Time to do your time Teflon Todd.
Forty Five days is a long time to be away when somebody gives you the car keys to around $40 Million in horse flesh.
Can\'t send in the signals from the dugout hall like they do in baseball.
Time to do your time Teflon Todd.
Unfortunately, as Dr. Rick Arthur, a member of the CHRB Medication Advisory Committee, said in the Bloodhorse Chat last week. "Suspended trainers do collect fees and purses and still essentially train the horses from afar. For trainers with multi-state stables, it really isn't much different than their usual operation."
Todd is essentially getting a paid vacation. Some penalty.
Happy Holidays all,
Bob
Maybe so, but the next one is for around six months and the next one after that even longer.
With a very expensive and far flung operation running this would tend to make most peple a little more careful if not downright paranoid that someone else somewhere else is going to do something that will TOTALLY SCREW HIM.
Instead of towing the line of right and wrong I may back off a little.
I don\'t know about that. He can\'t be in 2 places at the same time, he already has capable people taking care of his various stables around the country. He can sell that angle to his owners and won\'t skip a beat.
Don\'t know what Dr. Arthur is referring to but in NY,when a trainer is suspended he does not get the purse income. The trainer of record gets it.There could be other arrangments but why would a trainer of record take a chance on getting positives/suspensions but not receive the income.
JB, is Asmussen getting the money now or is Blasi?
Mike
Don\'t know, but it\'s a fair assumption Plaetcher will be as involved as always in every way. Assistant trainers get to be in the program and get their names out, that\'s what\'s in it for them.
JB,
Agree on Pletchers involvement. I know that when Dutrow is on suspension, he still calls all the shots. It should be part of the suspension that the money cannot be given to the suspended trainer.One prominent trainer got suspended and became a paid consultant during the suspension, what a pair.
Thanks for the free data.
Mike
This has been brought up before on this board and on various roundtables and
symposiums.
If Racing was serious about its drug problem (and Racing is not) owners and
horses would be penalized for positives.
Believe me, a lot of these instances of the wrong horse being treated by a vet
or a horse being treated mistakenly too close to race day would miraculously
disappear.
The fact that there is no effective deterrent to drug fueled racing is
evidenced by the fact that Asmussen, Dutrow, Lake, Norman and Pletcher are all
in the \"sin bin\" at the same time.
History will show that none of these five will be hurt by these suspensions.
They will lose no money, and no indignant owners will pull their animals from
these trainers.
Any truth to the rumor that Pletcher\'s horses will be running under Dave Monaci\'s name in the Northeast??
Yes they are true.
He will also be honoring Oscar Barrera at Gulfstream.
If Teflon Todd is laying in a lounge chair and training from his Blackberry while soaking up the sun and occasionally hitting the first tee at The Green Monkey while the other Green Monkey rots away in his stall something will eventually start to give.
He is being paid big money by big money cliets to win races and enhance the value of their assets. If he isn\'t around to do it they can always find someone else who will. If the win percentage begins to drop while he is away people will get grumpy. (For these reasons I actually think it will not. His stock will probably be tee\'d up pretty good for the assistants.)
I am sure the assistants are good. His operation is too big for anything else to be the case. And I am even counting the ones Teflon Todd actually hired himself, if you get my drift.
But lets not think there isn\'t progress being made in the drug front. No these guys should not be getting paid, should not be allowed anywhere near the track and should be subject to other restrictions while sitting in the penalty box.
The names Pletcher, Dutrow, Norman, Lake, Asmussen, etc were always suspects and now have been proven guilty. The only ones who should be more embarrassed than these guys is the various State Racing Commissions and Tracks who resisted doing something about what everyone else already knew was happening in front of their eyes.
STOP THE RAMPANT CHEATING, AND STOP IT FOR GOOD.........
excellent point, Silver Charm...until the racing authorities have some kahonies, it\'ll just be short suspensions...to be forgotten in the winners circle. I am told that Oaklawn will uphold the LA ruling on Norman despite being under appeal?
Illegal meds are race day/betting problems. On various levels they have been part of the game throughout the 20th/21st century. Racing would be MUCH better without them but it will survive with them because betting egos will always think they know who is doing what--and most of the time it can be patterned
(thorograph charts).
But steroids (not illegal) are killing the breed. Forget about how Lyle Alzado imploded. Just look how Lenny Dykstra, Brady Anderson,lost power as quickly as they had gained it.
Lure, Cigar, War Emblem infertile. Grade 1 mares having trouble getting pregnant and delivering.
Decades of imbreeding, abusing top stallions, pushing 2-yr. olds to sales, roiding yearlings and 2-yr. olds for sales, overracing \"precocious 2-yr. olds\" has taken a relatively sturdy breed in the 1920-1950 era and rendered them sticks of dynamite. It\'s only a matter of time before they go off and break down.
Does anyone really think Ghostzapper was faster than Secretariat??
When you get a Grade 1 horse, owner\'s have no choice.
The big money owner\'s (Godolphin, Shadwell, Coolmore) know what they have, if they race at 4 they are significantly reducing fertility prospects and of course increasing the possibility of break down. Discreet Cat will never be seen again after Dubai.
Smaller owner\'s (Smarty Jones, Afleet Alex) want the thrill of running at 4 but after fatigue and minor injury set in they would be fiscally irresponsible to take the risk of coming back to the races, which is why there is always a period of time when they come back on track and workout and a Servis and a Ritchey properly convince the owner to sell, even though they are profiting.
It\'s a miracle that Perfect Drift has been a competitive Grade 1 horse for 5 years. Even as a gelding under an assumed moderate steroid diet, 5 years in this day and age is incredible. Yet Murray Johnson has not picked up one big money owner that I am aware of.
They all come to Frankel, Biancone, Dutrow; Pletcher and the other Lukas assistants. WHY??
Illegal meds and roids, win a Grade 1 or 2 and poof.
Steroid\'s is causing the 4 horse Grade 1 fields, in conjunction with illegal race day meds. Until BREEDERS, BREEDERS, BREEDERS who control the game want to do something about it we\'ll continue to watch Jockey Club Gold Cups with jockeys frantically looking for competition.
They don\'t understand who the consumer of their product is. Walmart does. McDonalds does. Microsoft does.
NTRA does not. Breeder\'s Cup does not. Originally thought Stronach did, but don\'t think he does.
