just sentences, I'm not sure you can blame people for not worrying much when it goes the other way.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by cj

... Since real offenders are rarely dealt just sentences, I'm not sure you can blame people for not worrying much when it goes the other way.

That should be exactly when people worry the most. Imagine thinking that since campus sexual assault is a real serious problem that too often goes unpunished that what happened to the Duke team (who never even endured an actual conviction) is worthy of a shrug.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by cj

That is fair. But really, this isn't the kind of stuff most horseplayers care about. Since real offenders are rarely dealt just sentences, I'm not sure you can blame people for not worrying much when it goes the other way.

I agree. Even though horseplayers may not appreciate it, I'm happy to take on the system in their best interest. You're right. The system is broken on both ends - the real scofflaws get inconsistent punishment, and there are too many cases of trainers that tried to do everything right and still got punished. Somebody's got to stir the soup and I'm fine doing that.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

That should be exactly when people worry the most. Imagine thinking that since campus sexual assault is a real serious problem that too often goes unpunished that what happened to the Duke team (who never even endured an actual conviction) is worthy of a shrug.

I want to point out that yes this is probably overkill for an analogy since the guy did technically commit the crime, but I couldn't make my point better on short notice.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I want to point out that yes this is probably overkill for an analogy since the guy did technically commit the crime, but I couldn't make my point better on short notice.

I liked the analogy. But technically, the horse tested positive and the racing commission found he didn't commit a crime. He was guilty on a technicality, aka, the absolute insurers rule.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

... He was guilty on a technicality, aka, the absolute insurers rule.

Yeah, just wanted to be clear that I knew I was comparing tomatoes and tomahtoes when it came to that particular standard. I meant to issue a disclaimer acknowledging such within the post itself but apparently I even forgot the word 'lacrosse'.

[cj]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

That should be exactly when people worry the most. Imagine thinking that since campus sexual assault is a real serious problem that too often goes unpunished that what happened to the Duke team (who never even endured an actual conviction) is worthy of a shrug.

Not really the same to me because the horses did test positive. It isn't like these guys are sent to jail or anything, usually a small fine and/or a paid vacation.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I liked the analogy. But technically, the horse tested positive and the racing commission found he didn't commit a crime. He was guilty on a technicality, aka, the absolute insurers rule.

As he should've been.

How many times do trainers say, "Hell yeah, I gave that drug to my horse!"?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

As he should've been.

How many times do trainers say, "Hell yeah, I gave that drug to my horse!"?

Most of the time actually, especially if it is a legal therapeutic. Since there are records, it is often hard to deny. More often the trainer will contend he followed the dosing and withdrawal guidelines (like Ron Ellis).

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Most of the time actually, especially if it is a legal therapeutic. Since there are records, it is often hard to deny. More often the trainer will contend he followed the dosing and withdrawal guidelines (like Ron Ellis).

Exactly. In other words, declaring their innocence. None admit to doing anything wrong which resulted in their positive. Isn't it amazing how many trainers don't need excuses and declarations of innocence? They quietly take all the precautions needed to not get a positive.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by cj

http://www.theracingbiz.com/2017/01/...lds-struth-dq/

A few interesting things not mentioned or fleshed out in the blog:

(1) Trombetta maintained that he didn't use clenbuterol nor did he have it in his possession. But that does not mean that he has never used clenbuterol.

When the New York State Racing and Wagering Board implemented stricter regulation of clenbuterol, extended the restriction of use from 4 days out to 14 days:

Mike Trombetta is a Maryland-based trainer who has started 32 horses in New York the last two winters. Since the rules in Maryland and Pennsylvania allow clenbuterol to be given within four days, Trombetta said he will have to be "extremely selective" in what horses he can send to run in New York.

"What is okay practice in most places is now forbidden in New York. I don't understand what the purpose is."

(2) Trombetta had a drug violation only a few months before in Pennsylvania. He also had one back in 2008.

(3) While much was made about the defense lawyer's theory that the horse was exposed to clenbuterol in the few minutes after the running of the race, there is no mention of the equally possible chance that the horse was administered clenbuterol just before the running of his race.

Note the quote from the UC Davis-based Dr. Scott Stanley does not specify timing with respect to the race:

“This horse either has a small recent exposure, or I can’t explain the measurements."

This does not imply the exact timing of the administration, although the blogger uses the quote to back the opinion of the lawyer.

In fact, small dose raceday administration (given directly in the trachea) of clenbuterol has long been alleged as a common raceday "cheat" at racetracks. The anecdotal evidence for this was so pronounced that there was more than one scientific study done exploring this method of administration.

Furthermore, the exact reason why regulators use a two-pronged threshold (one for blood and one for urine) is in order to identify raceday administration of clenbuterol. In that respect, the laboratory findings are not particularly surprising. A recent exposure is likely to be picked up in blood but not urine.

None of this is to serve as proof that Trombetta was the one who administered clenbuterol to the horse, but all-in-all, this case is not particularly unique unless you buy into the lawyer's theory.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

A few interesting things not mentioned or fleshed out in the blog:

(1) Trombetta maintained that he didn't use clenbuterol nor did he have it in his possession. But that does not mean that he has never used clenbuterol.

When the New York State Racing and Wagering Board implemented stricter regulation of clenbuterol, extended the restriction of use from 4 days out to 14 days:

Mike Trombetta is a Maryland-based trainer who has started 32 horses in New York the last two winters. Since the rules in Maryland and Pennsylvania allow clenbuterol to be given within four days, Trombetta said he will have to be "extremely selective" in what horses he can send to run in New York.

"What is okay practice in most places is now forbidden in New York. I don't understand what the purpose is."

(2) Trombetta had a drug violation only a few months before in Pennsylvania. He also had one back in 2008.

(3) While much was made about the defense lawyer's theory that the horse was exposed to clenbuterol in the few minutes after the running of the race, there is no mention of the equally possible chance that the horse was administered clenbuterol just before the running of his race.

Note the quote from the UC Davis-based Dr. Scott Stanley does not specify timing with respect to the race:

“This horse either has a small recent exposure, or I can’t explain the measurements."

This does not imply the exact timing of the administration, although the blogger uses the quote to back the opinion of the lawyer.

In fact, small dose raceday administration (given directly in the trachea) of clenbuterol has long been alleged as a common raceday "cheat" at racetracks. The anecdotal evidence for this was so pronounced that there was more than one scientific study done exploring this method of administration.

Furthermore, the exact reason why regulators use a two-pronged threshold (one for blood and one for urine) is in order to identify raceday administration of clenbuterol. In that respect, the laboratory findings are not particularly surprising. A recent exposure is likely to be picked up in blood but not urine.

None of this is to serve as proof that Trombetta was the one who administered clenbuterol to the horse, but all-in-all, this case is not particularly unique unless you buy into the lawyer's theory.

Thanks for the info. To read the blog, you'd think he would never even consider using clenbuterol and never had.