A major industry organization has engaged a top research company to do an online survey of serious horseplayers about the problems facing the industry, and has asked us to have our customers participate. Those of you who have accounts with us should be getting an email tonight or tomorrow with a survey attached.
As I say in the cover letter with the survey, most of you at one time or another have complained about these issues and/or offered opinions about what needs to be done to fix things, and now you have a chance to have real input. If you\'re unwilling to take the 10 minutes to do this you have no right to complain about any of it again, ever.
The NTRA players panel from 10 years ago had some great suggestions that were largely ignored by the movers and shakers in the game. Why do we think this time its going to be different?
done
It may or may not be. But the difference is I\'m getting behind this one.
Ditto
It was enjoyable. We should hope for the best.
Thanks
PS: I hope one day Sighthound returns
PS: I hope one day Sighthound returns
.....and while were at it, Chuckles the clown and classhandicapper too
Me, too. Even if it turns out to be nothing else, it was a good venting opportunity-therapeutic. The questions are specific, and very pointed, as though someone is knowledgeable and serious about change. Love that the question of naming the vet made it. I would like to have seen the question, \"what percent of races on an average 9 race card do find unplayable due to medication/PEDs?
Re: LISTEN UP. (34 Views)
Posted by: razzle (IP Logged)
Date: July 30, 2013 08:
\"I would like to have seen the question, \"what percent of races on an average 9 race card do you find unplayable due to medication/PEDs?\"
Raz,
What\'s the answer, how many races? What are the names of the trainers using illegal PEDS, enlighten us.
Mike
... and don\'t forget master red boarder and show bettor extraordinaire NYC 13741...
Unfortunately, for every one of these folks that was excluded for one reason or
another, there are three or four people who brought a lot to the table who have
voluntarily stopped posting...
As to the Survey, this was not created by some Pilgrims who just stepped ashore
and want to determine which way the wind is blowing. As I was completing the
Survey, the words \"self fulfilling prophecy\" kept popping into my head; the
creators of this survey have a pretty good idea, in advance, what the end result
will look like based on the way the questions were worded. In the end, it will be
evident that \"serious\" horseplayers (say they) want their racing clean, want their
offenders punished severely, want regulation and enforcement to come from a
unified body without the interference elected officials. The truth is that talk is
cheap, and that very few gamblers/horseplayers/racing fans that I know have
deserted the game despite all of its problems... and that very few will.
JB, you know I appreciate all you are doing to clean up the game when it would be
just as easy for you to raise the price of the product and cater to a smaller
following, but the accessible, reasonably priced data and the message board allow
you to advance an agenda which is important.
I love all animals, and spent nearly ten years on the backstretch with
thoroughbreds. The amount of veterinary work done, pre and post race, on these
animals, the amount of intravenous and intramuscular intrusions they are subjected
to, is dismaying. The only bright light shining is that the industry seems to be
taking care of some of these animals after their racing days are done, and I think
the people involved in anti slaughter/ equine rescue, in finding a second career
for these thoroughbreds, might well be saving the game.
I would echo Richie\'s sentiments (as usual)
I thought the survey was very well done and it was put together by people who clearly have a good handle on the biggest issues facing racing.
implementing some of the changes I (and I am sure many others) suggested won\'t be easy but at least it\'s a start that a) people want to change what\'s wrong with the game, and b) they know the right issues that need to be changed.
Thanks JB for the efforts here
I did the survey; one thing that I found a little frustrating about the pre-ordained Q&A was that it seemed to leave little room for legal drugs. Unless we are prepared for an extremely rocky transition, I do not think that going completely clean is the answer. Going completely clean may be a great end result, but I would be worried that the patient would not survive the operation (see BC 2yo no lasix experiment, consider changes that would need to happen at the breeding level, etc)
I tried to emphasize that what we needed was uniformity, reliability, and transparency. That does not mean do away with all drugs. It means use the drugs that are to be allowed in a completely uniform way everywhere and make sure the public has access to full information on pharmaceuticals in the racehorses that are racing in public. One example, lasix can be administered at different times and by different people and in different dosages (different states have different rules on dosage levels and times of injection). People may think that a horse doesnt ship well or is a horse for a course looking at its sheet, but the explanation for a preferred jurisdiction could be something as simple as which tracks allow the horse to get the full dosage or at optimal timing.