Breeder\'s only think about the sale. That\'s not the consumer. The pinhooker is only a trader. The program owner is vitally important but he is not the consumer.
BETTORS...GAMBLERS...BETTORS...GAMBLERS...BETTORS...GAMBLERS...BETTORS.
Without the bettors ands gamblers what do they have??
Lcfjr3
Excellent post.
Few breed to race (look at the popular stallions, those are sale results horses). Few buy to race. Few make money racing. Meds are needed to max out profits over the short race career. Breeders need \'roids to get the biggest bucks at young-stock sales, as that\'s where the money is made - before and after the race track.
Support the gambler and public = making horse racing a more financially viable industry. Only then will racing medication controls be taken more seriously, I believe.
last two posts are great, but we\'ve been through this before...does anyone have an action plan or idea that can get us where we want to be? Without tracks really being unified, it\'s not possible. Only if they do align, get as powerful as an owner\'s group as the NFL can they clean up the game. Doubtful in my lifetime, but a good dream nonetheless.
Let me take up the torch, since horse racing bets pale in comparison to NFL betting...there are only two entities that can lead the way - Stronach and Churchill Downs. They need to be the Lamar Hunts and Pete Rozelle\'s with the vision and the will to make it better. I believe both can and would do it - together. Who will take the first step? Marketing of our sport is unquesitona bly in the dark ages...any track will endorse anything for $$ with or without the backing of the NTRA. I know this for a fact due to personal involvement. It\'s no secret Coors is roaring due to their sponsorship - and full cooperation - of all NFL teams. Horse racing can get big time $$ sponsors - why other than Santulli\'s peronal horse interest would NETJETS be a BC sponsor? Simple - His target has the $$ to do it (fly and race privately). John Deere? Got me on that one other than every farm has to mowe, but what when every polytrack doesn\'t have to grade? Budweiser? If it\'s sporting, they are there...Grey Goose? A sign at every track, yet few pour it...thanks, racing. And the list goes on and on...In this economy, why in the hell should racing be suffering? Oh, yeah, I forgot...it\'s fixed. And endorsed by racing commisions who are afraid of 12 trainers...good grief.
Bingo. Your conclusion points out the ultimate truth. THE BETTORS ARE THE ULTIMATE CONSUMERS. They therefore have the ultimate power – should they bother to use it. The tracks fear inciting the ire of the trainers lest they boycott them. How much more devastating would a boycott of bettors be? Could Jeff Mullins, despicable specimen that he is, be right when he characterizes us as a bunch of "sick suckers". Are we such pathetic addicts can we cannot refrain from playing one track for one season when there are at least a dozen other venues where we can bet?
A national organization for protection of bettors could designate a particular track as a prime offender, in terms of its lax policy with juicers, and call for a boycott. If bettors join in, the resulting effect on the tracks handle would be a stick held over the head of other tracks. It's amazing how tracks respond to threats to their revenue. In fact, short of legal action, its the only thing they respond to.
Mullins showed he had mastered the boycott threat when he announced that he would quit the game should the stewards DARE to suspend him after his latest positive. Pletcher, Dutrow and Assmussan are more subtle but basically rely on the same tactic.
The only way in which we as bettors can utilize the power we have is by organized action. If not, we will remain the "sick suckers" that Mullins says we are and will deserve just what we get.
Bob
Bob et al,
We go round and round on this specific topic. we have discussed it over and over again. All points are good and on point and the topic is worthy of discussion. But that is all we ever do. Discuss. Who is going to organize the effort?
Who is going to be the \"Watchdog\" group or organisor of the effort for the bettors that has the influence power to make a boycott or whatever it is that is decided. Perhaps we should boycott one track per week,(No betting of any kind whatsoever at the designated track) to get the point across to the race tracks,jurisdictions, NTRA or whoever needs to get the point. it need to be public and visible. The issue needs to be brought out via the press (Do we really think the DRF will assist?).
Any other idea\'s?
NC Tony
Tony - here\'s some starter ideas:
jerseys/t-shirts with NTRA on the front
1) \"Never Trust a Racing Authority\"
with your favorite trainer\'s name on back and # of suspensions.
ie - Norman - # 3
or,
2) there was a shirt out \"keep drugs out of racing\", but I haven\'t seen one in a while.
3) if TG wants to be a sponsor, consider me a charter member for this stuff and would gladly help with design. In fact, I\'m going to get something for opening wkend at OAK and see what response I get.
I have been working on some things behind the scenes that could bear fruit on the drug question, we\'ll see. There are a few people in authority that really do care and get it, but the problem, even for them, is to some degree political, as well as legal (every time they come down on someone they end up in court, and that costs money). Yes, I know there are overriding issues more important, but as a practical matter they have to sell the ideas to a board.
The two things currently that offer an opportunity are a) the New York franchise being up for grabs, and b) the new position tracks are taking to throw people off without having to give a reason, on the basis of it being private property. The first is interesting because Spitzer likes to position himself as champion of the public interest, and the most leverage the public will ever have on whoever gets the franchise is before they get it. I\'m working on this, don\'t know how it will work out.
The second is interesting because it may make things a WHOLE lot simpler in dealing with cheaters. It would if I were running a track.
Re the boycott idea: a few years ago there was a boycott (against Golden Gate, I believe), and it was very effective-- the track caved. At the time I thought that was a watershed event. Because of the internet, and rebate shops, and outfits like ours, and e-mail, it is now relatively easy to find and reach a lot of bigger bettors and attempt to organize them. That\'s not an idea for now, and if it is done it has to be carefully thought out in terms of what the specific goal is and whether it can be accomplished. But it is something that can be done, and it may take some form of organization of horseplayers to effect change in this industry, and take it away from the Kentucky breeders. Those guys don\'t get it and they don\'t care-- their business is doing just fine.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have been working on some things behind the
> scenes that could bear fruit on the drug question,
> we\'ll see. There are a few people in authority
> that really do care and get it, but the problem,
> even for them, is to some degree political, as
> well as legal (every time they come down on
> someone they end up in court, and that costs
> money). Yes, I know there are overriding issues
> more important, but as a practical matter they
> have to sell the ideas to a board.
