Cheating in Racing Today

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Yeah, it's a cesspool of illegal drugs out there. You're preaching to the converted here on PA. They already knew the sport was rife with cheating trainers. It's a vast conspiracy to cheat. It's great there is someone here like you who can whip up the crowd with nothing but speculation and an article that doesn't document use.

I understand you want to wave off violations and illegal activity that don't involve PEDs, but abuse of even "harmless" substances still comes under the blanket of "cheating". If you want to focus on the big guns then that's your prerogative, but that doesn't mean the backstretch culture in regards to all medications is on the up and up.

I did an article about Roy Sedlacek in which I criticized the RMTC for not doing more testing on supplements. Their response? Too many supplements, not enough money for testing.

What's so hard to stomach about that? Why does the onus of determining if a supplement is on the level fall at the feet of the RMTC? Of course they will prioritize with a limited budget.

But that shouldn't stop a trainer who wants to use a supplement from getting it tested on his own accord. There are plenty of laboratories out there...and they're not even clandestine...

I keep saying you're smart enough to know this, although I'm starting to wonder, but supplements are not regulated by the FDA in the same way conventional food and drugs are. This not only means the contents are not regulated, but they can vary from batch to batch.

That was exactly my point. Unscrupulous producers exploit these distinctions in order to circumvent the strict rules on controlled substances. If you don't believe me or need more proof, just take a gander at the Department of Justice or the FDA websites.

Right. They are clueless. Keep believing that. It fits your narrative - they are getting fooled and they don't know what to look for.

Easier said than done. "Widely variable structures"-- even if they can figured out ahead of time, tax already limited resources.

From the FDA:

From the laboratory perspective, the steroid analysis is complicated due to the vast array of known steroids (over 7,000), which are all variations of the same basic steroid chemical “skeleton.” These variations are caused by the locations and numbers of substituent and double bonds. As a result, while determining the molecular weight may be a useful first step toward identifying a chemical compound, there could be twenty steroids with the same molecular weight, each representing a unique chemical compound. Differences in stereochemistry further complicate the challenges faced by the laboratory. There are so many different steroid compounds that in many instances reference standards, which are needed for the laboratory to conclusively identify the chemical, are not available. In these situations the laboratory’s only option is to have the compound custom-made at a cost that is frequently prohibitive.

And we're only talking about steroids here...

Don't forget that aliens might be stopping by earth dropping them off. No proof of that you say? We don't need no stinking proof.

Yep, November 2015:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in partnership with other government agencies, today announced the results of a yearlong sweep of dietary supplements to identify potentially unsafe or tainted supplements. The sweep resulted in civil injunctions and criminal actions against 117 various manufacturers and/or distributors of dietary supplements and tainted products falsely marketed as dietary supplements.

The FDA continues to warn consumers about the risks associated with some over-the-counter products, falsely marketed as dietary supplements, which contain hidden active ingredients that could be harmful. In the last year, the agency has warned of more than 100 products found to contain hidden active ingredients. These products are most frequently marketed for sexual enhancement, weight loss and body building.

Remember, FDA cannot test all products on the market that contain potentially harmful hidden ingredients. Enforcement actions and consumer advisories for tainted products only cover a small fraction of the tainted over-the-counter products on the market.

I'm telling you it is your wild speculation.

Yep.

No, I'll take a trainer getting caught with a supplement containing an illegal substance. Obviously you wouldn't test for a substance nobody is using, and when EPO, demorphin and cobalt were found to be in use there were studies and testing developed. Find me a supplement that trainers are using and where their horses are showing measurable improvement, and the same thing will happen. Your hypothesis seems to be there are supplements that contain substances that we can't test for because we don't know what they are. You pretty much can't lose with that logic. Oh, they're using the juice but we don't know what it is, where it comes from, or how to test for it. No wonder you feel so righteous.

I don't understand your logic. What were you saying before tests were developed for EPO, dermorphin, and cobalt? That they didn't exist? That they weren't being used? You're simply talking in circles demanding us to solve a double bind.

Missed my point. You deliberately misled people by inferring females don't have natural levels of testosterone. And the people here are not likely to know that females have natural testosterone levels.

I didn't miss your point. You were simply being disingenuous. Whether or not fillies produce low levels of endogenous testosterone is irrelevant. The horses had overages of testosterone. That means in all likelihood, the horses received exogenous testosterone.

All people need to know to realize the situation was an instance of "cheating" (intentional or otherwise) is the difference between endogenous (from within) and exogenous (from without).