That\'s the point, Mike. If the vet names are published we can address that question.
SoCal,
very thoughtful comments overall but there was a specific question in there asking about whether we believe race day medications should be allowed and then following up on the uniformity questions so I think the survery covered your concerns there.
by the way, I have been and continue to be ambivalent on the Lasix issue but I can tell you from my own experience running Oscar Party in the BC that she didn\'t run any differently without Lasix than she did on Lasix (she actually ran her best 2 yr old fig in the BC without Lasix) and she came out of the BC race perfectly. So, meaningless sample size of one but my personal experience did nothing to change my ambivalence on this particular topic.
The horses that backed up on the TGs in the BC didn\'t necessarily back up because of no Lasix, it\'s just as if not more likely that they backed up because of the testing for the other stuff they didn\'t get. This is supported by the fact that some of the older horses from those same outfits went backward as well in the BC
Jim-- I agree with your view of the BC, but that\'s not the test for whether it should be legal(as you know). If it\'s banned owners will have an even harder time staing afloat, which will in turn cut field size even more. And bettors will bve dealing with a lot more unknown variables-- at least the ones without acess to inside info.
The date you were looking for is 9/11/12, by the way.
Mike,
A request for \"enlightenment\" should begin with condescension? Who is the \"us\" group you are representing?
Asking in this way, your question seems more like an invitation to a pizzing match rather than a genuine inquiry. No thanks if that\'s the case.
Regarding what I suspect to be the substance of your request, are you taking the position that 100% of races at 100% of the US tracks have outcomes decided by the natural ability of the horse and trainer irrespective of meds/PEDS and who the vet happens to be?
raz
Razzle,
Us are the non Kool Aid drinkers involved in the game for many years that are tired of people of little to no knowledge of what is really going on,spewing venom about the whole game.
Most know that the game has medication issues,but unlike many think, there is little to no evidence of the widespread use of illegal PEDs at the main venues.Most of what is being discussed revolves around the standardization of the use of legal stuff and perhaps prohibiting or restricting its usage.Over years many trainers have mastered the use of the legal stuff and procedures. Shug has ORB taking hyperberic chamber treatments, awful no?
If you took the time to gain knowledge of the power of using legal stuff liberally( some performance enhance)in conjunction with many other legal tools,you may have a different opinion.
If you are convinced that all horses that improve are being illegally moved up, we\'ll just differ.
Mike
Very solid post Mike. bbb
These are sincere questions in reply miff.
You have discussed \"stacking\" before and other examples of legal things that are done for horses to legally run as well as possible. Do you believe this is the trainer that has mastered this? Or do you believe he/she has been able to hire vets that are able to master the chemistry of the game for owners that can afford it?
I am truly curious your thoughts on the situation with Jane Cibelli. A vet, presumably she hired, was injecting a horse\'s knee on race day and got caught. Owner is told by Cibelli that the horse was mistakenly given an antibiotic and a reporter for drf wrote that investigators said the syringe did not contain an antibiotic as claimed. The vet gets kicked off the grounds and ever since Cibelli has not been the same trainer as far as win percentage goes....not even close. This low win percentage carried into the Monmouth meet. This is all reported in Paulick Report and I\'m sure everyone on here is aware of it.