>
> The two things currently that offer an opportunity
> are a) the New York franchise being up for grabs,
> and b) the new position tracks are taking to throw
> people off without having to give a reason, on the
> basis of it being private property. The first is
> interesting because Spitzer likes to position
> himself as champion of the public interest, and
> the most leverage the public will ever have on
> whoever gets the franchise is before they get it.
> I\'m working on this, don\'t know how it will work
> out.
>
> The second is interesting because it may make
> things a WHOLE lot simpler in dealing with
> cheaters. It would if I were running a track.
>
> Re the boycott idea: a few years ago there was a
> boycott (against Golden Gate, I believe), and it
> was very effective-- the track caved. At the time
> I thought that was a watershed event. Because of
> the internet, and rebate shops, and outfits like
> ours, and e-mail, it is now relatively easy to
> find and reach a lot of bigger bettors and attempt
> to organize them. That\'s not an idea for now, and
> if it is done it has to be carefully thought out
> in terms of what the specific goal is and whether
> it can be accomplished. But it is something that
> can be done, and it may take some form of
> organization of horseplayers to effect change in
> this industry, and take it away from the Kentucky
> breeders. Those guys don\'t get it and they don\'t
> care-- their business is doing just fine.
Jerry,
What is it that the breeders don\'t get?
Michael-- just off the top of my head:
1-- The takeout is insanely high compared to other forms of gambling (you bet sports, you should know, and on-line poker is probably cheaper). An entire industry (rebating) has sprung up because the industry has no clue what it is doing, and rebaters are making a whole lot of money just for acting as middle men and giving customers what they need. That money could be staying in the industry.
2-- Cheating (drugs) is rampant, daily. The parimutuel pool is a market, and people with inside information (knowing who is drugged) are on a daily basis taking money out of the pockets of those participants in the marketplace that don\'t have the info. As I have pointed out recently to major entities, this is a moral issue for the industry, may be a legal one, and definitely is a practical one. There are many people who are playing less often (like myself), or have stopped entirely, because they think they are at a disadvantage.
3-- Slots etc. are a bandaid on a shotgun wound, fool\'s gold for horsemen. What happens when the state wants a higher percentage for education? What happens when they need more revenue, and start giving out franchises outside racetracks?
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael-- just off the top of my head:
>
> 1-- The takeout is insanely high compared to other
> forms of gambling (you bet sports, you should
> know, and on-line poker is probably cheaper). An
> entire industry (rebating) has sprung up because
> the industry has no clue what it is doing, and
> rebaters are making a whole lot of money just for
> acting as middle men and giving customers what
> they need. That money could be staying in the
> industry.
>
> 2-- Cheating (drugs) is rampant, daily. The
> parimutuel pool is a market, and people with
> inside information (knowing who is drugged) are on
> a daily basis taking money out of the pockets of
> those participants in the marketplace that don\'t
> have the info. As I have pointed out recently to
> major entities, this is a moral issue for the
> industry, may be a legal one, and definitely is a
> practical one. There are many people who are
> playing less often (like myself), or have stopped
> entirely, because they think they are at a
> disadvantage.
>
> 3-- Slots etc. are a bandaid on a shotgun wound,
> fool\'s gold for horsemen. What happens when the
> state wants a higher percentage for education?
> What happens when they need more revenue, and
> start giving out franchises outside racetracks?
Jerry,
you blame all this on Ky breeders?
and re slots ...
definitely a band-aid.
problem is - Aqu won\'t be there in the year 2008 without slots.
got any other way to get 20,000 new yorkers out to that place every w/e?
could let it crumble and focus on making the Bel product better, but that would make too much sense, and, after all, this is new york state.
Michael-- That group has control of and undue influence over racing, specifically the NTRA, BC, etc., and indirect influence over lots of other institutions (i.e. racetracks). There is an additional problem of some high level appointments at various places being patronage positions. The upshot is that the \"old\" industry institutions (including many tracks) are run by people who are not motivated to change things because they don\'t see the need for change (their end of the business is going great guns), and/or are not competent enough to do it.
The major breakthroughs in this industry are being accomplished by outside agents-- Pinnacle, Youbet, Betfair, rebate houses. They are what is forcing the industry to adjust, to the degree it understands and can.
The time is coming when we (horseplayers, owners, those of us who service and represent them) may have to take control of the game. Which unfortunately probably means a lot of work by me, since nobody else is in a position to, is competent, and gives a s--t, and I get tired just thinking about it, since I\'m working 6 days a week now. For a long time there was a danger that if someone like me tried to organize players we would lose distribution at the tracks and get blacklisted, but with most of our sales over the web that is no longer an issue-- the tracks need handle, and therefore need us a lot more than we need them. But I would still prefer not to have to be a driving force in this-- I would rather take my few days off and work on what I laughingly call my golf game.
What we need are a series of \"expose\" articles done on TV, like 60 MINUTES, REAL SPORTS etc. and in regular daily newspapers, not the racing press. The first question that has to be addressed is the \"so what\" question. Why is the racing industry important? How many people are involved in each state? How much land? Greenspace? State wide economies? etc. How much is bet annually? Tie in racing\'s drug and steriod use with the Balco case. Why is racing breeding cripples that can\'t make it out of their 3yo yr.? Or, like The Green Monkey, not even making it to the races. Top money winning trainers getting days...imagine Joe Torre or Bill Parcells being suspended and the media storm that would result from that. How breeding unsound horses at astronomical prices strictly for speed, guarantees that drugs are going to be used. You get the idea, there are issues and stories here for the mainstream media,but they are not doing their job as watchdogs, just like they missed the boat on the Iraq war build-up.
We need an advocate who can answer the \"so what\" question and educate and point mainstream media reporters (who are proably ignorant of the whole problem) in the right direction.
As Jerry said, I don\'t think reform is going to come from within the industry. Too many people and institutions are on the gravy train and are going to squeeze \"every drop of the lemon\" until it runs dry.
you are wayyyyy underestimating those of us who would gladly jump on the bandwagon to make the statement...JB - your # are the most expensive - maybe justifiably so - and you\'re biz is great, no?...I will follow your lead and gladly help market the cause...count me in on whatever you charge here.
Shanahan, good for you. I'll gladly join you in pledging my support. I know the members of my Yahoo Horses and Racing Forum would do so as well.
