Ask the Experts

Tuned in for Allday Part II and was a little disappointed. In Part I, Dr. Steve
seemed ready to tear Dutrow a new one; in Part II the good Doctor was a little
more restrained.

Still, a good listen and we should all be happy that Steve Byk provides a media
forum for Racing. But no real bombshells from Doc Allday. On the one hand he
admits to milkshaking horses (before said practice was regulated). On the other
hand he says he has not been involved in the pre race preparation of horses for
quite a few years and if this is so a lot of the \"White Mercedes\" chatter on
this board and elsewhere was much ado about nothing.

It is very possible, as Sighthound and Miff have mentioned, that Doc Steve is
just a top notch hock and stifle man while other vets and trainers are overly
concerned with front end (knee and ankle) problems.

A big disappointment was that nothing new was mentioned by host Steve, Doc
Steve, Lee Tomlinson or any of the call in guests in the way of what needs to
be done to cure Racing\'s ills: Yes a national sanctioning body and uniform rules
enforced with reciprocity are needed. (The NTRA is merely a marketing concern
and seems barely competent enough to conduct a bake sale). Yes penalties for
cheaters need to be more penal. Yes maybe the penalization of owners and maybe
individual runners which have been illegally medicated may serve as more of a
deterrent.

If any of the above solutions sound familiar it is because they have been
discussed on this very forum for the past 5 or 6 years, if not longer.

I will concede for the sake of argument that Patrick Biancone may have been
totally unaware that cobra venom was in areas that he was responsible for and
that said venom may have been administered to runners he was responsible for
without his knowledge; that being said, the trainer responsibility rule is what
it is, and I think Racing missed a chance to make a strong statement by handing
down a much stronger penalty in this case, the kind of penalty that may have
had the effect of making trainers and vets less likely to wander through that
cheating side of town.

I know I am talking about a family man and his opportunity to make a living,
but we are also speaking about a man who has already been excluded from
participation in Racing in a major venue.

Racing may have yet another chance to make a strong statement. When poster DITZ
first shed light on the Wild Desert affair back in September on this board, he
mentioned the possibility that Team Tricky was probably running afoul of federal
statutes and maybe some state laws which deal with altering the outcome of a
sporting event.

The seldom heard from Indulto from the Rag board has always been a lover of
alliteration, and while it is a hack\'s tool, I offer the following: Time to
take the teflon off of Team Tricky.

I think on Racing\'s long list of problems, cheating, whether it be drug fueled
or otherwise, is not at the top of the list. Here is my short list of long and
short term problems facing the game:

1) Failure to cultivate a fan base which will carry Racing into the next 10- 20
years. In retail they would say that there is a failure to \"grow and market the
brand\"

2) Lack of national sanctioning of racing.

3) Failure to take advantage of internet opportunities. I would love to be
betting on Churchill and Fair Grounds in the comfort of Living Room Downs, but
am/will be prevented from doing so because of a pissing match between CDSN/
Magna and TVG.

4) Dilution of the breed. More injuries and less quality racing. A lot of very
expensive champions being bred, but also a lot of fragile and faint hearted
runners to be seen at any given track on any given day.

5) Inmates running the asylum. Breeders and trainers with 100+ head strings of
horses given too much deference. The tail is wagging the dog.

6) Taxation and takeout issues.

7) Maybe now you can throw in cheating which probably started around the time
that eohippus(sp?) became stout enough to bear the weight of a man on its back.

I\'ve never remotely considered Allday to be doing race day preparation. I believe the preparation takes time and is done weeks in advance. Its about blood and fatigue. Very self serving comment upon his part. However if one was naive enough to be influenced by one of the games biggest cheaters, even working on ankles and butts is obviously \"pre race\" preparation. Who does this charlatan think he\'s fooling? Never let a con man\'s semantics influence you. This man needs to be barred from the game. I know he\'s got a family to feed but if he can\'t feed them honestly he needs to take up a different line of work and if the Horse God\'s are willing, one day he will come clean or flip burgers at McDonald\'s. At least burger flipping is honest work.

I don\'t think there\'s any such thing as a trainer vet confidential relationship. No privilege there. However, I\'m sure Tricky Dick has some dirt on Allday after their years together and if given immunity from racing imposed sanctions for prior wrongdoing, Dutrow is certainly in a position to ruin what credibility Allday has left. There\'s obviously a rift between them. Allday is no rocket scientist and he has provided information for authorities to exploit that rift. How much proof there is in a trainers testimony without a positive is a fact to be determined. However, now is the time for Racing\'s Oversight Agencies to get fully involved. Allday opened the door for that involvement.

Why he would do that is another matter. Either he is as smart as this nation\'s Chief Executive, (i.e. as smart as a box of rocks), or he did so to try and impeach Dutrow\'s credibility. Its clearly a little of both, but why would he want to impeach Dutrow\'s credibility? I believe its because the rift is large enough that fear has set in for Allday.

This has potential, lets see where it goes.



richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tuned in for Allday Part II and was a little
> disappointed. In Part I, Dr. Steve
> seemed ready to tear Dutrow a new one; in Part II
> the good Doctor was a little
> more restrained.
>
> Still, a good listen and we should all be happy
> that Steve Byk provides a media
> forum for Racing. But no real bombshells from Doc
> Allday. On the one hand he
> admits to milkshaking horses (before said practice
> was regulated). On the other
> hand he says he has not been involved in the pre
> race preparation of horses for
> quite a few years and if this is so a lot of the
> \"White Mercedes\" chatter on
> this board and elsewhere was much ado about
> nothing.
>
> It is very possible, as Sighthound and Miff have
> mentioned, that Doc Steve is
> just a top notch hock and stifle man while other
> vets and trainers are overly
> concerned with front end (knee and ankle)
> problems.
>
> A big disappointment was that nothing new was
> mentioned by host Steve, Doc
> Steve, Lee Tomlinson or any of the call in guests
> in the way of what needs to
> be done to cure Racing\'s ills: Yes a national
> sanctioning body and uniform rules
> enforced with reciprocity are needed. (The NTRA is
> merely a marketing concern
> and seems barely competent enough to conduct a
> bake sale). Yes penalties for
> cheaters need to be more penal. Yes maybe the
> penalization of owners and maybe
> individual runners which have been illegally
> medicated may serve as more of a
> deterrent.
>
> If any of the above solutions sound familiar it is
> because they have been
> discussed on this very forum for the past 5 or 6
> years, if not longer.
>
> I will concede for the sake of argument that
> Patrick Biancone may have been
> totally unaware that cobra venom was in areas that
> he was responsible for and
> that said venom may have been administered to
> runners he was responsible for
> without his knowledge; that being said, the
> trainer responsibility rule is what
> it is, and I think Racing missed a chance to make
> a strong statement by handing
> down a much stronger penalty in this case, the
> kind of penalty that may have
> had the effect of making trainers and vets less
> likely to wander through that
> cheating side of town.
>
> I know I am talking about a family man and his
> opportunity to make a living,
> but we are also speaking about a man who has
> already been excluded from
> participation in Racing in a major venue.
>
> Racing may have yet another chance to make a
> strong statement. When poster DITZ
> first shed light on the Wild Desert affair back in
> September on this board, he
> mentioned the possibility that Team Tricky was
> probably running afoul of federal
> statutes and maybe some state laws which deal with
> altering the outcome of a
> sporting event.
>
> The seldom heard from Indulto from the Rag board
> has always been a lover of
> alliteration, and while it is a hack\'s tool, I
> offer the following: Time to
> take the teflon off of Team Tricky.
>
> I think on Racing\'s long list of problems,
> cheating, whether it be drug fueled
> or otherwise, is not at the top of the list. Here
> is my short list of long and
> short term problems facing the game:
>
> 1) Failure to cultivate a fan base which will
> carry Racing into the next 10- 20
> years. In retail they would say that there is a
> failure to \"grow and market the
> brand\"
>
> 2) Lack of national sanctioning of racing.
>
> 3) Failure to take advantage of internet
> opportunities. I would love to be
> betting on Churchill and Fair Grounds in the
> comfort of Living Room Downs, but
> am/will be prevented from doing so because of a
> pissing match between CDSN/
> Magna and TVG.
>
> 4) Dilution of the breed. More injuries and less
> quality racing. A lot of very
> expensive champions being bred, but also a lot of
> fragile and faint hearted
> runners to be seen at any given track on any given
> day.
>
> 5) Inmates running the asylum. Breeders and
> trainers with 100+ head strings of
> horses given too much deference. The tail is
> wagging the dog.
>
> 6) Taxation and takeout issues.
>
> 7) Maybe now you can throw in cheating which
> probably started around the time
> that eohippus(sp?) became stout enough to bear the
> weight of a man on its back.

Chuck:

Lots of speculation, though quite an entertaining read, and I will not ask how
you came by your opinion that flipping a burger is an honest day\'s work.

Chuck, in my post I mention Biancone and Dutrow in a manner in which is not too
flattering. I feel empowered to do this because their past transgressions are a
matter of public record.

I do not know that a similar public record exists for Allday, although I will
give you credit for trying to weave a synthetic substitute from threads of
hearsay, rumor, speculation and circumstantial evidence.

It is quite likely that the high profile stables you accuse of cheating have
teams of vets who specialize in various areas, and that there are vets who
specialize in lameness/soundness issues and others who perform the voodoo
bloodwork which you allege is rampant in these stables. And as our host has
stated more than once, a lot of the work in the grey areas may be accomplished
through long acting timed release oral supplements which do not involve overt
veterinary involvement.

You still haven\'t established that Allday was involved in any treatments
administered to the 3 dead Pletcher runners. I will agree with you that no
matter which vets were involved in treating these horses, their deaths are
somewhat beyond coincidence and may not have been investigated properly beyond
routine insurance follow up.

Finally, I don\'t think Allday would be screaming from the rooftops unless, in
the words of the famous Sargeant Schultz, \"his papers are in order\".

Richie, I\'ll agree that the evidence against Allday and Pletcher is circumstantial. It\'s a mountain of circumstantial evidence however.
Direct testimony or positives are necessary to penalize him and thats why I\'m very interested in this unusual feud. Unlike yourself, I believe Allday very capable of hanging himself.

That said, I think the evidence against Allday far outweighs the evidence against Biancone regarding  Cobra Venom being discovered in Biancone\'s stable. No clear indication of use. No positive, No clear identification with Biacone. Nothing but discovery of an illegal substance in no ones clear possession. Don\'t get me wrong, I think the penalty is fair, but I also don\'t think it comes close to the degree of evidence against Allday.

Most of handicapping involves reading between the lines. Anyone can look at a figure but it takes a little more insight to weigh the numbers and figure out where they are leading. The same is very much true in regard to the unpublished activity of those working behind the scenes.

Allday killed those horses and more and he did it violating the substance regulations.

He\'s having to modify his routines. Eventually, we\'ll get him or clean his act up. Don\'t worry, be happy.



richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chuck:
>
> Lots of speculation, though quite an entertaining
> read, and I will not ask how
> you came by your opinion that flipping a burger is
> an honest day\'s work.
>
> Chuck, in my post I mention Biancone and Dutrow in
> a manner in which is not too
> flattering. I feel empowered to do this because
> their past transgressions are a
> matter of public record.
>
> I do not know that a similar public record exists
> for Allday, although I will
> give you credit for trying to weave a synthetic
> substitute from threads of
> hearsay, rumor, speculation and circumstantial
> evidence.
>
> It is quite likely that the high profile stables
> you accuse of cheating have
> teams of vets who specialize in various areas, and
> that there are vets who
> specialize in lameness/soundness issues and others
> who perform the voodoo
> bloodwork which you allege is rampant in these
> stables. And as our host has
> stated more than once, a lot of the work in the
> grey areas may be accomplished
> through long acting timed release oral supplements
> which do not involve overt
> veterinary involvement.
>
> You still haven\'t established that Allday was
> involved in any treatments
> administered to the 3 dead Pletcher runners. I
> will agree with you that no
> matter which vets were involved in treating these
> horses, their deaths are
> somewhat beyond coincidence and may not have been
> investigated properly beyond
> routine insurance follow up.
>
> Finally, I don\'t think Allday would be screaming
> from the rooftops unless, in
> the words of the famous Sargeant Schultz, \"his
> papers are in order\".

Allday, Dutrow, Frankel, Biancone.

Put\'em in bed together and look at what you have now got.


http://news.yahoo.com/photo/071106/480/628ed528ea9f420c9afad481a2ec9135;_ylt=Al4RQsQjZIGGr8oZDfoNCj0uQE4F

Chuckles_the_Clown2 Wrote:
> Allday killed those horses and more and he did it
> violating the substance regulations.

Quite a public accusation, Clown.  Equivalent to Allday\'s public statements about Dutrow.  

I assume Allday has enough evidence to back up his public statements.  Where\'s yours?

Do you know if Allday even touched those horses?  If so, when?

OJ will walk...Chuckles change the material,please.

Plech and Allday have defied the substance regulations. I\'ve gone over the evidence. If folks didn\'t see it or don\'t want to believe I can\'t help them any more than I can help that type understand how the Country\'s Constitution has been raped and torn to pieces.

Its up to Barry and Hooper or those that interact with the cheaters to push the inquiry further.

On a related note Plech lost the training title at the Spa for the first time in years, finished up at Belmont at 13% and is nowhere to be found at Aqueduct, (granting its not a focus meet for him), and heretofore partners in crime Allday and Dutrow are having a public feud.

Theres been some remarkable progress recently upon bringing the cheaters to justice. Its important to keep pushing, keep discussing the culprits, in that way the playing field may one day be truly leveled. How else, other than a level playing field, will Spa and Sighthound ever cash an important bet?

Lets do it for them... and the game.


spa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OJ will walk...Chuckles change the
> material,please.

BTW...O.J. has just been indicted which means very little.  A ham sandwich could get indicted.  When they close the cell door give me a call.

Circumstantial evidence got Scott Petersen, is getting the Cop from Illinois Peterson, but didn\'t get OJ. Prosecution by circumstantial evidence is Dangerous to our civil liberties.

NC Tony

Would be a pretty ugly baby......

NCT

NC Tony,

As an owner as soon as you get into bed with that crew thats what you look like.........

