Becrux won the first division of the Oceanside yesterday at Del Mar, paying $28. The horse is co-owned by Barry Irwin\'s Team Valor Stable and most recently ran a very disappointing race in New York, beaten sixteen lengths in the Hill Prince. According to the L.A. Times today, \"Irwin said that after the New York race, a breathing problem was discovered and a minor surgery called a myectomy was performed.\"
To take up a point made by Jerry and others in the wake of the Sweet Catomine scandal, can we achieve a consensus here that any surgery or procedure that is likely to have a meaningful impact on a horse\'s performance -- such as a myectomy -- should be disclosed to the betting public when the horse runs next?
I couldn\'t agree with you more Cardoc. How many more times are we going to get skunked on this particular issue. The whole Sweet Catomine deal cost me dearly. It\'s been happening for years and we continue to take it. Which would be more effective, letter to NTRA or TRack?
NC Tony
I totally agree, and a letter to anyone that will not appear publicly is a waste of time. The only thing tracks respond to is pressure (invisible hand, carrying a hammer), not common sense.
Strongly suggest a letter to the editor of DRF or Bloodhorse. There\'s a very good chance Paulick would print it at BH, with DRF you never know.
Guys,
I think you are all out of line here. The betting public has no right to know what surgeries, procedures or vet work was performed on any animal. What the betting public should be entitled to is that there are rules and regulations that govern racing that are strictly enforced.
Frank
Frank,
I agree with you.
However, I think the sentiment is that the enforceable rules need to be changed to include the disclosure of \"certain\" medical procedures. Otherwise, insiders have too big an advantage in some races. Insiders will always have some information about the health of the horses that the rest of us don\'t, but it would be better for the game to minimize that to daily aches and pains etc... and not significant medical operations/procedures.
CH,
You confuse me. You start by stating that you agree with me, but then you don\'t. Let me ask a specific question. Let\'s say I have a solid old 50k claimer, the meat and potatoes of everyday racing. Do you want me to have to disclose the ankle chips or knee chips or tendon problems or a million other things that would devalue my property? There\'s a big poker game going on daily between owners at every track in the country that will stop if you begin to make stupid rules governing their behaviour. Just strictly enforce sensible rules and we players should be satisfied.
Frank
Frank:
There's a distinction between conditions on the one hand (the ankle chips, knee chips or tendon problems) and procedures or surgeries or similar treatments on the other hand. All I'm proposing here is that the rules be brought in to the twenty-first century, so that horseplayers are given material information regarding the latter when they bet a race. By material, I mean information a reasonable bettor would consider significant in making a wagering decision. So I want to know (and I think it's reasonable to want to know) whether a horse had a myectomy since his last race, or was gelded, or was treated with Lasix for the first time, or spent the last few days in the hyperbaric chamber because there seems to be general agreement that all of those treatments or procedures can have a noticeable impact on a horse's performance. I doubt that the fact a horse was re-shod yesterday or acted better after the dentist treated the horse last week is material by the standard above, but I\'d be interested if there is evidence is to the contrary.
Peter
Frank,
I agree that the current rules don\'t require lots of things to be disclosed and shouldn\'t, but I\'d like to see the list expanded \"a bit\". I\'m not a vet, but someone that is more informed could probably make a list of some medical procedures that would tend to have a huge impact on performance that I\'d like to know about.
I definitely wouldn\'t want the daily and more routine aches, pains, and other problems and treatments disclosed for the reasons you describe. I agree that the claiming game is a big game of poker and should stay that way.
Quite honestly this is interstate commerce with inter track simulcasting. Governed by Federal Law and not state,although the fed has stayed hands off here and left it to the states. I\'m going to have to bone up on my law before I make my next comment on the subject, but if what you say is true Frank, then why disclose Lasix or Bute, shoe changes or other equipment change disclosures? It\'s to inform the betting public that changes have been made3 that may improve performance race over race.
I think there are certain medical procedures that also fit the category either positive or negative. The public I believe has a right to know. Just like enforcing the rules on medication that could enhance performance. Harness racing discloses far more infomation up front to the public than does Tbred.
NC Tony
Racing the banged up horse overvalued just to scam the next potential owner? Does this seem ethical? (I am not naive on the subject but I couldn\'t do that in my business) Also usually means some other type of performance enhancement is involved to keep an unsound horse running above it\'s value. Usually unsound horses find their racing level over time. Not collecting checks for the unsound horse should lead to drop downs. None the less, I beleive in as much disclosure as is reasonably allowed for the betting public to make smarter wagers is in order. Where would you draw the line.
