Cheating in Racing Today

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Ruffian1

I found another game rather than be a cheating piece of crap. Hope your ok with that.

Thanks for your input here...and good luck in the future.

[Ruffian1]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Thanks for your input here...and good luck in the future.

Thanks Thas !

Same to you.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by cj

This is the exact reason that Olympians are subject to OOC testing. It isn't mystery substances. It is getting the test while it is still in the system. The effects last long after the test will come back clean. If they didn't, people wouldn't be using them. What would be the point?

If that is a real problem - and if it is, it is almost certainly steroids - you could run an experiment to see if it is revealing. I'd support that. I'll give you a few problems you have to deal with. First, even if they ban stanozolol, the natural steroids are still legal. Of what use is it to do OOC testing if the results are going to be for legal drugs that have to be cleared by race day? Second, what do you do about Fair Hill or Payson? Are horses out of training still subject to testing? I'm not sure racing commissions have jurisdiction at private facilities.

I still have the same issue. If you know - or even have an inkling - illegal juicing is going on, then tell us what substances may be involved and give us the plan to deal with it.

[Jeff P]

Gus, in one of your posts you mentioned the steroid era in Baseball and Jose Conseco being the only one telling the truth while everybody else was lying.

Rich, in one of your posts you asked for stats.

When I think back about the steroid era in Baseball, perhaps the most telling stat, and the one that immediately pops into my head, was the number of players who suddenly began hitting 50 home runs in a season vs. historical norms.

If you'll recall, early on, nobody in Baseball had (yet) tested positive for steroids, but (eventually) it became obvious to just about everybody what was really going on.

When I look at trainer stats in horse racing - I see a lot of similarities between very early on in the steroid era of Baseball and what is going on (right now) in horse racing.

Very few positive drug tests. But plenty of trainers whose records show ridiculous win rates vs. the historical norms of hall of fame trainers.

Anyone else remember this story about Jane Cibelli from 2013?:

Cibelli Suspended 2 Months for Deadening a Horse’s Leg:
https://horseracingwrongs.com/2013/0...-a-horses-leg/

On January 27th of this year, Dr. Orlando Paraliticci, a private vet working for trainer Jane Cibelli, was caught injecting a nerve block, called "P Bloc," into the Cibelli-trained horse Raven Train. Raven Train was scheduled to run that day in a $16,000 claiming race. According to the Paulick Report, "Paraliticci quickly left the stall, saying, 'I'm sorry. I’m sorry. I’m sorry.'" Paraliticci was banned from Tampa Bay Downs (TBD) on February 3rd and eventually (May 15th) suspended 90 days by the Florida Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (FDPMW). Eight months later, Cibelli has finally been disciplined.

I also found a link about the same story (but with less detail) on The BloodHorse.com site here:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ns-for-cibelli

After reading every post in this thread up to this point, I decided to reach back into my database and take a look at trainer stats for Jane Cibelli from 2013:

Here's what I have in my database for trainer Jane Cibelli at Tampa Bay Downs from opening day of the 2012-2013 meet up through and including the day of the incident:

query start:         1/17/2017 2:13:05 PM
query end:           1/17/2017 2:13:05 PM
elapsed time:        0 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2_2012-2013-2014.mdb
999 Divisor  Odds Cap: None
SQL UDM Plays Report: Hide

SQL:  SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
      WHERE TRACK='TAM' 
      AND TRAINER='CIBELLI JANE' 
      AND [DATE] >= #12-01-2012# 
      AND [DATE] <= #01-27-2013# 
      ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary          Win         Place          Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals       86.20         67.20         54.10
Bet                -66.00        -66.00        -66.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L                 20.20          1.20        -11.90

Wins                   14            18            19
Plays                  33            33            33
PCT                 .4242         .5455         .5758

ROI                1.3061        1.0182        0.8197
Avg Mut              6.16          3.73          2.85

And here's what I have in my database for trainer Jane Cibelli at Tampa Bay Downs from 01-28-2013 (the day after the incident) through the end of the 2012-2013 meet:

query start:         1/17/2017 1:36:07 PM
query end:           1/17/2017 1:36:07 PM
elapsed time:        0 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2_2012-2013-2014.mdb
999 Divisor  Odds Cap: None
SQL UDM Plays Report: Hide

