Mike Mitchell gets 30 days detention barn for positive on 7/4 with Tricky Day.
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=29313
xichibanx
Actually, according to the San Diego Union Tribune, it\'s surveillance, not a detention barn. See below:
DEL MAR – Track security personnel will be stationed at trainer Mike Mitchell\'s stable area here for the next 30 days for 24-hour surveillance before any horses he enters race. The procedure is a consequence of a high total carbon dioxide (TCO2) test by Mitchell-trained Tricky Day following a July 4 race at Hollywood Park.
The surveillance, which will cost Mitchell $500 a day, enforces a contractual agreement involving various horsemen\'s groups reached last year intended to curb perceived proliferation of the practice known as \"milkshaking\" at Southern California tracks.
Four trainers had horses test out at TCO2 levels higher than the permitted 36 millimoles per liter during the Santa Anita winter-spring meeting and were required to send entrants through a 24-hour detention barn for the monthlong period.
Del Mar\'s planned detention barn facility was deemed inadequate, mandating the posting of surveillance personnel at the stable of Mitchell, a six-time meet-leading trainer.
Now if they could just figure out how certain trainers continue to prosper despite things like security barns, 24 hour surveillance, and greater testing.
I am clueless, but if I had to guess I think a couple of the high profile guys are doing things that involve treatment of some sort that takes a couple of months to show results and lasts for awhile. If not steroids, something like it. Too many of the horses that come back improved after changing barns do so after freshenings. That makes it more difficult to pin them down as cheating because a legitimately superior trainer, with better facilities and better care could theoretically move a horse up after a few months.
Of course, if they do figure it out, they must then actually make sure it is illegal.
$500 a day for 30 days adds up to 15 grand. Did the guys who were in the detention barn at Santa Anita earlier this year have to pay for the detention barn? I would think that this a tough monetary penalty -- Mitchell may prefer to use the detention barn if it is cheaper.
As for Classhandicapper\'s comment, there are certainly drugs and/or procedures that are not administered on raceday (Epogen (or is it EPO) comes automatically to mind). I think that TGJB mentioned that the detention barn concept is something but does not go all the way.
SoCal,
Are all the non-race day things that can be used actually identified as illegal?
That has been the biggest issue for me and party why I\'ve posted a lot of contrary opinions regarding the cheating issue. It\'s not enough for a bunch of horseplayers and horsemen to know that someone is using something to improve his horses. It has to actually be identified as illegal beforehand and not after the fact.
CH
I am no expert in this area. I think one of the problems is that a lot of stuff that is identified as illegal can be modified very slighty (just change the molecule a little) and voila a new drug is created. I very much like the idea that has been posted here where the trainer or the veterinarian must report everything that is injected or ingested by the horse and then be held accountable if something not reported is found. I am no expert so I have no idea how this would work, but it seems to me to be more fair to the bettors (which is the sine qua non of the sport -- other than on the Arabian Peninsula). If you are always forced to identify the illegal item ahead of time, then you will forever be facing new slightly tweaked illegal items.
SCM2
Class,
In this particular case, what difference does \"legal\" or \"illegal\" make and what are you talking about?
The rule is CLEAR AS DAY and Mitchell violated it. He\'s not even appealing, as far as I can see. Here is a case where there is an agreed-upon standard and it\'s in a CONTRACT and Mitchell\'s horse comes up in violation of the standard and you\'re getting into this totally irrelevant area again.
It was irrelevant in the Pletcher case too, where Pletcher\'s horse tested positive and the substance was ILLEGAL and you STILL went on about \"legal\" vs. \"illegal.\"
The only issue in the Pletcher matter is the AMOUNT of the substance used. It is WITHOUT QUESTION illegal. Ask Barry Irwin!
You are just pathologically incapable of acknowledging that these guys are cheating and even when they get caught you are ready to turn the subject into mush with this phantom \"legal v. illegal\" issue. I\'m assuming that you just can\'t accept the fact that it\'s Dr. Allday (White Mercedes), etc. and not any astute handling of lightly raced stock that has resulted in Pletcher\'s incredible run. But here you are again when the worm turns against Mitchell.
