Cheating in Racing Today

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by cj

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

See, when I read it, I see a guy that acknowledged not wanting to risk getting a positive when New York changed the rule and he was probably still using it therapeutically under old guidelines where he was stabled and eventually phased it out completely for the same reason when most states tightened up. I never got the impression that the guy was trying to pretend like his reasons for not using it were due to any moral high ground. I guess maybe we each see what we want to some degree. Or maybe I just read it too fast.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

See, when I read it, I see a guy that acknowledged not wanting to risk getting a positive when New York changed the rule and he was probably still using it therapeutically under old guidelines where he was stabled and eventually phased it out completely for the same reason when most states tightened up. I never got the impression that the guy was trying to pretend like his reasons for not using it were due to any moral high ground. I guess maybe we each see what we want to some degree. Or maybe I just read it too fast.

The quote regarding the New York rule was not in the original blog though. Like you, I didn't think that Trombetta personally was trying to take any moral high ground, but the blog in my opinion was heavily slanted a certain way.

To me, the case (as far as one can understand it from the blog and other sources) is simply an example of how the absolute insurer rule is employed (whether one agrees with it or not). Beyond that, it wasn't a extraordinary case.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

...
To me, the case (as far as one can understand it from the blog and other sources) is simply an example of how the absolute insurer rule is employed (whether one agrees with it or not). Beyond that, it wasn't a extraordinary case.

I think that was roughly my takeaway as well. Perhaps it wasn't his intent, but I replied to CJ with a thanks mainly because I thought that it added a little balance to some of the stereotype that gets bandied about whereby trainers always seem to come out smelling like roses and not getting days is a terrible punishment because you don't get to order pina coladas on the beach or however the rest of it goes. The system is imperfect in many ways and it seemed like a healthy acknowledgement that it can go both ways.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

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."

Since we are talking about things not mentioned or not fleshed out, lets start with the clenbuterol rule. You conveniently left out the date that NY changed the clenbuterol withdrawal time from 96 hours to 14 days. That was adopted in December 2012. At the time Maryland had not changed, but a year later they also adopted the 14 day withdrawal time. Same with Pennsylvania. 14 days. They've all been the same for the last four years.

Now it is possible that at one time Trombetta had used Clenbuterol, but it as long as we are speculating, Trombetta could have just as easily been referencing the fact that he could not send horses he had claimed to NY without first making sure those horses had not been given clenbuterol within the 14 day period. That would have been every trainer's concern if they were shipping to NY from MD or PA.

This is something I find disturbing. You pull a quote out of the air and use it to cast doubt on the trainer. That quote is proof of nothing unless you can put it into the correct context. It is certainly no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Trombetta and his experts.

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

There you go again. Leak just enough information to make the trainer look like he could be a bad guy. Let me fill in the blanks for you here. I found three violations for Trombetta since 2006. He had one for phenylbutazone at GP in June 2015, one for methylprednisolone at Parx in December 2010 and one for a cocaine metabolite at Philadelphia Park in August 2008. The first two are common therapeutic medications, and it is not uncommon to find violations. Trombetta was fined $750 and given no days for the cocaine violation, a suspiciously light amount for a Class 1 violation. It is the case that almost all the violations for cocaine and meth are suspected environmental contamination based on the levels of the metabolite. Not really the profile of the criminal of the century.

(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.

I will say you have a dark heart. I, at least, think some of the trainers with horses that test positive are not guilty of actually dosing horses with illegal substances or illegal amounts. But let's for a minute go through where it all got farcical.

First, let me point out that there are a number of cases of cross contamination that have been documented. A groom rubs a treatment for bucked shins on a two year old, doesn't wash his hands, puts a bit into the mouth of another horse, and voila, we have a violation. A stable worker with a meth or coke habit can do the same thing. A horse that has been treated with any therapeutic can contaminate a stall, say in the detention barn, and cross contaminate the next occupant. Barker and others have shown that residual amounts of drugs/medications can remain even after stalls have been thoroughly cleaned. ARCI has recognized this phenomenon and is working on protocols for dealing with it.

