Jerry,
With all this talk about the Rags figures and other stuff, something I don\'t think we have touched on is the performance of the \"move up\" trainers. (at least I didn\'t see much on this).
We have 8 Breeders Cup races, and if you throwout the Turf, that leaves 7 races with representation from the \"move up\" guys.
Dutrow wins 2, Doug O\'Neill wins 1 and Frankel wins 1. Besides that, Pletcher\'s Flower Alley runs his race and Frankel gets a 2nd place finish in another race.
There were detention barns and this was supposed to be \"better than Lone Star\" with regards to security. What happened?
On a larger scale, you mentioned or implied at various times during the past 12 months that you and others were involved in discussions with the \"right people\" about the problems in the sport. Is there being any progress made that you know of? Mullins still wins at an incredible rate, Mitchell claims run through their tops out west, the same with Dutrow and his 43% win rate \"off the claim\". And now, on racing\'s biggest day, where previously the move up guys had struggled for the most part, they dominated this year in NY, where the security is supposed to be superior.
Any thoughts on this?
Jim
Jimbo:
What we have heard is that these \"move up\" trainers will hasten the demise of thoroughbred racing. In this years BC, I think they set a record for number of entrants (no one is afraid to run against the move up trainers) and I know they set a record for total handle (we continue to bet the races even though we are aware of the presence of these move up trainers and their vets).
The unholy trinity (Pletcher, Frankel and Dutrow) marches on, but I don\'t think any of them maintains a winning percentage in excess of 25%; they still lose 75% of the time. There is still a plus side to finding spots to bet against these guys (like betting against Frankel runners at the fall Belmont meet, or betting against \"Dutrow droppers\" which are always heavily backed at the windows but rarely seem to win).
[EDIT]. The conclusion might be, unsavory to some, that these guys are employing a vet who, like him or not, is getting tremendous results within current testing protocols. Dutrow has a blacksmith (Alex Leaf) who works only for him, his brother Anthony, and Tom Bush.
To me, the most reprehensible thing about R Dutrow is that he has had many opportunities to thank or remember his late father. I never heard him say \"Gee, I wish my dad was here today\" or \"I owe a lot of my success to my dad\".
For all the years I was in business with MY father, I always tried to deflect the rare amount of praise given to me towards my dad. I would always say something like \"I\'m just doing what my father taught me\". Sometimes I was doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what my father would have done, but people enjoy and expect to hear deference to the father. I\'ve heard none from RD, Jr.
Rich,
Perhaps the reason Dutow is not thanking his father for his success is that his father is not the one who taught him to cheat and "juice".
Seriously though, you have a point about Dutow's character flaws and these and other factors lend support to the charges that this is a man who cares only about winning at any cost, including drugs.
I refer to what he did in the Woodward. No, I have no problem with someone who enters a rabbit to improve the performance of his own horse if he is a closer (which St Liam is not) and needs a realistic pace. The problem is he got a third party to enter two so-called rabbits to mess up the chances of his competitor. This smacks of conspiracy and collusion. I say so-called rabbits because only one of the horses was a rabbit - the other was more of a "goon", like some hockey coaches use to neutralize a superior opposing player. If you watch the race you will see that only one horse set the pace. When it appeared that Stevens was initially able to get Commentator to rate off the pace, the other horse hung right off of C and crowded, attempted to box him and generally harassed his rival. If you look at the head-on from the backstretch, you will see that C had to bump the "goon" to get clear. It wouldn't be surprised if the rider had not been told to foul if necessary and be DQed, since he wasn't in the race to win anyway and was under separate ownership than St. Liam. The owner and jockey of the goon would take the rap. That's why none of the established jocks in the NY riding community wanted any part of these horses. They had to get a couple of struggling unknowns.
Bob
BOB:
I played the Devil\'s Advocate on that one; the \"goon\" and the \"rabbit\" earned a combined $45,000 in purse money for their efforts that day-- not exactly a \"sacrifice\" on the part of owner Goldfarb.
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BOB:
>
> I played the Devil\'s Advocate on that one; the
> \"goon\" and the \"rabbit\" earned a combined $45,000
> in purse money for their efforts that day-- not
> exactly a \"sacrifice\" on the part of owner
> Goldfarb.
