Ask the Experts

General Category => Ask the Experts => Topic started by: Michael D. on July 29, 2007, 07:45:34 AM

Title: How fast was it?
Post by: Michael D. on July 29, 2007, 07:45:34 AM
the Whitney -

when a 29-1 Kee and slop loving speedball comes in 2nd and the 24-1 longshot closer comes in last, and a 14-1 speedball comes in 4th and a 9-1 closer comes in 2nd to last, you immediately start to look for a bias. when you go through all the horses, there was indeed a bias towards the speed/stalker types. the track was super fast for that race for some reason.

hate to redboard after the bad pick in the 7th, but Lawyer Ron was ready to explode. he was a negative 1 type last year before Pletcher got him (could be a negative 3 without Pletcher), and he had the negative \'2\' in his 1M prep. made me think a negative \'4\' or \'5\' was well within his reach stretching to 9F, especially given the five weeks of nutrients and conditioning.

as for the sprint, Diabolical certainly is the real deal. Attila is honest, possibly even great with Velazquez up. nice close from Simon. interesting comparing Benny\'s TG figs vs the Beyers. made the 5/2 look short. also interesting comparing Ginger\'s negative 2 vs the 104 Beyer in the f&m race.

good day for NYRA, though I would rather see the good ones spread out a bit, especially if it precludes a Sunday with four straight state bred races.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: lfe2211 on July 29, 2007, 08:29:24 AM
This may set off a firestorm but I have to ask the question. What current testing methodology would prevent TAP & Allday from blood doping Lawyer Ron for the Whitney?
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: high roller on July 29, 2007, 08:35:19 AM
lfe2211 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This may set off a firestorm but I have to ask the
> question. What current testing methodology would
> prevent TAP & Allday from blood doping Lawyer Ron
> for the Whitney?


THE PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD ARE GETTING MORE AND MORE BIZARRE AS TIME GOES ON. I GUARANTEE THAT ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BLAMING TAP/ALLDAY ARE LOSING THEIR SHIRTS AND HAVE RESORTED TO THIS IN ORDER TO HAVE A SCAPEGOAT. WHAT LOSER\'S!
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: lfe2211 on July 29, 2007, 09:34:56 AM
My post was not sour grapes due to a losing bet. I have no axe to grind re TAP. Again, is the current testing methodology capable of demonstrating blood doping in horses by any trainer, either with exogenous drugs like EPO or by transfusion of autologous (the horse\'s own) blood ?
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: ronwar on July 29, 2007, 10:19:42 AM
\"especially given the five weeks of nutrients and conditioning\"

I not a Pletcher hater, but that made laugh out loud
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: Barry Irwin on July 30, 2007, 02:53:05 AM
The only \"firestorm\" your comment is likely to set off would be one of uncontrollable laughter. Perhaps you should change your screen name to something like \"Chuckles 22ll.\"
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: lfe2211 on July 30, 2007, 06:26:43 AM
\"The only \"firestorm\" your comment is likely to set off would be one of uncontrollable laughter.\"

Barry, I don\'t read this board as frequently as some of the regulars here. Could you just answer my question, please? Pardon my ignorance if it\'s a dumb question.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: Barry Irwin on July 30, 2007, 01:04:42 PM
It is a dumb question.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: NoCarolinaTony on July 30, 2007, 09:22:21 PM
Barry....

This is the TG board after all. If it\'s fast.... its gotta be the drugs.....as the common cry from the same suspects.

One other thing....I guess \"dirt\" is always better than \"poly\" for consistency race to race.....

NC Tony
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: TGJB on July 31, 2007, 11:19:30 AM
Tony-- yeah, you\'re right. When Frankel\'s entire barn-- made up almost exclusively of older horses-- got 4 points faster at the same time in the spring of 2001, it was just an amzing coincidence.

As it happens, Barry is one of us on the front lines of the battle against drugs. I\'m guessing we have a disgreement as to who some of the violators are.

For the record, as I\'ve been doing days recently I\'ve seen several small outfits (especially at Mth) move several runners way up. My guess is that there is a rogue vet on the loose-- and we would know who if they printed a vet of record in the program. Another guess is it\'s \"legal\" milkshaking-- below the 37 level.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: Barry Irwin on July 31, 2007, 05:42:31 PM
As for cheating and who is and who isn\'t, I would tend to agree with anything Jerry Brown came up with, because when one is doing the type of work he does, this person has the best evidence available. In these instances, the figures do not lie.

While cheating will never be totally eliminated, I think that if racing jurisdictions were really interested in finding out which trainers had become too hot, they would consult with a guy like Jerry, because his evidence doesn\'t lie.

From my perspective, I see some trainers that used to cheat that appear to have stopped, and a few others that have embraced the dark side.

The ones that have stopped have undoubtedly done so because they do not want to risk losing everything they have built up.

The ones that are still trying to take an edge are those desperados who are either too dumb to stop or too desperate.

Some trainers used to cheat to attract attention to their training prowess. Once they convinced some owners that they were geniuses, they weaned themselves off the juice.

Yet others joined the fray because they knew who was cheating with what juice and since these jerks were not being punished, the guys that joined the fray did so as a matter of survival.

