i told you guys Paulick is sharp

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by Mineshaft

It don't matter to me what trainer is in the race I bet accordingly. Super trainer or not, it does not interfere with my betting.


And if nobody cheated the clueless still would not win there share. There are some clueless trainers out there you just have to know who they are and how they operate. Some of these trainers send the horse out to gallop every day and then work on Saturday. Some trainers don't feed alfalfa. Some trainers just enter the horse and don't care what kind of race it is.

The clue-D need the clue-less in order to survive...if the clueless all leave the game, the game suffers. People have a right to enjoy this game, as clueless as they are, having a clue isnt a prerequisite to be a participant.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

You could make any horse ineligible who has had a trainer transfer (that was not via claim) in the last month or two. Problem solved?

You could also make any owner ineligible who has won X percent...that way, they would have to be doing all sorts of shenanigans to get into the very small percentage of races that i would write as "under 20% only". Im not saying write half the races, i'm saying write one race a night or one race every 2 nights that's not eligible to the cheaters...unless you want more, i can see what i can do!

You're talking to someone that tends to think that the simpler the rule, the better and the more you go to patching layer upon layer, the harder it becomes to enforce and the farther you get away from the actual solution. I suppose that if you excluded transferred horses, you would eliminate some of what I alluded to, but you'd also eliminate a fair amount of legitimate entrants at a lot of tracks. At a long term meet, like a Turf Paradise or Los Al, if you wrote them from mid-meet to the end as you intend, I guess it could at least conceivably work. I'll give you that. I'm not so sure that it would work very well at the start of any meet nor at a shorter meet without causing other problems (which I don't feel like enumerating at the moment, but I'm thinking that you are probably sharp enough to envision what I'm getting at.)

Anyway, I'm all for creativity out of necessity, including the book if need be. I'm not sold on this idea, but at least it recognizes a problem - which is step one to addressing it.

[olddaddy]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

They write into the conditions of some claiming races "winners of a race in the last 1 year, ineligible" so, in other words, they give horses who don't win a better shot to win and not stick them with hard knocking claimers who won tons of races. They need to do this with trainers, if you win 20 percent, they need to write some races where these trainers are not eligible. Not all, just a few, to give the smaller barns a shot, the smaller barns need a shot to stay afloat, we need the smaller owners to stay in the game, they need to write races so that certain trainers don't win every dollar there is to win.

Im sorry my post was a response to the poster above you, not to your idea.

[Not4Love]

Trainers who don't win????? Jayne Vaders, Jane Cibelli, Mark shuman, Patrick Biancone, Ed Auwater. You get the idea. They got caught and they are useless.

You want low percentage trainers? Allen Jerkens, Jack VanBerg, Ron McAnaly. Hall of Famers that cant win becausse they don't cheat.

Originally Posted by Mineshaft

Trainers who don't win, usually theres a reason they don't win. I can point out 30 trainers down here who don't have a freakin clue what a horse is yet they have a license. And you want the racing secretary to write them a race? Makes no sense.

[Track Phantom]

The drug race is a competition between the trainers/owners/vets who are in an Indy Formula One race car and the oversight commitee who are teamed up in a Flintstone buggy.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

Thank god for Paulick, seriously, if Ray decided to retire from this, there would be a HUGE void in the game.

Yeah, like we never discuss this topic on here...

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by Valento

The drug race is a competition between the trainers/owners/vets who are in an Indy Formula One race car and the oversight commitee who are teamed up in a Flintstone buggy.

What makes you so sure the owner has any idea of what the trainer is up to or what the vet stumbled upon on his way to the barn? 99.9% of the time the owner knows what the horse was treated for by the vet once they get their monthly bill.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Yeah, like we never discuss this topic on here...

Yeah, but who are we? Is Stillriledup of PA Message boards as famous within the industry as Paulick?

[PaceAdvantage]

Just saying...it's not like this is a subject that nobody every talks about or knows about...

[Charli125]

Originally Posted by Mineshaft

It don't matter to me what trainer is in the race I bet accordingly. Super trainer or not, it does not interfere with my betting

That can't be good for your ROI.

[Jeff P]

If racing jurisdictions really want to put a stop to cheating through the use of drugs they could.

To my way of thinking, the following rules changes would be a good start towards eliminating the problem:

1. Per rule, a 72 hour window is established. ALL horses entered to race must arrive on the grounds no later than 72 hours prior to post time for the race in which they are entered. All horses entered to race must remain on the grounds through race time.

