As I have said on past occasions on this board, I am very concerned that drug use is prevalent even at the highest levels of racing and I know that many others, including top trainers and owners share this concern. What is encouraging is that people at the top levels of racing are finally starting to take real action. For example:
1) They announced that this year\'s BC would have new extensive, enhanced drug testing
2) Next year all graded stakes will be required to do similar extensive enhanced drug testing
3) Beginning on 11/1, NY will begin testing for EPO and suspending horses (interesting penalty) that test positive.
4) This is more talk than action right now but there is an initiative underway to try and standardize drug rules across racing jurisdictions.
Who knows what sort of impact these changes will have either short term or long term but at least they are doing something and I applaud them for that.
My biggest argument for really cracking down on this is that EVERYONE who excels today is immediately under suspicion. In some cases, the suspicion is probably justified and in others it is probably not. Until/unless racing gets cleaned up and the cheaters start getting caught and punished it will be very difficult to distinguish talent from chemistry.
Absent a \"smoking gun\" is there any good \"objective\" way to spot the bad guys? Because of all the \"noise,\" probably not; however, looking at the sheet figures earned by horses may provide some insight.
For illustration purposes, let\'s pick the most visible and most controversial trainer as an example: Bobby Frankel. He has had a phenomenal year. Nobody will argue that. Is it because his training ability and racing stock are vastly superior than all of his peers or is it for some other less laudable reason?
I don\'t claim to have a definitive answer but results from this year\'s Breeder\'s Cup certainly help fuel existing suspicions. True, it is only one day and there are other possible explanations for the poor showing by most of his runners, but the objective numbers seem to tell a compelling story.
Let\'s start by looking at the last 90 day stats. Keep in mind this is all recent data.
According to the new \"sneak preview\" TG stats - in the last 90 days, Frankel had 76 starters and 22% of those runners ran a new top and only 5 percent of them ran an \"X.\" That means that only 4 horses ran an X for Frankel during the last 90 days! Compare that to the overall average for all starters (36% ran X) or for all stakes horses (30% ran X).
Now let\'s look at the figs earned compared to the tops for all the Frankel runners in the 2003 BC:
Horse, Top, BC Fig, Category (as defined in Sneak Preview)
Sightseek, -3, 3.75, X
Peace Rules, -0.5, 12.25, X
Aldebaran, -4, 1.75, X
Midas Eyes, -2.75, 5.5, X
Heat Haze, 2.75, 4, Off
Megahertz, 4, 4.25, Pair
Tates Creek, 2, 5.75 (lame), Off - but a quarter point from an X
Medaglio D'oro, -2.25, -1.5, Pair
In summary, Bobby Frankel had as many runners X in the first 4 Breeder\'s Cup races as in his last 76 starters! You could certainly make a lot excuses for his BC starters including distance, competition, surface, pace, layoffs, weather, racing luck, etc. but you have to figure that his prior 76 runners had faced just as many such negative circumstance and potential excuses and still only 4 of them ran an X.
Even with this small sample, it is fairly obvious that there was probably some other \"intervention\" that led to the dramatic change in the numbers. The most obvious, at least to me, is the much publicized, new, rigorous testing for this year\'s BC. This may not be THE explanation and, as many have already stated, we will never really know but it is nice to think that just maybe the latest actions will \"level\" the playing field in graded stakes races and talent will shine through over chemistry (at least for a while).
Cheers.
Chris
Horses are individuals. It is possible for a trainer to discover a horse\'s \"hole card\" and improve its ability level. It is next to impossible to do so time and time again overnight. Isn\'t it \"objective evidence\" when almost every horse in a large stable improves the same amount at the same time? When most of the horses the trainer gets from other good trainers improve close to this same amount in their first start with him? On Saturday, didn\'t many of these horses back up roughly the same amount, which wasn\'t that far off the improvement this trainer routinely gets in their first start in his barn?
I wouldn\'t \"be concerned\".
Drug use is prevalent even at the small tracks...harness included.
EPO is an expensive drug. My understanding is that the \'small\' guys are buying the dated (expired) stock.
This stuff should be discarded according the the FDA and, thereofre, is cheaper. Most dated stock retains potency as the FDA is very stringent on dating.
Every track in the country has that trainer or two who, when he acquires new stock, you can just upgrade their figures by a few points.
I find it best to note \'jump up\' trainers at the smaller secondary venues as they tend to cycle in and out of periods of outperformance. (probably related to the supply of illegals they can obtain from time to time.)
JMHO
Bob
With regards to Frankel, here\'s another possible explanation for his poor record in the BC. I\'m not saying whether I believe it or not, just throwing it out there.
There are about a gazillon graded races throughout the year. Maybe, he is just better than most at spotting his horses. Obviously, money is not an issue when thinking about where to ship. If he is better than everyone else at picking his sports, then that would explain his amazing record througouth the year. But the BC is a different animal. There\'s no ducking anyone there. Everyone points for it (except Perfect Drift, haha), and the races are much higher in quality with regards to the depths of the fields.
Just another thing to think about,
CC