I could see where the \"legal\" vs. \"illegal\" debate might be relevant, but it is NOT relevant either in this Mitchell matter or with Pletcher. In both cases, ILLEGAL and CHEATING. Period.
Is there ever going to be an instance where the facts put a dent in your opinion on this?
HP
HP,
If I had any idea WTF you were talking about I might try to have a conversation with you.
This question of whether something is illegal (or more to the point, even known of), is why in my 4 point letter to DRF I said we need trainers and vets to sign off on everything that goes into the horse for a specified time before the race (like a week or two), and need to freeze blood. That way, if something shows up later (either because there wasn\'t a test earlier or because they weren\'t testing for it), it\'s a violation simply because it wasn\'t listed. If they do list something, we get to study it, and develop a test.
Class,
Skip the conversation. Just take a break from posting for a week. Please.
TGJB,
I love that idea, but in the mean time it\'s pretty clear to me the security barn and 24 hour surveillance is not doing much in terms of stopping some of the \"suspects\". Like I said above, this is evidence that if there is widespread cheating, they are using something that is more like a long term treatment. I\'d also guess it\'s currently \"not illegal\".
As soon as someone figures out exactly what it is racing will probably make it illegal. However, it seems likely that those that are engaging is any activity like this will keep all the purses, glory, etc... and move onto the next legal performance enhancer until your idea or something like it is implemented. Even then, they will keep all the success they are presently accumulating. It doesn\'t shock me that some owners are willing to use trainers that are \"suspected\" of using performance enhancers that are not illegal...yet. Whenever there is big money involved, some people are very attracted to grey.
Based on information and belief, it is not long term, but not a race day drug either. I\'m working on it, others are as well, we\'ll see what happens.
This post is not intended to anger or incite.
TGJB, I know you have an interest in racing which goes beyond selling information which you have collected to handicappers. I acknowledge that you advise owners/ bloodstock entities on the purchase of racehorses. I also recognize that other posters on this board are racehorse owners and breeders; still others might make a living in the game as racing officials and journalists. All of you have a vested interest in the future of racing.
I retired from the racing game in 1987. Since then, I have taken \"conventional\" jobs which allowed me to pursue my favorite recreational activity, to go to the track here in NY or over in NJ 2 or 3 times a week, to visit with friends who enjoy watching and betting on the races. With the advent of computer wagering, I can sneak in a bet now or then on the fly without attending live.
I really do not care, as a handicapper/racing fan, if the game is \"cleaned up\". I believe, that as a Blood Horse subscriber, as a daily reader of the Racing Form, as an occasional purchaser of TG products and a follower of the TG board, as a person who has maintained contact with some of the people I know who are still working on the backside, that I have more knowledge and information than 80- 90% of the people I am wagering against.
I am cognizant of the fact that these 10- 20% of the people more informed than I may be wagering an inordinate percentage of all the monies wagered.
If you have read this far, and are waiting for me to make a point, here it is: I feel like I would lose a slight advantage if the playing field is somehow leveled. I have gotten used to playing the game with the knowledge that there are supertrainers and what I call \"stuportrainers\", who somehow remain in the game year after year with a high volume of starters and a low strike rate. One trainer in NY has probably saddled over a thousand runners in the last 4-5 years with a win percentage of less than 5%; to me, this man must either have an irresistible personality or he is laundering his owners\' money.
Maybe I would be more apt to shout \"CLEAN UP THE GAME\" if I thought such a cleansing was an attainable objective. Chicanery has always been a part of the game, and the best practitioners of this chicanery have always been admired and villified at the same time. Just in the time I\'ve been in the game, we\'ve had Oscar Barrera, Pete Ferriola, Gasper Moschera and Rich Dutrow, Jr. plying their trade in NY, the jock who got lost in the fog down in Louisiana, Dale Romans dad beating the track identifier (and the public) at Churchill on Derby Day for a big score, Linda Rice\'s dad, Clyde, fooling the clocker up at Penn National and cashing a big bet on Titillating at Belmont, etc. My personal favorite is the trainer who caught a lifetime ban in England for running a 3YO in a race which was limited to 2YOs. He swears he would have never gotten caught if it weren\'t for the fact that the jock allowed the horse to win by 20 lengths... in a 5 furlong race.