So the potential for cross contamination is not wild speculation.

The lawyer suggested that the horse was contaminated between the end of the race and the time of the test. If there was suspicion that the horse was surreptitiously given clenbuterol before the race, it would have been up to the commission to introduce it.

Nice twist on the Scott Stanley quote. Damn straight it backed the opinion of the lawyer. What he said was, and I'm interpreting for you, the horse had a small recent exposure or there isn't an explanation. You can argue about what "small" means, but sometime around race time the horse was exposed. Again you speculate about a small tracheal injection and allude to studies. The obvious question is, are the levels measured post race from tracheal injection correlative to the levels found in Trombetta's horse, or are they correlative to environmental exposure? I know the popular opinion is that everyone cheats, and they are outsmarting the testers left and right, but offering speculation without detail is irresponsible.

Contemplate for a moment that Trombetta and his vet weren't lying. His guilt rested on a technicality that would never hold up in a real court. There was absolutely no proof he or any of his employees dosed the horse. The system needs to be adjusted to account for situations where the trainer didn't actually take an action that resulted in a positive.

I've long argued for full investigations. That would limit the speculative testimony. I've argued for video surveillance at all barns, so the tracheal injection theories could be confirmed or refuted based on the video. If commissions were doing thorough investigations, convictions based solely on the absolute insurers rule might not be as predictable as they are now.

[cj]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I think that was roughly my takeaway as well. Perhaps it wasn't his intent, but I replied to CJ with a thanks mainly because I thought that it added a little balance to some of the stereotype that gets bandied about whereby trainers always seem to come out smelling like roses and not getting days is a terrible punishment because you don't get to order pina coladas on the beach or however the rest of it goes. The system is imperfect in many ways and it seemed like a healthy acknowledgement that it can go both ways.

That was my intent actually

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by cj

???

Where did I say differently? I just don't see a reason to try to curtail knowledgeable guys from discussing something because you don't like the length.

You're able to decipher all that--from my short post? That's my take on the proceedings. I see no reason for you to try to curtail MY POSTS.

This site provides NO CONTENT--it's posters do. I've provided enough content...perhaps readers are more interested in other than Russel Westbrook or whatever CONTENT you've provided.

If you want to be the bully of the board--knock your self out. I don't appreciate being scolded for what was a light-hearted take on the thread.

And my "I already know how to read" comment...THAT went right over your head as well. THAT WAS FUNNY--to me. I shouldn't have to consider what you will decide after every post.

Later

[cj]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

You're able to decipher all that--from my short post? That's my take on the proceedings. I see no reason for you to try to curtail MY POSTS.

This site provides NO CONTENT--it's posters do. I've provided enough content...perhaps readers are more interested in other than Russel Westbrook or whatever CONTENT you've provided.

If you want to be the bully of the board--knock your self out. I don't appreciate being scolded for what was a light-hearted take on the thread.

And my "I already know how to read" comment...THAT went right over your head as well. THAT WAS FUNNY--to me. I shouldn't have to consider what you will decide after every post.

Later

Whatever man, that was like two days ago, time to move on.

[Spalding No!]

Since we are talking about things not mentioned or not fleshed out, lets start with the clenbuterol rule. You conveniently left out the date that NY changed the clenbuterol withdrawal time from 96 hours to 14 days. That was adopted in December 2012. At the time Maryland had not changed, but a year later they also adopted the 14 day withdrawal time. Same with Pennsylvania. 14 days. They've all been the same for the last four years.
Wasn’t the point. The point was to demonstrate that Trombetta most likely had used clenbuterol in the past. The blog was skewed towards Trombetta’s near aversion to the drug, what with his own quotes and those of his attending veterinarian. I was just offering some balance. The exact date of the rule change was irrelevant to that end.

Now it is possible that at one time Trombetta had used Clenbuterol, but it as long as we are speculating, Trombetta could have just as easily been referencing the fact that he could not send horses he had claimed to NY without first making sure those horses had not been given clenbuterol within the 14 day period. That would have been every trainer's concern if they were shipping to NY from MD or PA.
True. I’m sure his priority was worrying, not about his own horses, but horses he may or may not train in the future.