Richie, remember Favorite Trick and Countess Diana?  Campaigning the champion 2yo filly and colt in a year is a feat worthy of D Wayne, yet here it was being accomplished by Patrick Byrne (who?).  Who was the vet?  Allday.  Shortly after, another one of Byrne\'s horses got a positive and never has another trainer taken such a fall from grace.  Both owners of Favorite Trick and Countess Diana moved their horses to other trainers.  That just doesn\'t happen when a trainer won you an Eclipse and apparently did such a good job for you.  Rumor was that Allday set up Byrne to get that positive.

At some point one has to come to the realization that where there\'s so much smoke there must be some fire.

Street Sense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richie, remember Favorite Trick and Countess
> Diana?  Campaigning the champion 2yo filly and
> colt in a year is a feat worthy of D Wayne, yet
> here it was being accomplished by Patrick Byrne
> (who?).  Who was the vet?  Allday.  Shortly after,
> another one of Byrne\'s horses got a positive and
> never has another trainer taken such a fall from
> grace.  Both owners of Favorite Trick and Countess
> Diana moved their horses to other trainers.  That
> just doesn\'t happen when a trainer won you an
> Eclipse and apparently did such a good job for
> you.  Rumor was that Allday set up Byrne to get
> that positive.
>
> At some point one has to come to the realization
> that where there\'s so much smoke there must be
> some fire.

Street:

Even if I had forgotten, a certain denizen of the Big Top (I am not talking TG
#s here) would never let us forget, as the Byrne/ Allday alliance is almost as
essential to CTC\'s mantra as is the Dead Pletcher Trio (which might be a good
name for a punk/bluegrass band) and the nebulous connection between Tour de
France cyclists and performance equines. Chuckles is still trying to determine
if the Grassy Knoll was firm or yielding that day almost exactly 45 years ago.

Street you were going along pretty strong, presenting a compelling case,even
though your evidence was a bit aged, 10 years to be exact. Unfortunately you
finish like a claimer in need of a myectomy when your last sentence in the first
paragraph begins with the word \"Rumor\".

I refer you to NCT\'s post where the Jesuit jurisprude (and my choice to cover
himself in glory in Vegas in 2008) opines that \"Prosecution by circumstantial
evidence is dangerous to our civil liberties\". Learned Hand, Benjamin Cardozo,
or William O. Douglas may have been able to say it better, but it would have
taken them 5 pages and the help of a law clerk.

Further Affiant Saith Naught.

Chuckles wrote:
>>>\"Plech and Allday have defied the substance regulations. I\'ve gone over the >>>evidence.\"

Unfortunately, \"If I repeat it publically often enough, it will become true\", isn\'t really factual evidence.

BTW, did anybody hear Part III, where Maggie Moss defended Dutrow on ATR?  That is worth a listen.

I am amazed that the top repeat offender trainers in this country barely get a mention by Chuckles (and others on this board), consumed as he is with discrediting his two favorite whipping boys.

richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Street Sense Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Richie, remember Favorite Trick and Countess
> > Diana?  Campaigning the champion 2yo filly and
> > colt in a year is a feat worthy of D Wayne, yet
> > here it was being accomplished by Patrick Byrne
> > (who?).  Who was the vet?  Allday.  Shortly
> after,
> > another one of Byrne\'s horses got a positive
> and
> > never has another trainer taken such a fall
> from
> > grace.  Both owners of Favorite Trick and
> Countess
> > Diana moved their horses to other trainers.
> That
> > just doesn\'t happen when a trainer won you an
> > Eclipse and apparently did such a good job for
> > you.  Rumor was that Allday set up Byrne to get
> > that positive.
> >
> > At some point one has to come to the
> realization
> > that where there\'s so much smoke there must be
> > some fire.
>
> Street:
>
> Even if I had forgotten, a certain denizen of the
> Big Top (I am not talking TG
> #s here) would never let us forget, as the Byrne/
> Allday alliance is almost as
> essential to CTC\'s mantra as is the Dead Pletcher
> Trio (which might be a good
> name for a punk/bluegrass band) and the nebulous
> connection between Tour de
> France cyclists and performance equines. Chuckles
> is still trying to determine
> if the Grassy Knoll was firm or yielding that day
> almost exactly 45 years ago.
>
> Street you were going along pretty strong,
> presenting a compelling case,even
> though your evidence was a bit aged, 10 years to
> be exact. Unfortunately you
> finish like a claimer in need of a myectomy when
> your last sentence in the first
> paragraph begins with the word \"Rumor\".
>
> I refer you to NCT\'s post where the Jesuit
> jurisprude (and my choice to cover
> himself in glory in Vegas in 2008) opines that
> \"Prosecution by circumstantial
> evidence is dangerous to our civil liberties\".
> Learned Hand, Benjamin Cardozo,
> or William O. Douglas may have been able to say it
> better, but it would have
> taken them 5 pages and the help of a law clerk.
>
> Further Affiant Saith Naught.


No fair for criticizing me for an attempt at responsibility.  Unless it\'s proven, it\'s a rumor, so I state it as such.  But let me point out that circumstantial evidence can indeed be used to convict a person.  There\'s a point that can be crossed where a reasonable person can no longer believe that it\'s just an unfortunate series of coincidences.

And it\'s not my fault that it\'s just a rumor.  Put me in charge of it and I\'ll make damn sure a race is run clean, it\'s hardly rocket science here.  Unfortunately, I\'m not in charge of it and instead we get to watch men pay $10 million for a single mare and hear how racing just can\'t find the money to clean things up.

Got to give Pat some Kudo\'s to have a nice knowledgable wife, such as Jill. And she not half bad handicapper either.

NC Tony

Richie-bee....Thanks for the Kudos. Got to pardon the grammar at that time of the evening, after a bourbon or two.. What we need to do is have a coming out party for the Clown. we need to see who he is without the makeup. Maybe we could arrange the said meeting at a race track near you....Oh that\'s right, there may not be one, and maybe no OTB\'s either. What would Manhattan be like without a slimy OTB every couple of blocks or so......

On another subject, this Cushion track plays pretty honest, don\'t you think?

NC Tony

p s Thank goodness we have a spell check....

Richie, just for the record, I do not rush to conspiracies nor do I believe that Oswald had any help on November 22, 1963, despite a popular culture that wants to cultivate a theory that taking down a President was too big a job for any one man to do. The Grassy Knoll has absolutely no relevance to me.

I read what Street Sense wrote and though I\'m not going to research it, I don\'t remember it his way. What I remember is that Byrne jumped stables to be Stronach\'s private trainer at Adena, giving up on his undefeated, 2YO champion and horse of the year Derby prospect. Somehow, even with Stronach stock, Byrne could not get the job done and was replaced before very long. Another question for Doc Allday is \"Did he follow Byrne over to Adena Springs and treat horses there?\" I can tell you the answer. I\'m confident I know the answer without even having to ask the question and my confidence has nothing to do with consipiracies nor prior knowledge. Byrnes tandem of lightning in a bottle 2YO champions didn\'t fair well after his departure and have joined the premature Plecher dead. All these horses have something in common besides dying prematurely and that commonality is of course that they were treated with Allday\'s Magic Bullet.

Irwin and Hooper are in a position to hasten the end. They don\'t have the integrity to get the ball rolling faster though, but if I had 10 minutes with Plecher or Allday we\'d accelerate the process thats already begun.

richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Street Sense Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Richie, remember Favorite Trick and Countess
> > Diana?  Campaigning the champion 2yo filly and
> > colt in a year is a feat worthy of D Wayne, yet
> > here it was being accomplished by Patrick Byrne
> > (who?).  Who was the vet?  Allday.  Shortly
> after,
> > another one of Byrne\'s horses got a positive
> and
> > never has another trainer taken such a fall
> from
> > grace.  Both owners of Favorite Trick and
> Countess
> > Diana moved their horses to other trainers.
> That
> > just doesn\'t happen when a trainer won you an
> > Eclipse and apparently did such a good job for
> > you.  Rumor was that Allday set up Byrne to get
> > that positive.
> >
> > At some point one has to come to the
> realization
> > that where there\'s so much smoke there must be
> > some fire.
>
> Street:
>
> Even if I had forgotten, a certain denizen of the
> Big Top (I am not talking TG
> #s here) would never let us forget, as the Byrne/
> Allday alliance is almost as
> essential to CTC\'s mantra as is the Dead Pletcher
> Trio (which might be a good
> name for a punk/bluegrass band) and the nebulous
> connection between Tour de
> France cyclists and performance equines. Chuckles
> is still trying to determine
> if the Grassy Knoll was firm or yielding that day
> almost exactly 45 years ago.
>
> Street you were going along pretty strong,
> presenting a compelling case,even
> though your evidence was a bit aged, 10 years to
> be exact. Unfortunately you
> finish like a claimer in need of a myectomy when
> your last sentence in the first
> paragraph begins with the word \"Rumor\".
>
> I refer you to NCT\'s post where the Jesuit
> jurisprude (and my choice to cover
> himself in glory in Vegas in 2008) opines that
> \"Prosecution by circumstantial
> evidence is dangerous to our civil liberties\".
> Learned Hand, Benjamin Cardozo,
> or William O. Douglas may have been able to say it
> better, but it would have
> taken them 5 pages and the help of a law clerk.
>
> Further Affiant Saith Naught.

Street:

I\'d like to think I was having a little fun with your choice of words. If you
had buried the \"rumor\" sentence somewhere in the paragraph, rather than
finishing with it, you would have delivered a more convincing package.

Responsibility. Do you mean attaching responsibility for past deeds? A lot of
what I read here about Allday revolves around events of 5 and 10 years ago.
I just think its more logical to try to create awareness of current day cheaters
and cheating than it is to try to hang someone for something which may or may
not have happened 10 years ago.

I know one of the most quoted lines ever spoken has something to do with folks
ignoring history. But aren\'t there enough problems in racing today and tomorrow?
How many race results THIS WEEKEND will be chemically altered?

This past BC featured 11 races. Four of these races were won by guys named
Asmussen, Biancone, Dutrow, and O\'Neill, who have cumulatively spent YEARS in
Racing\'s equivalent of the \"sin bin\".

Kentucky has always had a rogue vet in residence. It used to be Doc Al-ex, now
it seems to be Doc All-day.

NCT:

You may not have noticed when you were up here hanging out with Phil Collins,
but a lot of those slimy OTBs are gone. Thankfully the one near my office in Manhattan remains.

No problems with the cushion, but what\'s up with the small fields?

When the Justice Department was ethically run, they didn\'t go after the small time dealer or the strong arm robber. They didn\'t try to vet State Attorneys to fix elections, they didn\'t have to hide their emails. They went to the very top to take down the head of the rotting fish, set an example and send a message to those profiting from crime.

If the Justice Department does gravitate to this board, there is enough wrongdoing at the highest levels of horseracing for some old fashioned Department of Justice righteous work.

If a society is going to allow gambling, that gambling needs to be done upon a playing field that is level for all. Individuals cannot manipulate that field to make it their personal pot o\' gold at the expense of others playing by the rules. If Braulio Baeza can be investigated and indicted as clerk of the scales for unclear and marginal weight variances without any proof of personal profit or wrongdoing surely men like Pletcher and Allday can be investigated by the Feds for utilizing illegal substance to fix races for their own personal gain.

You don\'t ignore a problem merely because its at the top. At least they didn\'t use to.


sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chuckles wrote:
> >>>\"Plech and Allday have defied the substance
> regulations. I\'ve gone over the >>>evidence.\"
>
> Unfortunately, \"If I repeat it publically often
> enough, it will become true\", isn\'t really factual
> evidence.
>
> BTW, did anybody hear Part III, where Maggie Moss
> defended Dutrow on ATR?  That is worth a listen.
>
> I am amazed that the top repeat offender trainers
> in this country barely get a mention by Chuckles
> (and others on this board), consumed as he is with
> discrediting his two favorite whipping boys.

IF IT SO IMPORTANT TO GET BONDS, WHY DONT THE FEDS GET INVOLVED WITH THIS HORSE RACING B.S.

has dutrow been claiming horses lately for small amounts and running them back in 3-4 days for higher  tags and winning>?

All the focus here seems to be on Allday and a little on Dutrow.

Teflon Todd continues to dust off his sleeves and then wash his hands.

Where is Tom Dewey when you need him?????

Are you kidding? Have you missed the last 7000 CTC posts?

The focus was on Allday/Dutrow because of Allday\'s recent radio show appearance, but I don\'t think anyone \"forgot\" about Pletcher\'s runs of success. They\'ve been debated to death (ugh, awful choice of words).

i think your missing the point.the  feds get involved with all sport cheating, lets get them involved in horse racing.get the grand jury and find all-day in contempt. make him admit his guilt.

>get the grand jury and find all-day in contempt

Or Pletcher. Simple question.

\"Are you aware of any situations where your horses received performance enhancing drugs?\"

If he says no and is later proven to have lied he joins Barry (not Irwin) in his cell.

You can\'t drug in Baseball.

You can\'t drug in Cycling.

You can\'t drug in Football.

With all the potential for abuse with money legally wagered. With all of the shenanigans that can develop when insiders manipulate the game to their benefit and to the detriment of others, with all the appendant humane treatment of a noble beast considerations, considering the case of Michael Vick theres the case of Patrick Biacone involving Cobra Venom, why is it that the Feds have turned a blind eye and allowed drugs to be part of the sport of horse racing?

Where are they?

It wouldn\'t take many questions to get to the bottom of it. Pletcher and Allday can lie to us, but lying to the Feds is another matter entirely,unless you\'re Scooter Libby and have a Presidential \"Get Out of Jail Free\" card.

By the way Jerry, your spell check is not very smart. It doesn\'t think \"appendant\" is a word.

The Feds won\'t get very far asking this Board\'s Barry to ask or answer a question.

Silver Charm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >get the grand jury and find all-day in contempt
>
> Or Pletcher. Simple question.
>
> \"Are you aware of any situations where your horses
> received performance enhancing drugs?\"
>
> If he says no and is later proven to have lied he
> joins Barry (not Irwin) in his cell.

Personally - I would take a more \"liberal\" approach and just ban and/or fine rule breakers appropriately    - no jail . There are some very good things being said here by everyone  on this thread , hopefully the dialogue will continue to have an impact and continue to evolve  ...

 
Attempting to handicap the \"short list of problems for the game\"  numbers One through Seven is a kind of exercise in values clarification for me -  without enormous breadth and scope of vision .  The notion that \"problems\" exist which need \"re-mediating\" has made some strides recently and is a very positive sign IMO - perhaps even a starting point  ...

1:   Market Brand - Current national main stream trends from my own vantage point go back too these issues : The \"BC P-6 Fix\" Scandal , The \"Die Off\" , \"Barbaro\" / \"George Washington\"  . That nice fellow at Ellis who recently brought that horse back out of retirement for the kids is a good news story .  