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/vet-caught-injecting-cibelli-horse-suspended-90-days-agrees-to-cooperate/
Now, Miff, I\'m not trying to antagonize or get into a war of words. But you always ask for names, names, names of trainers that are doing nefarious things when people make bold statements that they distrust the game. Obviously JC was not the vet but it is awfully coincidental she couldn\'t win at 30 percent plus since then. In fact, last I saw I think she was approaching 10 percent at Monmouth. So, I\'ll just leave it open ended to keep the discourse open hopefully. What do you make of this situation? I feel like this is just one of the situations where someone got caught doing something many, many trainers or vets are doing. I also think jurisdiction where it happened mattered concerning testing but am open to being persuaded otherwise. Your thoughts?
Mike;
You like to tell people they said things that they never said. No one here is saying there is \"widespread use of illegal PEDs at the main venues\". You just say people say that.
\"If you are convinced that all horses that improve are being illegally moved up, we\'ll just differ.\"
Raz never said that. And try to find one post on this board where anyone said what you wrote. You won\'t find one.
Honest argument is not your strong suit.
Fair,
Stacking,tapping,injecting is widespread throughout the game,more so on the claiming side.Use of needles in joints is often a very effective short term move up procedure. Usually, the claiming move up trainer gets a couple/few improved performances before the horse goes south, on to the next claim.Cibellis vet was caught injecting on race day, a no no.Perhaps that was part of Cibell\'s mo to achieve 30+% win rate.Unaware if Cibelli had any PED positives.Tampa Bay a known cesspool,with nowhere near the scrutiny/testing of NY/Cali/Kentucky.Again here, injecting/tapping old as the hills and not the magic bullet.
Some rogue vets out there along with trainers/owners trying everything under the sun to gain an edge.They remain a small minority until evidence to the contrary becomes widespread.
Mike
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Razzle,
>
> Us are the non Kool Aid drinkers involved in the
> game for many years that are tired of people of
> little to no knowledge of what is really going
> on,spewing venom about the whole game.
>
Miff, apart from the regrettable condescension implied in your comment, the absence of an airtight case proving widespread use of illegal substances is not really going to get the sport off the hook. There have been repeated instances, going back many years, of certain trainers (or certain vets, if you will) engineering remarkable performances with statistically aberrant numbers. The public is not going to be dissuaded by the notion that \"nothing has been proven.\" Until there is uniform, comprehensive testing of the type that has been discussed here repeatedly, it will be a guilty until proven otherwise phenomenon as far as public perception goes, and that translates directly into how much is being pushed through the windows.
Bob,
You could not possibly be following this board without reading the bullshit innuendo of the Kool Aid drinkers with regard to the game being rife with cheating/illegal PEDs et al,without a shred of evidence.
Mike
\"Certain trainers, certain vets\"
.... Yep!
Well done again Mike.
For me, since the Brits and others started buying Northern Dancer colts at any price and making huge coin, the game has changed from a gentlemans\' endeavor to one of profit at all costs. Since the \"score\" on one stallion paid exponential returns; why not buy them ALL.
In the last twenty years the testing has improved immensely as the \"cheaters\" have virtually disappeared; as a percentage.
Someone posted earlier about how many races are \"tainted\" in an average card?
My answer would be \" Somewhere between all of them and none of them\".
If they expounded and asked \"How many races involve illegal drugs?
I would say ONE race nationwide each week*
bbb
* Top ten major tracks
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Certain trainers, certain vets\"
>
> .... Yep!
How about canning the worthless smart-azz remarks and respond to the point of whether public perception is affected by statistically aberrant performances by \"certain trainers and certain vets\" in an environment that does not provide the kind of comprehensive testing that would mitigate these concerns?
Moose,
Testing is far more comprehensive than it was just 10 years ago and its present level of sophistication is world class.More money for testing and select labs could further deter attempts by anyone trying to cheat.
Testing is hardly the big problem at the main venues. No amount of testing can detect an illegal drug for which there is no test.
The public which loses at betting horses in the 90%tile will never believe the game is clean even if it was squeaky.