SQL:  SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
      WHERE TRACK='TAM' 
      AND TRAINER='CIBELLI JANE' 
      AND [DATE] >= #01-28-2013# 
      AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2013# 
      ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary          Win         Place          Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals       45.80         86.80         88.10
Bet               -112.00       -112.00       -112.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L                -66.20        -25.20        -23.90

Wins                    7            21            30
Plays                  56            56            56
PCT                 .1250         .3750         .5357

ROI                0.4089        0.7750        0.7866
Avg Mut              6.54          4.13          2.94

Based on the above stats, it looks like Jane Cibelli went from being a 40 percent trainer to a 12 percent trainer almost overnight.

Which begs the question: Do regulators really need positive tests to shine a spotlight in the right place?


Jeff Platt
President, HANA


.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Mr. Halvey obviously thinks that if it doesn't show up in the testing...then it doesn't exist.

You certainly know better than to stoop to that level. Or perhaps I overrated you.

I believe that if it doesn't show up in the testing it is not a violation. You want to make it a violation, change the standards. If you want to make the use of substances like natural steroids illegal, do that. If it isn't showing up because we don't have a test for it, then identify the substance and develop the test.

I'm doing something about what I see are the problems with standards and enforcement beyond bitching on PA. Which puts me one up on those who have nothing better to offer than complaints and snide remarks.

[Ruffian1]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

If that is a real problem - and if it is, it is almost certainly steroids - you could run an experiment to see if it is revealing. I'd support that. I'll give you a few problems you have to deal with. First, even if they ban stanozolol, the natural steroids are still legal. Of what use is it to do OOC testing if the results are going to be for legal drugs that have to be cleared by race day? Second, what do you do about Fair Hill or Payson? Are horses out of training still subject to testing? I'm not sure racing commissions have jurisdiction at private facilities.

I still have the same issue. If you know - or even have an inkling - illegal juicing is going on, then tell us what substances may be involved and give us the plan to deal with it.

Substance.

Amicar given 3 hours before the race. One hour AFTER lasix was given. 21 hours after the 24 hour rule.

Something tells me the rule was 48 hours in 2000 but I could be mistaken. It's been a while.

A plan to deal with it?

Uphold the rules of racing that I had to know when I took my trainers test.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Which begs the question: Do regulators really need positive tests to shine a spotlight in the right place?.

If all we are looking for is a reason to look, the statistics related to the change in power hitting created probable cause. The tests provided confirmation.

If you're seeing racing as a parallel, are the incidents we identify isolated, or are they, like baseball, part of an identifiable pattern? One way or the other, testing will confirm that.

Mine is a simple question. Which standard is current being violated that we are not testing for?

Just like in baseball, in the absence of a positive test, we don't have a violation. If the use of steroids for horses out of training should be illegal, or at least if there should be standards, racing sends the wrong message by keeping natural steroids as legal.

What I don't buy is the absence of a plan to deal with drugs in racing other than post-race testing. In fact, I've written extensively that finding a violation after the race is official is hardly a victory. But as long as natural anabolic are legal (they are in Hong Kong by the way) the problem is not with trainers who use them. It's with racing's administrators.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Ruffian1

[/b]Substance.

Amicar given 3 hours before the race. One hour AFTER lasix was given. 21 hours after the 24 hour rule.

Something tells me the rule was 48 hours in 2000 but I could be mistaken. It's been a while.

A plan to deal with it?

Uphold the rules of racing that I had to know when I took my trainers test.

Things have changed quite a bit. Check out the current RMTC standards.

http://rmtc.wpengine.com/wp-content/...-2-25-2016.pdf

Only one substance can be given less than 24 hours before a race. Lasix.

[cj]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

If that is a real problem - and if it is, it is almost certainly steroids - you could run an experiment to see if it is revealing. I'd support that. I'll give you a few problems you have to deal with. First, even if they ban stanozolol, the natural steroids are still legal. Of what use is it to do OOC testing if the results are going to be for legal drugs that have to be cleared by race day? Second, what do you do about Fair Hill or Payson? Are horses out of training still subject to testing? I'm not sure racing commissions have jurisdiction at private facilities.