2: Sanctioning - How did it use to work ...
 
3: Internet - This is a transitional phase - who knows whats on the other side .

4: Breeding - Guessing the Market will shake-out soon .

5: Deference -  Impose \"Racing\" or \"Usage\" fee\'s - everyone pays .

6: Tariff Reform - I\'m seeing prohibitive factors on a larger scale  similar to that of the 1824 & 2000 elections .

7: Cheating -  Elevate the status of these \"Random\" Searches  .

In accessing the top problems -IMO , one must evaluate the top relative successes  as well  ...

Look at who we are dealing with.

Pletcher, Frankel, Dutrow and Allday. They all think they are bigger than the Federal Gov\'t.

Why is Pletcher splitting his previously Palm Meadows based stables between there and Palm Beach Down this year? Easier to slip by the surveillance. Then again what surveillance. Word has it Frank Stronach doesn\'t even have clockers working full time at Palm Meadows now so why would he employ security.

Trainers are actually phoning in their own works.

Of course who does Stronach employ? Frankel. And Stronach was the first person to elevate Allday to the national stage when he insisted on hiring Pat Byrne and his VET.

This bunch is the Lucky Luciano of racing.

Follow the money.........

Listen to the blathering bulls--t of Maggi Moss on ATR in her defense of Dutrow who she felt she had to defend against Allday, and you will get the owners view.

She is the great horse lover who wants to rescue every retired or turned out horse
because of her great love of these fine animals and in her defense of Dutrow she says that anything except cobra venom and blocking is ok and none of anyones business. She professes to know of all these  horrible wrongs that are being done to these magnificent animals and then states that it should all be kept to the owners themselves. Damn the betters.

I see she has Asmussen claiming horses for her now .

Any owner/trainer NOT using all legal means to win, drugs, steroids,joint tapping et al are fools, soon to go broke racing horses.The outfits that race cold in NY are mostly are on borrowed time or mired in mediocrity for years.

Racing horses is a tough business which is somewhat cruel on the animals no matter who trains them.


Mike

then it needs to change. if everyone is on the up and up it becomes a trai

ners game.

Can someone please tell me what it was that Maggie Moss said in defense of Dutrow,or send the link I can go to to hear it live...

ditz,

go to At The Races site and I think it will be on Nov. 9 archive in the first hour

Yeah, her take-home message seemed to be, \"Don\'t air our dirty laundry in public\".

Thanks for posting about this.  It reminds me of the industry reaction to Jeff Mullins\' outburst of honesty a couple of years ago. She\'s entitled to her opinion, but I think it\'s part of the problem not the solution.  The only way this is going to get fixed (and it\'s probably not) is if people in the know start going public with what they know.

For those who are interested and haven\'t heard it, the interview is in the second half of hour one on November 9.

http://www.thoroughbredracingradionetwork.com/option,com_events/task,view_detail/agid,106/year,2007/month,11/day,09/Itemid,35/

Attention Chuckles the Clown:

My phone number is 859 873 1004
My e-mail address is valorific@aol.com

Contact me and I will meet with you and either Steve Allday and/or Todd Pletcher. I will also have a member of law enforcement and an attorney
at the meeting  in order to monitor your comments.

Then we can find out a) who has integrity, b) who has balls, c) who has an identity and d) what happens to people like you who cannot back up their
accusation.

The ball (so to speak) is in your corner now, pal. Show me what you got!

Barry you are pretty much a standup guy. I will certainly vouch for that to everyone.

However there are two sides of this story. Are the members of law enforcement and legal counsel that you are recommending be present for the sake of defending Allday and Pletcher or prosecuting them.

This would be the hearing of all hearings. Nancy Grace and Greta have their G-7\'s warming up. Would CtC take the stand wearing a  dark hood or would his identity be publically revealed.

I\'m sure you are true to your word that you would be present. I\'m seriously doubtful that Allday and Pletcher would show up, even if you asked. They both have a pretty good gig going now and have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

There is also always the possibility the law enforcement officials you speak of could be forced to use TWO sets of handcuffs instead of ONE...............

>>However there are two sides of this story. Are the members of law enforcement >>and legal counsel that you are recommending be present for the sake of >>defending Allday and Pletcher or prosecuting them.

This is simple:  Chuckles the Clown has made an internet career out of anonymously accusing Allday and Pletcher of cheating, and of killing horses

What\'s the harm in that?  Well, I\'ve seen others, on other racing boards, repeat the same unsubstantiated crap as they\'ve quoted it from this board.

Going around yapping that a trainer or a vet cheated and killed horses to an audience that includes clients, current and potential?

Chuckles thinks thats okay?  To aggressively try and damage someone\'s reputation without any remotely substantial proof?

With the internet harassment laws being what they are, one would think that Chuckles would realize that he isn\'t as safe and anonymous as he feels hiding behind his keyboard.

Barry has made him an offer to put up.  Let\'s see it, Chuckles.  Either you got it, or you don\'t.   Either you\'re nothing but an internet troll, or you\'re for real.

>> They don\'t have the integrity to get the ball rolling faster though, but if I had 10 minutes with Plecher or Allday we\'d accelerate the process thats already begun.

Hey, that\'s been arranged for you.  

When will this sitdown take place, Chuck?

Barry, it sounds like you\'ve proposed a quasi-judicial proceeding without the element of a sworn oath or affirmation by the witnesses. (Or in other words the only way George Bush will allow his staff to be questioned by Congress.) Though an attorney would already be in attendance, (I\'d invite Dave Litfin), apparently you think  attorneys and bailiffs are necessary for official atmosphere. The use of attorneys as you\'ve suggested is generally to advise a client against saying something to perjure or incriminate himself in answering a posed question. With no threat of perjury in your proposed session, are you crafting a session that would you allow your \"associates\" to take legal advice in order to dodge tough questions?

Let me take some time to contemplate a way to involve the element of testimony under oath. I have an idea in that regard. It would involve someone other than myself asking the questions, but as of now, its the only way I can currently come up with getting sworn testimony from the witnesses.

In the interim I have a counter proposal. I submit a list of written questions through your graciously provided email and publish the submitted questions here. You provide same to the witnesses and have them answer them in writing and reply back to you with their answers, understanding that those answers will be forwarded to me and published here. That way, I can continue or dispense with my allegations, develop or discontinue them upon the content or lack thereof in their responses, and if they wish, they can still dodge the tough questions without fear of perjury, incrimination, or inconveniencing you, I, defense attorneys or your version of Joliet\'s Sgt. Drew Peterson.

What are the last two words of the National Anthem?

Barry Irwin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Attention Chuckles the Clown:
>
> My phone number is 859 873 1004
> My e-mail address is valorific@aol.com
>
> Contact me and I will meet with you and either
> Steve Allday and/or Todd Pletcher. I will also
> have a member of law enforcement and an attorney
> at the meeting  in order to monitor your
> comments.
>
> Then we can find out a) who has integrity, b) who
> has balls, c) who has an identity and d) what
> happens to people like you who cannot back up
> their
> accusation.
>
> The ball (so to speak) is in your corner now, pal.
> Show me what you got!

Chuckles_the_Clown2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What are the last two words of the National
> Anthem?
>


Play Ball!

In other words - Chuckles ain\'t got nuthin\'.

And he sure as heck doesn\'t want Allday and Pletcher to know who he is.

Allday has publically clearly stated he has never done anything that was illegal (admitting he has milkshaked horses when it was legal).

So your list of questions, Chuckles, should probably have basis in factual information YOU have that directly contradicts his contention.

You don\'t have crap, do you.

The attorney is mine.

The cop would be there to protect you from getting your ass kicked.

Chuck, you are a wimp.

You wanted 10 minutes to confront these guys and I offered to give it to you.

You can dab the paper with your questions in some vaseline and place it where it will do the most good.

People like you that hide behind screen names and take pot shots at legitimate professionals will never confront anybody in person, because you are chicken shit.

I just wanted to show those who read this stuff what you are made of--like they couldn\'t have figured it out for themselves.

Crawl back in your hole, pal.

Good night and good bye.

Have a Tylenol P. M. on me.

wow, a big tough guy.a man i would like to meet.

Barry I\'m not adverse to taking time out for a worthwhile event. I think you\'ve set this one up so I\'m the one that has to travel, but you also infused more hedging and insulation into your proposition than a gardener and dock worker see at Dow Corning. You also made no guarantee regarding the witnesses. You said \"one, maybe both\" without specifying which. I\'d have an examination to prepare. You really want me to prepare it blind with your \"colleagues\" positioned to evade with an advising attorney?

Heres what I suggest. You actually go to the suspects and tell them you participate at the preemininet thoroughbred horse racing discussion site and that many there have a deep concern about the effect of illegal doping of thoroughbreds and its long term effect upon the future of the sport. That some there question both Pletcher and Allday\'s accomplishments over the last 10 years and believe that they have been cheating by using performance enhancing substances. Lastly inform them that at least one of these individuals wants to ask them a series of questions in that regard. Both general and specific questions and that many at the site and around the country want to hear their responses to those questions.

I want Plech. You ask Plech if he will answer some written questions for the board in regard to the concerns and if not would he appear/link for such questioning on At the Races and in lieu of that would he appear at a meeting you arrange for 10 minutes of oral questioning with a stenographer present, (Not 10 total minutes mind you, 10 minutes of questioning time), and convey his legitimate response to us.

I\'m sure this has been about drama and trying to find a way to take a shot at me and that you are not really going to broach this with the suspects, but before you sweep this under the rug I will be preparing a list of questions that would have been asked and post them here. (I need to prepare that list anyway) That way you can read them and pass them on, or choose not to, but at least all here will know the questions they don\'t want to answer.

I\'d prefer the answers be under oath and I\'ve begun working upon that, but I\'d suggest you read the accounts regarding the City of Joliet\'s Sgt. Drew Peterson. He\'s also playing tough guy and hiding something too.

P.S. By the way Barry, 3 days after the Santa Anita Derby John T Chance factored King of the Roxy\'s Derby chances as about Nil and I advised you to sell him. How has Roxy faired since then, have you taken my advice and if not how is Roxy doing?

CtMC
 
 Irwin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The attorney is mine.
>
> The cop would be there to protect you from getting
> your ass kicked.
>
> Chuck, you are a wimp.
>
> You wanted 10 minutes to confront these guys and I
> offered to give it to you.
>
> You can dab the paper with your questions in some
> vaseline and place it where it will do the most
> good.
>
> People like you that hide behind screen names and
> take pot shots at legitimate professionals will
> never confront anybody in person, because you are
> chicken @#$%&.
>
> I just wanted to show those who read this stuff
> what you are made of--like they couldn\'t have
> figured it out for themselves.
>
> Crawl back in your hole, pal.
>
> Good night and good bye.
>
> Have a Tylenol P. M. on me.

Barry (and to a degree,Sighthound):

To be fair, the Clown has not been the only poster on this board to join
in the low speed pursuit of the White Mercedes. The Clown\'s bluster and
arrogance have never been able to conceal the absolute lack of factual
basis for his allegations.

I would think that Steven Allday,one of the most prominent vets in Racing,
and Todd Pletcher, who will own all of the important training records in this
country by the time he retires, would be too busy making millions of dollars
to take 10 seconds, not to mention 10 minutes, to defend themselves against
an \"internet troll\".

Whenever the Clown attacks Allday/Pletcher, I feel compelled to point out
that he is being slightly irresponsible by failing to provide a factual
foundation for his allegations.

Do I want to see Chuckles and others silenced for what might be perceived as a
lack of responsibility and accountability? Absolutely not.

The racing fan/handicapper who believes that the playing field is uneven has no
real advocate in two of Racing\'s major publications, DRF and the Blood
Horse,which are basically house organs and really never are critical of Racing.
When these publications set out to address what is wrong with Racing, you might
see the occasional editorial, but not an extensive and sustained effort to cure
Racing\'s many maladies. So here on this board, and on other similar ones I would
imagine, is heard the voice of the Racing fan and thankfully that voice is some
times utilized to express concern, discontent and disgust with the current
state of the industry.

Racing has struck the iceberg, and DRF and Blood Horse are playing \"Nearer My
God to Thee\".

Doc Allday has access to Steve Byk\'s radio show. Doc Allday could come on this
board using his own name, just as Barry Irwin has. Why hasn\'t he found it
necessary to address the allegations made on this board?

Because he doesn\'t have to, because there has been no harm to his practice and
no harm to his reputation. And to be honest, nobody has really taken the good
Doctor himself to task for his anger fueled, innuendo laden attack on one of New
York\'s leading trainers. We all know Chuckles\' posts are factually challenged,
but the tone of Allday\'s tirade was \"I have so many facts which of course I can
not disclose\". No real help for Racing there.

Barry, you are a big player and an important voice in Racing. You have access to
the major forums. In terms of racing\'s problems, there is a lot of big game to
be hunted, yet you seem to be overly concerned with a small pest.

Barry and Sight: When it comes to having specific facts regarding Allday\'s
practice or Pletcher\'s training techniques, we all know that Chuckles is \"Big
hat, no cattle\". You have not exactly replaced Woodward and Bernstein by
disclosing this. And, if anything, all you have accomplished is giving a certain
Clown a lot of attention, which a certain amateur psychologist/ professional
figure maker says is CTC\'s raison d\' etre.

Chuckles: I don\'t plan on continuing this communication in this forum any longer. Call me or e-mail me. Let\'s get together. I will come to Chicago to speak with you. If you have something concrete, I promise that I will move forward. If it is just more of this upsupported b. s., I will drop the matter entirely.

These people that you call suspects have the total respect of professionals in the horse racing world for their abilities.

I deal with trainers and vets all the time. The vast majority, if they owned a horse themselves and needed a trainer or vet, would choose these two men.

You, pal, don\'t even have a name.

What you have is an internet history, on this and other boards, of popping off and making accusations, none of which as far as I can tell have ever been backed up.

What you are involved in is public masterbation.

I seriously doubt if any, or many, of those reading your tripe are on your side, so your routine of kissing their asses misses the mark.

One day, hopefully not in the too distant future, one\'s ability to gain access to post on boards like this, will require positive identification, and creeps like you will recede back into the holes from whence you came.

The internet is a wonderful source for many things, but the worst thing about it is the anonimity that allows irresponsible twerps such as you to pop off.

Good point re Chuckles reason for being.

