Horses will run in this Derby that are on EPO. This is a relatively recent development in performance enhancing drugs ... maybe three or four years old. The question: does this effect the animals Thorograph numbers, race to race? I believe that it probably does and I also believe that there are at least two runners in this Derby who have exhibited all the traits of an EPO laced winner...they come to the head of the lane and they rebreak. Other horses slow in the lane. EPO horses maintain their speed. Barring any unforeseen running problems, this Derby is likely to be won by one of these horses.
Horses that run with EPO show the characteristics that you refer too. Another trait they seem to share is their ability to run good numbers for long periods of time. Trainers using the cheaper raceday type stimulants and such rarely get more than two or three good numbers before their charges begin to decline. Generally speaking, I\'d be surprised if anyone\'s using EPO on anything other that top quality stock. The stuff is just too expensive.
However, in terms of that \"re-break\" running style there was a guy in S Florida this winter who had a slew of cheap claimers jump up like that only to fall off the face of the earth after 3 starts. I have an idea about what he used and it wasn\'t EPO.
Catalin
Alm,
I am guessing that you are referring to either Indian Express and Peace Rules or possibly Funny Cide. All three did the re-break trick in recent races. However, Pat Day has been getting horses to re-break for years and some horses are just game (Affirmed and John Henry come to mind - they both cost me some money betting against them because of that same nasty habit) so I don\'t know if that is necessarily an indication of EPO.
That being said, I think your observation is right on with regard to some Derby entrants likely running in the Derby \"EPO-enhanced.\" For all we know, they may all be on the stuff. I read in one column that someone suggested that all Derby entrants be tested for EPO and the results be made public. Sounds like a good idea but I doubt that it would ever happen.
EPO supposedly enhances stamina so it certainly may change the dynamics of the Derby. Horses whose breeding and running style would limit their chances in past years may now have a shot a much better shot at getting the Derby distance. We will have to wait and see.
Keep in mind that EPO is probably only the tip of the iceberg...
Cheers.
Chris
According to this EPO kills horses.
http://www.racingnsw.com.au/page.asp?parm=vet.EPO
Oops..wrote an answer and then seemed to delete it. Let me start again.
When I got involved in racing in the sixties the greatest trainers of the time might win 20% if they had a good meeting, but rarely did anyone win 30%, year in and out...in fact I don\'t think anyone ever did for very long.
Since this EPO thing got started, however, 30% has become commonplace for a growing list of trainers at a lot of tracks and I believe that there is a connection. Unlike some people, however, I don\'t think that this is pervasive...I think that the vast majority of horsemen are not using the stuff and cost is not the reason.
Do we really think, for example, that Allen Jerkens or Bill Mott can\'t afford EPO? I think, simply, that they have scruples. Some other guys don\'t.
One of the horses you named is probably using it...but I don\'t think that Funny Cide is one of them. His finish in the Wood was not a rebreak, to my eye, but simply a game run. He only appeared to be coming on again,due to EM\'s goofing off and switching leads down the lane. The fact is that EM and Bailey were toying with FC and I would not take FC as a serious threat in the Derby.
If you want to figure out who the other EPO candidate is, take a look at the trainers\' leader board. The drug has been around for about four years. Which formerly \'good\' trainer has emerged as the Western World\'s \'best\' trainer in that period?
Who was Barry Irwin referring to in his Blood Horse op ed piece on EPO a year ago, when he pointed the finger and said \"we know who you are and what you are doing?\" He didn\'t name anyone, and I won\'t, because I don\'t need the grief either...but I cashed a bet on the Belmont when this trainer\'s animal outran his form to take a big piece of the purse...calculating that he would take the chance he was afraid to take in the Derby and Preakness and use the stuff.
This year he seems ready to take the chance in the Derby.
Hey, I could be wrong and some honest deserving horse and trainer might win the Derby. Pat Day might pull a Lil E Tee and circle the field with a clean horse; Biancone might prove to be the great trainer that he is and hone Brancusi to do his thing on the right day at the right time.
But I doubt it. Those guys are running for second place this year. Or maybe third.
I wasn\'t implying that a Mott or a Jerkens couldn\'t afford EPO. What I was trying to point out was that at about $2,000 per month per horse, EPO isn\'t cost effective if you trained a stable full of claimers. There are other drugs that mimic some of the effects of EPO in the short term (about 3 starts or so) at a much lower cost, and without the downtime (from what I know it takes about a month on EPO before you start to see any results). It\'s probably these cheaper race day doping agents that most of the 30% claiming trainers are using.
Interesting insight...many thanks....could it be that the guy in Florida had a volume discount? He sure claimed and won with a ton of horses.
Just kidding. The real bottom line for me isn\'t about betting. It\'s about the chance that ANY owner has competing against these people.
One of the Florida guy\'s horses ran my best horse into the ground and it left a very bad taste in my mouth. He clearly did it on something, as he was stepping way up in company, had never run that way before, got bet down heavily at the post, and fell apart in a similar spot about a month later.
They don\'t mix, of course, and no one in his right mind who was trying to win the race would give his horse a human sedative. But what about an allegedly crooked vet who treats many more than one of the entrants. I\'m talking about the one & only Alex Harthill, the man many say is the person who really decides who is going to win the big race. To this day Jimmy Croll maintains that Holy Bull was given Halcion so that he would lose, & wouldn\'t you know it, there never was a post race urine test. And as you will see if you read Billy Reed\'s excellent article at http://snitch.myiglo.com/000030.html, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that Harthill was involved in that & a no. of other Derby incidents. Ironically, in the Derby you may have to be more concerned about drugs which would cause your horse to lose than drugs which are supposed to improve your chances of winning.
Can u check that link for accuracy? Couldn\'t link to it and wanna have a look see. Of course I am skeptical of most web sites cept this one...lol
http://www.louisville.com/snitchdisplay.html?article=12188
Try www.louisville.com/snitch and click on the \"Louisville\" link, it is an interesting read.
Yeah and Jimmy Croll raced Holy Bull against Cigar the following year at Gulfstream(to collect an appearance fee) on a leg with a filling, taking the chance that it wouldn\'t break the horse down.
Of course, that\'s one that he couldn\'t use as an excuse for losing.
OK, I\'ll bite. What horses is Harthill associated with in this year\'s derby?
I agree with you on Jerkens. Mott, however, I beg to differ,as Cigar is sterile, arguably suffering the effects of a drug induced career.
Beautiful! Thanks for posting this enlightening article.
Interesting thought...you are probably right, but I can\'t understand why the guy has taken a dive in recent years...
I don\'t know what to make of that story for sure. Don\'t like where its published \"Snitch\" lol. And I don\'t understand why the reporter didn\'t get up and tear into Harthill. The most important punch is the first, but he was cognizant he should have evened it up right there.
What I do know for certain is that I read enough to make me believe Harthill should be banned from the backside and if that can\'t be done and he still has access and I had a horse in the derby I would not allow Harthill anywhere near him, period. I would post a guard while stabled at Churchill. They will always find ways of getting an edge though as Harthill stated in regard to Northern Dancer\'s Derby. That will never stop. In the end the horse they mojo up still has to have innate ability and you can handicap that and factor mojo.
The part about Shug being worried by Harthill and or Whittingham was poignant. I think Churchill slop beat Easy though just as it did in the B.C. Juvenile the year before.
Tabi
If they give Harthill a polygraph ,they better give him a post test urine as well.
I heard about the Shoe misjudging the finish line in the 57 Derby, I wonder what he has to say about it now? That\'s why I do my best not to bet Kentucky track, the Derby/Oaks is different but maybe not for long.