I still have the same issue. If you know - or even have an inkling - illegal juicing is going on, then tell us what substances may be involved and give us the plan to deal with it.

The rest of the sports world and even some.of the horse racing world have dealt with these issues just fine.

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

If all we are looking for is a reason to look, the statistics related to the change in power hitting created probable cause. The tests provided confirmation.

If you're seeing racing as a parallel, are the incidents we identify isolated, or are they, like baseball, part of an identifiable pattern? One way or the other, testing will confirm that.

Mine is a simple question. Which standard is current being violated that we are not testing for?

Just like in baseball, in the absence of a positive test, we don't have a violation. If the use of steroids for horses out of training should be illegal, or at least if there should be standards, racing sends the wrong message by keeping natural steroids as legal.

What I don't buy is the absence of a plan to deal with drugs in racing other than post-race testing. In fact, I've written extensively that finding a violation after the race is official is hardly a victory. But as long as natural anabolic are legal (they are in Hong Kong by the way) the problem is not with trainers who use them. It's with racing's administrators.

But off the record give us your personal opinion. Why do you think that some of these trainers (and we all know who they are) do so good off the claim?

[EasyGoer89]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Gus, in one of your posts you mentioned the steroid era in Baseball and Jose Conseco being the only one telling the truth while everybody else was lying.

Rich, in one of your posts you asked for stats.

When I think back about the steroid era in Baseball, perhaps the most telling stat, and the one that immediately pops into my head, was the number of players who suddenly began hitting 50 home runs in a season vs. historical norms.

If you'll recall, early on, nobody in Baseball had (yet) tested positive for steroids, but (eventually) it became obvious to just about everybody what was really going on.

When I look at trainer stats in horse racing - I see a lot of similarities between very early on in the steroid era of Baseball and what is going on (right now) in horse racing.

Very few positive drug tests. But plenty of trainers whose records show ridiculous win rates vs. the historical norms of hall of fame trainers.

Anyone else remember this story about Jane Cibelli from 2013?:

Cibelli Suspended 2 Months for Deadening a Horse’s Leg:
https://horseracingwrongs.com/2013/0...-a-horses-leg/



I also found a link about the same story (but with less detail) on The BloodHorse.com site here:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...ns-for-cibelli

After reading every post in this thread up to this point, I decided to reach back into my database and take a look at trainer stats for Jane Cibelli from 2013:

Here's what I have in my database for trainer Jane Cibelli at Tampa Bay Downs from opening day of the 2012-2013 meet up through and including the day of the incident:

query start:         1/17/2017 2:13:05 PM
query end:           1/17/2017 2:13:05 PM
elapsed time:        0 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2_2012-2013-2014.mdb
999 Divisor  Odds Cap: None
SQL UDM Plays Report: Hide

SQL:  SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
      WHERE TRACK='TAM' 
      AND TRAINER='CIBELLI JANE' 
      AND [DATE] >= #12-01-2012# 
      AND [DATE] <= #01-27-2013# 
      ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary          Win         Place          Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals       86.20         67.20         54.10
Bet                -66.00        -66.00        -66.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L                 20.20          1.20        -11.90

Wins                   14            18            19
Plays                  33            33            33
PCT                 .4242         .5455         .5758

ROI                1.3061        1.0182        0.8197
Avg Mut              6.16          3.73          2.85

And here's what I have in my database for trainer Jane Cibelli at Tampa Bay Downs from 01-28-2013 (the day after the incident) through the end of the 2012-2013 meet:

query start:         1/17/2017 1:36:07 PM
query end:           1/17/2017 1:36:07 PM
elapsed time:        0 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2_2012-2013-2014.mdb
999 Divisor  Odds Cap: None
SQL UDM Plays Report: Hide

SQL:  SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
      WHERE TRACK='TAM' 
      AND TRAINER='CIBELLI JANE' 
      AND [DATE] >= #01-28-2013# 
      AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2013# 
      ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary          Win         Place          Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals       45.80         86.80         88.10
Bet               -112.00       -112.00       -112.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L                -66.20        -25.20        -23.90

Wins                    7            21            30
Plays                  56            56            56
PCT                 .1250         .3750         .5357

ROI                0.4089        0.7750        0.7866
Avg Mut              6.54          4.13          2.94

Based on the above stats, it looks like Jane Cibelli went from being a 40 percent trainer to a 12 percent trainer almost overnight.