This is something I find disturbing. You pull a quote out of the air and use it to cast doubt on the trainer. That quote is proof of nothing unless you can put it into the correct context. It is certainly no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Trombetta and his experts.
Did it say it was. You are speculating why I “pulled it out of thin air”. By the way, it was published in the Daily Racing Form.

There you go again. Leak just enough information to make the trainer look like he could be a bad guy.
Leak information? You think too much of me. This info was readily at hand as it is public information accessible on the web via the Jockey Club. Anyone on this board has access if they were interested enough.

Let me fill in the blanks for you here. I found three violations for Trombetta since 2006. He had one for phenylbutazone at GP in June 2015, one for methylprednisolone at Parx in December 2010 and one for a cocaine metabolite at Philadelphia Park in August 2008. The first two are common therapeutic medications, and it is not uncommon to find violations.
You missed the one from the Pennsylvania Racing Commission in March of last year, just a few months before this incident. Again, public information readily available.

Trombetta was fined $750 and given no days for the cocaine violation, a suspiciously light amount for a Class 1 violation. It is the case that almost all the violations for cocaine and meth are suspected environmental contamination based on the levels of the metabolite. Not really the profile of the criminal of the century.
No one said he was a criminal, but multiple violations say something about barn management at the very least, no? You are way off base with your hyperbole, by the way. I simply was interested enough in the blog to try and balance what I thought was an obvious slant in the writing.

In fact, you ought to take a deep breath and re-read my conclusion again:

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.

I will say you have a dark heart. I, at least, think some of the trainers with horses that test positive are not guilty of actually dosing horses with illegal substances or illegal amounts. But let's for a minute go through where it all got farcical.
A little heavy handed here. Again, re-read the conclusion of my last post.

First, let me point out that there are a number of cases of cross contamination that have been documented. A groom rubs a treatment for bucked shins on a two year old, doesn't wash his hands, puts a bit into the mouth of another horse, and voila, we have a violation. A stable worker with a meth or coke habit can do the same thing.
Gee, who’s really to blame for letting any of that sloppiness perpetuate?

A horse that has been treated with any therapeutic can contaminate a stall, say in the detention barn, and cross contaminate the next occupant. So the potential for cross contamination is not wild speculation.
I guess one way to figure out if this occurred in this specific case is to see if there was another clenbuterol positive that afternoon at Laurel.

The lawyer suggested that the horse was contaminated between the end of the race and the time of the test. If there was suspicion that the horse was surreptitiously given clenbuterol before the race, it would have been up to the commission to introduce it.
Umm, no, the positive test itself serves as enough evidence. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the trainer is held responsible.

It seems as though you have a problem with the absolute insurer rule. That’s fine. But why don’t you just say that and direct your actions towards getting the rule change? Why wait for situations where you presume a trainer is innocent and then cry about the rule being unfair? Why do all these nice guy trainers wait until they get positives before they cry that the system is unfair? An ounce of prevention…

Of course, the absolute insurer rule has come under fire before, in several State Supreme Court cases and been found to not infringe on any constitutional rights. Furthermore, basis of the rule is three-fold: (1) a humanitarian interest in protecting the welfare of the horse, (2) protection of the betting patrons from being defrauded, and (3) protection of the revenue generated from taxing parimutual betting.

To quote one state’s Supreme Court ruling:

“The public is entitled to protection from the continuing danger that one who participates in drugging his horse will do so again, and that one who fails to protect his horse from drugging by others will repeat his negligence.”

Nice twist on the Scott Stanley quote.
In my opinion, the blogger twisted the quote.

Damn straight it backed the opinion of the lawyer. What he said was, and I'm interpreting for you, the horse had a small recent exposure or there isn't an explanation. You can argue about what "small" means, but sometime around race time the horse was exposed.
Yes, and the lawyer and the blogger tried to ram it home that the exposure had to have occurred after the race.