Mike
miff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Moose,
>
> Testing is far more comprehensive than it was just
> 10 years ago and its present level of
> sophistication is world class.More money for
> testing and select labs could further deter
> attempts by anyone trying to cheat.
>
> Testing is hardly the big problem at the main
> venues. No amount of testing can detect an illegal
> drug for which there is no test.
>
> The public which loses at betting horses in the
> 90%tile will never believe the game is clean even
> if it was squeaky.
>
> Mike
Thank you for the evenhanded response. You\'re correct that a large percentage of the players will assume cheating, regardless. Then there are others, examples of whom are on this board, who believe the problem is greatly overblown. In the gray area are thoughtful players who are skeptical based on \"if it walks like a duck,\" thinking, and there is no shortage of statistical evidence for them to see ducks. If the majority of what is done is entirely legal, as you suggest, then it is incumbent upon the sport to confirm that with as much evidentiary support as can be reasonably generated. If, as you also suggest, the crooks can stay one step ahead of the sheriff, then the sport needs to hire some of the spin doctors who work for the political deviants who keep getting re-elected.
Again, not to be antagonistic. But you want names at main venues and Tampa wasn\'t anything but a known place of nonsense you essentially said. Let\'s try again.
Carla Gaines, Testosterone. Over the 55 nanograms limit (I guess this is a normal level for fillies to be at for testosterone??) What about males that take this supplement....hmmm. I understand the facts of the supplement issue but her argument was over testing procedure to challenge.
Sure sounds performance enhancing.
And is there any ban against steroids other than race day? I mean some have surmised here that a trainer gives a horse the \"juice\" for six months while he is out racing, brings him back xx amount of days later when he won\'t test positive and race him with the benefit of all the training/muscle mass built while on the juice previously but tests clean on race day. Is this still a possibility? I mean watch the espn special 9.79 and this is clearly a strategy around for a long time now.
I\'m doing this on my phone so this is my one post tonight. Mike, you\'re right. Allday admitting to extensive EPO use is not proof enough,and the TDN series made it clear testing is completely adequate.
Allday story ancient history, aren\'t you tired of that played out info?
Lets hear about today!
Mike, I would rather not see the \"who cheats? who doesn\'t?\" argument get adjudicated on a message board, but, until recently anyway, it sure hasn\'t been happening elsewhere. But you insult a lot of people here by lumping anyone who disagrees with you as being effectively in with the tin hat crowd. There is plenty of evidence, but the smoking guns are hard to come by. What\'s also hard to come by is any exculpatory evidence for those who are in the process of being tried by assertion on message boards. And that\'s the industry\'s fault, for not providing the comprehensive, effective testing and transparent reporting that could quiet the skeptics among us.
That statement is exactly what some of the posters don\'t get. Whenever there is above average scrutiny these \"suspects\" cant get their horses to perform. This is no coincidence!T he racing world is no different than other sports where every possible advantage is pursued, legal and illegal. Even when caught and confronted they deny to the end because they know that the case is circumstantial. Blood work is\"off\" but what they used can\'t be detected.
Fairmount1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These are sincere questions in reply miff.
>
> You have discussed \"stacking\" before and other
> examples of legal things that are done for horses
> to legally run as well as possible. Do you
> believe this is the trainer that has mastered
> this? Or do you believe he/she has been able to
> hire vets that are able to master the chemistry of
> the game for owners that can afford it?
>
> I am truly curious your thoughts on the situation
> with Jane Cibelli. A vet, presumably she hired,
> was injecting a horse\'s knee on race day and got
> caught. Owner is told by Cibelli that the horse
> was mistakenly given an antibiotic and a reporter
> for drf wrote that investigators said the syringe
> did not contain an antibiotic as claimed. The vet
> gets kicked off the grounds and ever since Cibelli
> has not been the same trainer as far as win
> percentage goes....not even close. This low win
> percentage carried into the Monmouth meet. This
> is all reported in Paulick Report and I\'m sure
> everyone on here is aware of it.