The biggest culprit and the man that did more to advance a cheating culture was the former administrative head of the California Horse Racing Board Roy Wood, who cut deals, swept violations under the rug and by his actions encouraged trainers to use drugs.

It has taken a long time to change this California attitude, but I do see hopeful signs.

Interestingly, I wonder what the advent of Polytrack will be in California, as some trainers have become quite desperate to land in the winners circle of late. These guys may be prime candidate to return to their juicing.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: Silver Charm on July 31, 2007, 06:13:31 PM
Barry,

A couple of things. I for one do not believe Pletcher is juicing anymore. He has the best people and the best horses. He also gives his horses considerable time between races which is conducive to large tops. We saw some of all of the above work together on Saturday with Lawyer Ron.

Also very interesting what you said about the impact of Polytrack on SmellMar. (As in the racing stinks). There are people who have invested heavily in dirt pedigree horses because they are generally the races with most money and prestige. Only to find their investment is being washed away. This is because they are competing on a circuit where only turf horses seem to win. See In Summation in the Crosby.

There has not been anywhere near enough testing on the Polytrack surface. Players, Trainers and Owners are being blown out the game because of a poorly planned integration program.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: NoCarolinaTony on July 31, 2007, 09:34:12 PM
Jerry,

I was not going back in time with Frankel. It has nothing to do with Frankel. I never said some guys don\'t use whatever means possible to win.

All I am saying is it very typical for certain individuals who post on this board to always associate fast times to drugs.

It\'s a statement of fact. I\'m not saying it is or is not drugs - EPO or Milkshaking. I just don\'t think it\'s right or fair to always associate Great performances with Drugs.

I would love to hear Chuckles the Clown  or any one else who feels as strongly as he does about one vet in particular, you included Jerry, call in and ask Steve Allday directly about his super human skills, on Alldays weekly appearance on  Steve Byk\'s Radio Show \"At the Races\"  on Sirius Sattellite Radio 126 and confront the man (ALLDAY) directly about his association to outstanding performances and the drugs he uses. I listen to him weekly. Ask him if he would be willing to have his name in program etc etc.

I wish you could get the man to post on this board and confront his accusers who like to hide behind screen names.

NC Tony

PS Is Frankel Clean now?
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: NoCarolinaTony on July 31, 2007, 09:39:13 PM
So with that being said Barry, with you feeling as strongly as you do about cheating, that Todd Pletcher is not a cheater. Can you please set the record straight here?

I\'d like to believe that what we saw this Saturday was an outstanding performance by a horse combined with an outstanding performance by a trainer and not a drugged up innuendo.

Thanks,

NC Tony
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: TGJB on August 01, 2007, 09:16:38 AM
Seriously, Tony. If someone is doing something illegal, you think they\'re going to say so? And, it\'s not up to Allday whether his name is in the program or not-- and from what I hear, he likes as much publicity as possible.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: Chuckles_the_Clown2 on August 01, 2007, 05:57:32 PM
Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barry,
>
> A couple of things. I for one do not believe
> Pletcher is juicing anymore. He has the best
> people and the best horses. He also gives his
> horses considerable time between races which is
> conducive to large tops. We saw some of all of the
> above work together on Saturday with Lawyer Ron.>

Lets look at some \"chronological \"facts\"\". I can\'t enable some to review evidence, consider conflicts, process information and apply logical deductions in the manner that I do. Some things are just too much to ask of those that don\'t have the background. It\'s like asking a man thats never read or studied the Constitution and the reasons that it was written for his opinion upon 4th amendment issues and conflict between the branches of government. The Founding Fathers understood that the common man was the backbone of the nation, but also that a farmer was not constituted to consider matters of the greater good, law, ethics and principle and that is why they set up a representative government of checks and balances. They understood a charismatic man could influence those that were too busy to pay attention. This danger exists also in horse racing, albeit with far lesser consequences.

Now some evidence. They found a rifle in the Texas Schoolbook Depository registered to an alias of Lee Harvey Oswald. (An alias identification found in his belongings upon his arrest.) Witnesses on the fifth floor heard three shots and metallic sounds clinking upon the ceiling/floor \"above\" them. The FBI recovered three ejected cartridge casings upon the sixth floor of the building. The FBI ballistically identified the casings as having been discharged by the rifle registered to the alias found in the possession of Lee Harvey Oswald. Ballistic testing of bullet fragments recovered from the Presidential Limo, Presidents Body and Hospital gurney confirmed their discharge from the subject recovered rifle. Lee Harvey Oswald worked in the Subject Building and was seen carrying a large package to work the day of the shooting. Oswald departed work after the shooting and an officer was killed near where he was apprehended and ballistics upon recovered casings at that murder scene confirmed the rounds were discharged from a revolver recovered upon Oswald\'s person at the time of his arrest. Oswald was a Marine certified Expert Marksman and his weapon was a 2000 ft per second plus muzzle velocity weapon.

Now, if its within you look hard at the known facts of the Pletch inquiry and tell this board the evidence supports another explanation. I\'m not going to do it for you, that\'s your assignment.

CtC
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: Silver Charm on August 01, 2007, 06:08:55 PM
Chuckles besides doping all of his horses are you now implying that Pletcher was the one who shot President Kennedy?