Jerry makes a good point that change will not come from the industry. It must be imposed from either law enforcement or pressure from those who are the financial support for the sport/industry – the bettors.
I'm heartened to hear that there are those in the game that care and that a boycott has worked in the past.
Jerry, I hear what you're saying about organizing bettors being a formidable task for any one man to do. I would not begrudge you the hard-earned free time you enjoy. However, you have a strong reputation in the sport and even in a limited role as consultant or spokesperson could have a profound influence. Count me and whatever Forum members I can recruit to support you in whatever capacity you decide you can contribute.
Bob
Bob et al.
As NCT says we have argued this quite extensively and in an enlightened manner
for quite a while. The only change that has come is that all the usual suspects
have been given a slap on the wrist.
My feeling is that the only way to get the public and the non racing media
behind this issue is to portray the issue in terms of the mistreatment of
thoroughbreds. I do not think the public at large or the non racing media will
have much sympathy/empathy for a horseplayer (or a number of them) complaining
that their ROI is being lowered by the scourge of performance enhancing drugs.
Michael:
I think we agree on the fact that New York thoroughbred racing can only
support one of the two downstate white elephants, Aqueduct and Belmont.
We disagree on which of the two is the more suitable facility to carry
NY racing into a new era. The truth is either of the 2 places would basically
have to be torn down and transformed into a smaller racino type facility.
Aqueduct\'s location is every bit as desirable as Belmont\'s, and the
property on which Belmont sits could probably generate more revenue if the
state of NY could only figure out who owns the property.
Modern sports stadiums built with bond proceeds have a planned lifespan
of about 20 years; racing fans such as myself get tied up in the history and
tradition of racing facilities and end up with oversized and obsolete tracks.
Excellent points being made here - fair to say and deservedly so that the \"juice \" issue has dominated the TG board in 2006 . All the bases have pretty much been covered . It is true Jerry is one of the most single influencial persons sounding off on the matter in Racing and on the TG Board , but as we all understand , the task of solving Any problems within the racing industry is indeed an enormous one .
The issue of Animal Rights and Thoroughbred Race Horse Abuse is an extremely viable appraoch - in a manner of speaking , if that ship can set sail then the financial aspect of the entire equation changes for everyone . In order to survive or even stay out of jail at that point , Owners , Trainers and Racing Circuts would have no choice but to defer on earning questionable revenues to remain on legitimate moral grounds with the general public .
It is a tough fight in taking on the \"juicers\" but being able to make the Animal Rights/ Abuse tag stick will be alot easier and more plausible than forcing profound wholesale societal changes across the board and in racing ...
I don\'t think Jerry working a 7th day each week is the answer either . Wagering Strikes will have limited value here and present laws in racing are defintely working in the favor of those who are juicing , so I belive The Equine Abuse Angle has a good upside and the potential for solving a very pervasive problem + I got Animal Rights at 2-5 in the morning line to being a major catylist in putting things right again . Now all we need is more friends to come aboard and the band begins to play ...
It seems to me the easiest way to turn a Racino into a Casino is to spotlight the animal abuse issues in Racing.
Afterall, one could make the case that forcing horses to race is inherently abusive.
They get whipped, they spend hour after monotonous hour in stalls, and after they show a propensity for bleeding while running they are given a diuretic for the sole purpose of keeping them running.
And this whole notion of legal vs illegal drugs is nonsense from an animal abuse perspective. If the drug is being administered for the purpose of allowing a horse to race--that is, if the horse would not need the drug if he didn\'t race--from an animal rights perspective it\'s abusive.
Elevate the issue to a national debate and horse racing is going to lose. At the very least suffer a holyshit shiner of a public relations black eye.
No, in the end the only way for the industry to become more responsive to the needs of horseplayers is for horseplayers to exert their economic power.
But then, of course, getting horseplayers to agree to do anything is kind of like herding cats. (And only the power of the internet makes it possible.)
Still, my motto is: Horseplayers Unite. You have nothing to lose but less money.
Richiebee and Marcus,
The animal abuse approach is a viable one as well. I have always argued that this aspect of illegal drug use is its most despicable aspect. Unlike drugging in other sports, the athletes involved in racing are unwilling participants. Let's not forget the jockeys' lives are being put at risk as well. Almost all cases of death and paralysis in jockeys occur because horses break down and horses on pain killing drugs are the prime candidates for these breakdowns. These points should resonate well with the general public.
In addition there are animal protection agencies already in place, like the ASPCA that could act on this issue.
That doesn't mean that this approach and organizing bettors are mutually exclusive. Next to the government, the betting public can be the single most effective influence on the tracks' management. The whole product depends on the bettor buying it. As Jerry said, the organizing process would be a major chore but would be well worth it its effects.
No, I don't wish Jerry a seven-day workweek but there are other influential people in the game who could lead the effort. Just adding his voice to the issue would have a huge effect.
The success of the boycott at Golden Gate did not spread to other tracks because that was not its purpose. It was a group of local bettors wanting change at that track and it succeeded. If the movement was planned to work on the national level it could build on its momentum from the success at Golden Gate from track to track.
As Jerry said "The time is coming when we (horseplayers, owners, those of us who service and represent them) may have to take control of the game."
Given the effect of the \"juicers\" on both the horses and humans involved, that time should soon be at hand.
Bob
Bob
I agree with you. Playing the animal abuse angle will hurt racing. Everyone I know that dislikes racing - in other words, almost everyone I know - dislikes it for two reasons: they assume it is totally rigged, and they see it as animal abuse. And I\'m not talking about militant vegans and PETA members. They know nothing about the issues we\'re discussing here, but they have a sense that the animals are poorly treated, forced to race (as a friend of mine put it when he heard or saw one of those flowery \"they\'re born to run\" type ads a few years back, \"oh, so leave them alone in a field and they\'ll start running races against each other?\"), overmedicated, etc. I\'ve brought \"newbies\" to Saratoga with me, and nothing turns them off faster than watching a horse limp into the van, or disappear behind the blue curtain.
The argument that removing all the juicing would make racing more humane might makes a lot of sense to those of us that like the game, but I don\'t think it would resonate with the general public.
I would caution that the last thing horse racing would want is the active or targeted involvement of \"animal rights\" groups such as Humane Society of the United States, PETA (an FBI-documented domestic terrorist organization), etc.