>
> http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/ve
> t-caught-injecting-cibelli-horse-suspended-90-days
> -agrees-to-cooperate/
>
> Now, Miff, I\'m not trying to antagonize or get
> into a war of words. But you always ask for
> names, names, names of trainers that are doing
> nefarious things when people make bold statements
> that they distrust the game. Obviously JC was not
> the vet but it is awfully coincidental she
> couldn\'t win at 30 percent plus since then. In
> fact, last I saw I think she was approaching 10
> percent at Monmouth. So, I\'ll just leave it open
> ended to keep the discourse open hopefully. What
> do you make of this situation? I feel like this
> is just one of the situations where someone got
> caught doing something many, many trainers or vets
> are doing. I also think jurisdiction where it
> happened mattered concerning testing but am open
> to being persuaded otherwise. Your thoughts?
Cibelli is hitting at something resembling her historical batting average . . . at Delaware. Above that level, not so much . . .
makomaniac Wrote:h
-------------------------------------------------------
> That statement is exactly wat some of the posters
> don\'t get. Whenever there is above average
> scrutiny these \"suspects\" cant get their horses to
> perform.
David Jacobson set a Belmont Park record for wins by a trainer while his barn was
under 24 hour surveillance. Is 24 hour surveillance \"above average scrutiny\"?
I am well aware that I can be DQ\'d from the debate for citing facts, but there they
are.
what are the chances of creating a central pharmacy at all tracks.all meds must come through here.any other found in post race result in immediate suspension of trainer and vet.
Barry Irwin suggested that a few years ago. They do it someplace (Hong Kong)?
JB,
Am I to conclude that you are pro-lasix? I was under the impression (call it an assumption) that you were campaigning for clean, drug-free racing. Now I realize I may have been mistaken, and that what you are campaigning for is only transparency in racing. And is the solvency of some owners and field size the best determining issue behind a pro-lasix stance? If so, do you believe that is really taking a long-term perspective, or as I believe, just a short-term perspective?
This is not a simplistic or naive point. Yes maybe some horses won't be competitive. That means they weren't competitive to start with. With the use of Lasix and clenbuterol, horses with naturally strong cardio-pulmonary systems will not be distinguished from those with weaker, and when the weaker horses find some modicum of success with the help of "theraputic' drugs, and are then sent to the breeders shed, don't you think they will pass along their natural genetics and not the enhancements. Don't get me wrong, I believe medications have their valuable theraputic place in this sport. For one example, in the case of acute soft tissue injury. But being allowed to train and race on medications is a different use altogether. It is a MOST important distinction.
And yes, owners with weaker stock may not stay solvent. And yes also, field size will diminish, but not necessarily. I have believed for some time that for horseracing in the US to face the drug issue AND improve, it must consolidate. Yes, clean racing means fewer tracks and fewer races, and this equals better competition and better betting value. Along this point, there is an excellent article in The Business Review, courtesy of the Paulick Report, that is a discussion/interview with owner Rick Pitino. Here is a link. I highly recommend it. It addresses this very point far better than I can here and now.- The Business Review -Please, everyone, read it. (If the link doesn\'t work, go to The Paulick Report)
As you know, I am not an owner, nor a big time player, but I have spent enough years in many aspects of the industry, including the backstretch to have a first hand experience of medication usage. If anyone hasn't spent time on the backstretch on a day to day basis, they have no idea how much stuff is done to and given to the horses. And now I see the light!!! - That is exactly the problem with achieving transparency - if everyone, especially the public, sees what goes on, many many heads will spin off of many many shoulders for many different reasons because, like it or not, perception is reality. It is mind boggling and can be heart wrenching to see what goes on with the horses - unless you become inured to it. Kind of like war, I guess. Heck, even many owners are in the dark about what exactly is done to their horses. Some trainers eat those vet bills and get it back in the day rate. Richiebee has it right, that the best reform happening in horseracing now is the broadening effort towards second careers for these animals.