What\'s your point?
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: spa on August 01, 2007, 06:47:17 PM
I think Chuckles said Todd took the Lindbergh baby.............
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: Silver Charm on August 01, 2007, 07:03:50 PM
And he was/is the Zodiac killer.........
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: lfe2211 on August 01, 2007, 08:12:31 PM
Barry Irwin, you completely misunderstood my question on blood doping. I was not accusing TAP of doing this. I merely asked the question--is the current testing technology capable of identifying equine blood doping by any trainer by any means, including recombinant EPO.

On a related subject, I am astounded by this article from the drf.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/87194.html

Here are 2 excerpts:

The American Graded Stakes Committee, which is overseen by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, moved to add the anabolic steroids to the post-race testing regimen after receiving reports that anabolic steroids were present in at least half of the post-race samples of horses that won 30 graded stakes last year, according to Andrew Schweigardt, the secretary of the committee and an official of TOBA.


The regulation of steroid use has become a major topic of discussion in the U.S. racing industry in the past 18 months. The U.S. is the only major racing jurisdiction in the world that allows the unregulated use of anabolic steroids, which can build muscle mass, restore a horse\'s appetite, and help horses recover from strenuous exercise.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: NoCarolinaTony on August 01, 2007, 08:19:33 PM
I guess I got my answer.

You think the guy\'s a juicer and don\'t think it\'s worth confronting the guy.

Lawyers Ron was performance was performance aided. So that means that ultimately that you are indirectly saying your buddy Barry Irwin is a liar.

Got it.

NC Tony
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: NoCarolinaTony on August 01, 2007, 08:26:44 PM
I thought he was saying Commentator was his father.....

NC Tony
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: NoCarolinaTony on August 01, 2007, 08:31:07 PM
I think it\'s fair game to ask the man what his position is on having his name show up in the program, and if you got evidence or good speculative evidence on the man, than it is you duty to confront him wherever and whenever you can.

NC Tony
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: P-Dub on August 01, 2007, 11:13:45 PM
Just watched \"The Bronx Is Burning\".  Chuckles just shot another couple in a car.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: miff on August 02, 2007, 05:04:27 AM
\"My post was not sour grapes due to a losing bet. I have no axe to grind re TAP. Again, is the current testing methodology capable of demonstrating blood doping in horses by any trainer, either with exogenous drugs like EPO or by transfusion of autologous (the horse\'s own) blood \"




lfe221,

There is a test for blood dope, it\'s expensive, rarely used(some venues have performed random unannounced testing) and could not possibly detect all of the variations of EPO which the chemists are able to mask/change. That from someone involved in NYRA drug testing.

Re steroids, you may not know that they have been around for a long time and are legally used by many outfits big and small, legit trainers and crooked ones alike.All of these issues are being looked into and it the case of NYRA specifically, additional slot monies will allow some advanced testing.It\'s in the plan if the current NYRA management gets the future franchise.

Much of the screaming about drug performances are from people getting waxed at the windows or from trainers unable to compete.Some trainers use this as an excuse to their owners who get lots of bills and few purse checks.

Some good things on the legal/illegal drug horizon and the guys that are using illegal stuff must be aware that there is finally a \"kinda\" national push to stop them. There is still little oneness amongst the different states/racing managers that control/license racing and the feds will surely f--k it up if they get involved.


mike
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: fkach on August 02, 2007, 06:11:04 AM
>Lawyers Ron was performance aided.<

The problem with this is that LR demonstrated clear cut rankness issues in his 3YO career. Most pace sensitive handicappers ABSOLUTELY KNEW that he had more ability/potential than most final time handicappers were giving him credit for last year.  

If you correct that problem, throw in some maturity development, and give TP just a little credit, this was hardly a shocking performance at this point in his form cycle. It\'s not like Wanderin Boy etc... are giants in the racing world. THis was a very very deep field, but there probably wasn\'t a legitimate Grade 1 horse in the race (until now). He wiped out a solid field, but not in an totally uncommon way unless you totally trust a clocking that is clearly suspect as to track speed.

The thing about TP that his critics refuse to acknowledge is that when his horses develop, they do so over time. He rarely gets a new horse and moves it up immediately (like some trainers). He\'s had LR for a long time.  

That strongly suggests that something else is involved. Maybe it\'s horsemanship. Maybe it\'s horsemanship and steroids (or something else that takes time). Who knows. But IMHO, it\'s a lot harder to toss around accusations against a man that gets the best stock, best help, best treatments, works his ass off, and rarely has a giant move up first time he has a horse. The PP\'s of his horses rarely smell bad like some for some trainers.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: lfe2211 on August 02, 2007, 06:23:58 AM
Miff,

Thanks much for the informative response.

It seems like the board (like the racing industry) has become so polarized on drugging issues that simple requests for information are automatically interpreted as attacks and/or gripes against trainer XYZ for using illegal drugs. When I first posed my question, I should not have used TAP/Lawyer Ron as a preface to asking the question.