Chuck drank too much of the Kool Aide offered by the conspiracy idiots. Never sat down to analyze what was really going on, who was winning and logically why in many cases.The conspiracy idiots are mainly disgruntled bettors,low percentage trainers/owners who have been getting waxed on the track and at the windows for years by Pletcher runners.They make what is known in New York as a \"suckers holler\"i.e. \"I lose cause I\'m gettin cheated\"

I will never understand why Chuck and others can\'t see the overwhelming volume of expensive/fast runners rolled out daily by TAP with only \"normal\" overall success relative to the quality and size of the stable.


Mike

Please. The Holiday season has commenced and I would like to offer a truce. Enjoy the attached. Allday by War. How appropriate.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=K9HUrAMiz1o


CtC2

Richiebee, you always contribute considered, well-reasoned points.

>> And, if anything, all you have
> accomplished is giving a certain
> Clown a lot of attention, which a certain amateur
> psychologist/ professional
> figure maker says is CTC\'s raison d\' etre.

On the subject of challenging clowns:  if it causes one other person reading to consider, before they repeat elsewhere, \"Oh, the White Mercedes must have been there before the race\" (the White Mercedes hasn\'t been around on race days for some years now) that\'s beneficial.

Regarding the true extent of drug abuse in horse racing - how much is real, and how much is simply fan perception, fueled by the clowns of the world?

Fans should take the time to look up different racing jurisdiction websites, and read the lists of trainers who have been set down over the past two years, and for what (it\'s there - Kentucky and California are good starts).  

Do fans know the difference and significance between finding a vial of cobra venom, a horse having a high TCO2, and a minor naproxin overage?  Which could affect the outcome of a race, and steal your money?

Do fans have any idea how much testing is currently and routinely being done, and for what substances?

The clowns of the world should be silenced, as their repeated, loud yammering is drowning out those trying to seriously address actual drug abuses in racing.  There are enough real abuses present, that imaginary ones are not needed.

Agree with you that if Allday has particular information, he should put up or shut up, too.

You are the human equivalent of a cheap Fourth of July firework that starts off with a lot of sparks, but fizzles and fails to deliver as promised.

Richie, It\'s pretty clear that you don\'t fully comprehend the evidence and circumstances that have already been discussed. I don\'t think you\'re sufficiently in tune to the unreasonableness of the Plech performance jump ups and in a way you\'re very willing to provide cover for the suspects and dismiss improbable and outrageous anecdotal evidence. But your inability to see whats there isn\'t my point.

Heres the rub Richie. Plech finally hit the board some at Aqueduct after being becalmed in the doldrums. He\'s winning at about 16% now and is third in the money won standings. I won\'t be surprised if he wins the meet for money won, but I don\'t think we\'ll see him hitting in at 25% plus for awhile and I think I know why.

Keep in mind that they had nothing on Barry Bonds. There was lots of circumstantial evidence and hearsay but insufficient evidence to convict him of a substance violation, but where Bonds got in trouble was in answering tough questions. Congress of course had the authority of subpoenas and sworn oath and because of that Barry had to lie and he was caught in those lies. For the suspects involved in our situation, we don\'t currently have that authority,but what you are discounting is how a tough question and tough followup questions can catch a witness in evasion, vacillation and inane explanation and in those silly responses reveal their trait for candor and truthfulness. Maybe you don\'t think I can ask a tough question. Thats your prerogative, but before one can ask a tough question you have to have a deponent.

Maybe you should consider the implication in Sgt. Barry\'s last post that he wants me to tell him all I know before he takes any action. I think we discerned that he never intended to broach this topic with the suspects. I want someone to question them in detail. It doesn\'t have to be me, but I know the essential facts, can get down to them very quickly and am confident that I can elicit answers that this board will find extremely interesting. Questioning and followups upon that Lawyer Ron performance jump due to the exercise rider change just for example.

At some point, I do want to see them under oath, but for the present, I don\'t believe its even necessary if someone merely asks the right questions.

I disagree that there is not a substantial segment of those involved in the game that don\'t already know that something very fishy has been going on. You\'ve forgotten some very recent DRF stories and apparently don\'t talk much to other handicappers about the issue.

You were correct, the last two words of the National Anthem are \"Play Ball!\" but even \"the brave\" would have sufficed. Unfortunately we are going to get neither.

richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Barry (and to a degree,Sighthound):
>
> To be fair, the Clown has not been the only poster
> on this board to join
> in the low speed pursuit of the White Mercedes.
> The Clown\'s bluster and
> arrogance have never been able to conceal the
> absolute lack of factual
> basis for his allegations.
>
> I would think that Steven Allday,one of the most
> prominent vets in Racing,
> and Todd Pletcher, who will own all of the
> important training records in this
> country by the time he retires, would be too busy
> making millions of dollars
> to take 10 seconds, not to mention 10 minutes, to
> defend themselves against
> an \"internet troll\".
>
> Whenever the Clown attacks Allday/Pletcher, I feel
> compelled to point out
> that he is being slightly irresponsible by failing
> to provide a factual
> foundation for his allegations.
>
> Do I want to see Chuckles and others silenced for
> what might be perceived as a
> lack of responsibility and accountability?
> Absolutely not.
>
> The racing fan/handicapper who believes that the
> playing field is uneven has no
> real advocate in two of Racing\'s major
> publications, DRF and the Blood
> Horse,which are basically house organs and really
> never are critical of Racing.
> When these publications set out to address what is
> wrong with Racing, you might
> see the occasional editorial, but not an extensive
> and sustained effort to cure
> Racing\'s many maladies. So here on this board, and
> on other similar ones I would
> imagine, is heard the voice of the Racing fan and
> thankfully that voice is some
> times utilized to express concern, discontent and
> disgust with the current
> state of the industry.
>
> Racing has struck the iceberg, and DRF and Blood
> Horse are playing \"Nearer My
> God to Thee\".
>
> Doc Allday has access to Steve Byk\'s radio show.
> Doc Allday could come on this
> board using his own name, just as Barry Irwin has.
> Why hasn\'t he found it
> necessary to address the allegations made on this
> board?
>
> Because he doesn\'t have to, because there has been
> no harm to his practice and
> no harm to his reputation. And to be honest,
> nobody has really taken the good
> Doctor himself to task for his anger fueled,
> innuendo laden attack on one of New
> York\'s leading trainers. We all know Chuckles\'
> posts are factually challenged,
> but the tone of Allday\'s tirade was \"I have so
> many facts which of course I can
> not disclose\". No real help for Racing there.
>
> Barry, you are a big player and an important voice
> in Racing. You have access to
> the major forums. In terms of racing\'s problems,
> there is a lot of big game to
> be hunted, yet you seem to be overly concerned
> with a small pest.
>
> Barry and Sight: When it comes to having specific
> facts regarding Allday\'s
> practice or Pletcher\'s training techniques, we all
> know that Chuckles is \"Big
> hat, no cattle\". You have not exactly replaced
> Woodward and Bernstein by
> disclosing this. And, if anything, all you have
> accomplished is giving a certain
> Clown a lot of attention, which a certain amateur
> psychologist/ professional
> figure maker says is CTC\'s raison d\' etre.

Okay, I\'m cutting it off here. Yes, Chuckle\'s posts are really about him, and an attempt to get attention. Yes, his theory about blood doping was silly. But I agree with him on the big picture. There is such a thing as evidence, even when there is no proof. And if you want some evidence, check out how Pletcher\'s horses have been running in NY compared to everywhere else since August 1 (like, this weekend for example-- all out of town).

Barry, you\'ve got to be kidding because a) this is a board, it\'s ridiculous to demand that someone travel for something that will have no legal impact, b) Pletcher and Allday would never show up. If you ever can get a situation where those guys can be questioned under oth by me and their records, assistants and clients subpeoned, I\'ll travel to it myself.

Again, we are letting horses be drugged every day (milkshakes) the way the rules are written. We KNOW this is taking place, or at least I do, based on information, not belief. I also have reliable info from people I trust who have spoken directly to Allday, where he has told them about illegal things he has done.

I will take down any posts that are just more name calling. If you don\'t have something real to add on the subject, don\'t post.

Chuck:

Still awaiting fact. You lurk around the redboard room, resting place of a
rather extensive database, yet not once have you tried to support any of your
formulations with any empirical data.

Pletcher was cold at Saratoga, cool at Belmont and Aqueduct. He seems to be
winning races outside of New York at the expected rate, and has continued to
win important stakes during his NY malaise.

Streaks happen. Mott was quite hot at the Spa, yet was 2/28 at Aq before
sweeping today\'s 2YO stakes.

A cynic might say that NY racing is currently skewed to slow rats bred in the
Empire State, and that certainly has not been the focus of TAP\'s stable.
(Actually TAP just won the AQ finale today for slow rats on the rug).

There are 2 problems caused by prosecutions unsupported by factual evidence of
wrongdoing -- the erosion of the rights of the accused and the fact that actual
wrongdoers may go unpunished.

Apparently, the press, the Racing Commissions and the prosecutors have no
interest in asking the questions that you say need to be posed to Pletcher and
Allday. That\'s good enough for me.

You say that \"someone\" needs to ask the questions. Barry gave YOU the chance to
be \"someone\", or did I miss something?

>>And if you want some evidence, check
> out how Pletcher\'s horses have been running in NY
> compared to everywhere else since August 1 (like,
> this weekend for example-- all out of town).

That\'s not \"evidence\" in the least.  It simply raises the question of \"why?\"

Are you then maintaining that NY has strict testing rules, compared to other, more lenient jurisdictions?  

Which do you consider the \"more lenient\" jurisdictions? (\"anywhere else\" doesn\'t really narrow it down)

 > Again, we are letting horses be drugged every day
> (milkshakes) the way the rules are written.

Milkshakes have been around for decades, and were never prohibited until lately. Allday himself freely admitted he gave them.  

What jurisdictions are not testing for TCO2?  Or, are you saying the testing process in itself is suspect as inaccurate?

For the 100th time-- horses can not produce a CO2 level (the test for alkalyzing agents) above around 30-31 on their own. The threshold for a positive, depending on the state, is 37 or 39 (for protect-their-ass-in-court reasons). This leaves a wide gap where trainers can AND DO drug horses. Every day, almost every track. I know factually about them at one major circuit.

Additionally, it took 6 years after milkshakes were \"banned\" in Kentucky before they even ANNOUNCED they were testing for them. They did NOT announce in Fall of 06 that the guy who did the testing had quit, and they had not replaced him as of 2 weeks before the BC-- THEY WERE NOT GOING TO TEST FOR CO2 AT THE BC-- until I put the word out to a major DRF reporter, who called Churchill. They told him they were going to spot check some horses. Did they? Did any come up positive? Who the f--k knows?

Until they start publishing the CO2 tests we are in the dark.

And yes, from what I have heard from many sources they have been watching Pletcher in NY. But that aside, once again there is the issue of circumstantial evidence-- over a LARGE sample (from 8/1 to now) he has done MUCH better outside NY.

>> The threshold for a positive, depending on the state, is 37 or 39 (for
> protect-their-ass-in-court reasons). This leaves a
> wide gap where trainers can AND DO drug horses.

What would you like the TCO2 allowable level lowered to?

What effect does a TCO2 of 36 vs 31 have on a horse?  How many lengths do you think this is? (considering that milkshaking doesn\'t make a horse faster, it works to allow the horse to hold it\'s speed longer before fatiguing).

You get me the CO2 test results, and I\'ll be able to answer that. And I\'ve made that offer to the authorities.

You would need pre- and post-race sampling.

Legal things that contribute to higher than \"normal\" TCO2 levels in non-milkshaked TB racehorses (or why the level is set at 37-39 mM/L in most racing jurisdictions):

Diet - a huge influence
Some approved gastric ulcer medications
Horses normally receiving electrolytes and basic substances on a daily basis to prevent tying up
Horses that receive 10cc of lasix pre-race versus receiving lesser doses
Horses with chronic small airway disease

Most equine reference books list 26-33 mM/L being average range for healthy adult horses.  Be aware that when \"normal\" ranges are being established, usually 10-20% of measured values in \"normal\" horses are not included in the range as they are outliers - on the edges of the \"bell curve\", but certainly normal.

factors influencing TCO2 in TB race horses -
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?    enter \"horse\" and \"TCO2\" as search terms

General lay discussions of measuring TCO2, and problems inherent:
www.harness.org.au/ausbreed/papers/TC02RYAN.HTM
www.oddsonracing.com/docs/MilkshakeUpdateJune05_5.cfm

And for those interested, NYRA medication rules
www.racing.state.ny.us/stats/August2007%20FINAL2.pdf

And if we get the tests, we can start having all these discussions. Like, why do trainer A\'s horses average 36, while trainer B\'s average 31.

Or, we could just go on pretending there is no problem. That when Lake, Catalano, etc. claim them, and within 2 races they are running 5 points better than ever before after 30 lifetime starts, it\'s good horsemanship.

It\'s tougher to tell with the top trainers, because the horses don\'t change hands as much. But if you know how to look, (i.e. Frankel spring of 01) you can figure it out.

I haven\'t seen anybody say here that there is no problem.  What needs to be known is if the true extent matches the perception.

> And if we get the tests, we can start having all
> these discussions. Like, why do trainer A\'s horses
> average 36, while trainer B\'s average 31.

There was a study in CA that looked at this a bit, you might want to order it off PubMed (the full article will have quite a bit more detail):

Equine Veterinary Journal 2006 Nov, 38(6):543-8 Factors influencing pre-race serum concentration of total carbon dioxide in Thoroughbred horses racing in California. Cohen ND, Stanley SD, Arthur RM, Wang N. Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4475, USA.

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Many racing jurisdictions monitor pre-race serum concentration of total carbon dioxide (TCO2) among racing horses. To our knowledge, factors influencing concentration of TCO2 among horses participating in racing have not been systematically evaluated and reported.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if characteristics of horses and racing conditions routinely recorded were significantly associated with pre-race concentration of TCO2, while accounting for and estimating effects of trainer and horse.

METHODS: Pre-race serum TCO2 concentrations from 5028 starts made by 2,349 horses trained by 287 trainers at 2 racetracks in California during 2005 were examined.  Data regarding characteristics of starters and race conditions obtained from a commercial database were recorded for each start.  Data were analysed using mixed-effects, with TCO2 concentration as the dependent variable, and trainer and horse nested within trainer as random effects.

