Masochistic DQed from BC Sprint

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Let's see....

...from a personal standpoint, I bet this race, and what I needed the most was a Drefong-Mind Your Biscuits exacta ( my picks are a matter of public record and they were my 1-2 choices...I did not like Masochistic at all ). While I have joked with CJ that I wish I could cash my exacta ( who wouldn't? ), I don't feel cheated at all. If Masochistic had not run, Drefong would have been 8:5, and Mind Your Biscuits likely wouldn't have been second, because there would have been little pace, and likely AP Indian would have sucked along for second given the completely different dynamics.

...on the subject of Privman's piece....Jay is a friend, I should be clear on that, but being my friend hardly absolves people from my obnoxious ridiculing ( just ask CJ ). After I read this thread last night, I was prepared to groan when I read Privman's article given the comments here. I read it twice and have no idea how anyone can criticize his reporting. It was fair and balanced, and I really wish people would read it again. You may disagree with the handling of this issue, or Ellis's behavior, and any number of people involved, but how Privman was wrong totally escapes me.

Personally, I don't believe the 200 picogram overage had anything to do with the results of this race. If you want to complain about whether or not you think some medications should or shouldn't be legal, that's fine, but given none of us have drug records for ALL the horses in this race, we don't really know who used what and when, and thus can't hypothesize on how this affected all contestants. Rich Halvey seems to be far and away the most educated person in this thread on matters of medication, and his opinions carry a lot of weight, at least for me.

I agree with CJ that it sucks that using some medications might keep horses from running more frequently. Frequency of starts is a major issue in this game. However, some horses couldn't race at all without some of these legal and therapeutic medications. Now, I know some will say " then maybe they shouldn't race at all" which I suppose is also fine....but wouldn't that be even less starts then? You can't have it both ways...or whichever way suits you the best at some given moment.

I agree with most of this. (And I had Drefong too and posted the pick in the Selections forum here )

I do think it goes too far when it refers to "legal and therapeutic medications". That's spin and a deliberate attempt not to use the correct words "drugs" amd "steroids".

Amd I would take apologetics from the industry more seriously if they would use the word "drugs" more and honestly and openly defend the drugging of horses, rather than using euphamisms and hoping we won't notice

[cj]

From the BC courtesy of Bloodhorse reporter Jeremy Balan.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by SG4

Considering 60 days lead time is the recommendation for withdrawal and they gave 68, how can you pin anything on the trainer?

60 days is not the recommended withdrawal.

It is simply the time period that a horse is placed on the Veterinarian's List once it is treated. In fact, only a few years ago, horses were only placed on the list for 30 days.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

60 days is not the recommended withdrawal.

It is simply the time period that a horse is placed on the Veterinarian's List once it is treated. In fact, only a few years ago, horses were only placed on the list for 30 days.

Isn't that due to better testing?

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

You're entitled to that opinion. In listening to him, I tend to believe what he is saying and that his explanation is exactly as it occurred.

Ron Ellis earlier this year at a CHRB meeting discussing the requirement to transfer veterinary records for claimed horses:

"We don't want to divulge what we've been doing to get that horse to run better. You can't legislate morality. If you think I'm going to tell the truth, I'm just telling you, I'm not."

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by o_crunk

But here's the problem with that: it confuses the public in understanding the issue, it absolves the trainer of responsibility and it blurs the line of what is a positive and what is not a positive.

I don't think it's so bad to give the public a balanced explanation. I think you want to give the public a better understanding of the specifics of a case. However, I agree with you about the rules.

Unless I misunderstood the article, these guys absolutely knew they were gambling with a potential positive because of a previous recent test and went ahead anyway. I'm not sure who should have prevented that from happening, but somebody should have.

You can't have guys gambling on getting away with steroid use (or other medications) like this if you already know there's some chance it will come back positive and then have an actual positive come back a few weeks later. It's bad for perception. Who did or didn't benefit from this particular race is irrelevant. Sooner or later one of these cases will matter to a result (or be perceived to matter) and many gamblers, owners, trainers, and riders will get really pissed off and feel screwed.

Rules are rules.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I don't think it's so bad to give the public a balanced explanation. I think you want to give the public a better understanding of the specifics of a case. However, I agree with you about the rules.

Balanced? It was mostly Ellis quotes.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by cj

Isn't that due to better testing?