I would like to pose two questions to everyone,
First: Is the racehorse an asset or is it a commodity?
Second: Is horseracing primarily a sport or is it a gambling entertainment?
For me, it is the former in both questions. And in that, perspective matters, i.e., short-term vs. long-term. We need a new model with consistent-for-all rules and regulations. We need a new, centralized structure to the management and drug usage/administration. Otherwise, we will just keep applying band-aids to sucking chest wounds. Instead of putting lipstick on a pig, let's be brave!, think the big thoughts, the concepts from which everything flows outward. Worrying about whether or not I know what a horse is getting 3 days out from his next race isn't the root issue. It is subsequent to the present sad state of affairs.
JB, you may consider me a purist at worst, but don't consider me naive or a utopian. I am quite the realist who can see the forest, over the trees. And don't get me wrong, I think we all owe you for your tenacity and intelligence.
JB, forgive me as I could post this to any number of members on this board, but I think it best I post it to you.
About Allday. Why is he such the whipping boy here? I sense some lower aspects of human nature at work in peoples' extreme and constant negative reactions to him. Is he more guilty that any others? Is he alot pregnant and everyone else just a little pregnant? From what I can see about Allday he is:
1.Very smart
2.Fearless
3.Has stones harder than anyone managing any racing jurisdiction, and maybe I should include The Jocky Club there.
4,And last but not least, he is rich. Not by needles, but by his other, very legal, products.
I am not arguing he is good or bad for racing. I am not defending him. He is just one of many. He is just far smarter and more successful and that alone puts a target on anyone\'s back. (JB, you should be able to relate to this.) So, even if he did introduce EPO into the industry, it seems quite a few followed suit and enthusiastically jumped onboard. Anyone giving up their purse money over it? Or their wagering coups? Pointing fingers won't change anything. Arguing about how much cheating is or isn't going on, or who is the biggest cheater, is a distraction of spinning wheels and misses the greater point, which to me, is the overuse of legal meds and short-cut theraputic? procedures. And either you are pregnant or you are not. There is no grey area there.
Allday admitted to cheating on a massive scale. If others do or get nailed I\'ll put their names up in lights too.
Several good questions in the other post, if I have time before I head up to Saratoga I\'ll try to answer them. But for now, here\'s the question I posed to the head of the Jockey Club, who raised the same issue-- if the position is that letting horses run on lasix weakens the breed in the long run, why stop there? Why allow horses to run that have had throat operations, or other surgery? And if the position is a purist one (which you are not taking, but others do), why allow blinkers, or gelding horses?
By the same logic, if you allow Lasix, why not allow EPO or any and all meds?
As far as surgeries go, very valid point. Let\'s take one quick example. Periosteal stripping. I can see it being allowed in order for the foal to have a chance at making it to the races, but this information must be fully disclosed and must follow the horse throughout its career, indeed, lifetime. Hence the medical \"passport\" idea.
Yes, we have to draw lines. My biggest point is that is is imperative to keep the long term health of the breed, and hence the sport, clearly in our sights. Lasix is on the wrong side of the line for me. Centralization is key - and anyone elected to a position of authority in such a model may not be allowed to have a conflict of interest.
I look forward to your response to the other post, but take your time. Enjoy the Spa!
(Could you pass along any inside tips you get there?! Ha ha, my wicked humor.)
I believe that initially Jacobson was very, very cold after the surveillance began. Then, he heated up. Grenig reported this story both initially and after the meet. Grenig\'s statements regarding the continued surveillance were based on Jacobson\'s comments to him the way I read the article. Was there ever any NYRA confirmation of this surveillance or what exactly it included?
I feel like there were more facts to the Jacobson story and I\'d love to know them. It is fascinating how he transitioned from a cold streak as stated on this board to white hot thereafter.