RESULTS:   Sex, class and distance of race, frusemide administration and cloudy weather conditions were significantly (P<0.001) associated with pre-race TCO2 concentration.   Horses that finished in the top 3 positions had values that were slightly (0.2 mmol/) but significantly (P<0.001) greater than horses not finishing in the top 3. There were significant effects of trainer on pre-race TCO2 concentration.

CONCLUSIONS:  A variety of factors may influence pre-race TCO2 concentration in horses.   Horses with better performance tend to have higher pre-race TCO2 concentrations.

POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: TCO2 concentration is associated with improved performance although the magnitude of effect was quite small.  Regulatory programmes based on monitoring should consider the influence of other factors on TCO2 concentration.

sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> The threshold for a positive, depending on the
> state, is 37 or 39 (for
> > protect-their-ass-in-court reasons). This leaves
> a
> > wide gap where trainers can AND DO drug horses.
>
> What would you like the TCO2 allowable level
> lowered to?
>
> What effect does a TCO2 of 36 vs 31 have on a
> horse?  How many lengths do you think this is?
> (considering that milkshaking doesn\'t make a horse
> faster, it works to allow the horse to hold it\'s
> speed longer before fatiguing).


You act as though you don\'t think the latter fact is a big deal when not fatiguing can and does lead to horses winning races or finishing stronger than they would\'ve without the additional oxygen in the bloodstream.

> You act as though you don\'t think the latter fact
> is a big deal when not fatiguing can and does lead
> to horses winning races or finishing stronger than
> they would\'ve without the additional oxygen in the
> bloodstream.

I do think it a big deal. It\'s illegal.  Period.  But what milkshaking can do (and can\'t do) is important to understand - especially is one is going to do it backwards, and try and determine the presence of milkshaking via speed figures.  

In racehorses I wouldn\'t look for increases in speed, but as you say and describe, in smaller increase lack of fatigue.

Milkshaking doesn\'t give additional oxygen or oxygenation in the blood.  Rather, it adds buffer to help the body control the tendency of the body to become acidotic during intense anaerobic exercise.  Your muscles may not hurt as much later on.  Either will the horses.

Jerry, of course its about me, but you\'re the only one that I allow to make that charge and each time you make it I restrain myself, considering that restraint repayment of the debt I owe. Today I paid off a large chuck of that debt.

However, I think what you may not be considering is the evolution of the cheating, especially as it pertains to Plech and the Doc. Your focus is on the \"carbs\". I think they are a factor. But I don\'t believe they jumped Lawyer Ron 4 points. Another issue is NY cheating. If it was just carbs where unnatural levels are considered within the regulations artificial threshold why would Plech slump in the Big Apple? Why would he discontinue? Attributing Plech\'s NY slump to carbs isn\'t reasonable. Another item for you to consider is Plech\'s shippers. Why do his shippers run top and new top races when he\'s mired in mediocrity in NY? The answer is that Plech ships for big races and those shippers are sent out very well intended and that intent includes far more than carbs and Plech\'s quite average ability.

The only silly folk around here are Richie and his apologists

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, I\'m cutting it off here. Yes, Chuckle\'s
> posts are really about him, and an attempt to get
> attention. Yes, his theory about blood doping was
> silly. But I agree with him on the big picture.
> There is such a thing as evidence, even when there
> is no proof. And if you want some evidence, check
> out how Pletcher\'s horses have been running in NY
> compared to everywhere else since August 1 (like,
> this weekend for example-- all out of town).
>
> Barry, you\'ve got to be kidding because a) this is
> a board, it\'s ridiculous to demand that someone
> travel for something that will have no legal
> impact, b) Pletcher and Allday would never show
> up. If you ever can get a situation where those
> guys can be questioned under oth by me and their
> records, assistants and clients subpeoned, I\'ll
> travel to it myself.
>
> Again, we are letting horses be drugged every day
> (milkshakes) the way the rules are written. We
> KNOW this is taking place, or at least I do, based
> on information, not belief. I also have reliable
> info from people I trust who have spoken directly
> to Allday, where he has told them about illegal
> things he has done.
>
> I will take down any posts that are just more name
> calling. If you don\'t have something real to add
> on the subject, don\'t post.

Chucker:

In the DRF and probably your local newspaper they have \"Racing Results\".

In New York on Friday, the Top Flight Handicap was won by Mini Sermon, trained
by TAP. TAP also won a maiden race on the card.

In New York on Saturday, Pletcher\'s Atoned, after clipping heels in the early
stages of the race, nearly captured the Demoiselle. TAP also won the 9th race,
a NYB turf race. TAP is as of this morning 5/29 at the current Aq meet, with 5
seconds. I guess the folks who have \"Plech\'s\" barn staked out do not like cold
weather.

And because your theory is that TAP runners are only under scrutiny in New York,
there is no need to mention his major stakes wins at CD and Hollywood (2) this
weekend.

Rather than trying to explain why there is a wide divergence between TAP\'s
numbers in and outside of New York, why don\'t you work with a smaller sample
and try to explain why TAP was able to keep winning Graded Stakes (where you
would think there would be heightened scrutiny) at Saratoga even while his
overall strike rate dropped below 10%?

You keep mentioning LR\'s Saratoga performances. How could they be possible
given the (rumored) intense scrutiny that TAP\'s barn is under?

I follow NY racing pretty much exclusively Chuck. There is one high percentage
trainer who along with his owners has repeatedly proven that he believes that
the rules of racing do not apply to him. There is another high impact trainer
who has gotten some eye catching results first off the claim (said trainer
yesterday put over an $80 first timer with what I will venture to say was a
misleading or incomplete work tab).

There is plenty of cheating going on out there, drug fueled and otherwise. As a
contrarian, I see your need not to go after the obvious miscreants but rather
to crusade against a man who has probably saddled well over 15,000 runners in
his career, yet has but one positive test result.

Sight-- You did read what you wrote, right? Especially the part about the trainers?

Sight-- \"lack of fatigue\" is reflected in final time, which is reflected in speed figures. There is no more accurate measure of performance. If drugs didn\'t affect performance, there would be no point in using them.

>>Or, we could just go on pretending there is no problem. That when Lake, Catalano, etc. claim them, and within 2 races they are running 5 points better than ever before after 30 lifetime starts, it\'s good horsemanship. <<

One of the problems with this kind of analysis is that you DO have to leave some room for the fact that some owners, trainers, vets, blacksmiths and even grooms have superior knowledge and skill in purchasing and training horses or can afford better care/products etc...  

The trick is in seperating the logical and explainable move ups from the illogical ones. I agree that some leap off the pages at you. But I don\'t think enough of the analysis on this forum is objective or comprehensive.

A couple of people seem to have an agenda or strong bias and IMHO others have a much too narrow view when it comes to measuring how well horses have run in the past or could be expected to run over time.

IMHO, most cases fall into a grey area that leave you suspecting foul play without being clear enough to know.

I don\'t know anything about CO2 levels or the information you have, but I\'m willing to guess that part of the reason the standard is higher than the typical level is that there are exceptions (outliers) or measurement problems that would make enforcement of lower levels problematical.  

Also, even if some trainers are using something that raises the CO2 level but keeps it below the legal limit, then they are not really breaking the rule. They are breaking the spirit of the rule and doing something both of us are very much against (probably for some of the same and some different reasons).

When we discuss this issue, IMO we need to be careful not to simply assume that all performance enhancement is illegal.  There are multiple things going on. There are probably people using legal \"grey area\" things and techniques and people using illegal things. We may want to eliminate it all, but they are still different things. It we aren\'t specific it makes the conversation a little confusing.

Exactly!  


richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chucker:
>
> In the DRF and probably your local newspaper they
> have \"Racing Results\".
>
> In New York on Friday, the Top Flight Handicap was
> won by Mini Sermon, trained
> by TAP. TAP also won a maiden race on the card.
>
> In New York on Saturday, Pletcher\'s Atoned, after
> clipping heels in the early
> stages of the race, nearly captured the
> Demoiselle. TAP also won the 9th race,
> a NYB turf race. TAP is as of this morning 5/29 at
> the current Aq meet, with 5
> seconds. I guess the folks who have \"Plech\'s\" barn
> staked out do not like cold
> weather.
>
> And because your theory is that TAP runners are
> only under scrutiny in New York,
> there is no need to mention his major stakes wins
> at CD and Hollywood (2) this
> weekend.
>
> Rather than trying to explain why there is a wide
> divergence between TAP\'s
> numbers in and outside of New York, why don\'t you
> work with a smaller sample
> and try to explain why TAP was able to keep
> winning Graded Stakes (where you
> would think there would be heightened scrutiny) at
> Saratoga even while his
> overall strike rate dropped below 10%?
>
> You keep mentioning LR\'s Saratoga performances.
> How could they be possible
> given the (rumored) intense scrutiny that TAP\'s
> barn is under?
>
> I follow NY racing pretty much exclusively Chuck.
> There is one high percentage
> trainer who along with his owners has repeatedly
> proven that he believes that
> the rules of racing do not apply to him. There is
> another high impact trainer
> who has gotten some eye catching results first off
> the claim (said trainer
> yesterday put over an $80 first timer with what I
> will venture to say was a
> misleading or incomplete work tab).
>
> There is plenty of cheating going on out there,
> drug fueled and otherwise. As a
> contrarian, I see your need not to go after the
> obvious miscreants but rather
> to crusade against a man who has probably saddled
> well over 15,000 runners in
> his career, yet has but one positive test result.

Of course.  But before you get too excited, you need to read the whole thing.

I agree with that, but I think it is something that would be more likely to pop out at you as \"different\" when looking at internal fractions for a particular horse.  

Think of when a horse has historically started to fatigue.  For example, I\'d look for a horse that can suddenly hold balls-to-the-wall speed in competitive sprints, especially in it\'s third split.

Richie you posted a current Aqueduct strike rate of approximately 17%. I could rest the case right here, but i\'ll go on briefly.

In the past hes won with strike rates almost twice that, which my friend is the difference between running clean and running juiced. With his quality of stock he is a legitimate 15% trainer, but then almost anyone else would be too and many would exceed that.

The misses you mentioned. Those are the races he would have won by 5 a short time ago. Lets watch him at NYRA, this is getting enjoyable.

One man crusade?...lol......hardly, theres folks after him. An example needs to be set and he\'s just the turkey to set it. That said, I do not bet Turf races. I do not bet claimers for the most part. I don\'t care what Lake and Catalano do with horses they claim. But, what irks me is for guys like the top 2 suspects who take ill bred but speedy horses and treat them with drugs to get them to stay on. What irks me even more is for those short career drug burners..i.e. the Scat Daddys and King of the Roxy\'s and Circular Quays to go on and get stud careers to pass on their inherent weaknesses and thereby hasten the dilution of the breed.

Now, in that regard, I am after Plech and Allday, but I\'m not alone and I\'m not only after them here. They need to alter their methods or go and when they do the game will better for it. I will keep after them because currently they are the most dangerous cheaters in the game. Their cheating is much more dangerous than what Lake does with a gelding. We need to cure their brand of cancer and we are going to.

Remember all those years Jerry said horses were getting faster and we were initially scratching our heads? Remember? They did run faster, but they weren\'t really getting faster. Something else was going on.

The clock is ticking on the suspects now. Things are changing.

richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chucker:
>
> In the DRF and probably your local newspaper they
> have \"Racing Results\".
>
> In New York on Friday, the Top Flight Handicap was
> won by Mini Sermon, trained
> by TAP. TAP also won a maiden race on the card.
>
> In New York on Saturday, Pletcher\'s Atoned, after
> clipping heels in the early
> stages of the race, nearly captured the
> Demoiselle. TAP also won the 9th race,
> a NYB turf race. TAP is as of this morning 5/29 at
> the current Aq meet, with 5
> seconds. I guess the folks who have \"Plech\'s\" barn
> staked out do not like cold
> weather.
>
> And because your theory is that TAP runners are
> only under scrutiny in New York,
> there is no need to mention his major stakes wins
> at CD and Hollywood (2) this
> weekend.
>
> Rather than trying to explain why there is a wide
> divergence between TAP\'s
> numbers in and outside of New York, why don\'t you
> work with a smaller sample
> and try to explain why TAP was able to keep
> winning Graded Stakes (where you
> would think there would be heightened scrutiny) at
> Saratoga even while his
> overall strike rate dropped below 10%?
>
> You keep mentioning LR\'s Saratoga performances.
> How could they be possible
> given the (rumored) intense scrutiny that TAP\'s
> barn is under?
>
> I follow NY racing pretty much exclusively Chuck.
> There is one high percentage
> trainer who along with his owners has repeatedly
> proven that he believes that
> the rules of racing do not apply to him. There is
> another high impact trainer
> who has gotten some eye catching results first off
> the claim (said trainer
> yesterday put over an $80 first timer with what I
> will venture to say was a
> misleading or incomplete work tab).
>
> There is plenty of cheating going on out there,
> drug fueled and otherwise. As a
> contrarian, I see your need not to go after the
> obvious miscreants but rather
> to crusade against a man who has probably saddled
> well over 15,000 runners in
> his career, yet has but one positive test result.

Chuckles_the_Clown2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richie you posted a current Aqueduct strike rate
> of approximately 17%. I could rest the case right
> here, but i\'ll go on briefly.
>
> In the past hes won with strike rates almost twice
> that, which my friend is the difference between
> running clean and running juiced. With his quality
> of stock he is a legitimate 15% trainer, but then
> almost anyone else would be too and many would
> exceed that.
 
CHUCK: If we are going to continue, I insist that you utilize facts when they are available to you. TAP\'s training statistics at NYRA tracks are a matter of public record. You say that  \"he\'s won with strike rates almost twice [17%]\" Chuck that would be a 34% strike rate. I hate to split hairs, and I know TAP has been slumping since the beginning of the Spa meet, but I think a modicum of research will reveal that even in TAP\'s better days his strike rate was between 20% and 25%.

> The misses you mentioned. Those are the races he
> would have won by 5 a short time ago. Lets watch
> him at NYRA, this is getting enjoyable.

CHUCK: You are saying in a general manner that TAP\'s runners are 5 lengths slower than they were a short time ago. Can you provide any empirical data to support this claim? TG #s? Beyer#s? Ragozin #s? Raw times? What do you mean by a short time ago?

As to watching TAP at NYRA, the current life expectancy of NYRA is about 20 more racing days.