I never disagreed with the fact that EPO is illegal, and I've pointed out the down side of using it on multiple occasions. I was basically just saying that since Fager Fan thinks you are an expert, just let him know it doesn't work and the side effects are not worth taking a chance.

This is disingenuous, too. What, because it doesn't make sense in your mind to use EPO, that no one else is willing to try? Sorry, but EPO was a real problem a few years back. Maybe it isn't now, but does that mean regulators should stop testing for it? More double binds and catch-22s from you.

Way to misquote me. The supplement is not illegal to use per se. What that means is that FDA doesn't test supplements. It is up to the manufacturer to essentially self-certify. Learn your federal law.

Back-pedal much? In your haste to be lead apologist for all positive tests, you simply made a blanket statement that ignored the fact that federal law supersedes any regulation a horse racing commission might have in place. I simply pointed out this reality because you tend to pigeon-hole these discussions with the goal posts inches apart rather than keeping your perspective on the bigger picture.

Naturally, over in your world these companies have no problem taking a chance at putting themselves out of business and risking prison by adding controlled substances to supplements.

See above for 117 non-speculative instances.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I understand you want to wave off violations and illegal activity that don't involve PEDs, but abuse of even "harmless" substances still comes under the blanket of "cheating". If you want to focus on the big guns then that's your prerogative, but that doesn't mean the backstretch culture in regards to all medications is on the up and up.

From a personal perspective, I think some supplements are useful. I had a dog with joint issues, and his quality of life improved on glucosamine. I don't have any problem at all if a trainer uses feed with glucosamine. It's not a masking agent. I don't have a problem with vitamin supplements. I don't have a problem with balancing minerals in horses that are off. It improves their health, and that is a good thing. If we separate at that point, agree to disagree.

What's so hard to stomach about that? Why does the onus of determining if a supplement is on the level fall at the feet of the RMTC? Of course they will prioritize with a limited budget.

I have made the point we need to find problems before the tote is official. If supplements are adding to those problems, racing has a responsibility to deal with that. Nice of you to let RMTC off the hook. I think they should be more aggressive about testing supplements, and if that means more money, racing should work to find ways of doing that testing.

But that shouldn't stop a trainer who wants to use a supplement from getting it tested on his own accord. There are plenty of laboratories out there...and they're not even clandestine...

That's the answer. Racing should abdicate its responsibility to the trainers. And when the trainer has a test that shows the supplement he tested was clean, you know what that wins him if he gets a positive? A fine and a suspension.

I don't understand your logic. What were you saying before tests were developed for EPO, dermorphin, and cobalt? That they didn't exist? That they weren't being used? You're simply talking in circles demanding us to solve a double bind.

What I said was when racing authorities found that trainers were using EPO, demorphin, and cobalt, they did studies and developed tests. What was so hard to follow about that? First EPO, then study, then test. Read it again. It still says that. You need to have substance, trainers need to be using the substance to enhance performance, then someone does a study on the substance, then they develop a test to detect the substance, unless of course the test already existed.

I didn't miss your point. You were simply being disingenuous. Whether or not fillies produce low levels of endogenous testosterone is irrelevant. The horses had overages of testosterone. That means in all likelihood, the horses received exogenous testosterone.

All people need to know to realize the situation was an instance of "cheating" (intentional or otherwise) is the difference between endogenous (from within) and exogenous (from without).

No, you were disingenuous when you inferred fillies don't have natural levels of testosterone. We both agreed from the get go that above a certain concentration the horse was juiced. I never disagreed the trainer cheated. Perhaps that was a little too subtle for you to get.


This is disingenuous, too. What, because it doesn't make sense in your mind to use EPO, that no one else is willing to try? Sorry, but EPO was a real problem a few years back. Maybe it isn't now, but does that mean regulators should stop testing for it? More double binds and catch-22s from you.

Seriously. WTF are you talking about? You probably missed it, but there have been a few threads where I have talked about EPO. The equine spleen. The very small likelihood that EPO has any effect on horses. The problems of too many red blood cells. The 5,000 tests CA has done where they haven't found EPO use. Where did I ever say they should discontinue testing? All I said is exactly the facts. It's not effective as a PED in most horses and they aren't finding it anymore.

Back-pedal much? In your haste to be lead apologist for all positive tests, you simply made a blanket statement that ignored the fact that federal law supersedes any regulation a horse racing commission might have in place. I simply pointed out this reality because you tend to pigeon-hole these discussions with the goal posts inches apart rather than keeping your perspective on the bigger picture.