NC Tony
NCT,
Just to be clear, the poker game I was referring to is the suspicious dropdown - where for example a horse that was just very competitive for 35K is suddenly entered for 20k-25k or a well bred horse drops from MSW into maiden claiming. A potential \"horse claimer\", has to decide whether the drop down means the current owners are looking to steal a purse or get rid of damaged goods. I don\'t have too much of problem with that since that\'s the way the \"claiming game\" has been played for as long as I\'ve been round and handicappers can study trainer moves and play the same game with bets. It isn\'t a negotiated transaction where you would get to examine the horse. I think it\'s a matter of what we need to know and what we don\'t need to know, but I don\'t think we need to know about every ache and pain, ice bucket, swelling, and missed day of training. Just the bigger procedures.
Peter,
\"All I'm proposing here is that the rules be brought in to the twenty-first century\"
On this point I strongly agree. What we need is a list of allowed medications that is the same across all racing jurisdictions and a strong central racing governing body to stricly enforce the rules.
What I disagree with is the belief that players have a right to know how an owner/trainer has specifically treated his private property. As long as we believe there is nothing illegal being done that should be enough.
Frank
Franks\' Right. We are not entitled to minor surgical matters but it sure would be a gracious inclusion of information that track owners can start providing as a smoke screen to always disregarding the bettor.
I\'m sure we could all add several more nuisance exclusions and make up a very reasonable knock-off list .
What better time than now w/all the indians circling the wagons.
Presenting a list to be published in all the tabloids[horse] and presented en masse would get our foot in the barn.
PARTYpokerON!
The tone of this thread seems to be \"Give us the additional information and we will be more profitable handicappers/ bettors\". Not true. If it turns out that \"first time mylectomy\" or \"first time Doc Allday stifle snip\" become strongly predictive of victory, the mutuels on these animals would not be too wonderful.
Richie,
I agree completely on that one.
CH
Frank: I\'m an owner but let\'s face it, the private property argument has been dead a long time. There are all sorts of rules that now not only require disclosure of treatments owners provide to their horses (such as the administration of Lasix and Bute, gelding a horse, etc.), but require that this information be provided to the betting public. The reason for requiring disclosure to the betting public is that it is relevant, material information for a bettor to have in analyzing a race, and that to have a fair betting environment, all bettors should have access to all such relevant, material information. All I am advocating is expanding the concept of what treatments are likely to significantly affect performance and requiring disclosure of those treatments as well.
Peter
1-- Those of us around when lasix was being used but not published know that it became an inside information game. We are almost certainly in that situation now with other drugs.
2-- The proper analogy is not \"private property\", but insider trading. We are asking the public at large to invest money in a game where under certain circumstances they are at a decided disadvantage. No one is saying that injuries must be announced-- but significant human intervention like performance enhancing drugs and operations should be.
3-- It doesn\'t matter that the information would not be useful to someone because the market might (arguably) then account for it- at least people would be in a position to decide what to do with it. Right now, some people have it, and some don\'t.
The best analogy is the NFL, even though betting on the games isn\'t even legal in 49 states. They do a great job of requiring that injuries be disclosed, and even categorized (doubtful, probable, etc.). The integrity of the game overrides the privacy concerns of the players. Despite the full disclosure of all material information, there are still people who can consistently make money betting football. The key is, no one who bets on football worries that the game isn\'t on the up and up and that someone else has inside information. Horse racing should be held to the same standard.
Richie,
Are you saying that if you wagered on a horse that lost his race to another animal that had minor surgery....THATS OK....but those who are privy to such info from vets etc. are free to fatten their wallets[OWNERS] at the handicappers expense,is a valid gaming ploy?
Gaming cos. in other realms of betting bend over to keep a level playing field.Only OWNERS feel priveledged to exclude this type of info to the third figure in this equation...the bettor.
Track owners accomadate owners because they are dumb and rich enough to pay for the attraction...bettors are a solitary group by nature,so very little needs to be done to \"divide and conquer.
Richie...are you an owner?
PARTYpokerON!
Yes, this is the real Barry Irwin, president of Team Valor.
I have read this thread.
First of all, Team Valor over the last 8 or so years has probably had more than a dozen myectomy and myotomy operations performed on its horses.
None of them ever resulted in an improvement of form. . .until last week!