Granted, and Dutrow made out damn good as well. That doesn\'t make it stink any less. In the Whitney, we had one of greatest races of the year with 2 fast horses at their best. In the Woodward, instead of a repeat we had a non-event with one horse prevented from running well and the other not having to. Sure, Dutrow made a lot of money but the sport was not created solely for Dutrows enrichment. Racing was the big loser. Not much of a betting opportunity either when everybody knows only one horse has a real chance of winning.
Bob
Jimbo-- yeah, you ain\'t kidding-- Mullins won the Sport Page that day, too.
I\'ve been in contact with several people, the ones who seem most serious about getting something done are the ones at TOBA.
As I understand the situation, the problem has to do with specific testing issues. I have been told by several people that there are trainers that come in EVERY TIME, WITH EVERY HORSE, with well over the level of bicarbonates that are naturally recurring in a horse, but below the threshold level set for a positive. Those levels were set at a very high level (\"3 standard deviations\"?) so that there would be no chance to argue against them if a positive ever got to court. The tracks are trying to protect themselves, since you can\'t do split samples-- the bicarbonates won\'t keep, can\'t be frozen.
This situation is also complicated by other factors-- supposedly the bicarbonate level in the blood goes UP in the hours AFTER the sample is taken, and up further after lasix is given. And, as I said here once before, there are now ways to administer bicarbonate without tubing-- making it harder to catch someone in the act.
And on top of all that, you have tracks that don\'t WANT to catch anybody, and have a scandal.
Other than that, cleaning it up will be easy.
Maybe a player boycott is in order. How else can \"we\" the players effect a change. The current punishments for the cheaters are a joke. Heck, Pletcher still hasn\'t even been punished for cheating after getting caught at Saratoga LAST year.
3Std Deviations is the 99.% confidence level 2std Deviations is the 95% confidence levela nd 1 std dev is 68% confidence level.
This is classic six Sigma stuff
FYI
NC Tony
Tony-- it strikes me that you are exactly the right guy to ask this question. If a horse (or a group of horses) is 45% to do something, what is the chance of it happening in 12 of 13 cases?
Jerry,
Mullins didn\'t win the SPorts Page. He ran second, Roger Stein won it with the horse that ran 2nd in the Pat O\' Brien.
xichibanx
Right about Mullins. My mistake.
My calculator tells me the chance of 12 of 12 doing it is approximately seven one-thousandths of 1 percent (.000069 to be precise). Anyone else get a different result as to the twelve?
How accurate is the 45% that the horses will do something? Are there multiple sources/figs confirming the 45%, or just one, perhaps, self serving source?
1. It should be pointed out that the trainer of PLEASANT HOME [since mid-year 2005] uses the same veterinarian as Todd Pletcher. PLEASANT HOME\'s instant \"move up\" was the eye-popper of the afternoon. Add him to your list.
2. People shouldn\'t see this merely as a \"level of bicarbonates\" problem. I\'m amazed how people harp on this, to the exclusion of the real problem: steroids [see that recent article by Bergstein]. The 8-hour detention barn does nothing to stop a Dutrower that\'s been steroided during a layoff - many days or weeks before the race - and has been growing into his enhanced new levels in bullet work after bullet work. [See Dutrow\'s BC Sprint winner. Textbook Dutrow. How many times have we seen that from him?]
3. I also think that it\'s hypocritical, on one hand, for certain people to complain about the problem, and then on the other hand, to give horses to the Mike Mitchell\'s of the world. [Jerry, how \'bout you? Have you ever used trainer Mike Mitchell? See the ThoroGraphs of those Mike Mitchell move-ups at last year\'s Gulfstream meeting. Sheesh. Move Up City!] Also, I have a vague recollection of Team Valor\'s Barry Irwin coming out a year or so ago in some celebrated editorial in the racing press and, in an effort to self-police the way his horses were trained, take away horses from certain trainers he suspected were using clenbuterol or other move-up pharmaceuticals. I forget the specifics, but, after his editorial, I think he took horses away from who...? Ralph Nicks? And gave them to... DRUM ROLL... trainer DALE ROMANS!!! Seems hypocritical to me. Heavy sigh.
JohnTChance
Miff-- I\'ll get into all that when I discuss Ragozin\'s BC figures, but it\'s based on HIS data-- all the races the fillies in the Distaff had run this year, and the % of those figures that were more than 3 points off the horses\' previous top ON RAGOZIN, the data he himself uses to make the figures. They had made 74 starts this year, and 33 of them were more than 3 points off their tops going in-- 45%. And as I said in a previous post to Steve about this, of those 33 off races, 12 were from only 2 fillies that had isolated tops a long time ago and couldn\'t get back to them-- Hollywood story and Island Fashion. The other 11 have a much higher % of figures close to their tops.