Witness what these groups have done in the last 10 years legislatively, especially in states such as California. Their goal is to outlaw ownership of animals, all hunting, all pet ownership, etc. They are well-funded and have quite powerful lobbies.
These groups have avoided horse racing in the past as they view it as being more powerful and having deeper pockets than they can overcome.
Do not welcome nor embrace any public comment or involvement from these groups regarding horse racing - they are bad news, and they are not on the side of humane treatment of animals.
Bob-- If there is any serious movement on this front I will definitely get involved. This is going to be a wild year-- the most volatile in the history of this sport, I predict, with all kinds of changes taking place (for one, there is an extremely big joint venture in the works, and I ain\'t talking TG/Ragozin). I\'m trying to effect some changes right now without overthrowing the government, which some might say is a shocking sign of maturity on my part. We\'ll see how it goes, we might end up in the streets yet.
Thanks Jerry, sounds reasonable. Let\'s see what develops.
Bob
There is no \"general public\" for horse racing. Gamblers view themselves on the outside, but they are not, they integral to the sport. Gambling boycotts in demand of clean racing, good. Tracks using \"private property\" to keep their local tracks clean, great.
The current business model works against clean racing. There is more money to be made off the track (sales, shed) than on it. Owners who want to race another year sell out to the breeding shed, they can\'t financially refuse. Big name horses appear and flame out.
So far it appears all we\'re talking about are methods to shift the power bases around within the current paradigm. Great, but can racing survive on it\'s current income? Doubtful.
That is what has to be changed. More money has to be obtainable on the track, racing, than off it. Clean racing will by necessity follow.
In this year of Barbaro, nobody on a national level in racing was smart enough to run with that and use it to advantage to ultimately push the turnstiles. Not surprising, they didn\'t take advantage of \"Seabiscuit\", either.
Push the turnstiles = bigger purses and a fan base that demands to be satisfied. They won\'t stand for their Barbaros to be defeated by a horse with a TCO2 >37.
There will be no large general public fan base for horse racing until racing embraces the public attending tracks and following the sport outside of gambling and handicapping, and enabling that involvement.
Follow the KEE and SAR models for getting families to attend race days. Develop a national magazine, website, TV programs of soft, mushy stories, following horses careers, trainers, the horses on the road to the TC and BC.
There are half a million people following Barbaros every move daily on websites. Why don\'t they know Santa Anita opened this week? Why aren\'t they there, pushing money at the sport? Demanding clean racing for their horse stars?
Sight-- I agree with the first half.
1-- Yes, the economics have to change. The way to do that is to increase handle. And that means dramatically lowering the takeout, which the tracks and state legislatures don\'t understand yet, despite getting hit over the head by rebaters.
Word is that Pinnacle handled just under $1 Billion on racing alone this year. Parimutuel handle in this country was 5-6 Billion.
2-- One of the mistakes racing has made is to go too far in the direction you want to go-- it markets itself as a sport. The difference between racing and other sports is that people (for the most part) go to sports to watch, not bet. If they do that here racing will go broke.
The model here should be poker, which is a gambling game of both skill and luck (like ours), and can be played in your own house any time you want. Poker recognizes that the gamblers themselves are the players, AND BOTH MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO WIN AND PUBLICIZES THE WINNERS. Very important. Racing is pushing a gambling event that is almost impossible to beat at full track takeouts in the information age, taxes the crap out of winners, and regards them as pariahs.
To paraphrase a line from North Dallas Forty, we are the players. The horses and jockeys are the equipment. This doesn\'t mean we shouldn\'t be concerned about their welfare-- we should. But the industry is driven by gambling, and the focus has never been on the gamblers and their needs and desires.
Your point on gate handle not being supportive of the sport vs. gambling handle is well-made.
Sight-- in fact, casinos don\'t charge for admission or parking, and many (most?) comp a program or DRF to horseplayers.
I \"can hear you now\" on the Bet Strikes viability as an effective option against juicers . A smart , well orchestrated and tightly controlled effort along multiple fronts that would incoperate All good options is the way to go ...
Hopefully several things develop and quickly. Not to put too much of a \"blue sky\" on things but there has been progress, however there needs to be considerably more.
Racing is not the only sport with drug issues. Baseball reportedly had 8 of 10 players working out of a certain training facility test postive for steroids and yet did nothing about it. Football is going to have to \"blacklist\" a Defensive Player of the Year candidate because of steroids. But back to reality the Eclipse Award winning Trainer is serving 45 days, last years Trainer of HOY served 60 days, a perrenial nation leading wins contender is serving 180 days. Several off-the-charts win percentage guys are sitting or have already taken their seat in the penalty box.
The difference between Racing and the other two sports is racings income relys solely on pari-mutual wagering while the other two sports have considerable ticket sales income and even more from TV. All of this cheating effects the outcome of the events and historical statistics but only one sport suffers if the viewer thinks he was robbed out of a bet by results that were chemically enhanced.
Since the two biggest Track Mgmt companies are publically traded (Magna and Churchill) has anybody looked into what kind of exposure they may have under Sarbanes-Oxley by not having enough controls in place to effectively protect the integrity of the outcome of their races.
SC-- those last two paragraphs are the real deal. When someone knowingly chooses not to shut down a cheater in this game or delays acting-- and I know for a fact that goes on-- they are allowing the cheating to continue, and allowing the public to be cheated by those betting with inside information.
The problem is not testing. It\'s enforcement.
So true - and I\'ve always suspected that on a reasonable , common sense level , Magna + Churchill have considerable exposure in that regard . FWIW - Over the course of the weekend , I\'m going to ask a lawyer friend if she has any idea\'s about what to do with that Sarbanes-Oxley asap ...
Sarbanes-Oxley cannot be summarized in a sentence, but it has nothing to do with the quality or integrity of the products or services reporting companies provide. Rather, Sarbanes-Oxley requires that reporting companies implement certain internal procedures which are designed to ensure that a reporting company provides accurate financial reports.
carodoc , church-mag probably got one helluva insurance policy too and granted , likely would skate on criminal implications , as would seem to be your understanding of Sarbane-Oxley . But stock value and assetts can be greatly influenced by the actions and behavior of those reporting companies and venders etc . A reporting co\'s hard copy documentation of insufficiant financing for enforcement of rules that are rendered useless or non exsistant as a result - if that is in fact the case it would open the door to potential civil litigation ... hard to say exactly where it\'s all going at times , but a microscopic re-inspection and re-evaluation of every stage of the process at all levels of racing would be helpfull in getting a handle on the juicing problem ...