First Wicked Funny broke her maiden at Monmouth, then Becrux won a little stakes at Del Mar.
I seriously doubt I would have prospered as a gambler if I had bet each one of the horses that had undergone surgery for a breathing prolem.
There are several different kind of operations available to correct breathing problems in the Thoroughbred. Some work, others don\'t.
I agree that horseplayers are entitled to information on these procedures.
I suggest that the best way to do this is to write a bunch of letters to Jerry Brown and have him submit them to the stewards at the NYRA. If they take the lead and make a rule, other jurisdictions will follow.
Never underestimate the collective power of horseplayers!
FYI, next week we will enter a filly named La Ina. She ran third debuting in this country at Keeneland in the spring and came back with an entrapped epiglottis. She underwent surgery.
It is improbable that any 3 or 4yo filly in America exists that can match strides with this Grade 1 runner-up (beaten a head in the German Oaks last year) going long on grass.
Feel free to bet all you can on her. Mortgage your house!
Last week I posted:
FYI, next week we will enter a filly named La Ina. She ran third debuting in this country at Keeneland in the spring and came back with an entrapped epiglottis. She underwent surgery.
It is improbable that any 3 or 4yo filly in America exists that can match strides with this Grade 1 runner-up (beaten a head in the German Oaks last year) going long on grass.
Feel free to bet all you can on her. Mortgage your house!
Tonight I post:
You are welcome. The filly duly won today and paid $7.90.
congratulations on the win. after what you posted, i was surprised that she paid so well. pretty quick last 1/8 there, looks like she will be tough going longer, especially with that tactical speed. but come on, no filly exists in the US that can match strides with her going long? none?
Congrats to Team Valor! Another terrific find, and I applaud your efforts to bring more fans into racing via ownership (I\'m on your list)...but the class aspect falls on posts like that...it\'s not necessary.
It is improbable that any 3 or 4yo filly in America exists that can match strides with this Grade 1 runner-up (beaten a head in the German Oaks last year) going long on grass
(It was late at night when I wrote that. What I meant to say was in the first allowance condition! Sorry.)
Barry
Barry congrats on TVs victory yesterday. I also enjoyed your tribute to Doc Harthill at the back of the recent Blood Horse. I remember Doc Harthill from my days at the Fair Grounds in the early 80s, when Louis Roussel purchased the track from the Dorignac family and basically gave Doc Harthill free run of the place.
Pete Axthelm once said \"The only thing better than a lie is a true story which no one can believe.\" I have some of those sort of stories about Doc Harthill, but now is not the time for them.
If you have been following these threads, you know I asked a question yesterday and would love an answer. This spring at Oaklawn, you fired your newly hired private trainer after a horse he saddled came back positive. I admire your zero tolerance stance and your belief in \"hay oats and water\".
My question again: If Todd Pletcher had an animal come back positive (not necessarily a TV horse) would he continue to train Team Valor horses?
Barry, that was pretty funny. But you forgot to add, \"if she saves ground both turns\".
. . . and gets her head down at the wire.
Just curious . . . would we have received an apology had she lost the head-bob?
If you have been following these threads, you know I asked a question yesterday and would love an answer. This spring at Oaklawn, you fired your newly hired private trainer after a horse he saddled came back positive. I admire your zero tolerance stance and your belief in \"hay oats and water\".
My question again: If Todd Pletcher had an animal come back positive (not necessarily a TV horse) would he continue to train Team Valor horses?
Here is your answer:
First of all, what Ralph Nicks treated the horse with at Belmont was not an illegal substance. The rules state that no injections are allowed on raceday in New York other than Lasix, which must be supervised. He broke the rule by administering the shot. It could have been water and it still would have been illegal. His intent was not pure.
Secondly, Todd Pletcher under New York technically has been ruled to have had a starter come back with a \"positive.\"
Are we going to take away our horses from him?
No.
Reason: Todd\'s test is a case of contamination, as it is 1 nanogram, which is most jurisdictions would be considered below any reasonable threshold.
Just curious . . . would we have received an apology had she lost the head-bob?
No apology. That was a guaranteed winner. So, under the guarantee, I would merely have supplied you with a second winner!!!
Here is something very interesting: our last 3 winners all were making their first start since operations to correct breathing problems.
This is after years of performing several such operations with limited to no success.
Racing obviously is a game of streaks!
Now that I am 1 of 1 as a tout, I plan to retire and rest on my laurels.