 
> One man crusade?...lol......hardly, theres folks
> after him. An example needs to be set and he\'s
> just the turkey to set it. That said, I do not bet
> Turf races. I do not bet claimers for the most
> part. I don\'t care what Lake and Catalano do with
> horses they claim. But, what irks me is for guys
> like the top 2 suspects who take ill bred but
> speedy horses and treat them with drugs to get
> them to stay on. What irks me even more is for
> those short career drug burners..i.e. the Scat
> Daddys and King of the Roxy\'s and Circular Quays
> to go on and get stud careers to pass on their
> inherent weaknesses and thereby hasten the
> dilution of the breed.
>

CHUCK: (1) Who are the \"folks who are after him\"? In a previous post you tell me that I haven\'t been speaking to other handicappers or reading DRF articles that would lead me to agree with you regarding TAP and Allday\'s misdeeds. Could you cite one of these articles or name one of these handicappers so that I might be enlightened?

(2) It is fatuous to blame TAP and Allday for the glut of unqualified and underqualified stallions which are currently being bred. Blame the commercial greeders and the pinhookers, whose medication and surgical alteration of young auction prospects is finally coming under the microscope.
 
(3) \"... ill bred but speedy horses and treat them with drugs and get them to stay on\". Balto Star, a Glitterman who TAP stretched out to be effective at 1- 1/2 miles, would be a good example of this. Do you have any factual proof that this or any other TAP runner was illegally medicated?

> Now, in that regard, I am after Plech and Allday,
> but I\'m not alone and I\'m not only after them
> here. They need to alter their methods or go and
> when they do the game will better for it. I will
> keep after them because currently they are the
> most dangerous cheaters in the game. Their
> cheating is much more dangerous than what Lake
> does with a gelding. We need to cure their brand
> of cancer and we are going to.

CHUCK: The above is pure bluster. It is the kind of crap that I expect to see on the streets of a town which has just hosted a Presidential debate. If you know anything, if you have any FACTS, I would hope that you would approach one or all of the State Racing Commissions which license TAP and Allday. Tell these Commissions that you are willing to tell them EVERYTHING THAT YOU KNOW. I\'m sure they will find a minute for you.
 
> Remember all those years Jerry said horses were
> getting faster and we were initially scratching
> our heads? Remember? They did run faster, but they
> weren\'t really getting faster. Something else was
> going on.
>
> The clock is ticking on the suspects now. Things
> are changing.
>
CHUCK: The only thing that really needs to change is that when you accuse TAP and Allday of crimes against Racing, you should at least provide some factual basis for your accusations. The \"low strike rate in New York\" is a fact, I agree, but it is not a fact which you have done a good job of connecting with any cheating. Is it possible that TAPs recent lack of success in NY is attributable to higher purses and more important races being run outside of NY? Did you notice how many 5-1/2 furlong state bred turf sprints were run at the Spa this summer? Is this the type of stock TAP\'s clients usually provide him with? And you still have not explained why TAP\'s graded stakes runners were so effective at Saratoga.

You need FACTS, my friend. President John F. Kennedy, whose supporters purchased an election for him in the city in which you reside, said the following: \"The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.\"

\"With his quality of stock he is a legitimate 15% trainer, but then almost anyone else would be too and many would exceed that\"


Chuck,

Do a little more research on the roster of runners trained by TAP.Chuck, you could get 15% winners training that stable and any capable trainer should get 20-25%, imo.The guy is really not overachieving with that stable which leads me to \"What could he possibly be doing ILLEGALLY to achieve such ordinary results?

Don\'t you think he would \"help\" the despicable gutless Green Monkey if he had the magic bullet? Chuck, you are smart to not look at the common sense side of conspiracy idiots arguments re TAP/ALLDAY.

Mike

Sighthound -

Thanks for the informative post.  I did a little Google search of my own and found a PDF of a PowerPoint presentation for stewards and other racing officials on the University of Louisville website:

http://cobweb2.louisville.edu/eip/Steward_Schools/Medical2007.pdf

TCO2 testing is discussed on pages 39-44.  The information provided includes an analysis of test results from 2006 at Hollywood Park.  It seems pretty clear from that info and the links you posted that (a) everyone knows some trainers are gaming the system and (b) there\'s too much innocent variability in TCO2 levels to completely stop them.  Do you know whether detention barns are an effective remedy?

TGJB, based on the Texas A&M paper abstracted in Sighthound\'s later post in this thread, it doesn\'t seem like anyone is hiding the TCO2 test results from people who are really interested in studying them.  What has been your experience in trying to get them?  What would you propose to do with them if you had them?

I have talked extensively about this with the leaders in one major racing state, and a) they know it is going on, and how it is being done, b) they know who is doing it, and c) I haven\'t been able to get them to publish the CO2 results. Yet.

You can tell from the figures. Trust me.

There was a recent case of a well known trainer having a reading of 42 (he must have really screwed up, like maybe treated the horse twice). Don\'t know if they announced that one yet, or if he took days and kept his mouth shut.

Richie-- if you are following this, you can see that whether a trainer has any infractions is beside the point.

I look forward to reading the whole thing. And I would look forward even more to seeing the underlying data broken out by trainer.

The fact that OTHER things can affect CO2 levels is not the point. There are ways to deal with that (NYRA has one, which is that if a horse hits the threshold level the trainer has the option of having him quarantined and tested again a couple of days later). The problem, again, is that nobody hits the threshold level because it is too high.

Publishing the CO2 levels is the way to start dealing with this. Sure, let\'s say a horse can come up high from other things. But if a trainer averages significantly higher than the others it would be indicative. At that point the press and public pressure would kick in, and the wheels would start to turn.

JB,

If it is happening at this major track,would it not be apparent to those of us who follow closely and yourself from the figs?


Mike

Miff-- YES. That\'s what prompted my conversations with them.

>I think it is something that would be more likely to pop out at you as \"different\" when looking at internal fractions for a particular horse.

Think of when a horse has historically started to fatigue. For example, I\'d look for a horse that can suddenly hold balls-to-the-wall speed in competitive sprints, especially in it\'s third split.<

I agree with you.

IMO, all horses are not equal. I think it\'s highly likely that the same performance enhancer given in equal quantities to two different horses would produce very different benefits.

For example:

There are some super cheap claimers out there that can run 4F in 44-45 on a fairly regular basis, but they totally collapse at 6F or longer. That\'s why they are cheap claimers. At the same time there are stakes caliber horses that can\'t run 4F that fast, but they win stakes races.

They are two entirely different types of horses. One is more brilliant but lacking stamina and the other is more even paced but with greater reserves of energy and stamina.  

Does anyone actually think that a speed biased racetrack, slow pace, or drug that helps with stamina and breathing is going to help these two horses equally?

I don\'t and I don\'t bet that way either!

I do think that giving performance enhancers will help most horses.  That will show up as improved speed figures (faster). But I think a better way of looking at these things is to take into account the fact that horses are almost certainly impacted differently depending on their own strengths and weaknesses, the type of enhancer they are given, and conditions they race under.

TGJB,

Did this particular state recently host the BC?

Been a lot strange jump up figs down there this past year. And not just from the usual suspects.

I\'m not going there, SC. But if you are talking about Kentucky, find my recent post about them not testing last fall. All indications are that they don\'t care at all, which is not true of the state I am referring to, where they are taking some action. Problem is nobody wants a scandal, so it\'s under the radar.

I didn\'t bring up Kentucky, you did. And as far as I know Kentucky didn\'t just recently host a BC and may not for some time with the stance track mgmt is taking.

Hey I know a trend when I see one. When a Pletcher runner wins by a dozen or more at Monmouth then ships back to NY and is dead on the board.

Somthins up............................

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can tell from the figures. Trust me.
>
> There was a recent case of a well known trainer
> having a reading of 42 (he must have really
> screwed up, like maybe treated the horse twice).
> Don\'t know if they announced that one yet, or if
> he took days and kept his mouth shut.
>
> Richie-- if you are following this, you can see
> that whether a trainer has any infractions is
> beside the point.


TG, I trust that your information is accurate and that ticks me off.  I realize I\'m preaching to the choir so I\'m not really asking you when I ask why in the hell aren\'t they reporting all positives?  There should be a weekly list printed in every print racing publication of all positives across the country.  It should be on their websites.  Why doesn\'t anyone stand up?

Scandals sometimes are just what creates the public outcry that can lead to positive change! What is needed is a stand up guy with a good reputation to be the whistle blower- some one who finally has enough. It can be so unpleasant, but it\'s amazing how fast regulations/laws can get through the legislature after a good scandal!

TGJB -

I think asking a regulatory agency to publish TCO2 results in any comprehensible way may be fruitless.  I was asking about their willingness to provide it, whether under compulsion of a Freedom of Information request or otherwise.  Have you asked that question?

Once the raw data has been made available, someone else can analyze it and publish their analysis.

That said, suppose you identify five trainers whose horses consistently come in well above average but just below the threshold.  What do you do then?

I identify trainers that move horses up, I would love to have the data to correlate with mine.

Doubt anyone has tried Freedom of Information. Interesting idea.

\"That said, suppose you identify five trainers whose horses consistently come in well above average but just below the threshold. What do you do then?\"

Start betting on them.

This is exactly some of the information the owners and whales do not want anyone except themselves to have.

This is information that everyone on this board wants equal access to and are labeled as Morons and conspiracy idiots to even question the status quo.

It would not take long if some of the multi-million dollar babies were removed from the track and labeled as a chemically enhanced sire prospect to get a lot of people finding Jesus all of a sudden.

TGJB:

Yes I am following.

Of course the most effective cheaters are the ones who rarely if ever get
caught. These cheaters have the resources to stay at least one step ahead of
a Racing establishment which is not wholly committed to catching and punishing
them anyway.

Chuckles can be a loose cannon, but the glare from his errant shells sometimes
illuminates the real target; that being said, I, like others, do not think that
this board or any other medium should be used for character assassinations
which are not at least partially grounded in fact. I know I sound quite naive
in my responses to CTC, but I am merely trying to point out to CTC that the
scientific method-- collection and analysis of facts-- while not as
entertaining as rhetorical diatribes, certainly will bring us all closer to the
truth.

As today\'s exchanges on the board demonstrate, there is certainly a lot of data
which is being collected, even if it is not widely distributed. And as Rosewood
says there are powerful influences which probably want as little of this
information as possible to see the light of day.

You are in tough spot, Jerry, because you have access to a lot of potentially
enlightening information, and many times you have wistfully said \"I wish
someone would subpoena me\", because the truth is that coming forward
voluntarily is probably not in your best interest from a commercial point of
view.

On a lighter note, is the TG production crew working on a way to fit the CO2
levels on to the graph? Maybe you could market this as TG \"plus\"? If this is
an original idea I want a discount.

Richie-- I told the powers-that-be that I would be doing exactly that if the results were ever published. Not on the graph, left side of the page.

BitPlayer Wrote:
>>I did a little
> Google search of my own and found a PDF of a
> PowerPoint presentation for stewards and other
> racing officials on the University of Louisville
> website:
>
> http://cobweb2.louisville.edu/eip/Steward_Schools/
> Medical2007.pdf
>
> TCO2 testing is discussed on pages 39-44.


That is an excellent overview, great find.  I highly recommend that everyone here who has an interest read the TCO2 pages, and flip through the rest of it (you can skip the scientific testing detail).

Please note the number of positives obtained during a measured period of recent California testing.

People who think the entire sport is corrupt and that all horses are drugged will be sorely disappointed by the low numbers of positives - for both TCO2 and other drug overages.

>>The
> information provided includes an analysis of test
> results from 2006 at Hollywood Park.  It seems
> pretty clear from that info and the links you
> posted that (a) everyone knows some trainers are
> gaming the system and (b) there\'s too much
> innocent variability in TCO2 levels to completely
> stop them.  Do you know whether detention barns
> are an effective remedy?

See the above powerpoint presentation:  it discusses trainers that routinely came back very high, what was done about them, split testing, and detention barn use to change results (successfully) for the few bad guys.

One thing nobody here has mentioned, and I\'m surprised, as there has to be some horsemen on this board - and this is regarding \"gaming the system\":

A good, educated trainer uses mild alkalinyzing agents, electrolytes, dietary supplements, specific diets, herbal supplements, etc, on a daily basis.  Why?

Because it helps the horse.  That daily dose of alkalinyzing agent prevents muscle soreness and extra days off, it prevents tying-up (exertional rhabdomyolysis), and it optimizes performance.

Is it cheating for a trainer to have his horses run TCO2 levels of 34-35 every day?  Or good, educated, state-of-the-art horsemanship?

The question for me is:  how does it enhance the performance of the horse (in relation to the betting publics money).

So how much of a performance improvement can a horse running TCO2 levels of 34-35 have versus if his normal is 32-33?

But then:  what about the trainer who feeds a better protein-carbohydrate-fat ration?  The trainer who adds vitamin-mineral-micronutrient supplements to enhance red blood cell numbers?  

This trainers horses are going to run noticably and measurably better, too.  Diet alone can move a horse up measurably in lengths and endurance.

Are these trainers cheaters?

Is it good training formulated as a result of all we have learned scientifically about optimizing the performance of racing or jumping equines?

What the veterinary community has recommended to those that train athletic horses based upon what we have learned over the last 30 years?

Some have already decided all trainers who have numbers over 31mM/L for TCO2 are cheaters, and the higher the number, the more of a cheater they are.

There is a fine line between being an excellent, knowledgable horse trainer, and \"cheating\" - it is not always measureable \"by the numbers\", and as black and white, as some may think.

> There should be a weekly list printed in every
> print racing publication of all positives across
> the country.  It should be on their websites.  Why
> doesn\'t anyone stand up?

Street, Kentucky and California both publish theirs, and keep it relatively current.

Edit:  here is Kentucky:

http://www.khra.ky.gov/stewardsjudgesrulings/

Here is California - search on stewards and year

http://www.chrb.ca.gov

And, here is New York:

http://rulings.racing.state.ny.us/frm_Rulings.aspx

Sighthound -

Point well taken.  I considered changing the words \"gaming the system\" to something less prejudicial, but couldn\'t find an apt alternative.

As I read some of the web pages you linked to, I thought about the things I tried to get my marathon time down far enough to qualify for Boston.  The carbo loading would probably pass muster, but the coffee 30 minutes before race time and the Gatorade on the course (while clearly acceptable in the running community at the time) would probably not pass muster under a \"hay, oats, and water on race day\" regime.