I just wanted to say that this thread is great stuff. Hopefully a year from now we will be able to say there finally was some progress made. If only some of the people here were in charge of things, the racing world would be a lot better off. I\'m trying to keep positive, but it\'s not easy.
>>2-- One of the mistakes racing has made is to go too far in the direction you >>want to go-- it markets itself as a sport.
I personally thought \"Go, Baby, Go!\" was ill-conceived and trite at best
I agree with all you say regarding takeout, handle, rebates, poker as a model, the importance of the gambler sustaining the business. All of it is rock-solid and rooted in firm reality.
That primary focus, and change as you discuss, is needed.
But I disagree that horse racing, in the past thirty years, has ever tried to really reach out, in a systematic way, to non-gamblers. Why? That\'s me. Or was me. Loved the sport, loved the horses, followed as much as I could as closely as I could - found handicapping comments and flat back-page recitation of results boring.
I remembered tonight, as a teenager who only saw racing yearly on TV as the Derby, buying a subscription to The Blood Horse (or whatever it was called at the time?). It wasn\'t what I was looking for, it didn\'t keep me in the sport, racing faded out of interest in favor of other horse sports that were more readily accessible to me as an onlooker who could follow along.
In the world of the racing Czars, can there be a focus to try and get the public involved in what used to be the number one followed sport in the country? Do those days have to be gone forever?
KEE is jam-packed with tailgating, over-dressed college kids at the hottest place to be seen in town. They gamble little now, they won\'t increase that much as they pay off college and start families and buy houses ... but if we can keep them in the sport?
>> Since the two biggest Track Mgmt companies are publically traded (Magna and Churchill) has anybody looked into what kind of exposure they may have under Sarbanes-Oxley by not having enough controls in place to effectively protect the integrity of the outcome of their races.
You rock.
Another thought on the \"Horseplayer Rights\" movement:
As an alternative to a boycott, form an organization, sort of like a
Horseplayer\'s Guild, and wait until its size, in terms of number of members and
the amount which these members wager, is rather significant.
THEN, once the group is organized and its strength recognized, approach the
various tracks and racing organizations. Let it be known to these organizations
that members of the Guild are only willing to wager at tracks which meet
certain standards re: strict enforcement of medication rules, lowered takeout
(especially on multiple race wagers) and increased information available to
horseplayers with regards to the physical condition of runners and the
equipment that they are using. And throw in better treatment of backstretch
employees, which always trickles down to result in better treatment of race
horses.
If a publication such as DRF or a TV network such as TVG could be affiliated
with the Guild, tracks meeting Guild standards would be afforded the benefit
of increased coverage in these media.
In days of old I would be more than willing to carry the banner for a Guild
such as this; at my current age it is more likely that I could be found napping
somewhere under said banner.
Well, it certainly seems to me a Horseplayer\'s Guild website is the way to go.
A site that would be self-supported by horseplayers and provide a forum for articulating and debating ideas, high lighting issues, polling member\'s opinions, tracking issues, contacting officials, publishing replies, etc. could have the potential of creating an institution formidable enough to demand change from the industry.
But it has to be an independent institution. Because all the present instituions whether it be the Breeders Association, The Racing Form, th NTRA, or any of the individual track managements are quite contendly part of the problem. They all got theirs, why foment change.
richiebee - the pretty excellent breakdown of stategy and the roll a guild might play definately qualifes you for executive level status and exemmption from manditory attendence at protest march\'s , and the same applies as well for thehoarsehorseplayer - for his vg+ website idea and JB too for affording all of us this oppertunity to learn and share views on this and the many other pertinent issue\'s in horse racing ...
Richie-- it may turn out that boards like this one (and others) are the first stirrings of exactly that kind of thing. The internet makes it a whole lot easier to reach and organize people (see: politics).
I wanna be Jefferson. Who wants Paul Revere?
Jerry, The Jefferson role would fit you nicely, given your libertatarian views.
I\'ll take the hot-head John Adams since my post suggesting the power of an organized bettor boycott got this whole ball rolling.
Bob
Hey I\'ll take Sam Adams (not the football player but the Brewer).
NC Tony
Shouldn\'t there be some differentiation between type of drug use and intent.
1. Legal and illegal performance enhancers that can impact race results and the breeding industry.
2. Legal drugs used for the treatment of horses in training that are illegal race day.
3. Legal drugs used for the treatment of horses in training that are illegal race day that produced a trace positive at levels that probably did not impact performance and weren\'t intended to do so anyway (typically errors, misunderstandings, irresponsible/incompetent workers etc...)
The punishment should probably fit the crime.
I realize some people object to treating horses for minor pain, soreness, and other conditions the way professional athletes are treated. However, I think the solution to this is mostly a matter of having high standards for which horses can actually run despite some physical issues as determined by track veterinarians of high integrity.
I also don\'t think drugs should be as big a problem for gamblers as is being implied. A high percentage of my own bets are on horses trained by people that are regularly accused of questionable practices. I spend a lot of time analyzing the methods, strengths, weaknesses, and betting patterns of high percentage trainers. As a result, I often have an edge over handicappers that rely on measuring performance alone. Of course, those that know exactly when a horse is being drugged have an even bigger edge, but I\'ve never been one to complain about winning just because someone else is winning more. I\'m not condoning it, but if drugs are the reality and you want to play, you might as well play a winning game until the issue is resolved.
Fkach:
I agree with almost all of your observations, as I did with the observations of
Alan Pincus in his letter published in DRF on December 31. (Mr. Pincus is
apparently an attorney representing some PA trainers in ongoing medication
cases). A \"witch hunt\" is not a good scenario for Racing.
I also agree with your comment that one way to play this game is to track the
high volume, high percentage trainers closely, and to determine what their best
moves are. (One of my favorite bet againsts is the steep Dutrow dropper,
especially when ridden by an apprentice or Rudy Rodriquez. The public still
seems to overbet these animals against all reason.)
I believe that a lot of the anger expressed on this board comes not from the
fact that \"cheating\" is rampant, but rather from the fact that when cheaters
are caught, they are not penalized in such a manner that the penalty has a
deterrent effect.