1999 -- \"(Henry) Collazo\'s was the first positive finding for a Class 1 narcotic in Florida since the state agreed to drop a complaint against trainers David Donk, Todd Pletcher, and Mark Hennig for trace amounts of cocaine found in their horses in 1999.\"
July 2005 -- \"Eclipse Award-winning trainer Todd Pletcher received a 45-day suspension and was fined $3,000 on Saturday as a result of a post-race finding of the drug mepivacaine in one of his horses last year at Saratoga Race Course.
Aside from saying he would appeal the ruling, Pletcher offered no comment, citing the advice of his attorney.\"
His intent is \"pure?\" Come on. That is pretty lame. This is nothing new. Pletcher\'s more successful and probably cuts a slicker figure than Ralph Nicks. That\'s about all I see.
HP
Also Barry,
Is Dr. Allday the vet for the Team Valor horses trained by Pletcher or any of the other Team Valor trainers? Now THAT would be some useful info. Thanks in advance, HP
Also Barry,
Is Dr. Allday the vet for the Team Valor horses trained by Pletcher or any of the other Team Valor trainers? Now THAT would be some useful info. Thanks in advance, HP
One would think that somebody as chock full of knowledge as you would know the answer to these questions, or are they rhetorical in nature?
Barry I for one would like to hear your opinions beofore i wager a single dolllar on the likes of Guillame Tell! But then again we are talking about horse hacing and inisde infgormation. Then you publicly back La Ina. I reminded of a quote from the quote Usual Suscepects. \"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is getting people to believe that he doesn\'t exist.\"
Barry,
I\'m not chock full of knowledge. That\'s a direct question about Allday. What\'s the problem? I find it interesting that you refuse to answer...
It just seems odd to me you\'re talking about \"pure intent\" with Ralph Nicks but when it comes to Todd Pletcher you\'re willing to keep your head stuck in the sand. Do you ask Pletcher about Allday? Anything controversial? It doesn\'t disturb you that this isn\'t the first incident regarding Pletcher? How is it that other trainers are able to avoid this kind of thing?
I knew that this whole recent Pletcher incident would not disrupt business as usual at Saratoga (posted it here months ago -- the racing establishment is so predictable). I\'m sure this delay is in the best interests of racing, and perhaps even outfits like Team Valor. Hopefully the DRF will be able to find time to crank out a few puff pieces on what a genius Pletcher is.
Congrats on La Ina. Feel free to answer/avoid the question about Allday whenever.
HP
>Hopefully the DRF will be able to find time to crank out a few puff pieces.
Puff pieces HP?? That\'s way too sharp an edge for that bunch.
And while I\'m at it Barry. In your Bloodhorse story you wrote,
\"I had been privy to all the tales about the infamous Dr. Harthill, I made up my mind that the next time I ran into a veterinary issue that required a man of experience and talent, Doc Harthill would get the call.
We were on opposite sides of the medication issue.\"
So another words you don\'t agree with any of his ethics and principles but he can work for you any day of the week.
What a f*****g crock a s**t you are.
Silver,
Everyone seemed so grateful for the La Ina tip I hated to break up the parade. He just flat out REFUSED to answer a direct question about Pletcher/Allday. I have nothing against the guy, I just asked a question. I think his non-response say it all... Pletcher is successful and why upset the applecart before the final whitewash is in? The comments on Nicks are a bit high-falutin\', considering what he\'s willing to overlook with Teflon Todd...
I hope you took note of Barry\'s non-answer, classhandicapper. He knows what I\'m talking about, he just REFUSED to answer... I wonder why? I guess Barry, who is concerned with \"pure intent,\" is not in a position to know or ask about the vet for his horses? He\'s just blissfully unaware of any controversy on that front. Lightly raced high-quality stock. Sure.
HP
Not for anything, but Barry came here and volunteered some information about the medical procedure in question and his experience with its effectiveness among TV horses. He also threw in some information about a decent priced winner to boot.
So what did he get in return?
He got the kind of treatment that is often typical around here when you aren\'t one of \"the collective!\"
Do you really think Barry is going to waste his time offering any insights into medical procedures, drugs etc... in the future if he\'s going to be attacked as soon as he shows up because he \"may\" have opinions on these issues that don\'t fit the cult standards here?
Did you ever think he might have something valuable to contribute that would shed further light on some of this stuff that we may not get to discuss now?
There are often some very good discussions here, but the attitude often sucks and the occasional cult-like thinking is very limiting.