I confess to having little knowledge of either veterinary medicine or medication rules.  Do you know if trainers would generally have to violate some rule in order to get achieve 34-35 mM TCO2 on race day?  I read quickly through the NYRA medication rules you linked to.  While milkshakes are clearly illegal, it wasn\'t clear to me whether the \"mild alkalizing agents\" you suggest would also be prohibited.  It is hard to argue against enlightened treatment of the equine athlete, but is also hard to justify looking the other way while some trainers grab an edge that is forbidden to their law-abiding brethren.

sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > There should be a weekly list printed in every
> > print racing publication of all positives
> across
> > the country.  It should be on their websites.
> Why
> > doesn\'t anyone stand up?
>
> Street, Kentucky and California both publish
> theirs, and keep it relatively current.
>
> Edit:  here is Kentucky:
>
> http://www.khra.ky.gov/stewardsjudgesrulings/
>
> Here is California - search on stewards and year
>
> http://www.chrb.ca.gov
>
> And, here is New York:
>
> http://rulings.racing.state.ny.us/frm_Rulings.aspx


Thanks, Sighthound.  That\'s a start.  Now if the BloodHorse or other print publication would print those violations along with the violations in the other 40 or however many other jurisdictions we\'d have a good thing going.

>The carbo loading would probably pass
> muster, but the coffee 30 minutes before race time
> and the Gatorade on the course (while clearly
> acceptable in the running community at the time)
> would probably not pass muster under a \"hay, oats,
> and water on race day\" regime.

Good analogy.  I would hate to be you at 18 miles, on a 70-degree day, with only water as a rehydrator, though!

>>Do you
> know if trainers would generally have to violate
> some rule in order to get achieve 34-35 mM TCO2 on
> race day?  

I think you have to pre-race test repeated horses from a trainers barn, to see what he averages out as.  That\'s hopefully what the split-retest will tell you after a positive.  34 is pretty easy to hit with \"good husbandry\" and a high lasix dose.

Some trainers have their own TCO2 levels run on their barns, to see where their individual \"practices\" (be it well-intentioned, or not) make their horses fall.

Standardbreds in Illinois used to have a 35 level, I believe, and they had to raise it, too many non-administered positives from diet, lasix, etc.

But intent doesn\'t really matter, does it, if the guy with the veterinary nutritionist and the guy with a cheap diet but a handful of baking soda/potassium citrate capsules both have horses coming in at 35-36?  If it is known (and it isn\'t, for sure in a regularly predictable way) that moves up most horses one length?  

Where do you draw the line here?  Right now it\'s at 37 or 39, depending on the jurisdiction.  Because the only way to get that high is to deliberately add.

>>While milkshakes
> are clearly illegal, it wasn\'t clear to me whether
> the \"mild alkalizing agents\" you suggest would
> also be prohibited.

Not if they don\'t go over the levels allowed.  Sure, some trainers have been over, and they\'ve not \"milkshaked\" a thing, and they were shocked at being accused - but the horse had still ingested it (more common when they started TCO2 testing on a regular basis, trainers learning what things can affect levels).

It\'s like bute and lasix - you can have \"so much\", but not more.  Trainers have had inadvertent positives using herbal and \"natural\" stuff too, as you often don\'t know exactly what is in there.

Alot of these allowable levels are established by \"best guestimate\", not any rigorous scientific examination.  That is being worked upon for many substances.

just looked at the CHRB site...no Jeff Mullins or Baffert..surprised.  In any case, Doug Oneill had a $3K fine (negotiated settlement) for somehting called \"insure condition of horse\"...anyone know what that means?

the list is a real \"who\'s who\"...

richie wrote:

\"Chuckles can be a loose cannon, but the glare from his errant shells sometimes
illuminates the real target; that being said, I, like others, do not think that
this board or any other medium should be used for character assassinations
which are not at least partially grounded in fact. I know I sound quite naive
in my responses to CTC, but I am merely trying to point out to CTC that the
scientific method-- collection and analysis of facts-- while not as
entertaining as rhetorical diatribes, certainly will bring us all closer to the
truth.\"

I know you want the statistical data on the jump ups. Sometime ago, I abandoned making my own data. I\'ve gotten to a point where I can review a card with past races as a reference and at a glance, in mere seconds, score the race out, considering time and the days card and even factoring wide (where relevant) and weight. I don\'t purport that its highly accurate, but ambiguity is resolved here for the next race. It does however free me up to launch errant cannon shells and/or focus upon other aspects of reviewing a card. If you don\'t know from the data here that Lawyer Ron jumped 4 points under Plech, I can\'t help you. (I actually make the jump 5 points and have it sustained in the following race.) With that horses iron horse history that improvement was utter unadulterated b.s. and if thats an errant cannon shell you\'re a Palestinian.

The Carbs are only part of the equation. Theres some disagreement upon how big a part. I think the Carb situation has one very important feature though. It will illustrate who is cheating and then they can look more closely into how they are cheating irregardless of carbs. In some places they already are.

Wrong. Giving alkalyzing agents IS prohibited, they just don\'t give out sanctions unless the levels pass a certain threshold. This is done to keep the tracks out of court, obviously not to protect the bettor.

I mean, it must have occurred to you that trainers can run their horses hot and cold, right? Would you be okay with not announcing which horses are running on Lasix, and trainers putting them on and off it without the public knowing?

And by the way, the difference looks like about 4 points, or 5 lengths at 6 furlongs. In some cases (see a certain Mid-Atlantic trainer) it is much more, but he might be using something else as well, like raceday Clenbuterol (injected).

And again, positives have nothing to do with what we are talking about with CO2.

A novelty for this board: a factual dispute to which there must be a yes/no answer.  Let\'s see if we can resolve it, taking NY as an example (while acknowledging that different states may have different rules).  Pasted below are the sections (with page numbers) that I think might be relevant in the NY medication pamphlet that Sighthound linked to earlier.

http://www.racing.state.ny.us/stats/August2007%20FINAL2.pdf

It seems to me that a trainer is within the rules if he can achieve an elevated TCO2 level (below 37 or 39 mM, whichever applies) without using a mixture of bicarbonate of soda and sugar (in any form) less than 24 hours before the race program starts.  What I don\'t know is whether Sighthound\'s \"mild alkalizing agent\" would fall afoul of this rule.

Page 4
May be administered any time up to race time:
. . .
Antibiotics, vitamins, electrolytes, and other food supplements as long as they are administered orally and as long as they do not contain any other drug or by their nature, exhibit drug-like actions or properties.

Page 8
No person shall, attempt to, or cause, solicit, request, or conspire with another or others to:
. . .
administer a mixture of bicarbonate of soda and sugar in any of their forms in any manner to a horse within 24 hours of a racing program at which such horse is programmed to race. It shall be the trainer\'s responsibility to prevent such administration.

Page 11
Excessive TCO2 levels in horses are a violation. TCO2 levels are excessive at 37 millimoles/liter, or for horses properly administered furosemide (Salix or Lasix), 39 millimoles/liter. The Board rules establish penalty guidelines, a procedure for trainers to show naturally high levels of TCO2 in a racehorse, and provisions for voidable claims.

If a trainer gets a 36 by giving alkalyzing agents he a) has broken the rules (page 4, \"drug like actions\",probably page 8 \"in any of their forms\"), and b) will not be sanctioned (under 37). This is what I have been saying here and in other venues for months. The fact that a trainer doesn\'t get a positive is beside the point-- he is still cheating. The problem is the way the system is set up-- the threshold levels are too high. And, once again, there are ways to deal with horses that start out high-- by quarantining them and retesting them if they come up over.

This is not an academic question. The way the system exists now, we have what amounts to insider trading. The mutuel pools are a market, and those with knowledge of which horses have been treated are taking money from those without inside information. The most basic responsibility of those running the game is to insure that the customers get a fair shake-- this is inexcusable.

TGJB -

I\'d like to hear Sighthound weigh in on this issue, but I\'m pretty sure you\'re wrong about one thing.  If you get caught giving a milkshake, you can be sanctioned without regard to TCO2 testing.  Ask Gary Sciacca:

http://racing.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=42126

I think the TCO2 rule was a fall-back measure.  Regulators knew people were giving milkshakes (in some form), but lacked adequate surveillance to catch them all.  TCO2 testing gave authorities a way to curtail the practice without catching people in the act.

Correct. You will get sanctioned if you get caught tubing, because that\'s something that can\'t get fought in court. The 37 level was set up for exactly the reason Sight said-- because it is so high it could never be argued that it was anything BUT intentional, and therefore will keep the tracks out of court. But that doesn\'t deal with the problem for bettors-- just for the tracks.

> And by the way, the difference looks like about 4
> points, or 5 lengths at 6 furlongs.

What do you think of the \"finish position and measured TCO2 levels\" slide in the previously posted Stewards education presentation?  Especially considering the standard deviation inherent in the methodology of testing?

> (see a certain Mid-Atlantic trainer) it is much
> more, but he might be using something else as
> well, like raceday Clenbuterol (injected).

The two biggest proven \"move up\" drugs are painkillers and bronchodilators.  Not baking soda.

The shakiest way to come to a conclusion is to start with a conclusion as definitive, then work backwards trying to justify it.

I didn\'t look at the slide. I also didn\'t work backward, I started a couple of years ago by trying to find out what was being used. I\'ve been working on this for a long time, and am dealing with people close to the issue (on several fronts, some local and some national). And again, I know about the readings at one major venue, and that they confirm what I have been saying.

You should try to get hold of what Rick Arthur (state vet in California who has done more on this than anyone else), has had to say on this subject. I had one radio discusssion with him (on Steve Byk\'s show), you might be able to find it, or statements he has made elswhere.

You have taken us far afield here. It\'s not about good horsemanship, or naturally high levels, and there is no question that alkalyzing agents make a difference, whether or not other drugs do as well, or do to a greater or lesser extent. It\'s about protecting the betting public, and once they start publishing the CO2 tests, we can all make determinations, and begin to deal with the problem.

It\'s also no longer about baking soda. It\'s a pill, and it\'s broken up and put into the feed.

Have faith in mammon
and trust to the quibbling of lawyers.
Rely on the cowardice of politicians.

Mr. Brown,

I for one applaud your long hard work and effort in trying to get any and all information to the betting public. You and I both know that cheating in racing could be cleaned up in short order if it was desired .

I realize that cheating diminishes the accuracy of your superb product and it is in your interest to be able to accurately handicap the outcome of races; however as an owner and consultant, I believe you desire the sport to be cleaned up for the good of all.

It is a hell of a note that the Freedom of Information Act would have to be used to gain test results for CO2 or every other test run.

It\'s almost like a NASCAR race being won by 100 laps and the winner says that you can\'t see under the hood.  How would that play out?

>>>\"That said, suppose you identify five trainers whose horses consistently come in well above average but just below the threshold. What do you do then?\"

Start betting on them.<<<

It isn\'t necessary to have that information.

All you have to do is follow all the trainer changes very carefully.

Before long you\'ll know who the \"move up\" trainers are, who the \"recovery\" trainers are, and the profile of the typical horse they move up etc.... (By \"recovery\" I mean trainers that often get their horses to run back to their recent peak even if the horse was running below that level when they took them).

At that point, from a gambling perspective you need not be interested in how much of the form change is related to CO2, other performance enhancers, superior training, superior vet care etc.... If you have the information before the rest of the world catches on, you have an edge.  

Of course, regardless of whether the improvement is the result illegal or legal activities, the insiders will have an edge over you because they will always have a better idea of which exact ones are likely to move up. Heck even Barry demonstrated that conclusively on this board a couple of times when he told us about Team Valor horses that had corrective surgery before a race in instances where would not have known otherwise. So that advantage is something we have to cope with for legal activities, ailments, corrective actions, and legitimately skilled trainers/vets too.

If the idea is simply to profit from betting, IMO, providing incremental information to the general public is probably the worst thing that could happen. Then, every Tom, Dick, and Harry will start betting the horses immediately. As it is now, if you want to identify horses that are likely to move up and still retain some betting value, you can. You just actually have to do some work.  

This is way more of a factor for owners, trainers, etc... that are being cheated out of purses, getting more and better stock, etc... and for the tracks themselves because of public perceptions.

>If you don\'t know from the data here that Lawyer Ron jumped 4 points under Plech, I can\'t help you. (I actually make the jump 5 points and have it sustained in the following race.) With that horses iron horse history that improvement was utter unadulterated b.s. and if thats an errant cannon shell you\'re a Palestinian. <

And I can provide you a list of several winning horseplayers that are very familiar with figures that all think there was nothing unusual about LR\'s 4YO form because they have a very different view about that form at both 3 and 4.

TGJB -

If you really have the time and inclination to undertake a study correlating TCO2 levels with your figures, you could try contacting Noah Cohen at Texas A&M.  He is the first author of the study that Sighthound cited and obviously has California TCO2 data.  He might be willing and able to share the data with you.  According the the Texas A&M website, his e-mail address is ncohen@tamu.edu.

BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB -
>
> If you really have the time and inclination to
> undertake a study correlating TCO2 levels with
> your figures, you could try contacting Noah Cohen
> at Texas A&M.  He is the first author of the study
> that Sighthound cited and obviously has California
> TCO2 data.  He might be willing and able to share
> the data with you.  According the the Texas A&M
> website, his e-mail address is ncohen@tamu.edu.

Or repeat the study on other circuits, involving Jerry and seeing if speed figures have any direct correlation.

>>> You have taken us far afield here.

What I have tried to do is inject some existing realities recognizing the limitations of TCO2 testing, especially if one is going to use those levels to attempt to identify cheaters.    The strength of TG figures over other products lays within the attention to detail.  The same consideration should be given to this issue.

>>It\'s not about good horsemanship, or naturally high levels, and
> there is no question that alkalyzing agents make a
> difference, whether or not other drugs do as well,
> or do to a greater or lesser extent. It\'s about
> protecting the betting public, and once they start
> publishing the CO2 tests, we can all make
> determinations, and begin to deal with the
> problem.
 > It\'s also no longer about baking soda. It\'s a
> pill, and it\'s broken up and put into the feed.

Well, there\'s lots of pills people use, and you can buy them at the local drugstore:  Tums, potassium citrate, etc. They also sprinkle baking soda on the feed.  They make up baking soda-electrolyte-sugar capsules and pill the horse.   Many horses, of honest trainers, as part of their daily ration get a teaspoon of baking soda sprinkled on their feed.

Alkalinyzing agents are thought to work best within a 4 to 6 hour time period before metabolizing into uselessness - hence why detection barns work.