I\'m a biochemist so I do know a little about how one tests for entities like rEPO. In the course of researching the question of blood doping in horses on my own, I discovered that \"Lassie Viren style\" blood doping (transfusing one\' own frozen away highly oxygenated red blood cells back into the circulatory system on race day) does not work in horses because of equine physiology. When horses exert themselves, their massive spleens automatically inject huge amounts of highly oxygenated hemoglobin into their circulatory systems, in effect, \"blood doping\" themselves. So, this leads me to be perplexed on the actual positive value of rEPO on horse racing performance unless that horse has an anemic condition. That\'s what rEPO is used for in humans--to boost red cells as a result of anti-cancer (or other)  drugs with cause anemia as a side effect.

Anabolic steroids are a different matter. They will definitely produce a \" Bondsian\" effect on horses if used appropriately.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: miff on August 02, 2007, 06:48:02 AM
LFE2211,

A biochemist, very interesting, you should share your knowledge more often. Of interest, there are two things which I have heard over the years.

1. A horse would be \"bled\" to allow new blood to replace it and thereby get a new blood boost. True??


2.Drumroll please,a rouge vet/researcher states that milkshakes have the \"opposite\" effect on a horse and does not help but hinders performance.From a bio view is there science either way?

Thanks,
Mike
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: Lost Cause on August 02, 2007, 07:06:43 AM
Chuckles wrote...\"Now some evidence. They found a rifle in the Texas Schoolbook Depository registered to an alias of Lee Harvey Oswald. (An alias identification found in his belongings upon his arrest.) Witnesses on the fifth floor heard three shots and metallic sounds clinking upon the ....CtC..

It looks like Chuckles might be dipping into the old pharmaceutical bag himself, it seems ilke the stuff he is using is stronger than anything Pletcher can get his hands on........
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: lfe2211 on August 02, 2007, 07:26:22 AM
Miff,

Unfortunately, my job often gets in the way of my passion--horse racing. So, there will be long periods of time when I won\'t be able to follow all the discussions on the board. However, this is the best place I have found to discuss these issues, biases, passions and ad hominem responses notwithstanding. Jerry Brown is to be complimented for providing such a forum no matter what your view is on his figure making methodology. IMO, his is the most grounded in scientific principles, e.g. see all the work on the potential for changing race surfaces during the course of a day.

As to your first question, note that I am not an equine vet who would better answer your questions. Nonetheless,  after doing my own research, on a simplistic level, it seems logical that bleeding a horse will force its spleen to inject newly high oxygenated blood into its system. Timing would be crucial. As with all complex regulated physiologic systems though, I don\'t know what other detrimental effects if any, might ensue as a result of repeated bleeding.

As to the second question, simplistically a \"milkshake\" is an attempt to add a basic pH  buffering agent (sodium bicarbonate) to combat the acidic effects of lactic acid buildup in muscles which causes their fatigue. A vet would know  better but, IMO, the positive effects should be minimal--you\'d need one hell of a lot of bicarb to buffer the lactic acid produced in a 1000 lb race horse running at high speed.

The key concept for both questions is that all physiologic systems are highly and tightly regulated to combat wild swings up or down. It would be good for the board to have an articulate equine vet who was not connected to the racing industry post to answer such questions more authoritatively.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: miff on August 02, 2007, 07:37:20 AM
LFE 2211,


Thanks for the response and understand your job responsibilities. Agree that this board is the best and that Jerry is tolerant of discussions which sometimes have little to do with the product.

Your answer on the benefit of milkshakes is very close to what others have stated. I\'m sure that you are also aware that most in the industry believe that shakes are a big time move up tool.I\'m sure there must be some bio-science that really answers the question of it\'s benefit or otherwise.


Mike
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: lfe2211 on August 02, 2007, 10:23:56 AM
Miff,

This may be old news for this board but here are 2 relevant articles on equine nutrition. The first is a general teaching article on nutrition with some info on the effect of blood alkalizing agents on acid build up in horses muscles. The second is somewhat humorous but details the specific mechanics and some myths with regard to the process of milkshaking.

http://www.horsecity.com/stories/061702/hea_performan_HB.shtml

http://www.winninggonewild.com/milkshaking.html
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: TGJB on August 02, 2007, 10:45:09 AM
Two very good articles. A couple of things:

1-- Recently, a stake winning filly I manage was training very poorly (rubber legged after working a half). A vet suggested trying the high fat diet, she turned around immediately.

2-- On the milkshake question-- as I have posted before, there is now a milkshake in a pill, which is being broken up and mixed with the feed. I\'ve talked pretty extensively with Rick Arthur about this (he\'s the state vet in California, pretty much the leading expert on this stuff), he says he has found that even slight increases in CO2 levels (the test for milkshakes) correlate with increased performance. No idea how he measures that.

3--As I have said many times here, the problem is that the legal threshold for CO2 is 37 or 39, depending on the state, when a horse can\'t produce more than around 30 on his own. We have made the drugging of horses legal.

4-- I wonder if \"The Player\", who wrote the second article, drives a white Mercedes.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: TGJB on August 02, 2007, 10:56:38 AM
Tony-- what the hell good will \"confronting\" him do? I\'m one of the people in the industry working hard to get this problem stopped-- as a lot of people who actually do know what they are talking about know. And I\'m not talking about this board.