Totally unrelated, totally awesome: The University of Michigan Marching Band
just performed a Led Zeppelin medley at halftime of the Rose Bowl. Brilliant!
There are always those that try to minimize the harm that this plague of illegal drugs does to racing. No matter that honest trainers that don't juice are being driven out of the game. No matter that someone trying to handicap honestly is being cheated. No matter that the public thinks that anyone involved with racing is a degenerate. No matter that horses running on illegal painkillers are breaking down in alarming numbers (racing's other major problem) and jockeys are put at increased risk of death and paralysis. As long as some of us can get our slice of this dirty pie, it's not so bad.
There has been much positive talk here lately of an organized guild of horseplayers to fight this illegal drug use. Such an organization would lose all credibility, as well as any moral standing, with horseplayers boasting about how they are profiting from the practices of these cheats. Such remarks play into the perception that bettors are a bunch of amoral degenerates, not very concerned about illegal and immoral practices of some trainers, as long as they can also profit from them. This would destroy the legitimacy of any horseplayers organization claiming it's fighting for positive changes in the game.
Bob
sorry i missed that 1/2 time show - i was making coffee becouse the game was putting me to sleep alright but getting the led out on new years day is the way to go , and to the same beat and cadence as the rocky theme i bet - you got to love it ...
individuals who belive that they are standing on high moral ground when egauging in inuendo and name calling against those who would look closely at trainer patterns when handicapping a horse race are in a tenious position and it does seem close to \" internet mc carthyism \" and \" witch hunts \" - i never liked cotton mather either and he surely wasn\'t no joshua ...
collective gains by a handicappers guild or association can not be made in ernest ( or begin to even just getting a \" foot hold \" on the juicing issue ) with the \" my way or the highway \" attitude in it\'s charter . an effective handicappers guild or association , though must be diverse , must also think as equally dynamic ...
Dear Bob,
You and I have had this debate before. Why am I or anyone who factors in trainer patterns,(so called drug guys or not) called \"cheaters\" instead of astute?
Why should I lose money on any given day I choose to play. It\'s not my fault that cheating exists, or drugs are being used. At this point it\'s a theory or speculation or inuendo, but these guys have not been caught with the so called smoking gun yet, and thus allowed to keep on keeping on. My only stake in the matter is funding a parimutuel pool. My job as I understand it is to make money as best I can and use whatever information I have at my access to help me make money. if that is not my job to try to make money, then what the hell am I playing this game for in the first place?
If Your opinion would be such that I best not bet at all, then we should all not bet at all, thereby not funding any parimutuel pool of suspected cheaters. I could go along with that approach , however, until a commitment is made, I am going to try to make money when I am betting. If that means factoring in innuendo about trainers who may help a horse perform better what am I supposed to do? No one is sending me checks from the racing industry.
This whole topic sucks quite frankly.
It is what it is. I personally side on the one system for all jurisdictions, better testing, harsher punishments, but total ban to just hay and oates doesn\'t seem quite practical. Ask any trainer. Otherwise we should just discontinue Horseracing as we know it today. Cut back the number of tracks, races etc, and go to a much more centralized racing system where most everyone around the country is betting on a highly regulated and Federally Managed racing industry (Similar to an NFL type Franchise for each track). Less racing, less races, more centralized simulcasting, centralized vetrinarians supplied by the \"league\".
Who is fighting for the horses racing at the smaller circuits like Buelah Park and Penn National ? Those horse that run on those circuits 20-40 times a year are hurting animals and they need help via legal medicines. This is not an easy issue. Allowance & Stakes Horses vs Cheap claimers should all be treated the same way? If not we are hippocrates too.
Bottom line Bob, your moral approach to wagering conflicts with the concept of wagering and winning. Your approach on how we should treat horses is on the money. Where do we go from here?
NC Tony
PS Bob when was the last time you went to a rack track live like AQu Inner..? How many Non-degenerates did you see vs the degenerates? Most serious wagering is happening at home or via phone or internet. The Live tracks are not well kept,clean, well lit, or has TV\'s that have been manufactured in the 1990\'s or seats maintained anymore. Except for certain venues, CD, SAR, KEE, DMR, SA, and a few others, the best American society has to offer is not at the track, thus the deserved perception. Hey I don\'t mind hanging out with a few Degenerates,.....maybe a few of the ex Meadowlanders I used hang with remembers \"Alright Frankie\" or the Guy who used to yell after every race at old Keystone \"You got to bet the BLOOD\". Those guys made the track experience part of the fun of going live.....
I think Dan Lauletta said it best in this past Mondays N.Y. Daily News:
MAKE SUSPENSIONS MEANINGFUL: For jockeys, eliminate graded stakes exceptions and expedite appeals so that riders cannot put off taking days until it suits their schedule. For trainers, get rid of the 60- and 90- day suspensions that are mostly cosmetic and try starting bans at one week, but make it so that any horse in that trainer\'s name at the time of the ruling is ineligible to race during the suspension. Ensure quick appeals and no graded stakes exemptions. This will get the attention of the owners and keep trainers fearful of being caught using anything illegal.
Something needs to be done ! When is Sciacca ever going to do his time,I seem to remember him testing positive quite a long time ago.The appeal process is ridiculous...Shouldn\'t the vets also be held accountable.Something tells me Dutrow/Pletcher..share or once shared the same vet,as I now see him doing work in another Ny barn that seems to be on a streak..
There should be someplace where players or any level of fan can go and see what kind of medication rules, testing and quarantine procedures each respective track and state has compared to one another.
There needs to a rating system similar to restaurants, two stars, five stars whatever. With five being top notch and one being bet at your own risk.
If analysts can rate stocks, high school recruits, restaurants, movies, hotels, resorts, why can\'t somebody publish a track by track comparison of testing policies and procedures and state by state comparisons of medication laws.
May the worst one lose!
Meanwhile Teflon Todd is no longer soaking up sun at the Green Monkey, but is now skiing the Swiss Alps, sailing the seven seas, getting laid in Monaco and the week after that climb the Wall of China. All the while training from his Iridium Satellite phone.
These suspensions are a bitch.......