So freeze the blood, give owners and trainers Sarbanes Oxley like liability, these are all good ideas, but a lot of the cheaters are making their biggest scores at the windows and not through the award of purse moneys. Purse monies can be redistributed, but pari- mutuel payouts can not.
I draw the line at the inhumane treatment of thoroughbreds. At this point, I would no longer be interested in wagering, and the game wouldn\'t be around for long anyway.
richie,
\"If you have read this far, and are waiting for me to make a point, here it is: I feel like I would lose a slight advantage if the playing field is somehow leveled. I have gotten used to playing the game with the knowledge that there are supertrainers and what I call \"stuportrainers\", \"
I\'m glad you said it and not me.
I made a similar point in the past and it wasn\'t received very well. IMO cleaning up the game is more about being fair to clean trainers, clean owners, and breeders that want to judge horses based on legitimate performances etc...
When it comes to the gambling aspect of it, for very serious horseplayers, I know a few with no inside information that have joked that they will have to quit betting if the game is cleaned up because they will lose their only edge.
The cheating is just another complicating factor (among many) for a handicapper to weigh. If you study trainers and get on or off certain things before the general public figures it out, there\'s an edge in that. Does it really matter if someone else has a bigger edge? They always will anyway because they know the day to day changes of the horses\' health, fitness etc....
Personally, I think most of the people here love the sport so much they would just rather see it clean.
Richiebee says\"So freeze the blood, give owners and trainers Sarbanes Oxley like liability, these are all good ideas, but a lot of the cheaters are making their biggest scores at the windows and not through the award of purse moneys. Purse monies can be redistributed, but pari- mutuel payouts can not.\"
Richiebee, You appear to be assuming that the cheaters only cheat to win a race and therefore with your experience and some inside info, you have an edge over the betting crowd. I submit that people willing to cheat and collect their ill begotten gains via the pari-mutual windows will just as soon do something to stiff a horse (or horses) as to boost a horse. (Remember the Winter Hill Gang scandal where if memory serves correctly they were paying jockeys to stiff the better horses in a race and then boxed the longshots in exotic bets). Wouldn\'t you have a tremendous advantage in a race if you know the ML 3-5 fave is not going to run a lick today.
How do you maintain your edge under these circumstances......unless you get the word directly, you are at the same disadvantage as the rest of us. The cleaner that racing is the better for all (except the cheaters). Asfufh
Asfuth:
There is no question that the ways to discourage an animal from running his/her best race are numerous. The most obvious is for the jockey to \"take a good hold\" of an animal during a race, just as effective is \"sending\" a horse who has no inclination to run early. The result will be the same.
The jockey\'s involvement is not necessary. Horses are usually given limited access to drinking water on race day. Too much water, animal probably won\'t perform properly. Rather simple. Horse A has won 2 straight races using a shadow roll and a \"d\" bit; all of sudden A shows up in the paddock with a plain nose band and a \"ring\" bit. Horseplayers are not privy to these subtle equipment changes unless they are keeping a paddock book the way I\'m sure all the sharp claiming trainers do, the way Leatherbury and Alfano and Dutrow Sr used to do in Maryland.
Other ways to assure poor performance: Enter your horse in a race he doesn\'t have a chance to win. Wrong surface, wrong distance. Or you can run your horse in a race he is not prepared properly for. Case in point: Did anyone else think that Galloping Grocer had NO chance of winning a 9 furlong stake off a 10 week layoff with only a half mile turf work and a 3 furlong breeze? As long as there are bettors who will drive an animal like this down to 6/5, I will have my chances to cash a bet.
I think TGJB is more concerned with PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT than the various ways horses can be \"gagged\". TGJB, in the 6 or so months I have been following this board, has instigated a brilliant dialogue regarding the relative speed of horses today and yesterday, a dialogue which encompasses both the issues of performance enhancing medication and the condition of track surfaces.