There\'s a difference between circumstantial evidence-- even tons of it-- and proof. Witness the fact that our Attoney General still has a job. In point of fact, what is being done is almost certainly legal. It should not be.
Title: Re: Milkshake Issue
Post by: BitPlayer on August 02, 2007, 11:12:20 AM
Mike -

I wouldn\'t be so sure bioscience has a conclusive answer to your question.  The problems with trying to answer any question like the one you are asking include the difficulty of doing an experiment in which you change only one variable and the difficulty of measuring performance.  It would be interesting for someone to be allowed access to both TG\'s figures and the results of California\'s TCO2 tests and see if there is a correlation between the two.

What I\'ve read agrees with your rogue vet, suggesting that there are at least some positive  effects of lactic acid build-up in muscles.  I think I\'ve also read that milkshaking may have other effects (calming the horse, for example) unrelated to muscle performance.
Title: Re: Milkshake Issue
Post by: miff on August 02, 2007, 11:21:43 AM
On a somewhat related note, NYRA is seriously looking at detention barns and what overall good they do vs the costs to owners, trainers and nyra. There are strong voices from VERY legit outfits in NY  to discontinue the use of pre race dentention barns. Would not be surprised to see them go.


mike
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: fkach on August 02, 2007, 11:58:43 AM
>In point of fact, what is being done is almost certainly legal. It should not be.<

I wish someone would have made this statement sooner. It more or less explains many of the statements I\'ve made defending some of the trainers while maintaining a generally anti-drug view.

I wish we would be drug free like most of the rest of the world, but unless things are clearly defined as illegal, IMO, you probably shouldn\'t go around calling people cheaters etc... You don\'t know what they are doing even if you know based on figures, quick move ups etc... that they are doing something.  

At a minimum, I think we need much improved definitions of legality. Then the assumption can be made that everything else is illegal.
Title: Re: Milkshake Issue
Post by: P.Eckhart on August 02, 2007, 12:21:36 PM
Milkshaking would also be a palliative for gastric ulcers which are very common in racehorses.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: rosewood on August 02, 2007, 12:48:37 PM
Mr. Brown,

I am afraid you are preaching to the choir.

Isn\'t Rick Arnold the vet that is being sued over \"heel nerving\"? Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. The vets don\'t even want anybody floating teeth at a race track.

Lock the track gates and do not allow a vet on site.  Give each trainer a can of REDUCINE and tell them to go at it.

Until the Spa and Derby are run to an empty grandstand and there is no one at the teller windows you can forget cleaning up cheating. It would be a simple matter to correct if it was wanted by the owners,trainers and racing boards who are getting rich.

Do you think the wizz kids could stay in business if they had no horses to run?
Title: Should it be legal? - Another view
Post by: BitPlayer on August 02, 2007, 01:05:10 PM
The paragraphs that follow are from an editorial in this week\'s issue of the scientific journal \"Nature.\"  They are talking about the use of performance enhancing drugs by human athletes, but I suppose similar arguments can be made regarding thoroughbreds.  I\'m not endorsing the views expressed, but throwing them out there as food for thought:

\"To cheat in a sporting event is a loathsome thing. For as long as the rules of the Tour de France or any sporting event ban the use of performance-enhancing drugs, those who break the rules must be punished whenever possible. But this does not preclude the idea that it may, in time, be necessary to readdress the rules themselves.

As more is learned about how our bodies work, more options become available for altering those workings. To date, most of this alteration has sought to restore function to some sort of baseline. But it is also possible to enhance various functions into the supernormal realm, and the options for this are set to grow ever greater.

The fact that such endeavours will carry risks should not be trivialized. But adults should be allowed to take risks, and experience suggests that they will do so when the benefits on offer are enticing enough. By the end of this century the unenhanced body or mind may well be vanishingly rare.

As this change takes place, we will have to re-examine what we expect of athletes. If spectators are seeking to reset their body mass index through pharmacology, or taking pills that enhance their memory, is it really reasonable that athletes should make do with bodies that have not seen such benefits? The more the public comes to live with the mixed and risk-related benefits of enhancement, the more it will appreciate that allowing such changes need not rob sport of its drama, nor athletes of their need for skill, training, character and dedication.

. . .

As pharmacological enhancement becomes everyday, views of bodily enhancement may evolve sufficiently for sporting rules to change on that, too.

This transition will not be painless. Some people will undoubtedly harm themselves through the use of enhancements, and there would need to be special protection for children. That said, athletes harm themselves in other forms of training, too. They may harm themselves less with drugs when doctors can be openly involved and masking agents dispensed with.\"
Title: Re: Should it be legal? - Another view
Post by: fkach on August 02, 2007, 01:38:28 PM
In many ways this also gets to the point I\'ve been making.  

The list of ways  to enhance performance is constantly changing and growing, but as far as I can tell there is no clear cut definition between legal and illegal. If I\'m wrong, please let me know about that.  

If I take a natural over the counter herb that reduces stress and anxiety and it allows me to perform better in a high pressure contest, how does that differ from a guy that takes speed because he\'s tired?

Both are altering the natural state of affairs and allowing enhanced performance.

Because of all these possibities (chemical and non-chemical), I think we need a list of approved procedures and therapies, with the default being, until it\'s approved, it\'s illegal. If someone comes up with something new, there should be a national industry review board made up of vets, trainers, owners, and other industry experts to decide whether or not to approve it.