No, the expansion from 30 days to 60 days was an attempt to effectively ban anabolic steroids without actually doing it. When they were first regulated around 2008, the CHRB found that 4 trainers were responsible for about 40% of all anabolic steroid use. That finding, plus public perception in human sports and international horse racing scandals prompted the change.

In that sense, the argument regarding whether or not the level found in Masochistic was performance enhancing or not is supposed to be moot. It is essentially a "no tolerance" policy without banning the drug completely as in other jurisdictions.

[Psychotic Parakeet]

Originally Posted by cj

This makes you wonder every time a horse skips an obvious target for a race "down the road", doesn't it?

Speaking of things that make you wonder, how about a string of six bullet workouts in-a-row at various distances leading up to the BC?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by cj

Honest questions...can you point me to an article you've done where you lay the blame at the trainer's feet? Do you have one coming on Ramon Preciado?

I did one on AC Avila and Masochistic that clearly blamed Avila.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1270

I did an article on Kirk Ziadie where I clearly noted his guilt.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=2911

In the article I did on Ferris Allen I clearly said Hector Garcia and Scott Lake were guilty of mis-using stanozolol.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1191

In the article I did on Chris Grove I clearly pointed a finger at Julio Cartagena for being the source of nikethamide.

Let me be frank. If you want to read a story about a trainer that violated and was in fact guilty, Paulick, the DRF and the Blood Horse have that story. I'm not interested in republishing a story on a guy who is undoubtedly guilty, and I think Preciado fits that scenario. What exactly would I add to the story? The guilty trainers I've written about I did so because to tell a complete story.

I'm not going to let the inference that I am protecting drug cheats pass. I've made it clear over and over that I firmly believe any trainer who knowingly looks to gain an edge should be punished. But I also believe when ARCI or RMTC are arbitrary in how they set standards, someone needs to call them on it and I seem to be the only one with enough balls to call them out. When the racing commissions do a half-assed job, don't you think someone should tell you when they did? And clearly you aren't going to get that from Paulick, DRF or the BH. You're talking about ruining trainers reputations and careers, and you shouldn't do that casually. Read any article I've done and tell me where I wasn't fair and balanced.

I believe the bad guys should get theirs but the good guys deserve to have the whole story told. I can tell you the people who call me who are simply guilty (and I won't name names) I usually just give my best advice and tell them good luck. I write about trainers who have reason to question the standard they violated or the investigation that the racing commission did. I'm performing a service for the horseplayer that nobody else seems to want to take up. I'm giving you all the details so you can decide just how guilty that trainer is.

[cj]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I did one on AC Avila and Masochistic that clearly blamed Avila.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1270

I did an article on Kirk Ziadie where I clearly noted his guilt.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=2911

In the article I did on Ferris Allen I clearly said Hector Garcia and Scott Lake were guilty of mis-using stanozolol.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1191

In the article I did on Chris Grove I clearly pointed a finger at Julio Cartagena for being the source of nikethamide.

Let me be frank. If you want to read a story about a trainer that violated and was in fact guilty, Paulick, the DRF and the Blood Horse have that story. I'm not interested in republishing a story on a guy who is undoubtedly guilty, and I think Preciado fits that scenario. What exactly would I add to the story? The guilty trainers I've written about I did so because to tell a complete story.

I'm not going to let the inference that I am protecting drug cheats pass. I've made it clear over and over that I firmly believe any trainer who knowingly looks to gain an edge should be punished. But I also believe when ARCI or RMTC are arbitrary in how they set standards, someone needs to call them on it and I seem to be the only one with enough balls to call them out. When the racing commissions do a half-assed job, don't you think someone should tell you when they did? And clearly you aren't going to get that from Paulick, DRF or the BH. You're talking about ruining trainers reputations and careers, and you shouldn't do that casually. Read any article I've done and tell me where I wasn't fair and balanced.

I believe the bad guys should get theirs but the good guys deserve to have the whole story told. I can tell you the people who call me who are simply guilty (and I won't name names) I usually just give my best advice and tell them good luck. I write about trainers who have reason to question the standard they violated or the investigation that the racing commission did. I'm performing a service for the horseplayer that nobody else seems to want to take up. I'm giving you all the details so you can decide just how guilty that trainer is.

I should have checked to see you had them archived. I'm sure I've read them and will be sure to do so again now.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

No, the expansion from 30 days to 60 days was an attempt to effectively ban anabolic steroids without actually doing it. When they were first regulated around 2008, the CHRB found that 4 trainers were responsible for about 40% of all anabolic steroid use. That finding, plus public perception in human sports and international horse racing scandals prompted the change.