Part of the reason for my post was to state my opinion that \"recreational\" gamblers/ racing fans such as myself don\'t really care if there are haves and have nots in every race which is run. TGJB is concerned with using his figures to identify move up trainers and subject them to heightened scrutiny, I would rather use the information to identify wagering opportunities.
What I call \"chicanery\" has been a part of racing probably for as long as horses have been matched up competitively. The man they called \"Doc\" Harthill who passed away a couple weeks ago was recognized as the game\'s greatest vet, but was also a master race fixer. Ask me about Bracadale one day.
[EDIT]Let me answer your post more directly. Why do I get off on these anecdotal tangents? There are many benign, undectable ways of discouraging a horse from running his most efficient race, with the intention of allowing the horse to issue his best effort on a day that would be mutuelly desirable. IMO the increase in purses at many tracks, and especially some small tracks, has curtailed this practice. I dont think there are many trainers/ jockeys holding horses for months, maybe a year, trying to set up the score of the Century. Purses too high and the animals are not starting as many times per year as they used to.
Two ridiculously close photos in the last couple of days have cost me BIG. Miami Princess in the 9th Wednesday, Trapped Again 7th race yesterday. I give Javier Castellano a good deal of credit for getting Go Now to outfinish Trapped Again; Go Now was really trying to hang, as usual.
I don\'t think \"stiffing\" a horse makes a lot of economic sense in most cases.
First, by stiffing your horse to cash a bet later you are potentially giving up a piece of the current or potential purse. Then you have to deal with the risk that the horse will go bad between the time of the \"stiff\" and the \"betting coup\". So you have to recover that much long term money/risk on your future bet just to break even.
A large enough bet on that \"future race\" will likely depress the payoff and you still have to deal with the risk of a horrible trip, the horse getting hurt during the race, or a surprise performance by a competitor that gets you beat.
There\'s got to be easier ways to make money. :)
I think \"no try\" prep races for first time starters that the connections know are short/green etc.... (and things like that) happen more often. Then the crackdown race occurs with an equipment change etc... when the horse is ready.
\"I don\'t thik stiffing a horse makes alot of economic sense\"
\"Even if he wins I think its a mistake\"
I\'m starting a little red book of quotes to live by...C.H. Now I know why he refers to himself as the unknown comic.
Class; my stage name at the poker table is the same I use everywhere(dimensia),be you so bold as to divulge same?
PARTYpokerON!
p.s.jerry did you recieve the belly button advisory?No thats not one of my daughters!
These suspensions and additional R & D into stopping the new ways to cheat need to continue. The face of the sport is changing and changing rapidly. In the last two days the sport has lost one of its greatest spokesmen in Pat Day, Jerry Bailey is next and in recent years Laffit Pincay, Chris McCarron and Eddie D. moved out of the sweatbox and to the first tee. Other than Gary and Mike Smith are there any other active Hall of Fame jockeys left.
Once the Mack Millers, Woody's, Van Bergs and Charlies moved on the only high profile hardboots left are D Wayne and Brooklyn Nick. Seems like most of the people who have been promoted to fill the void are 21st Century Jungle Chemists or Circus Clowns with everything but the facial paint and red nose.
Eliminating all the drugs and cheating will allow new responsible people to step forward. But it is going to take time.
davidrex,
I know why some people don\'t understand the \"even if he wins I think it\'s a mistake\" quote. Those are same kind of people that think winning a coin flip getting 4-5 makes it a smart bet.
I\'m not sure what you are talking about when it comes to the other quote.
Do you think there\'s a lot of stiffing going on?
Do you think it makes economic sense to stiff a horse to cash a future bet?
Do you think it\'s obvious it doesn\'t make sense?
You don\'t want to play poker with me. I\'m small potatoes. I multi-table bonus whore $1-$2 between races and grind out a small profit in addition to the sign up bonuses and reloads. I\'m not a real player. I\'m new to the game. I just know where I belong at this point so I can make money.
Class,
They don\'t necessarily stiff a horse to bet on him in the future... Almost every story I\'ve read about race fixing involves \"pulling\" a horse or horses and betting on the other ones in the race, who aren\'t being \"stiffed.\"
HP