If I had my way, there would be a very small list of approved therapies, drugs, procedures etc...for any horse that will be racing because I happen to love them, and unlike humans, they aren\'t in a position to make risk/reward decisions about their health and lives. However, I think it\'s obvious that the industry in the U.S. couldn\'t give a crap about the animals otherwise we would have rules similar to the rest of the world.

Perhaps that\'s the way to proceed.

Maybe instead of being rational and talking about how drugs and performance enhancers are unfair to clean trainers, owners, and horsplayers. Then explaining how in the long term we might lose fans, hurt the economics etc...

Maybe we should embarass them and call them the bunch of scumbags they are for abusing animals to make an extra dollar and then calling themselves vets, trainers, breeders etc... as if that title means they actually care for the animals.
Title: Re: Should it be legal? - Another view
Post by: TGJB on August 02, 2007, 01:49:16 PM
Some of these performance enhancing drugs are actually good for the horse. But here\'s the problem--what happens when a trainer runs one cold for three races, drops the horse down, and then goes hot? What happens when a guy who bets has a 3/5 shot that he has been treating that runs in a superfecta race, or on a day with a big carryover?

On a more mundane level-- yeah, we all have a list of trainers we adjust for when a horse goes into or out of their barns. But what happens when a small barn (or a \"straight\", not so small one) switches to one of the supervets? Unless the vet is listed, the next couple of times you deal with that trainer you can\'t get it right.
Title: Re: Should it be legal? - Another view
Post by: fkach on August 02, 2007, 02:10:12 PM
I\'m surprised to hear that you think some of these drugs are good for horses. Please elaborate if you have some time.

Personally, I do whatever I can to avoid taking any drugs at all because my assumption is that it can\'t be any good to put unnatural things into your system for more than a short period of time.  

I understand the gambling problems and issues, but net net, I think I make more money by monitoring the suspected cheaters and taking advantage of some situations than I lose when I get screwed by them. I know that\'s not a popular point of view here, but it\'s an honest one for me. Maybe I\'m getting screwed more often than I think.

On a more positive note, nice comeback for Shakespeare. ;-)
Title: Re: Should it be legal? - Another view
Post by: TGJB on August 02, 2007, 03:07:52 PM
Bronchodilators help the horse breathe, and are used therapeutically between races (not supposed to be used on raceday, but some do). Lasix stops pulmonary bleeding. Supposedly milkshakes enable a horse to recover faster from exertion because it eliminates lactic acid buildup in the muscles.

If Ron from St. Johns is out there, he might want to chime in on this string.
Title: Re: Should it be legal? - Another view
Post by: rosewood on August 02, 2007, 04:41:10 PM
Mr. Brown

The public could care less about cheating as is evident by packed baseball,football,bicycle,etc. events and I should give up on racing as fixed and forget about it.

As a small participant; and not having the inside as to who is juiced or not today, my chances of winning a bet or my horse winning a purse are slim.

I should not have taken the liberty to post on this board with all you big guys and you probably should have blocked my post.

I was only trying to point out that cheating is being \"allowed\" NOT trying to be stopped by the powers that be as a result of no enforcement. There is no reason not to cheat if you are trying to stay in the game as it is.

Wasn\'t it Seabiscuit\'s trainer that was suspended years ago for spraying an inhalant down his nose?
 
Looking around the web I came across Dogwood Stables where  Mr. Campbell was pissing and moaning about the high costs of his vet service . I also saw that he was presenting some award in Saratoga for doing good for racing.  Then lo and behold, I found on one of his entries that Patrick Biancone was his trainer! Duh?

I am not a vet or biochemist, but when 15 of 30 stakes winners test over the limit for anything, either the test is wrong, the limit is too low or someone is cheating.

It would not be that hard to set limits or restrictions and enforce them if it was wanted. Until vets, trainers and owners and their horses are barred from the sport for cheating nothing will change.

I can assure that if and when the owners and breeders have only themselves to buy from and sell to and the whales have to bet with each other something will change.
Title: Re: Should it be legal? - Another view
Post by: fkach on August 02, 2007, 04:51:01 PM
Oh sure, I understand that some of these treatments help horses with health problems and recovery.  

Nexium used to help my acid reflux and another couple of prescriptions helped me get to sleep when I was stressed out. But I quit my job and changed my diet and now I don\'t need either.

I guess what I\'m saying is that I\'d prefer that horses that need these drugs not train vigorously or compete until they don\'t need them anymore. There\'s a fine line between what I would find acceptable and not, but I\'m in no position to dictate my values anway. ;-)
Title: Re: Should it be legal? - Another view
Post by: miff on August 02, 2007, 06:03:42 PM
The point many are missing on the legal race day and in between legal race day stuff is simply without them the game would virtually be history. Many less racing days, much smaller fields and added economic pressures on the owners, trainers, workers and race track operators.

It\'s nice to have a purist attitude but without some type of help these animals would race maybe half as much and racing at the main tracks would suffer dramatically.A common sense approach to the whole drug issue supported by strong testing and lifetime banishment for serious offences would eliminate a great deal of this problem.The backbone of the disingenuous/incompetent race track operators is racings major stumbling block.


Mike
Title: Re: Should it be legal? - Another view
Post by: fkach on August 02, 2007, 07:53:46 PM
miff,

Personally, I wouldn\'t have a problem if there was a dramatic reduction in the sport that resulted from the elimination of drugs. I think the sport is absoluting begging for a dramatic reduction anyway. The economics suck as they exist now.  