Need to remove your horse from the grounds and break the 72 hour rule for some reason? Not a problem. Put him in the trailer and drive him off. (He's still your horse.) However, as soon as you remove him from the grounds (per rule) your horse is automatically scratched from its race. (No exceptions.)

2. Security cams, surveillance (at all times) for all horses on the grounds. (Security video footage to be stored electronically in an area off limits to owners, trainers, private vets, etc.)

3. Trainer of record (still) calls the shots - but ALL substances administered/procedures performed, etc. within the 72 hr window administered ONLY BY THE STATE OR TRACK VET(S) and all substances administered/procedures performed, etc. are limited to those specifically allowed in the rules.

By rule, trainers and private vets are barred from administering ANY substance to a horse within the 72 hour window. (Fair warning: Penalties for breaking this rule will have teeth.)

But what if your horse develops some problem while it is on the grounds within the 72 hour window leading up to its race? What if, from a welfare of your horse standpoint, you want YOUR vet to treat your horse?

Not a problem. Call your private vet and allow him to treat your horse. However, as soon as that happens (per rule) your horse is scratched from its race. (No exceptions.)

4. A medical log is created for each horse. By rule, ALL substances administered/procedures performed, etc. by the state or track vet on any horse within its 72 hour window are recorded in the horse's medical log.

Nothing terribly elaborate required. Just a sentence or so to accurately log each event... "10cc of X"... "18cc of Y"... along with date, time, and name of attending vet.

5. The medical log for each horse is disclosed to the betting public. Do it just like the Hong Kong Jockey Club does. (It works there. It'll work here.) Make each horse's medical record available on the track and/or Equibase website. Let it be listed in the past performances and/or track program. (Think transparency.)

By rule, conspiracy/collusion between trainer and attending vet resulting in omission of medical procedures performed during the 72 hour window from a horse's medical log to be taken VERY SERIOUSLY.

In my opinion, the above would be a good start.



-jp

.

[maclr11]

Ridiculous to enforce
The costs are enormous and the fight over who funds it would be a huge nightmare
Plus there is still so much grey area, this means a vet has to feed the horses cause supplements and other things are put in the feed. How do you control who feeds what and when.
Its a wonderful pipe dream but there are so many hurdles to cross
Think of the it costs and the staff it would take to watch all these horses 24/7 on video
Plus all the time horses are out of their stall that time has to be carefully recorded too
This sounds wonderful, cheaters are gonna try to cheat
I think the money would be much better spent on improvements in testing

[maclr11]

But I think graded stakes could be subject to these restrictions
Better access to funding and it would help the games image with fans who aren't totally involved. If it's better on top than hopefully it would trickle down but imposing crazy restrictions on everyday races is inefficient cost wise and it would really even out the playing field. Claiming would almost stop as horses problems would be exposed and that's not good for the public. The public does not need to know what a 3000 claimer gets to make it to the gate.
Rival trainers would get all the information they need and the racing game is very much monkey see monkey do and why are we punishing trainers for being better by allowing the rivals to learn their methods. It's a business not a friendly game .
Graded stakes yes, because there's no claiming Etc etc but the rest of racing I think there are better ways to fix the drug issue .

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by maclr11

But I think graded stakes could be subject to these restrictions
Better access to funding and it would help the games image with fans who aren't totally involved. If it's better on top than hopefully it would trickle down but imposing crazy restrictions on everyday races is inefficient cost wise and it would really even out the playing field. Claiming would almost stop as horses problems would be exposed and that's not good for the public. The public does not need to know what a 3000 claimer gets to make it to the gate.
Rival trainers would get all the information they need and the racing game is very much monkey see monkey do and why are we punishing trainers for being better by allowing the rivals to learn their methods. It's a business not a friendly game .
Graded stakes yes, because there's no claiming Etc etc but the rest of racing I think there are better ways to fix the drug issue .

Professional sports is also a business and not a friendly game....but they have salary caps so there's some parity and everyone has a chance, its better for business.

[Jeff P]

What I am suggesting is transparency. And a return to horse racing as athletic competition. (Because that's the ONLY way we are ever going to get the general public to embrace racing as a sport and a viable mainstream gaming option.)

It's not about punishing the "better" trainers for being good so much as giving horse racing a chance at a future.

At it's core, horse racing is about (or should be about) betting on the outcome of a race - with a race being defined as a test of attributes found in athletic competition: natural ability, speed, fitness, endurance, etc.

In my opinion, horse racing is NOT (and should NEVER be) about tapping joints, sneaking designer drugs past the guard at the gate, or who has access to the better chemist, etc.

If we really do have to hide what it takes to get a horse to the gate from the public then I hate to say it but horse racing doesn't have a future.


-jp

.