Which begs the question: Do regulators really need positive tests to shine a spotlight in the right place?


Jeff Platt
President, HANA


.

This is a great post and is outside the box thinking, there is a way to sniff out cheats and get rid of them in ways other than a positive that was detected through blood or urine analysis.

Another way to get rid of the cheats is to issue demerits to owners who are involved with such people. Accumulate a certain amount of demerits and you get punished, an owner feigning ignorance is no excuse, If owners know they will have strikes against them they might think twice about moving Their horses from one known cheat to another.

[appistappis]

Originally Posted by NorCalGreg

Here's a thought....learn the game the way it's played--and has been played for a hundred years--not the way you want it to be played.

Unless you prefer bitching to winning.

exactly, great post......a guy in the casino was complaining one day that the roulette was fixed, that the 0 and 00 spots were bigger than the others.....he asked me if he should call the police or the gaming comission......i said bet the 0 and 00

[EMD4ME]

Originally Posted by appistappis

exactly, great post......a guy in the casino was complaining one day that the roulette was fixed, that the 0 and 00 spots were bigger than the others.....he asked me if he should call the police or the gaming comission......i said bet the 0 and 00

Alright, now I'll bite.

Tell me please, NCG, Appistappis or otherwise:

Have you kept meet long painstaking notes, watched replays 7 days a week (on a 5 day racemeet) every week for years, showed discipline, waited for the right time, plucked down $500 bucks or $1,000 into a $2 pick 6, watch 5 of the races run exactly as you thought they would (with prices), be alive for $50,000-$100,000 and then:

Watch your horse run an awesome race, with a great trip and ride ONLY to run 2nd to an absolute DRUGGED UP, JUICED UP piece of garbage (and I don't mean to demean a horse, I'm talking PP's and talent when I say garbage)?????


Tell me how you would feel IF that was the case.

Tell me how you would feel IF that winner was never handicappable by anyone UNLESS you knew the horse was drugged to the gills.

I'll be waiting.

P.S. I'm not talking about some Oscar Barrera or Gregory Martin 1st off the claim. I'm talking some off the wall trainer who decided to juice once in a while to survive, stay in the game etc.

There is NO way to bet over that horse manure.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Redboard

But off the record give us your personal opinion. Why do you think that some of these trainers (and we all know who they are) do so good off the claim?

Personally I'd love to know their secret. And personally, if the track decided to investigate I think it would be in the best interest of racing. And personally, if they found an illegal substance, I'd be fine throwing the book at them.

[EasyGoer89]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

Alright, now I'll bite.

Tell me please, NCG, Appistappis or otherwise:

Have you kept meet long painstaking notes, watched replays 7 days a week (on a 5 day racemeet) every week for years, showed discipline, waited for the right time, plucked down $500 bucks or $1,000 into a $2 pick 6, watch 5 of the races run exactly as you thought they would (with prices), be alive for $50,000-$100,000 and then:

Watch your horse run an awesome race, with a great trip and ride ONLY to run 2nd to an absolute DRUGGED UP, JUICED UP piece of garbage (and I don't mean to demean a horse, I'm talking PP's and talent when I say garbage)?????


Tell me how you would feel IF that was the case.

Tell me how you would feel IF that winner was never handicappable by anyone UNLESS you knew the horse was drugged to the gills.

I'll be waiting.

P.S. I'm not talking about some Oscar Barrera or Gregory Martin 1st off the claim. I'm talking some off the wall trainer who decided to juice once in a while to survive, stay in the game etc.

There is NO way to bet over that horse manure.

It really just comes down to Juiced horses are more likely to have money on them from non handicappers who did no work and were fed the juice info. If there was no juicing, everyone would have to work hard to pick winners, I'm a sharing caring kinda guy but I don't want to share my profits with a person who got a whisper on a cheating situation, I'll share If you can come up with the winner legitimately.