Hard to talk with someone who makes up facts. I've never been an apologist for all positive tests. You on the other hand are happy to indict what seems to be the vast majority of trainers with no more proof than what comes out of your brain. Read my stuff. I defended no trainer arbitrarily. I do the job the apologists for incompetent racing authorities and half-assed standard setters don't do. I keep them honest. I've been unequivocal. Cheat and get caught, I have no sympathy for the punishment. But I'm going to push back against the cheap-shot artists like you who seem to think killing the patient is the only way to make him survive. You have the ear of most here because you are expressing the popular speculation. And while I've been tagged as an apologist, it doesn't bother me because what I want is scientifically defensible standards that are enforced fairly, where there is due process, and where there are thorough and fair investigations. I don't want to see the truly guilty go free. I want to see trainers who do everything they can to follow the rules treated fairly. I want to see racing do more to stop violations from happening in the first place instead of focusing all their enforcement on post-race analysis. Racing is only clean when the number of post race positives approaches zero and substances being used pre-race are either fully therapeutic or not performance enhancing. I've got nothing to apologize for, and those who know my work know that I stand for clean racing.

See above for 117 non-speculative instances.

[Spalding No!]

From a personal perspective, I think some supplements are useful. I had a dog with joint issues, and his quality of life improved on glucosamine. I don't have any problem at all if a trainer uses feed with glucosamine. It's not a masking agent. I don't have a problem with vitamin supplements. I don't have a problem with balancing minerals in horses that are off. It improves their health, and that is a good thing.
This is not the issue at hand. This thread is in response to the article about a presumed cheating culture in racing. The author laid out a spectrum of alleged cheating that on one end, involves what some may call petty infractions involving additional race day treatments that are administered along with lasix. On the other end was the alleged high-end cheating involving PEDs.

At no point have I suggested that therapeutic drugs be eliminated from racing. But again, that is not to say that all use of therapeutic drugs is legal or appropriate. The infractions I mentioned contribute dramatically to public perception about cheating in horse racing.

Furthermore, if I have focused on supplements, it has been in response to your demand for proof that designer PEDs exist at all. Supplements are certainly not the only source of potential PEDs.

I have made the point we need to find problems before the tote is official. If supplements are adding to those problems, racing has a responsibility to deal with that. Nice of you to let RMTC off the hook. I think they should be more aggressive about testing supplements, and if that means more money, racing should work to find ways of doing that testing.
I guess in an ideal world with unlimited budgets and readily-available resources and trained staff, the RMTC can commit to testing every single product available that a trainer may choose to experiment with. But I'm sure you can see how unrealistic this really is. Does that mean racing should give up trying to implement a testing program to identify and deter cheating?

That's the answer. Racing should abdicate its responsibility to the trainers. And when the trainer has a test that shows the supplement he tested was clean, you know what that wins him if he gets a positive? A fine and a suspension.
News flash. If the pre-entry testing was cleared by the racing commission and the horse subsequently tested positive in a race, the trainer would still be fined and suspended. There is no guarantee either way.

What I said was when racing authorities found that trainers were using EPO, demorphin, and cobalt, they did studies and developed tests. What was so hard to follow about that? First EPO, then study, then test. Read it again. It still says that. You need to have substance, trainers need to be using the substance to enhance performance, then someone does a study on the substance, then they develop a test to detect the substance, unless of course the test already existed.
What you are pushing for is passive surveillance rather than active surveillance. Regulators should wait until a substance is handed to them, confirm it is being used, is being used illegally, and is providing an edge before they will take an appropriate steps to control it. I would agree that sometimes that's all that can be done. But you are ignoring the huge window of use and abuse that went on before the substance became detectable. And you are essentially declaring that this window of use is not illegal.

It is not rational.

No, you were disingenuous when you inferred fillies don't have natural levels of testosterone. We both agreed from the get go that above a certain concentration the horse was juiced. I never disagreed the trainer cheated. Perhaps that was a little too subtle for you to get.
I never inferred anything. Its a detail I ignored, because once again, it is irrelevant. The point of bringing up the case was that it was an instance of cheating plain and simple. You were just bogging it down because your focusing on trees and not the forest. It was a simple overage case...pretend that it was a banamine overage if it helps you.