In the era of internet and simulcast wagering, we don\'t need dozens of uneconomic racetracks diluting the total gambling pie and being supported by slot machines when the land and properties could be put to much better use. All we need are small simulcast facilties and broadband in every home.

If we closed all the uneconomic tracks, I\'d be willing to bet that most of the gambling dollars would simply be redirected towards the remaining viable tracks in high population areas and vacation spots (Belmont, Saratoga, Del Mar, Santa Anita, Gulfstream, Arlington, Churchill, Keeneland etc...). The pools would be gigantic, the purses enormous, the money available to invest in the facilties monstrous. Even the fields would be large because the horse population wouldn\'t be so diluted. Heck, the purses might be so large if a successful 3YO sneezed the owners might not retire him. There might even be some room to cut the take because of the economies of scale.

Granted that a shrinkage like that would be painful to all the losers, but the consolidation of any overextended industry is painful until you get to the other side where the returns are higher and the remaining businesses are strong and profitable.

I\'m not saying we should throw in the towel on the industry, but times have changed.
Title: Re: Should it be legal? - Another view
Post by: lfe2211 on August 02, 2007, 07:59:31 PM
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point many are missing on the legal race day
> and in between legal race day stuff is simply
> without them the game would virtually be history.
> Many less racing days, much smaller fields and
> added economic pressures on the owners, trainers,
> workers and race track operators.
>
> It\'s nice to have a purist attitude but without
> some type of help these animals would race maybe
> half as much and racing at the main tracks would
> suffer dramatically.A common sense approach to the
> whole drug issue supported by strong testing and
> lifetime banishment for serious offences would
> eliminate a great deal of this problem.The
> backbone of the disingenuous/incompetent race
> track operators is racings major stumbling block.
>
>
> Mike

Racing in Europe and Japan are conducted without the use of exogenous drugs. The purses in Japan are astronomical and the betting handle is about twice that of the US in less than half the total number of races per year.

(somewhat dated betting and racing stats in this reference)

http://www.scientificgames.com/sgcorp/industryinforacing.asp

The drug rules for The Japan Racing Association (Table 2, bottom of page) are here:

http://japanracing.jp/japan/rules.html

Why not emulate Europe and Japan and eliminate all exogenous drugs. I\'d personally like to see fewer racing days with bigger fields of drug free horses. It\'s probably a naive wish but I think US horse racing would be the better for it.
Title: Re: Should it be legal? - Another view
Post by: miff on August 03, 2007, 04:33:19 AM
States have parochial views on the loss of revenue, so you can forget about them giving up racing for \"the good of the game\" Don\'t disagree about overseas racing or less racing, it just wont happen here.


Mike
Title: Just Win Baby
Post by: Chuckles_the_Clown2 on August 03, 2007, 04:40:39 AM
high roller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lfe2211 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This may set off a firestorm but I have to ask
> the
> > question. What current testing methodology
> would
> > prevent TAP & Allday from blood doping Lawyer
> Ron
> > for the Whitney?
>
>
THE PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD ARE GETTING MORE AND MORE
> BIZARRE AS TIME GOES ON. I GUARANTEE THAT ALL THE
> PEOPLE WHO ARE BLAMING TAP/ALLDAY ARE LOSING THEIR
> SHIRTS AND HAVE RESORTED TO THIS IN ORDER TO HAVE
> A SCAPEGOAT. WHAT LOSER\'S!


Oh, I get it. If you win on Allday/Pletch he ain\'t cheating, you are just a superior handicapper. Its that simple isn\'t it? \"I won betting on Allday/Pletch, therefore Pletch runs clean.\"  Thats tantamount to the naked contention that he has \"The best people\", \"best horses\" and \"most experience\". Give us a break. This site is about handicapping, where are the critical thinkers?

FYI I  am on record taking a stand with Pletch out of the money in the Triple Crown, when the vast majority of this board considered him unbeatable. He did spoil my run in the Belmont, but that horse is now inexplicably sick.  I also won the Whitney, but the facts involving that race cannot allow one to subordinate whats patently obvious to a cash at the window.

I was at Gulfstream on Fountain of Youth day and Pletcher murdered me, but its not always about winning and losing though overall I have a very good record against Pletch and the other big cheaters in the game.

Regardless of R.O.I. cheating is still cheating and winning is not evidence that there is no cheating.

Lastly, I have intentionally avoided your implication that Pletch is your banker. There is absolutely no evidence of that.
Title: Re: Just Win Baby
Post by: miff on August 03, 2007, 04:50:56 AM
Chuck, as usual you got it half right.

\"Regardless of R.O.I. cheating is still cheating and winning is not evidence that there is no cheating\"



.......nor is winning alone evidence that there is cheating.If I posted a roster of all the horses in the present care of TAP and told he would average winning one out of four, you would conclude he is an ordinary trainer/horseman.

Mike
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: Barry Irwin on August 03, 2007, 07:27:05 PM
Chuckles, the trace amount of the illegal drug found in the Pletcher horse was about the size of your brain, so as far as most are concerned, it was a non event.
Title: Re: How fast was it?
Post by: Silver Charm on August 04, 2007, 07:11:23 AM
So another words Barry almost undetectable by even the most sophisticated of microscopes.