But we\'ll go with the 45% figure, it\'s good enough.
>the exclusion of the real problem: steroids [see that recent article by Bergstein]. The 8-hour detention barn does nothing to stop a Dutrower that\'s been steroided during a layoff - many days or weeks before the race - and has been growing into his enhanced new levels in bullet work after bullet work. <
That has been my position also.
It\'s one thing to move a horse up 5 days after you get it. It\'s another thing to do it after it has been on a farm for two months getting better care and who knows what else.
That doesn\'t mean steroids are the answer, but something along those lines seems logical because the stakes caliber move up trainers have not been slowed down by the detention barn.
John-- I had a problem with Cerin that caused me to pull her out of his barn on short notice (less than 24 hours), and I didn\'t know another trainer to use in California. Someone involved with the horse knew Mitchell, so we did that. She did well for him, winning a stake, then I had a problem with him as well. She ended up with Tim Yakteem, winning a stake there too.
FYI, the filly (Shezsospiritual) sells as hip 763 at Keeneland Thursday, in foal to Distorted Humor.
Don\'t lose sight! It goes way beyond shakes.The detention barn thing has lots of track Public Relations in it.I am willing to bet that if and when they catch the usual suspects, it aint gonna be milkshakes.
Mike
My Calulation says its .0000309% likely to occur. Over one in a Million.
Thanks, Tony. If you get a chance, send me an e-mail showing me how the hell to do that.
Steve-- hope you saw that.
I\'ve heard its EPO its EPO......You know the stuff that distance runners, cyclists, and all Olympic Athletes are tested for. Blood Doping.
NC Tony
Tony,
The latest thing I heard is, as you said, Blood Dope/EPO and super pain med. Now it is being said that the chemists are frequently changing components, ever so slightly,in order to further the \"distance\" between the dopers and the testers.Big advantage, DOPERS!, still.
Mike
Jerry,
What Caradoc posted was the chance of something happening 12 times in a row, with a 45% chance of success rate, which is .000069 or .0069%.
What NC Tony posted was the chance of something happening 13 times in a row, with a 45% chance of sucess rate, which is .0000310 or .0031%.
What you are asking is what is the chance of something happening 12 out of 13 times, given each chance has a 45% success rate.
The formula is much nastier than simply .45 to the 12th or 13th power.
The actual answer is .00049 or about .05%. It still is not very likely, but significantly more likely than it happening 12 out of 12 or 13 out of 13.
I can give you a link to the formula if you are interested.
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda366i.htm
It is the first formula on the page, called binomial distribution.
Wrongly,
You couldn\'t have put it more rightly. All the suveilance in the world will do no good if real penalties aren\'t handed down to the cheaters. When Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids after winning the Olympics 100 meters, he was disgraced and banned for life. Personally I think that a trainer who juices his horses is even worse. the Olympics is not a big betting event (except perhaps in the London bookshops where they bet anything) so not as meny bettors were defrauded. Plus Johnson drugged himself rather than some poor unconsenting animal. But what happens when trainers are caught? They get 60 day suspensions. Big deal. Jeff Mullins gets caught and adds insult to injury by saying bettors are all \"sick idiots\" anyway, and gets 60 days surveilance. That\'s like taking a convicted criminal and saying, \"where not going to punish you, just watch you so you don\'t mug anybody for a couple of months\". Maybe we \"sick idiots\" that provide the funding for purses should stop patronizing the establishments that nurture these cheats. Maybe, since the racing accociations won\'t deal with these crooks, we should get the real law, that we pay taxes to protect us, to go after these criminals for fraud as well as animal abuse.
Bob
Jerry, after reviewing this post of yours I\'m not sure either Tony or me calculated this correctly. If we are to derive the right probability (and Tony, correct me if I'm wrong), we need to determine each individual horse\'s probability of running an off race first rather than aggregating them into a group. The result is a very different probability if the 33 "off" races were run just by Hollywood Story, Island Fashion and one or two others rather than being more or less evenly distributed among all entrants, no?