Seriously. WTF are you talking about? You probably missed it, but there have been a few threads where I have talked about EPO. The equine spleen. The very small likelihood that EPO has any effect on horses. The problems of too many red blood cells. The 5,000 tests CA has done where they haven't found EPO use. Where did I ever say they should discontinue testing? All I said is exactly the facts. It's not effective as a PED in most horses and they aren't finding it anymore.
More of the same. No one cares about the physiology or the pharmacokinetics. The substance is banned, therefore it is illegal to use. And you did declare that OOC testing was "a waste of money".

But I'm going to push back against the cheap-shot artists like you who seem to think killing the patient is the only way to make him survive. You have the ear of most here because you are expressing the popular speculation.
No one here has responded to my posts beyond Ruffian's comment about breaking the 24-hour rule, which was one of the highlights of the original article. I'm not bringing much original material into the discussion. In fact, I have only challenged the things you say in a blanket fashion. I am merely filling the gaps that you conveniently ignore. Most of my contradictions of your statements were readily available with a simple internet search.

I want to see racing do more to stop violations from happening in the first place instead of focusing all their enforcement on post-race analysis. Racing is only clean when the number of post race positives approaches zero and substances being used pre-race are either fully therapeutic or not performance enhancing. I've got nothing to apologize for, and those who know my work know that I stand for clean racing.

To here you tell it, racing is already clean and regulators should rest on their laurels and presume all violations are the fault of the thresholds in place.

[NorCalGreg]

War of the words? Biggest, longest post wins?

I declare it a draw

[cj]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

War of the words? Biggest, longest post wins?

I declare it a draw

You should read them. You could learn something.

[mountainman]

Here's a curveball for you guys: lots of owners get into the game fully expecting some secret decoder ring for setups and fixed races.


Aside from photo ops, heavy petting sessions, a turn in the spotlight, and pipe dreams of profits, many had fetid dreams of membership in some super-secret, graveyard-at midnite "insider's club" that simply doesn't exist.

So don't use too broad a brush in painting t-bred owners as altruistic and pure of heart.

And I've known hundreds of owners.

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by cj

You should read them. You could learn something.

I already know how to read

[cj]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

I already know how to read

???

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.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

War of the words? Biggest, longest post wins?

I declare it a draw

You might be on to something. Frankly it's devolved into, You said this, no I didn't. I think someone needs to watch the watchers, and apparently it is me. If anyone wants to know why, review the Princess of Sylmar case from the 2014 Delaware Cap. Innocent people go to jail. It isn't that hard to believe trainers were treated poorly. I just want racing to get it right on both ends.

[NorCalGreg]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

You might be on to something. Frankly it's devolved into, You said this, no I didn't. I think someone needs to watch the watchers, and apparently it is me. If anyone wants to know why, review the Princess of Sylmar case from the 2014 Delaware Cap. Innocent people go to jail. It isn't that hard to believe trainers were treated poorly. I just want racing to get it right on both ends.

I more enjoy your articles in the Handicapper's Monthly--personally.

But please continue

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by cj

You should read them. You could learn something.

Yep. Whether these two posters agree with one another or not, they both are passionate about their position and are presenting their opinions very open and articulately. It's been a great thread.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Here's a curveball for you guys: lots of owners get into the game fully expecting some secret decoder ring for setups and fixed races.


Aside from photo ops, heavy petting sessions, a turn in the spotlight, and pipe dreams of profits, many had fetid dreams of membership in some super-secret, graveyard-at midnite "insider's club" that simply doesn't exist.

So don't use too broad a brush in painting t-bred owners as altruistic and pure of heart.

And I've known hundreds of owners.

That's exactly why my father-in-law wanted to buy a horse in the late 1980's. He was excited about the access to the backstretch and to the movers and shakers that would open up their minds to us on a daily basis. Anyway, he and my brother-in-law (his son) went 50/50% on a cheap 3yo filly at Longacres in '87 or '88, spent a lot of money getting her ready for her debut, she ran up the track in a very non-competitive first out, was informed the next day by their trainer that he had drummed up some interest from some other mover and shaker, and sold her the day after that for $800, losing $1000s over a 9 month ownership adventure that netted them exactly ZERO connections or "secrets" of any value.The best tip we ever got from anybody was, "my horse is ready and is training as well as he's ever trained". We got that same tip about 60 times from 40 or 50 different trainers/owners/friends of owners/backstretch sharpies.