Go ahead and flame away....I know some of you excel at that.
Class,
You are absolutely correct about the positive elements of Barry\'s postings. He got PLENTY of positive feedback here and I appreciated his posts!
I asked him a question. I would hardly call it an attack. I also included a reference to a previous Pletcher positive. It\'s not even that tough a question! I don\'t see anything out of line about it at all. He must know something about who vets his horses. I don\'t think the Pletcher/Allday relationship is a secret. What if I want to invest in Team Valor?
You seem more bent out of shape than Barry. It\'s the lightly raced stock...
HP
Class,
Are you aware of the term\"A drunkards\' dream\"?
PARTYpokerON!
E-mail me at address shown when you click my stage name.
PARTYpokerON!
HP,
This will be my last post on this.
If someone like me had asked BI the question about the Allday etc... I would have given the person the benefit of the doubt regarding his/her intent.
However, after blasting TP and Allday etc... for months and bringing up a past TP positive that BI may not have even know about (details also unknown) it was pretty obvious that your intent (and the intent of a few others who were WAY more specific) was to attack BI through association with those guys and others.
It\'s not my job to defend BI and I definitely don\'t want to defend any cheaters, but I think there may have been a better way to go about discussing the issue.
What really matters is that the consistently crappy attitude around here probably drove away a valuable source of input on these issues and doomed a few of us to more \"guilty until proven innocent\" rants every time a horse improves or doesn\'t fire the shot his TG figure suggests he should have.
CH-- I\'ll let HP deal with the details if he is dumb enough to continue to waste time with you, but that was a truly moronic post. You\'re right, people get mad at you for no reason at all-- it\'s really all about crappy attitude and horses not running the right TG figures.
Barry can choose to answer or not, but HP asked him a fair question.
The TP positives are a matter of public record.
Class,
You probably don\'t realize how insulting your post is to Barry Irwin. You don\'t think it\'s part of Barry\'s \"due diligence\" in hiring a trainer to know about his record?
Barry Irwin employs Todd Pletcher. There\'s nothing wrong with asking him about it. Yeesh.
HP
TGJB,
He replied about the recent TP positive and said it was a contamination issue. Obviously, \"he\" believes that the medication in question and the amount that showed up does not demonstrate the type of \"intent\" that he has a problem with.
Read \"ALL\" the posts directed at BI. It only takes an IQ slightly higher than rock to know that the intent was not to ask legit questions but to attack him by association.
HP,
Read ALL the posts directed at BI, not just your own.
Class,
Is Barry Irwin so stupid that he requires your representation? Let him speak for himself. Or not. I think Barry is aware that this is a public forum and he is perfectly capable of dealing with it.
HP
HP,
I think you may have missed my point. I think there\'s a pretty good chance he won\'t waste his time here anymore and IMO that\'s too bad.
There are a couple of threads to pick up on here:
Class:
I'm having a hard time seeing anything wrong in HP's question to Barry Irwin about Todd Pletcher. Except for the last part of Silver Charm's post, which is just name-calling, what treatment in this thread toward Barry is objectionable?
Barry:
I join CH in one respect – I do think you have insights and experience to contribute, so I hope you continue to post here. But the stuff about Nicks/Pletcher is a dodge. The facts of the case are that Nicks, himself a head trainer only a few months and someone who learned his trade working for a Hall of Fame horseman that no one believes is one of the abusers, instructed a vet to give a horse an injection of calcium. Calcium is hardly on the top ten list of performance enhancers. Further, Nicks said that he planned to scratch the horse in question and thus thought the injection was permitted, apparently unaware that he had to wait until one minute after the horse was scratched to order the injection. Where is the impure intent in all that? Perhaps you had a hard time identifying an impure intent at the time, because you were quoted as saying that you terminated Nicks not on the basis of any bad intent, or the seriousness of the rules violation, but rather on the basis of Team Valor's zero tolerance policy towards drugs (calcium!). "Team Valor has a zero-tolerance policy with regards to drugs," Team Valor President Barry Irwin said. "We had no choice other than to do what we did.\" (Thoroughbred Times, June 20, 2004) Under these facts, that\'s pretty hard-nosed, but we can all respect a rule that has the right spirit and goes in the right direction, as Team Valor\'s surely does.
So, if Team Valor's policy is zero tolerance, regardless of intent, regardless of substance administered, why is Todd Pletcher still training horses for Team Valor? Why does zero not mean zero?
Peter