Caradoc-- yes, that was my point about 12 of those off races coming from only 2 of the fillies. It means that realistically the chance of THOSE 12 out of 13 doing it is much lower (and goes to a point I have made at other times about averages being misleading). But I\'ll go with the 2,000-1, it\'ll do.
Jimbo-- nasty is right, that\'s why I gave it to you guys. Bookmakers have to be doing something like that for two teams playing a series-- same principle, right?
nonight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. It should be pointed out that the trainer of
> PLEASANT HOME uses the same veterinarian as Todd
> Pletcher. PLEASANT HOME\'s instant \"move up\" was
> the eye-popper of the afternoon. Add him to your
> list.
>
JTC..
I don\'t think Shug is using Allday. At Saratoga, someone who would know told me the relationship ended as soon as Shug received Allday\'s first invoice. Am curious if you\'ve heard differently... definitively.
Steve
nonight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. It should be pointed out that the trainer of
> PLEASANT HOME uses the same veterinarian as Todd
> Pletcher. PLEASANT HOME\'s instant \"move up\" was
> the eye-popper of the afternoon. Add him to your
> list.
>
Nonight,
I\'m about as suspicious and critical of these \"move up\" trainers as anybody, but I would hesitate to lump Shug in with Dutrow and Pletcher on the basis of one race. It\'s to his credit that he dumped Allday. He\'s a real old school type who trains for the Phipps\' who race what they breed and breed what they race and is known for taking real good care of his horses. He\'s just as concerned with developing good breeding stock as with winning races and has never had a horse test positive, as far as I know. If anything he\'s been criticized for not being in step with the \"modern\" game. Of course, he may have had a change of heart so might be worth watching.
Bob
Yes,
Bookmakers do that for series prices but the other application is for parlay cards. 9 out of 10, 14 out of 15, etc.etc.
2000 to 1 is pretty rare, but it isn\'t a million to one.....
No Problem.
Still the Jeff Mullins impact brings up the point. Can Biancone maintain what Jeff Mullins has done with Wild Fit (Not that Wild Fit is Go For Wand or anything)? I would say no but next time she runs, wherever that end up happening that question has to be answered. That question was the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw that the Irish bought her.
P.S. Silver Charm if you read this. Can you check your private messages for this forum as I left you a message for you and Brooklyn Steve that you need to know that you may find interesting.
xichibanx
Jimbo -
Doesn\'t the binomial distribution require random/independent samples? 13 horses in the same race, all subject to the same factors like pace and traffic that may affect their performance, seems pretty far from random sampling to me.
Bit,
Idependent doesn\'t mean the subjects are exposed to the same variables or conditions. It just means that the the result of one case is not dependent on the result of another. In other words the performance of one horse is not necessarily the result of that of the others.
Bob
bobphilo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bit,
>
> Idependent doesn\'t mean the subjects are exposed
> to the same variables or conditions. It just means
> that the the result of one case is not dependent
> on the result of another. In other words the
> performance of one horse is not necessarily the
> result of that of the others.
>
Oops, a typo. I meant that independent does NOT mean the subjects are subject to the same variable or conditions.
Bob -
I stand corrected. What about random?
BitPlayer
Bit
Random means that all members of a population are equally likely to be included in the sample, and there is no bias in the selection. That makes the sample more likely to be representaive of the population as a whole. Good job of stating the requirements for a binomial distribution, though.
Bob
Now that we\'ve mastered binomial distribution, can any of you mathematicians explain how to apply Six Sigma methodology to the handicapping process? I don\'t know about you guys, but I\'ve been experiencing a hell of a lot more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities.
Bob -
I\'m obviously out of my depth here. I\'ve had only one course in statistics (and a bad one at that) several years ago. This board is the only place I\'ve ever heard of Six Sigma. Rather than continue to ask you what various statistical terms mean (e.g., is selecting horses from a single race a \"biased\" selection?), I\'ll defer to you to answer the question at hand: Do you think the binomial distribution is a statistically sound method of analyzing the probability that the Rags figures for the BC Distaff are accurate?
BitPlayer
LOL, good point David. I think we got involved in these fine points of statistical definitions, to answer the original question of the thread, which was - what is the probability that the the success of the \"super trainers\" on BC day was due to chance or are they up to there old tricks? My take is that while 8 races are only 8 races, no matter how important they are, the results are consistant with the pattern of hundreds of other races with the conclusion that these guys are up to something less than honerable.