SC-- Excellent post. I would add that there has to be accountability at the top level, as well-- racetrack operators need to sign off on what\'s being done with testing at their tracks, and if it turns out they are not doing proper testing and enforcement, if positives are being buried or samples thrown away, heads should roll. As in, lawsuits.
There are rumblings not just here but other places as well. This will be an interesting year.
Hypothetically, let\'s look at the dynamics of a boycott of a particular track. Horseplayers as a group lose money, and the money they lose is the lifeblood of the industry-- it pays for purses, executive\'s salaries, etc. This means that if there is a boycott, horseplayers can hold out forever-- the longer they don\'t bet as a group, the more money they save. The track, on the other hand, can not exist without the bettors. So if a group of big bettors-- and hypothetically, high end data suppliers-- decided to do this, the track would eventually have to cave in.
Food for thought.
Tony, you make some good points and I think that there's a lot of misunderstanding in what we're trying to communicate to each other. It's late now but I will try to clear things up tomorrow.
Briefly, I do not object to bettors taking into account trainers' illegal drugging patterns in their handicapping. My objection is when the drug problem is characterized as "not important" and the poster goes on to brag about he happy he is to have such a rotten situation to profit from, rather than bemoan what he has to do to not lose money given the way things are. For the record, I enjoy the company of so-called "degenerates" whenever I go to the track. I say so-called because wearing a ridiculous tie or smoking a funny cigar those not fit my definition of a degenerate. I reserve that definition for those that drug horses and find it troubling that some not only deny it is a problem but find delight in the situation because they've found a way to profit from it.
Bob
Hey Bob...all is well ....I have no issue, was trying to have a little fun at the end. Everybody has to have a good racetrack character story to tell. Makes going to the track the experience it really is.
Your position is understood better.
Thanks,
Tony
Hi Tony,
Glad I could clear that up. Sorry I wasn\'t clearer in the first place.
My goal in life is to be the charecter in someone\'s racetrack story. LOL.
Bob
\"My objection is when the drug problem is characterized as "not important" and the poster goes on to brag about he happy he is to have such a rotten situation to profit from, rather than bemoan what he has to do to not lose money given the way things are.\"
1. As soon as you find someone that thinks illegal drug use in horseracing isn\'t a major problem for the entire industry let us know. You are certainly mischaracterizing everything I\'ve read here.
2. As soon as you find someone that is bragging that he\'s happy about the situation because he can profit from it let us know because you are certainly mischaracterizing everything I\'ve read here and specifically what I said.
As to adapting to a situation over which horseplayers have had no control to date, I\'ll repeat what I said before.
If you are going to play the game despite the drug use, you might as well try to play a winning one. It\'s not that difficult to beat this game using well researched trainer information as a supplement to the figures.
To those that are disgusted because they aren\'t winning and blame drugs for their losses, let me suggest that part of being a good horseplayer is adapting to the conditions (good or bad).
To those that are jealous that the crooks are making more money than you, just let it go and play to win yourself.
Obviously there are serious drug abuse problems that need to be addressed and corrected ASAP. Perhaps a boycott would help or even work.
In the mean time you might want to spend 50 hours or so looking over the PPs of all the horses trained by high percentage trainers and the stats provided by Thoro-Graph.
Fkach,
Here is quote from your own post:
"I also don\'t think drugs should be as big a problem for gamblers as is being implied"
How are we, as gamblers, supposed to gain credibility in our attempts to clean up the game while saying that drugs are not that big a problem? I'm glad you later came out and stated that drugs are a serious problem throughout the industry. That was not the impression you gave in the post I was referring to.
You than go on to say:
"A high percentage of my own bets are on horses trained by people that are regularly accused of questionable practices'...... Of course, those that know exactly when a horse is being drugged have an even bigger edge, but I\'ve never been one to complain about winning just because someone else is winning more. I\'m not condoning it, but if drugs are the reality and you want to play, you might as well play a winning game until the issue is resolved."
Not condoning it? It practically sounds like your touting it. As I explained to NC Tony, I am in no way criticizing horseplayers for having to factor in the reality of drug use into their handicapping, one would have to be a fool to ignore it. My point is that this should be viewed as a deplorable state of affairs rather than as a great money making opportunity. The central point of this thread was how sick we, as horseplayers, were of the "juicers" and what we can do if we organize into a group to rid the game of this plague. It does great disservice to such an effort and undermines how seriously we take this issue to make public statements that A) drugs are not that serious a problem and B) we see this as a great angle.
Spending hours studying trainer patterns will do nothing to fix the ultimate problem, drug use, which is the main point of this thread and by far the greater issue here.
Bob
\"How are we, as gamblers, supposed to gain credibility in our attempts to clean up the game while saying that drugs are not that big a problem? \"
\"The central point of this thread was how sick we, as horseplayers, were of the "juicers" and what we can do if we organize into a group to rid the game of this plague. It does great disservice to such an effort and undermines how seriously we take this issue to make public statements that A) drugs are not that serious a problem and B) we see this as a great angle. \"
You remind me of a lot of the politicians I so deeply despise. Not only do you want to change something everyone agrees needs to be changed, you want to suppress the truth, mischaracterize what people are saying by referring to single quotes without using other relevant comments, prevent people from discussing how to cope with the problem until it\'s solved, and prevent people from succeeding, all to advance your agenda.
People can be strongly opposed to illegal drugs because of the damage it\'s doing to the industry and more than willing to be active in implementing change, while coping with it in the mean time. That\'s where I have been coming from and it has been obvious every step of the way.
The simple fact of the matter is that illegal drug use is a huge problem for breeders, trainers, horse owners, the tracks etc... It\'s not nearly as big a problem for serious horseplayers as you are implying even if you don\'t like hearing the truth.
Handicappers have been studying trainers for decades. It\'s a fundamental aspect of the game. Whether the \"first time\" Levine horse at Aqu that came from CA won by a block yesterday because of juice or because Levine is a great horseman doesn\'t matter to an informed and well rounded \"horseplayer\". Either way, he knew that even at 6-5 the horse was a good bet. It matters a lot to the other owners, trainers, tracks worried about public perception etc...
If you are going to gamble until the required changes are made, there\'s no reason to flush money down a rat hole or suppress honest discussion of how horseplayers can cope with the situation in the mean time. We are allowed to be angry about the situation, work towards change, and continue winning money too.