Again you speculate about a small tracheal injection and allude to studies. The obvious question is, are the levels measured post race from tracheal injection correlative to the levels found in Trombetta's horse, or are they correlative to environmental exposure?
Again, I didn’t speculate anything. I stated the reason why a two-pronged threshold has been implemented with regards to clenbuterol and it has to do with raceday administration. I mentioned one alleged route. The other point was that the lawyer’s theory of a post-race exposure was no more likely than a theory of pre-race exposure.

I know the popular opinion is that everyone cheats, and they are outsmarting the testers left and right, but offering speculation without detail is irresponsible.
Whatever. You are a speculating just as much (that something did not happen), and yet there is a positive finding in the horse’s blood.

Contemplate for a moment that Trombetta and his vet weren't lying. His guilt rested on a technicality that would never hold up in a real court. There was absolutely no proof he or any of his employees dosed the horse. The system needs to be adjusted to account for situations where the trainer didn't actually take an action that resulted in a positive.
Again, the absolute insurer rule has repeatedly been challenged in "real" court at the state Supreme Court level and has not been found to be unconstitutional save for a couple of instances that were eventually overturned.

I've long argued for full investigations. That would limit the speculative testimony. I've argued for video surveillance at all barns, so the tracheal injection theories could be confirmed or refuted based on the video. If commissions were doing thorough investigations, convictions based solely on the absolute insurers rule might not be as predictable as they are now.
I enjoy how all of the burden is placed on the regulators. Yes, one way for violations involving therapeutic medications is for the regulators to simply ignore positive findings if they can’t provide video footage or a used syringe to prove how the substance ended up in the horse.

Another way would be for the horsemen to actually be more diligent about protecting their horses (by rule in many states, an attendant is supposed to be with an entered horse at all times—yet this often doesn’t happen), more discerning with which of their horses need to be on medication in the first place, and perhaps also be “extremely selective” with what horses they enter to race…never mind ship to New York.

[ReplayRandall]

CJ, I've read the posts in this thread and have commented a few times to this almost unsolvable problem of drugs in the sport. If you disagree with me with what I comment, that's fine, but I feel you're starting to get a little heavy handed with your replies to Thask, NCG and others who don't agree with you........BTW, I don't appreciate you deleting my previous comment, I wasn't out of line in the slightest, just say whatever you're going to say in a REPLY....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Wasn’t the point. The point was to demonstrate that Trombetta most likely had used clenbuterol in the past. The blog was skewed towards Trombetta’s near aversion to the drug, what with his own quotes and those of his attending veterinarian. I was just offering some balance. The exact date of the rule change was irrelevant to that end.

Where do you come up with most likely, especially in the more recent past? And what relevance would it be if Trombetta used Clenbuterol 10 years ago? If we take Trombetta and his vet at their words, at some point they did make the decision to not use clenbuterol as a therapeutic, but there is nothing in that quote that confirms or refutes that the decision was made after NY changed the withdrawal time. I mean, that is my issue with you. You might think you are offering balance, but you cast an aspersion on Trombetta with nothing but a speculative interpretation of his statement that he needed to be cautious about sending horses to NY.


True. I’m sure his priority was worrying, not about his own horses, but horses he may or may not train in the future.

You truly have a gift in two parts. You have great believe in your own omniscience, meaning you always get the interpretation of an ambiguous statement right. And a smugness that complements it, meaning reasonable alternative explanations must be wrong.

Did it say it was. You are speculating why I “pulled it out of thin air”. By the way, it was published in the Daily Racing Form.

I have no doubt the quote is real. And I have no doubt Trombetta was concerned about the problems of shipping between jurisdictions with different medication standards. My point is you took a quote, didn't give it context, and made a conclusion that wasn't definitive based on the quote. Claiming trainers always run the risk of inheriting another trainer's problems.

Leak information? You think too much of me. This info was readily at hand as it is public information accessible on the web via the Jockey Club. Anyone on this board has access if they were interested enough.