Bob
The formula is fine, the question is whether you agree with the 45% figure Jerry is using.
I am not sure what Jerry is using 45% to represent. If it is 45% that one of the entrants will run an \"x\", then 45% is just an average based on 1000\'s of horses, not the individual chance of each horse in the race based on her pattern.
If you accept the 45% as a valid variable, then the formula is most definitely 100% usable to express the chances of 12 of the 13 horses running that \"x\".
I agree with your conclusion. So, as handicappers, can we use that conclusion to our advantage? That is, rather than quit the game in disgust or just play minor tracks where these guys don\'t show up, can we ascertain any patterns that \"tell\" us when one of the magical move ups is more likely to occur (or not) and bet accordingly? I don\'t begin to have the answer, but maybe some of TG\'s trainer stats, if parsed correctly, would shed some light on this.
Bit,
I think we may have 2 different threads going on simultaniuosly. One as to whether the BC results implicate the \"super trainers\". and another with regard to the legitamitcy of the Rags figures for the day. If it makes you feel any better, I find the issue of applying the binomial distribution to these results a bit confusing myself. The good news is that the answer lies in simply applying your common sense knowledge of whether the figures make sense with respect to the horses previous performances. Personally, my first quick look at the Rags figures show some problems there due to mixing unlike populations by refusing to break races loose. I think detailed knowledge of sigma six or the binomial distribution are not neceassarily required here. Combine this with the answer I just gave to David\'s post and that\'s my best guess answer to both questions. Hope this helps.
Bob
Jimbo: I'm not sure I completely follow it either, but let's try looking at it this way. Assume the parameters in Jerry's post as of 5:19 today are true: a) that the starters in the BC Distaff this year made 74 starts this year prior to the Distaff, b) on Ragozin's data, 33 of those 74 efforts were "off" (meaning in this case more than 3 points off their top), and c) 12 of the 33 "off" races were run by Hollywood Story and Island Fashion.
One of the problems is that without having the Ragozin data to analyze, we don't know precisely how to calculate the probability of an outcome where all the entrants except one run more than three points off their top, a point Jerry has acknowledged. If you make some reasonable assumptions, the chance of 12 of 13 (excepting Pleasant Home) running more than three points off their top are higher than the earlier posts today suggested, mine included. Hollywood Story and Island Fashion, who account for 12 of the off races, ran 14 times this year prior to the BC. For their two other races, I don't know whether one of them ran two "pairs" or whether both ran a pair. Assume both ran a pair. Of the other 11 entrants, as a group they had run 21 "off" races out of 60 this year prior to the BC. Again, I have no idea how these 21 were distributed among the others, but solely for the purpose of illustrating the point, assume that the 21 "off" races are distributed evenly among the other 11 entrants with one exception. That exception relates to Stellar Jayne, who had run only twice before the BC this year, so if you assign 2 off races to her, you will completely skew the results. Assume she ran one off race, and all other entrants ran two off races. If you do, I calculate the odds of the odds of everyone in the field except Pleasant Home running more than 3 points off their top as 1 in 18,018.
God help anyone who wants to see the calculations.
I don\'t think you can figure out the probability of all the horses \'X\'ing except one by looking at all the \'X\'s within the group vs. all the starts. There are obvious problems like the one already identified where a couple of horses have a lot of Xs and skew the results.
You have to analyze it one horse at a time and get individual probabilities.
I also think there\'s virtually no way to get at the probabilities of an individual horse \'X\'ing by only looking at its previous figures. You have to look at the reasons for the previous Xs and be aware that under today\'s conditions an X may be more or less likely.
1. Some of the previous Xs could have been at the wrong distance, on off tracks, on the wrong surface, with a horrible trip etc... meaning that Xing is less likely under suitable conditions. The opposite is also true.
2. Horses are more likely to X late in the season.
3. Horses are much more likely to X in a race like the Breeder\'s Cup/K Derby etc.. where there are many high quality horses and a large field because many horses never get into their preferred racing position. (# 4 and #5 are an extension of this)
4. A very competitive race development or fast pace could cause most of the horses in a race to run slower than expected (look at the Juvenile Filly race for a clear example). If only 1 or 2 avoided racing close to the action, then they would be the only 2 likely to duplicate their expected figures.
5. Multiple horses in a large field can get checked, run into traffic, etc...
I\'m sure there are plenty of other issues, but off the top of my head these are the most obvious.