Here\'s some of the comments from that Stewards education slideshow  http://cobweb2.louisville.edu/eip/Steward_Schools/Medical2007.pdf  , regarding southern California TCO2 testing:

- between September 2005 and December 2006, 35,000 samples were tested in southern California, and only three came in over 39 mM/L.

Okay, so what about those 31-35 levels we are all worried about:

- \"26,607 horses looked at, comparing finishing position in race to TCO2 level\"  - all horses were between 31.51 and 30.73 mM/L   (+/- the standard deviation inherent within testing accuracy)  for finishing positions 1st through 14th.

It should be noted that the laboratory standard deviation (that of the equipment used) is greater than that spread.  Look at how the winning horses had a higher TCO2 level than horses finishing later - except for those that finished last out of large fields (nearly equal to the winners)

- \"Can a trainer\'s TCO2 averages be used to regulate bicarbonate-loading trainers?    Not feasible with an adequate degree of certainty, the most egregious trainers could be identified correctly only 19 out of 20 times\".

-  Prior to implementation of measuring all TCO2 levels, and warning trainers if their levels exceeded 36 mM/L, 1.4% of all samples exceeded 36 mM/L.  Current rate is 0.2%.

That\'s not alot of milkshaking going on.   How many \"move up\" trainers do you have listed as suspicious for milkshaking being the method of choice on the southern California circuit?   I think one must look elsewhere on that circuit.

Now, California is an exception, where all horses are tested pre-race.  Some jurisdictions only test the winners and one random horse post-race.

Sight wrote:

\"Alkalinyzing agents are thought to work best within a 4 to 6 hour time period before metabolizing into uselessness - hence why detection barns work\".



Sight, on this whole issue, I am very much in line with your observations which are echoed by many others involved in NY on a daily basis. On detention barns though, many honest trainers in NY are diabolically opposed to them.You may know that NYRA has listened to arguments to discontinue them or somewhat change the system.

For the most part detention barns have been a failure,with added expense to outfits that cannot afford it. The usual suspects in New York have not missed a beat due to detention barns, I cannot speak for other venues.

Also understand that measuring the benefit of milkshakes is not scientifically possible and there are those who feel it is not significant, others do.In the end, milkshakes are old news(new improved formula/makeup perhaps) and probably not the reason certain outfits get unrealistic results. Agree with Jerry though that it is one of the problems which racing could deal with in a more comprehensive/transparent manner.It makes no sense for racing to cover up something that can be eliminated for the most part.


Mike

Apologies if somebody already asked my question below.  Also, i am an ignoramus when it comes to the physiology of horses, so apologies if my question is completely idiotic, BUT

It seems to me that milkshaking is nothing more than giving a horse some alkaline material to soak up some of the acid that builds up from anaerobic muscular activity the removal of which allows the horses to feel less pain in their legs from the build up of the acid.  It doesn\'t seem to me to be too terribly harmful or dangerous.  It is not like Bute which would allow a horse run through pain in a leg that may indicate a physical problem that should not be run with.  It is not like milkshaking makes unsafe horses race.  It just makes good athletes tire less.  Right?  Why not make milkshaking legal just like lasix?  Trainers have to say whether or not they milkshaked a horse.  It seems to me so simple and easy, what am I missing.  In fact, it seems to me that milkshaking should be legal ahead of lasix being legal.  Again, maybe I am missing something here, but why isn\'t this issue this easy?

I have made the offer directly to Rick Arthur (in fact he brought it up first). I have since been told by the powers that be that they are not legally allowed to releas the CO2 data publicly in California. It\'s either true or it\'s not. And I\'m ready to do it with any other venue that wants to.

Socal -

Here\'s a bit from the Australian article that Sighthound linked to eariler, discussing the reasons for implementing the rule there:

In the early 1990's, the practice of 'milkshaking' came to the notice of racing authorities. The milkshake consisted of sodium bicarbonate, glucose and a number of other substances and was given to the horse via a stomach tube. Trainers believed that this practice improved the athletic endurance of the horse. In some cases, the 'milkshake' could cause colic, dehydration and diarrhoea and therefore be detrimental to the horse's performance.

There was some concern that 'milkshaking' could change the pH of the urine and either inhibit or increase the excretion of certain drugs, reducing the chance of detection in a post race urine sample.

In an attempt to control this practice, a TCO2 threshold was set by the Australian Harness Racing Council. Horses with a TCO2 concentration above this threshold were considered to have received an excess of alkalising agent, whether as a milkshake or by another method, for the purpose of affecting the performance of the horse.

Sight-- Did you say \"the most egregious trainers could ONLY be identified 19 out of 20 times\"?

If that is true, and you put other safeguards in place (quarantine and retesting), it seems you have proved my point that a) it has an identifiable performance enhancing effect, and b) there is a way to deal with the problem.

Yes, California has done much more with the problem than anyone else. This is because they have Rick Arthur, Ron Charles, and used to have Shapiro (recently quit), all of whom care a lot about this. Also possibly because I personally put a lot of pressure on them, and/or made them understand the issue from the bettors point of view, which previously had not come up in discussion at a single CHRB meeting.

The situation appears to have improved, though I\'m not convinced it has completely stopped.

By contrast, Churchill, as previously stated, did not test for 6 years after they made milkshakes illegal, and was not testing last fall coming up to the BC. And IF they tested at the BC at all (highly questionable) only did so because when I found out the tester had quit and they had not replaced him, I got the press involved.

SoCal-- so I guess you would have no problem with ballplayers and track and field athletes using any drug they wanted, as long as it\'s not harmful?

I don\'t think we want to make this a game of who has the netter druggist (although to some degree that already has happened). Aside from which, there is the question of the bettor getting a fair shake (so to speak).

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sight-- Did you say \"the most egregious trainers
> could ONLY be identified 19 out of 20 times\"?
>
> If that is true, and you put other safeguards in
> place (quarantine and retesting), it seems you
> have proved my point that a) it has an
> identifiable performance enhancing effect, and b)
> there is a way to deal with the problem.

That was referring to the accuracy of the testing - that the margin of error  (within the testing and due to outside influences) is such that even the worse offenders (with the highest TCO2, over allowable limit) could only be accurately identified 19 of 20 times.

CA won\'t release data to you with names of trainers associated with TCO2 levels.  I think you should approach attainment through Freedom of Information as someone else suggested.  This is a public gambling sport, I see a strong argument being made for public accessibility.

If that is still a stonewall, a reasonable compromise would be to release the data, \"blinding\" trainer and horse names by replacing them with other identifiers (numbers, etc).  

You could still look for patterns (you should get the track/date/number of a race and the TCO2 results for horses A through K for that race, for example), identification via subsequent backtracing off your data could be accomplished.

>In some cases, the 'milkshake' could
> cause colic, dehydration and diarrhoea and
> therefore be detrimental to the horse's
> performance.

Two horses dropped dead on the track at Maywood, Sportsman\'s (can\'t remember) during the late 1980\'s or early 1990\'s.  Autopsies done, both their stomachs were filled with baking soda.

What I\'m trying to do is to get All tracks to release ALL CO2 test data publicly. And what I\'m trying to do here is get the discussion focused in the right direction. Positives and other illegal drugs are irrelevant when we have made a performance enhancing drug de facto legal.

Rick Arthur has already done the kind of studies you refer to, just without speed figures.

There is some movement going on behind the scenes, mostly because one very important and influential industry player has gotten fed up. I\'ve got some input there, but in general I\'m going to wait to see what happens with that before getting involved further.

It turns out Freedom of Information requests apply to Federal entities. Some states have similar laws, I\'m working on it, at the least it might prove to be a valuable lever.

JB,

Certain racetracks are private property and therefore the information is unavailable.In such instances the State Racing Wagering Board of the particular Racing State could be pressured into forcing tracks in it\'s jurisdiction to publish the data you seek.That assumes enough public pressure could be brought to bear.

Mike

Miff-- some states have the equivalent of Freedom of Information laws. That\'s what I\'m trying to find out about. The work required to organize enough public pressure would be enormous, and I\'m real busy.

TGJB -

The California equivalent is the Public Records Act.  Here\'s a link to the CHRB\'s Public Records Act guidelines.  They include a phone number you can call for more information.

http://chrb.ca.gov/CHRB%20PRA%20GUIDELINES.pdf

The New York equivalent is the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL).  The e-mail address for requests to the Racing and Wagering Board is:

Foil-Request@racing.state.ny.us

Good luck.

I gave them a call for starters, got an answering machine (with a classic Valley Girl voice), and left a message. We\'ll see where it goes.

I\'m interested in info about similar laws in Kentucky and New York.

My preference would be to have zero tolerance and absolutely transparent access to information.  However, as Austin Powers said -- Well I want a toilet made of solid gold, but that\'s just not in the cards now is it.

Given that I am never going to get what I want, I would at least like something that is palatable, achievable, and an improvement over the status quo. Right now, it sounds like people break the rules and the community isn\'t even told about it.  That is terrible. My suggestion of making milkshaking legal was combined with a requirement that trainers reveal whether or not they had milkshaked a horse, so that everybody knows what is going on.

This is what is done with lasix and bute which are drugs that some powers that be decided to be permissible.  It seemed to me we are in the realm of line drawing deciding what goes on the legal side of the ledger and what goes on the illegal side.

Now that I have learned that milkshaking can be harmful, I think my idea would not work. However, I was not trying to be a wise-guy in suggesting it but only trying to find a solution that might work for all involved.

Nobody suggested you were a wise guy. But I think that it is possible to get things straightened out-- it\'s a matter of hacking through the beaurocracy, not physical limitations of testing. At least it looks that way-- we may hit that wall, but until we pry the the door open, we won\'t know.

You\'re too quick.  I edited my earlier post to include info on New York.

Here\'s a link to a list of all the state laws:

http://web.missouri.edu/~umcjourfoiwww/citelist.html

I couldn\'t find anything on the website of the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority about who to contact there with Open Records Act requests.

Miff, you obviously put a great deal of emphasis upon how much is paid for a horse. There\'s a large percentage of multi million dollar horses that never win or never start. Conceding that if one buys enough of the more expensive auction horses you\'re gonna come up with a few that will run on. The problem is those that don\'t pan out far outnumber the few that do. Why do you think TGraph advises re purchases post early career races?

In other words, I have never bought the argument that Plech\'s strike rate was high because his stock is so vastly superior to the other trainers. They make the same argument regarding his help and his ability. It sounds good, until you realize not only that there is a complete absence of proof but also that logic argues against the contention.

Plech is obviously not a whiz kid at picking unraced yearlings out at the sales. Its a tough gig, not many are. However, there are a number of trainers that have remarkable sales results at a fraction of what Plech and his clients pay.

Plech is a natural 15% trainer with the horses he has. Some good, some so bad they race once if at all. But he has enough and pays enough for the probabilities of getting a good one to come up in his favor. But what has carried him over the top in the past is being able to get away with substance aiding those good ones. That window is closing however.

 miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"With his quality of stock he is a legitimate 15%
> trainer, but then almost anyone else would be too
> and many would exceed that\"
>
>
> Chuck,
>
> Do a little more research on the roster of runners
> trained by TAP.Chuck, you could get 15% winners
> training that stable and any capable trainer
> should get 20-25%, imo.The guy is really not
> overachieving with that stable which leads me to
> \"What could he possibly be doing ILLEGALLY to
> achieve such ordinary results?
>
> Don\'t you think he would \"help\" the despicable
> gutless Green Monkey if he had the magic bullet?
> Chuck, you are smart to not look at the common
> sense side of conspiracy idiots arguments re
> TAP/ALLDAY.
>
> Mike

CTC,

I\'ve never studied the stats because I don\'t buy horses, but I know a bit about economics and investing. I would be shocked beyond belief if there wasn\'t a strong correlation between the qualities the smartest horse buyers look for, the average price paid for horses, and the results on the track.

If there wasn\'t a correlation, they would be idiots to pay more for those qualities.

If you buy horses that already have a record, you will pay a price that reflects that incremental information.  

That doesn\'t mean that some buyers aren\'t dumb and that some aren\'t smart enough to find good values in either case. I am just talking in generalities.

So if a particular barn is loaded with high priced horses, it is very likely it has better than average stock unless the people that did the selecting had no skill at all.

However, even with the best horses, the win percentage will also be a function of how well those horses are spotted, how well the trainer keeps the horses sound, how quickly he recognizes problems and gets conservative when minor issues come up (among other things).

If you gave me 10 of the best horses in the country I could easily produce a poor win percentage by spotting them at the wrong distance, on a surface they didn\'t like, in races where their running style would put them at a disadvantage etc... I could also easily produce a high win percentage with mediocre horses by spotting them favorably. In the latter case, it might not make economic sense to run in the weak spots though. That would produce more wins, but I might earn less money than by taking a shot against better horses.

A trainer\'s short and long term win percentage tells you many things, but unless you look at the details, it may not tell what you think. Having the best stock and an ability to move your horses to various circuits does however give you way more options for spotting horses where they can win. Therefore it is  more likely to produce a high win percentage when done by a competent person.

If you wanted to make an educated guess at what is causing the fluctuations in TP\'s win %, you\'d have to go into with an unbiased mind and look at the details of each horse he is running now compared to the past and keep in mind that fluctuations around the mean are actually to be expected.

Chuck,

You can slice and dice it anyway you wish, but the fact is that anyone who knows the roster of TAP\'s runners would tell you that an annual 15% strike rate, would be considered disastrous failure.Again,you know better than that. As for TAP\'s horsemanship(or any other trainer), how do you know? He may be worse than you think, or better.He did learn from Wayne Lukas, a prolific trainer by accomplishment.He certainly has the management skills and you might be surprised how studious he is about racing(not training) re figs, race shape strategy et al.

Price paid for unraced horses matters somewhat but it is not the be all end all.Generally speaking, there is lots of homework done but it does come down to good fortune/luck also.The animals are beautiful and act like a drug of enticement.Most owners lose money in this business and are told so in  many cases, beforehand. The most prolific buyer in recent history is Sheik Mohamed. Hows he done overall, with very knowledgeable people advising him and with money being no object.


You are way off base on TAP and I could say more but I won\'t.Your posting\'s re deaths of Left Bank, Lawyer Ron spa figs are childish, you drank the Kool Aide. It\'s been a vets game for almost ten years, where you been?There is so much legal stuff being used on horses in a highly effective manner that it\'s no surprise what we see, even without the illegal magic bullet.

If and when the NY crowd gets caught(doubtful) TAP\'s name wont be on the list. I have yet to see TAP match the winning percentage results of several guys who have far inferior stock in quantity and quality.

Mike