In that sense, the argument regarding whether or not the level found in Masochistic was performance enhancing or not is supposed to be moot. It is essentially a "no tolerance" policy without banning the drug completely as in other jurisdictions.

Thanks, good info.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I agree with most of this. (And I had Drefong too and posted the pick in the Selections forum here )

I do think it goes too far when it refers to "legal and therapeutic medications". That's spin and a deliberate attempt not to use the correct words "drugs" amd "steroids".

Amd I would take apologetics from the industry more seriously if they would use the word "drugs" more and honestly and openly defend the drugging of horses, rather than using euphamisms and hoping we won't notice

The term therapeutic medication is a term of precision to designate substances that are on the list of 26 approved medications because that is what they are called. Of course they are drugs in the generic sense. That's not spin. That's not a deliberate attempt to avoid what you think are the correct words. The terms of art - therapeutic medication and drug - are used to distinguish between substances that are legal and for which there are standards and substances that are not legal and for which there are not standards.

Yeah right. You'd take apologetics if they only used the word drugs. Bullshit.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by the little guy

Let's see....

...from a personal standpoint, I bet this race, and what I needed the most was a Drefong-Mind Your Biscuits exacta ( my picks are a matter of public record and they were my 1-2 choices...I did not like Masochistic at all ). While I have joked with CJ that I wish I could cash my exacta ( who wouldn't? ), I don't feel cheated at all. If Masochistic had not run, Drefong would have been 8:5, and Mind Your Biscuits likely wouldn't have been second, because there would have been little pace, and likely AP Indian would have sucked along for second given the completely different dynamics.

...on the subject of Privman's piece....Jay is a friend, I should be clear on that, but being my friend hardly absolves people from my obnoxious ridiculing ( just ask CJ ). After I read this thread last night, I was prepared to groan when I read Privman's article given the comments here. I read it twice and have no idea how anyone can criticize his reporting. It was fair and balanced, and I really wish people would read it again. You may disagree with the handling of this issue, or Ellis's behavior, and any number of people involved, but how Privman was wrong totally escapes me.

Personally, I don't believe the 200 picogram overage had anything to do with the results of this race. If you want to complain about whether or not you think some medications should or shouldn't be legal, that's fine, but given none of us have drug records for ALL the horses in this race, we don't really know who used what and when, and thus can't hypothesize on how this affected all contestants. Rich Halvey seems to be far and away the most educated person in this thread on matters of medication, and his opinions carry a lot of weight, at least for me.

I agree with CJ that it sucks that using some medications might keep horses from running more frequently. Frequency of starts is a major issue in this game. However, some horses couldn't race at all without some of these legal and therapeutic medications. Now, I know some will say " then maybe they shouldn't race at all" which I suppose is also fine....but wouldn't that be even less starts then? You can't have it both ways...or whichever way suits you the best at some given moment.

Andy I got to disagree with you on three points...

1. You may not think the drugs are performance enhancing but they're banned and every other sport (NBA, NFL, MLB) treats drugs as banned or not banned. What they do is irrelevant.

2. Why are you not outraged by Ellis' actions? Essentially the CHRB and Breeders Cup went to him and said "we think your horse is going to fail a post race drug test you should scratch him we can't scratch him because he technically hasn't done anything wrong but we'd strongly like him not to race." He then ran the horse. Giving you, me, every bettor and every owner and the BC and CHRB the finger. How are people not outraged by him doing this? How does this not make it worse?

3. And I think CJ with agree with this I simply don't think Ron Ellis is telling the truth right now. And I have facts in my corner. Notice only Ellis is claiming the 90% thing. This has been backed up by no one else. (which is a problem with Privman's piece btw. Where's the confirmation on anything Ellis says. Jay got no third party confirmation on Ellis' claims.) So here's the million dollar or $600,000 question. Why did they hold the purse? You work in the industry you know tying up about $600,000 for THAT long is no small thing. If the CHRB and BC were 90% this horse was going to come back clean surely they would have paid the purse. But they didn't. They appear on the surface reasonably confident this horse was going to come back hot.

The 90% thing holds no water with me.

CJ, thoughts on #3?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Balanced? It was mostly Ellis quotes.

I was speaking in general terms, not referring to any specific article.