Relatively speaking how would you rate the following tracks: the major tracks in NY, ,Fla, Ky,Cal, and Arl, FG, Mth, OP, with the \"cleaner\" ones DRUG WISE at the top of the list and the \"dirtier\" ones toward the bottom? Is it even possible? Or is it an exercise in futility?
You can go to the websites or government regulation pages of several of those jurisdictions, and see the trainers who have drug positives and what for.
Here\'s NYRA: http://rulings.racing.state.ny.us/frm_Rulings.aspx
Sight-- with all due respect, nothing could be less relevant than that. You are making a ton of assumptions about testing (like whether and how it is being done), and I know for a fact that the assumptions are wrong.
One point Rick made (via speaker phone) at the JC committee meeting last week was that we had to incorporate our (TG) data more into tracking move-up trainers, and he\'s a guy who had not seen a sheet until a few months ago. He gets it-- you track who is doing stuff by tracking performance, not by positives. Not by wns-- by quantifying performance.
Sorry, Jerry, the man got no answers, that\'s all I could think to offer him. I apologize.
Please, post the dirty trainers here for him, based upon their sheet performances.
Sight-- I have mentioned several of the trainers here over the years. Last summer I was sitting at Del mar with probably the top pro player (of those not using software), a sometimes poster here. We came up with 30 trainers who were moving horses up either currently or recently (in the case of California, or in one case incarceration). Those were just at the major tracks we bet, which does not include West Virginia, both because the pools aren\'t big enough, and so many horses who go there run suspiciously good or bad.
Since that time there have been several names that can be added to the list. I would add that since my friend makes his living betting, he makes it his business to know when somebody starts employing Allday (as happened late last year with someone who had a very good Gulfstream meet), and he sometimes has factual information about someone I\'m not on to yet.
I don\'t know about West Virginia testing as a factual matter, I\'m working on the major tracks first. But I\'ll tell you what I know about a track that recently hosted a big GI and several other stakes. They don\'t blood test for Clenbuterol, they TCO2 test \"a few\" horses (their term), they take blood for that post-race, which as you know is against protocol and useless because it gives much lower readings (and that\'s aside from the issue I have raised here several times that a horse can be given alkalyzing agents and not be \"positive\" because of the requisite levels being so high). That\'s just the two most common drugs-- no EPO testing, of course, that\'s expensive. Think they test for designer drugs?
This is exactly what some did with Madoff. And the SEC still turned a blind eye.
So what do they do when the sheets say \'not kosher\'?
You can\'t wave a sheet at a jury. Presumably they could focus testing, but if it\'s designer or otherwise undetectable there\'s still a problem.
They would have to do undercover work.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One point Rick made (via speaker phone) at the JC
> committee meeting last week was that we had to
> incorporate our (TG) data more into tracking
> move-up trainers, and he\'s a guy who had not seen
> a sheet until a few months ago. He gets it-- you
> track who is doing stuff by tracking performance,
> not by positives. Not by wns-- by quantifying
> performance.
Jerry, I realize that naming specific trainers is a dicey thing. I\'m wondering if it would be any less controversial to discuss which tracks perform more stringent testing, and which do not.
As an example, I was surprised to read that Kentucky (of all places) is testing blood for clenbuterol, when other places are still testing urine -- I was under the impression that you could get away with just about anything in Ky.
Are there other \"surprises\" out there -- states where the perception of effective testing (or lack thereof) doesn\'t match up with reality? In the alternative, can you rank the main racing states, maybe from \"stringent / effective testing\" to \"not stringent/ not effective\"...or would if just cause you more grief?
Rick-- I\'m trying to track down just that information. California is pretty solid. Kentucky was as you describe until this Churchill meet, when they began this well publicized initiative (\"Alliance\"?), and switched labs. They claim they are doing \"supertesting\' on all races, and it looked for a while like they were, and it was effective.
I have no confidence in any other racetrack in this country right now. Woodbine might be okay, not sure.
Boscar-- those jumpup sheets protect me from libel suits, for starters-- I speak from real belief and can back it up. But no-one is suggesting using them to convict anyone-- just to identify and target them. Tracks have limited resources when it comes to testing and freezing.
Jerry,
Your efforts are very honorable..
What if Vegas:
took all the Aces and face cards out of the shoes, loaded the dice and set the slots to only pay off once a year?
How long would the desert stay green?
Now all the tracks,breeders and trainers are pissing and moaning and begging the govment to save their sacred sport by raking some of the take from casinos.
Something doesn\'t seem right here.