My father-in-law was very disappointed and years later, when I was finally in a financial condition where I could join some kind of ownership group or syndicate, he had absolutely no interest in taking part with me in finding another horse to own. That's as close as I've ever been to being "backstretch connected", and frankly, I'm glad my efforts and energy have gone into being the best handicapper I can be rather than a bottom end owner. I still have interest in owning one day, but don't reasonably see it happening as things now stand.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

That's exactly why my father-in-law wanted to buy a horse in the late 1980's. He was excited about the access to the backstretch and to the movers and shakers that would open up their minds to us on a daily basis. Anyway, he and my brother-in-law (his son) went 50/50% on a cheap 3yo filly at Longacres in '87 or '88, spent a lot of money getting her ready for her debut, she ran up the track in a very non-competitive first out, was informed the next day by their trainer that he had drummed up some interest from some other mover and shaker, and sold her the day after that for $800, losing $1000s over a 9 month ownership adventure that netted them exactly ZERO connections or "secrets" of any value.The best tip we ever got from anybody was, "my horse is ready and is training as well as he's ever trained". We got that same tip about 60 times from 40 or 50 different trainers/owners/friends of owners/backstretch sharpies.

My father-in-law was very disappointed and years later, when I was finally in a financial condition where I could join some kind of ownership group or syndicate, he had absolutely no interest in taking part with me in finding another horse to own. That's as close as I've ever been to being "backstretch connected", and frankly, I'm glad my efforts and energy have gone into being the best handicapper I can be rather than a bottom end owner. I still have interest in owning one day, but don't reasonably see it happening as things now stand.

lol....love it

[EasyGoer89]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

That's exactly why my father-in-law wanted to buy a horse in the late 1980's. He was excited about the access to the backstretch and to the movers and shakers that would open up their minds to us on a daily basis. Anyway, he and my brother-in-law (his son) went 50/50% on a cheap 3yo filly at Longacres in '87 or '88, spent a lot of money getting her ready for her debut, she ran up the track in a very non-competitive first out, was informed the next day by their trainer that he had drummed up some interest from some other mover and shaker, and sold her the day after that for $800, losing $1000s over a 9 month ownership adventure that netted them exactly ZERO connections or "secrets" of any value.The best tip we ever got from anybody was, "my horse is ready and is training as well as he's ever trained". We got that same tip about 60 times from 40 or 50 different trainers/owners/friends of owners/backstretch sharpies.

My father-in-law was very disappointed and years later, when I was finally in a financial condition where I could join some kind of ownership group or syndicate, he had absolutely no interest in taking part with me in finding another horse to own. That's as close as I've ever been to being "backstretch connected", and frankly, I'm glad my efforts and energy have gone into being the best handicapper I can be rather than a bottom end owner. I still have interest in owning one day, but don't reasonably see it happening as things now stand.

Everyone 'loves' everyone 'likes' it's the 'he won't hit the board today's'that can get u the money, that kind of info is as rare as the hope diamond.

I would say personally after decades spent around racetracks the 'likes' outnumber the 'dislikes' 1000-1.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by ultracapper

That's exactly why my father-in-law wanted to buy a horse in the late 1980's. He was excited about the access to the backstretch and to the movers and shakers that would open up their minds to us on a daily basis. Anyway, he and my brother-in-law (his son) went 50/50% on a cheap 3yo filly at Longacres in '87 or '88, spent a lot of money getting her ready for her debut, she ran up the track in a very non-competitive first out, was informed the next day by their trainer that he had drummed up some interest from some other mover and shaker, and sold her the day after that for $800, losing $1000s over a 9 month ownership adventure that netted them exactly ZERO connections or "secrets" of any value.The best tip we ever got from anybody was, "my horse is ready and is training as well as he's ever trained". We got that same tip about 60 times from 40 or 50 different trainers/owners/friends of owners/backstretch sharpies.

My father-in-law was very disappointed and years later, when I was finally in a financial condition where I could join some kind of ownership group or syndicate, he had absolutely no interest in taking part with me in finding another horse to own. That's as close as I've ever been to being "backstretch connected", and frankly, I'm glad my efforts and energy have gone into being the best handicapper I can be rather than a bottom end owner. I still have interest in owning one day, but don't reasonably see it happening as things now stand.

most of the time the backstretch knows less about how their horses will run than you do.

one of the biggest edges are with the vets when they tap horses. they know if the horse is responding and doing better after they injected them. the other edges that i know about is the barn knows when a horse is attacking his feed tub as opposed to being a poor or mediocre eater. good exercise riders know how the horse feels underneath him and can judge from one day to the other. there are lots of other things but none as big as these.