As a matter of fact it is almost a miracle they even found it.
Title: Re: Just Win Baby
Post by: Chuckles_the_Clown2 on August 05, 2007, 02:11:45 PM
The half I assumed is given and the knowledgeable understand it. Winning can be cheating when the facts indicate that the wins are out of the course of context.

Lawyer Ron and Pletch\'s photos are there under that definition.

It doesn\'t boil down to two half\'s anyway. Winning can never indicate a horse ran clean, but a win can sure prove a horse ran substance aided. Once again, refer to Lawyer Ron and Pletch.  

miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chuck, as usual you got it half right.
>
> \"Regardless of R.O.I. cheating is still cheating
> and winning is not evidence that there is no
> cheating\"
>
>
>
> .......nor is winning alone evidence that there is
> cheating.If I posted a roster of all the horses in
> the present care of TAP and told he would average
> winning one out of four, you would conclude he is
> an ordinary trainer/horseman.
>
> Mike
Title: Re: Just Win Baby
Post by: spa on August 05, 2007, 02:50:13 PM
Chuckles,if AGS wins the big race,take a pill and go to bed early.........
Title: Re: Just Win Baby
Post by: Michael D. on August 05, 2007, 02:55:05 PM
have a ton of respect for Curlin, and believe HS can bounce back cutting to 9F at Mth, but AGS from the rail under 118 looks like the play to me. 5/2 is fair.
Title: Re: Just Win Baby
Post by: Anonymous User on August 05, 2007, 03:13:09 PM
Snap a leg, Curlin. Right. In. Front. Of. The Crowd!
Title: Re: Just Win Baby
Post by: marcus on August 05, 2007, 05:09:03 PM
What kind of number you figure  ? IMO- AGS is special + Good for Pletcher and at least he\'s giving better interviews since  winning the Black Eyed Susan and Belmont ...
Title: Re: Should it be legal? - Another view
Post by: alm on August 05, 2007, 07:39:06 PM
Absolutely.

It\'s ridiculous to claim drugs are keeping horses on the track, enabling them to race more or longer...anymore than cyclists\' use of drugs are making for bigger fields in races like the Tour d\'France.

Drugs help horses win, period.  It would be a different story if they were legal and available equally throughout the business, but they are not.

My horses never race or train on drugs and they\'ve had above average career starts.  They also have a trainer who cares for them the old fashioned way.  In fact, most people who train horses are honest.

Today the jockey said Any Given Saturday was a different horse since his race in the Derby.  That was the only honest thing connected with his performance.
Title: Re: Just Win Baby
Post by: Chuckles_the_Clown2 on August 06, 2007, 04:40:27 AM
I passed the race Spa. Too many other opportunities with Pletch in \"jump up\" mode.

That said, though certain AGS was juiced, I\'m not sure the effort was that big a race. I tend to think not. There is a nice trend developing here for the Breeders Cup though.

On a civil note, I find it comical when the occasional cretin takes shots at me.  but the latest by the Clone in this thread is in very poor form. I\'d consider a permanent ban for that, but at a minimum that commentary has to be removed.

spa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chuckles,if AGS wins the big race,take a pill and
> go to bed early.........
Title: Re: Should it be legal? - Yet Another view
Post by: lfe2211 on August 06, 2007, 05:54:08 AM
alm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Absolutely.
>
> It\'s ridiculous to claim drugs are keeping horses
> on the track, enabling them to race more or
> longer...anymore than cyclists\' use of drugs are
> making for bigger fields in races like the Tour
> d\'France.
>
> Drugs help horses win, period.  It would be a
> different story if they were legal and available
> equally throughout the business, but they are
> not.
>
> My horses never race or train on drugs and they\'ve
> had above average career starts.  They also have a
> trainer who cares for them the old fashioned way.
> In fact, most people who train horses are honest.
>
> Today the jockey said Any Given Saturday was a
> different horse since his race in the Derby.  That
> was the only honest thing connected with his
> performance.

Kudos to you alm and any of your colleagues who race drug free and truly care for their animals. What goes around, eventually will come around, Cheating always has a way of bubbling to the surface. Is it worth it? I think not.

If anabolic steroids (of which there are too many variants to count) have been the untestedable and/or untested for designer drug of choice by the \"30-40%\" supertrainers, many of their horses will likely be worthless at stud (as if they care). It would explain inexplicable \"bad\" performance when such a drug was withdrawn from a stake horse. It would also explain a lot of the deterioration in performance observed when switching to steroid-free barns.

In the human arena, Barry Bonds has/will have \"a\" meaningless record and the attendant disgrace and scorn it deserves. He may well eventually suffer from the long term health deterioration characteristic of anabolic steroid abuse. Was it worth it? I think not.
Title: Re: Just Win Baby
Post by: davidrex on August 06, 2007, 01:31:55 PM
The Clone has succeeded in writing the most tasteless comment I\'ve read on this board.
I can only assume this individual was either attacking CTMC,or,actually thought it had something to do with perverted humor.
Lord knows I\'ve had to retract my size 11 from my mouth a few times ,but I tend to suffer from not tasting well.