Leak in this case was meant to indicate "trickle out" as in provide incomplete information. It was important information to state the violations. What you can see is no pattern, and two overages for commonly used legal therapeutics in 10 years is hardly proof of a serial abuser. The cocaine violation would be of much greater concern if it hadn't manifested as likely environmental contamination.


You missed the one from the Pennsylvania Racing Commission in March of last year, just a few months before this incident. Again, public information readily available.

The Jockey Club/ARCI database of thoroughbred rulings does not show a violation for Trombetta in March of 2016. www.thoroughbredrulings.com I checked again tonight. Not there. There was a violation for phenylbutazone at GP in June 2015. The latest violation is not yet posted.

No one said he was a criminal, but multiple violations say something about barn management at the very least, no? You are way off base with your hyperbole, by the way. I simply was interested enough in the blog to try and balance what I thought was an obvious slant in the writing.

Multiple violations? Two therapeutics in 10 years and a probable environmental contamination? What is says about barn management is that he is very good. Most trainers rely on the vet to administer all medications. If you want to speculate, it is more likely the vet screwed up than Trombetta mismanaged. At the very least the person writing the article reported on what was said. You threw crap at Trombetta and hoped some of it stuck. As a journalist, you wouldn't last long.

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.

Where you miss the boat is that the lawyer's explanation seems to be the most likely explanation. Scott Stanley bought it. His vet bought it. The racing commission bought it. Just because an article points in one direction doesn't make it slanted if it based on the facts. The world is round, and if you don't believe that you don't have an "alternate opinion." You're wrong. You didn't document that Trombetta was using clenbuterol through some known year. You didn't offer any proof for the clenbuterol in the throat offering. The slant is entirely yours.

Gee, who’s really to blame for letting any of that sloppiness perpetuate?

The point here is subtle. You can't keep your eye on everyone every minute. Slopiness is a little harsh. There is a difference between environmental contamination and the EC levels, and actual cheating to gain an edge. I wouldn't argue against punishment, but it should be tempered by the circumstances.

I guess one way to figure out if this occurred in this specific case is to see if there was another clenbuterol positive that afternoon at Laurel.

Bingo. Do a little investigating.


Umm, no, the positive test itself serves as enough evidence. In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the trainer is held responsible.

If you've read my stuff, believe me I know the absolute insurer's rule. I do have a problem with it, and I've never made a secret of that. At the very least, tampering that can be shown to be not the result of anything the trainer or his employees did should be excused (as it is in NY). You'd also know that stopping at the positive is often not going to be in the best interests of racing. You're messing with a person's livelihood. He should at the very least deserve the punishment. Say everybody believes Trombetta and his employees were completely innocent of the violation. He still gets punished because of the absolute insurers rule. If you were accused of malpractice and the proof was something you didn't do, I'm not sure you'd just pay the fine.

Of course, the absolute insurer rule has come under fire before, in several State Supreme Court cases and been found to not infringe on any constitutional rights. Furthermore, basis of the rule is three-fold: (1) a humanitarian interest in protecting the welfare of the horse, (2) protection of the betting patrons from being defrauded, and (3) protection of the revenue generated from taxing parimutual betting.

To quote one state’s Supreme Court ruling:

“The public is entitled to protection from the continuing danger that one who participates in drugging his horse will do so again, and that one who fails to protect his horse from drugging by others will repeat his negligence.”

I've read the cases. I know the rationale for the rule. It needs fixing, not by the courts but by the racing commissions. Notice I didn't say repeal. Just fixing.

In my opinion, the blogger twisted the quote.

Agree to disagree on that one.

Yes, and the lawyer and the blogger tried to ram it home that the exposure had to have occurred after the race.

It had to have been close. But I would agree this was definitely speculative.

Again, I didn’t speculate anything. I stated the reason why a two-pronged threshold has been implemented with regards to clenbuterol and it has to do with raceday administration. I mentioned one alleged route. The other point was that the lawyer’s theory of a post-race exposure was no more likely than a theory of pre-race exposure.

Speculate is the right word. I'd love to hear the explanation for why the urine was lower than the plasma.