Another 1st time Dutrow
http://www.drf.com/news/article/70132.html
Class,
The insult to everyone\'s intelligence is that ALL the previous trainers of his unbelievable move up performers were incapable of detecting that these horses had problems up front or behind. Only Rick can detect these problems.I believe it.
Mike
\" \"She needed to be straightened out,\'\' Dutrow said. \"She had front-end issues, hind-end issues. Now, she\'s got no issues.\'\'\"
I\'m sure Carl Nafzger, trainer of a Kentucky Derby / Breeder\'s Cup Classic winner, is a total incompetent. This guy has some nerve...
Beyerguy:
When I met TGJB at the Spa this August, I mentioned to him that I thought it was strange that Buckram Oak would have horses both with the infamous Mr. Dutrow and Carl Nafzger, who is the \"hay oats and water\" poster boy. Nafzger was subjecting his own employees to drug testing before the various state racing commissions were.
RD Jr is coming off as very hard to like, and as Yogi once said of an injury he himself had sustained, \"X rays of the brain proved negative\".
I have noticed with Drugtrow that the sudden turn arounds seem to have disappeared. No more claim, run them back four days later, and smash through the previous lifetime top. It is now more of the \"time\" factor. Maybe I\'m wrong, but this has been my obsevation since the detention barns went into effect. The winning percentage is still high, but at the lower levels of the game, he is winning in a different manner than he did early in the year.
beyer,
I don\'t pay as much attention to his claimers, but he\'s been using that 2 month layoff pattern with the higher class horses where I focus my attention for awhile. If I get a chance, I\'ll take a detailed look at his stats via Formulator. The suspension period sort of screwed everything up because the DRF was counting the horses returning to his \"name\" after the suspension as trainer changes when it was the same barn.
Yes you are right because each horse has or had a different probablity to run an off race over another independent of each other making it a very complex equation. But all math is doable with a computer/software/time.
NC Tony
beyer guy,
Have noticed and read on-line same feelings you are having.
Tighter conditions and slight improvement in testing seems to have caused the change in m.o.
Got to tip my hat to the thief, some of the earlier generation claim ...drug...step up...run in 4 days.....have taken well to retirement.
PARTYpokerON!
One thing I have seen with the so-called super tainers, is that most of them can\'t get those high win % out of horses coming off long lay-offs.
jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The formula is fine, the question is whether you
> agree with the 45% figure Jerry is using.
>
> I am not sure what Jerry is using 45% to
> represent. If it is 45% that one of the entrants
> will run an \"x\", then 45% is just an average based
> on 1000\'s of horses, not the individual chance of
> each horse in the race based on her pattern.
>
> If you accept the 45% as a valid variable, then
> the formula is most definitely 100% usable to
> express the chances of 12 of the 13 horses running
> that \"x\".
>
>
Yes Jimbo thank you for correcting my mistake. I\'m sorry but I did that rather quickly and misinterperted the intial question. Subsequently I went and checked your math and you are most certainly correct. Hey I\'m in South Carolina at our manufacturing plant the past few days and you know how \"slow\" us southerners are.
I agree the real question is how accurate is the 45% is across the entire population.
NC Tony
nonnight,
Total agreement on steroids, Pletcher, Irwin (LOL!) but reserving judgement on Shug. The clenbuterol issue is a joke as far as I\'m concerned;everbody\'s been using it since the 80\'s. It\'s just now with Allday, EPO, etc. it\'s truly scary!
es
es,
I share your concern about steriods - their use scares me too. When Ben Johnson tested positive after winning the Olympic 100 meters, he was disgraced and banned for life. That\'s how seriously track and field takes the issue. As a handicapper and bettor I detest being cheated. I also hate seeing honest trainers who try to run clean struggle to survive, while their cheating colleagues prosper and have armies of fans who bitterly attack all those who criticize their \"heros\". In addition, I also consider myself an ethical human being, and to see these guys giving some poor innocent animal sustances known to cause cancer cancer and renal failure, disgusts me. Anabolic steriods make muscles tremendously stronger, while the bones and ligaments that support them, if anything, are made more suseptable to injury. Worse of all, vets who have taken an oath to heal horses and were trained in state-supported vet schools (our tax dollars) use their skill to cheat the sport and hurt or kill horses in the process. Aside from that, steroids are great.
Bob