Whatever. You are a speculating just as much (that something did not happen), and yet there is a positive finding in the horse’s blood.

Here is the difference. You have actual proof - the concentrations - that lead to a conclusion. That is not speculation. That is science. If I see a concentration of a metabolite in the horse, I have a pretty good idea when that horse could have been dosed, if at all. You totally glossed over my point which was that if there was a tracheal injection, the concentrations would have confirmed it was either probable or not probable. The tracheal injection was put speculation in the absence of correlating it to the concentration. That is the element that the racing commissions pass over. How did the result actually occur.


Again, the absolute insurer rule has repeatedly been challenged in "real" court at the state Supreme Court level and has not been found to be unconstitutional save for a couple of instances that were eventually overturned.

Agreed, but it has been modified so that in NY Trombetta might not have been found guilty. I can live with that change in other jurisdictions. The dogmatic application of a rule that should be revisited is irresponsible.

I enjoy how all of the burden is placed on the regulators. Yes, one way for violations involving therapeutic medications is for the regulators to simply ignore positive findings if they can’t provide video footage or a used syringe to prove how the substance ended up in the horse.

Never said that. I said catch them in the act with simple surveillance. If I'm reading your paragraph correctly, it is screw the cheating trainers and throw the book at them after a positive. Me, I'd like to see some investigation and some explanation. And as I've said on multiple occasions, preventing a violation from happening is infinitely more in the interests of racing than catching someone after the official sign has gone up. Talk about hyperbole and misquotes.

Another way would be for the horsemen to actually be more diligent about protecting their horses (by rule in many states, an attendant is supposed to be with an entered horse at all times—yet this often doesn’t happen), more discerning with which of their horses need to be on medication in the first place, and perhaps also be “extremely selective” with what horses they enter to race…never mind ship to New York.

I will never suggest that justice has to involve a lack of diligence. Frankly, if jurisdictions want to ban stanozolol, clenbuterol, Lasix and everything else, fine. Just have a fair system of meting out justice. If you read my stuff I never argue about legal/illegal in terms of medication. I just say, if it is legal, then lets make sure we treat trainers who use it as intended fairly. And if you set standards, make them fair and based on good science.

[Fager Fan]

This is all nonsense. You're not supposed to pick and choose which guys you want to punish.

So what if it was an odd test result? Horses don't all react and/or metabolize the same, right? Didn't we learn that with Ellis? If you somehow didn't know that before?

You want to take someone at their word. Then take everyone at their word, and you may as well quit testing.

Contamination somewhere between the finish line and the test barn my foot. How the hell are you imagining that happened?

[cj]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

CJ, I've read the posts in this thread and have commented a few times to this almost unsolvable problem of drugs in the sport. If you disagree with me with what I comment, that's fine, but I feel you're starting to get a little heavy handed with your replies to Thask, NCG and others who don't agree with you........BTW, I don't appreciate you deleting my previous comment, I wasn't out of line in the slightest, just say whatever you're going to say in a REPLY....

I've said many times that the quickest way threads go bust is by having people try to play moderator. That is why I commented to Greg. Seeing how that went over, I just figured it better to delete your post which did the same thing. There was nothing more to it. I don't have any problem with you or Greg.

I have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Thaskalos. If I offended him he'd be the first to let me know, and nobody but the two of us would know most likely.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

This is all nonsense. You're not supposed to pick and choose which guys you want to punish.

So what if it was an odd test result? Horses don't all react and/or metabolize the same, right? Didn't we learn that with Ellis? If you somehow didn't know that before?

You want to take someone at their word. Then take everyone at their word, and you may as well quit testing.

Contamination somewhere between the finish line and the test barn my foot. How the hell are you imagining that happened?

You're totally missing the boat. This isn't about picking and choosing. This isn't about taking everyone at their word. It's about making sure that when you punish someone you have a good level of certainty that they created the overage. The difference with Ellis is that he clearly created the overage.

I've simply argued that if you demonstrate the trainer or his workers are not responsible for the overage, he falls into a different category than a trainer who created the overage. Essentially, the NY version of the absolute insurers rule. I've argued that you do full investigations for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to figure out how the horse got the substance in its blood. In the case of Ellis, we know how that happened. In the case of Trombetta, we're not so sure.

I'm not saying there is clear proof that cross-contamination occurred, but cross-contamination happens more often than you'd think. You get urine splash from a horse with clenbuterol in its system, the next horse eats some of the contaminated hay, you get a positive. Studies have been done to show that contaminated stalls can remain contaminated even after cleaning. But that's why you do an investigation.

In the real world there is a presumption of innocence. In horse racing it is the opposite. But in either case you don't want to punish the innocent. The long argument about Ellis was about whether the metabolite of stanozolol actually affected the horse during the race. That is a different issue than whether he gave the horse stanozolol. Ellis was always guilty. I just didn't think anyone got cheated in the race.

[cj]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

In the real world there is a presumption of innocence. In horse racing it is the opposite. But in either case you don't want to punish the innocent. The long argument about Ellis was about whether the metabolite of stanozolol actually affected the horse during the race. That is a different issue than whether he gave the horse stanozolol. Ellis was always guilty. I just didn't think anyone got cheated in the race.

Treating horse racing with a presumption of innocence would be a disaster for the sport. Innocent can actually be guilty by a lack of due diligence. That can't be allowed, ever.

As for Ellis he used a legal drug to try to get an edge and overdid it. Until this kind of drug is banned, others will try too. It can't be banned soon enough for me.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by cj

Treating horse racing with a presumption of innocence would be a disaster for the sport. Innocent can actually be guilty by a lack of due diligence. That can't be allowed, ever.

As for Ellis he used a legal drug to try to get an edge and overdid it. Until this kind of drug is banned, others will try too. It can't be banned soon enough for me.

I tried wording that carefully. I noted horse racing starts with a presumption of guilt, but I didn't say it should have a presumption of innocence. Rather I simply said whichever way you go, we shouldn't punish the innocent (of which Ron Ellis wasn't one).

I'm ok making lack of due diligence relevant in deciding guilt. Where I've separated is in a few areas.

- When the trainer and his workers do everything "right" and everyone agrees he did everything right, that should be in a different category of adjudication. Regardless of the absolute trainer's rule, if someone spiked your horse and you had video and other evidence to prove it wasn't you or your workers, shouldn't you get off? Not according to the absolute insurers rule, except in NY.

- The standards need to be set fairly and using good science. That is not the case for all the standards. If you want the definitive example, Princess of Sylmar in the Delaware Cap. Don't believe that was an aberration.

- There needs to be consideration for finding levels of the a legal medication that have no impact on a horse's performance. That doesn't mean excuse from guilt, but it means the players weren't cheated. Too many of the standards are set not based on the levels that would indicate performance enhancement, but based on the expectation of where that level should be either naturally or after a certain withdrawal period. For example, a horse given lasix is expected not to have more than 37 mml/L of TCO2. But at 37.5 does the performance enhancing effect kick in? 39? 42? Shouldn't that be taken into account as part of the standard? Even the major sports have deminimis levels for illegal drugs, not zero tolerance. In the case of Ellis, I might have said guilty with a fine, loss of the trainer bonus, but no loss of purse to the owner since I believe expert testimony would have confirmed the residual metabolite did not affect performance, and use of stanozolol was legal.

- There needs to be consideration of environmental contamination. This is getting to be a big deal. There are too many people and too many places where a horse can get contaminated. Even if you control your barn well, there are plenty of other places to get an accidental dose.

- There needs to be better investigation. Trombetta claims environmental contamination. There should have been some sort of looking into that to determine if Trombetta's claim could be upheld.

The one place where regular courts have a presumption of guilt is drugs/alcohol, but even those areas have diminimis levels. If you are driving and you blow below 0.08, you don't get a DUI. Why is horse racing not similar?

This is not a black and white issue for me. We haven't visited the absolute insurers rule in 90 years. It's about time.