I did my best also. FWIW I have concerns about how we can grow the game when there probably needs to be some contraction. And if you contract how do you maintain or hold or even grow the fan base in markets. Medication obviously is and was a major part of everything else I discussed.
Well done by the sponsors!!!
Btw, i was also happy they asked for our input out of the gate. one question
was blanket type in its form regarding meds. I\'m pro Lasix.
One issue that I think needs to be faced but isn\'t getting enough attention is transition. If we are going to go from wild wild west to a hay,oats, and water regime, well, that is fine as an end result 10 years from now, but if you take horses who were conceived for one game and have them running in another game, you are looking at some real dislocations up and down the line and could easily result in the transition doing more harm than good.
If there is going to be a severe change, then they need to do something like announce NOW that produce of 2014 breedings will have to run without pharmaceutical help. That way, it is up to breeders making UPCOMING breeding decisions about what are they going to do....and then all down the line, people will be ready for crops coming that have to race under different rules. Once this first crop gets old enough, the game can then be permanently changed and people will have had enough forewarning to plan for the transition. However, the produce of 2014 breedings wont be 5 year olds until 2020, so we are looking at a lengthy period. Of course, in 2017, 2yo racing would be clean, 2018 -- 2yo and 3yo racing.....may need to have vintaged condition books for a few years......but this is a logical and orderly way to do it. I found the no lasix 2yo breeders cup races unfairly jarring, but would not find them so if an orderly transition was announced.
Excellent point. I like to believe there are enough good minds in this industry to figure it out.
If I may add another thought to this discussion. Everyone feel free to correct me if my facts are off or if you feel I am generalizing too much.
Back in the 80\'s, then Pres. Reagan changed tax laws that radically effected ownership in the thoroughbred industry. Many tax-breaks were taken and away, and as a consequence many of the smaller, old school farms disappeared. At the time, many of them raced their homebreds, they could take care of their turnouts and layups themselves, and finally they could retire them. Those farms that survived had a hard time and most had to change their business model to do so. A lot of stock went to sale. As change begets change, a new ownership model came into being, namely large partnerships composed of mainly fans, but few, if any horseman but those in the management of it. The dominant profile of ownership changed. These partnerships, for legitimate business reasons, had to predicate their model on a quick turnaround because a large percentage of their clients were either not of the mind or means to invest in a horse for 3 or 4 years before it could get to a race, and then, it might not. It was important not to let these new owners sour on the business. After all, as everyone knows, the owners write the checks. A return on investment had to be quick if this model was to succeed.
So the nature of breeding changed. The era of \"cheap speed\" was born. and, I believe, drugs became more prevalent to keep them running with less turnout and time in general allowed to the horses. Lasix opened the door to raceway medications. (One of its uses was, and continues to be as a masker to other drugs administered outside of the rules.)
SoCal, your point is very important. Especially about the need for thoughtful transition in the breeding shed. That is where it all starts.
The business can change again.
Cat-- coupla things.
First, you can have a gambling business without it being a sport, but you can\'t have this sport without it working as a business. What you would have would be the hunt meets they have down your way.
Second, Lasix solves a physical problem. EPO does something entirely different. Clenbuterol is somewhere in between. But that\'s why Lasix was made legal, and as importantly, why it\'s listed in the program-- bettors need to know the problem has been solved, otherwise some people have a huge information edge.
Does that mean I\'m okay with the way Lasix is treated now? No. The original rule was fine-- track vets administered it, and you had to show you really bled to get it. They stopped doing that because tracks didn\'t want to spend the money. If they went back to that system they would greatly reduce the percentage of horses on Lasix. And as far as it being a performance enhancer, as I said in the 2012 BC seminar, cursory analysis looks like it\'s worth about a point. So you could make horses who use it carry a 5 pound penalty.
JB, JB, JB, Honey, Darling, Daddy,
That response does not seriously address anything except your own vested interests in keeping Lasix around. Yes, numerous numbnuts will surround you with cheers, but we both know they don\'t think for themselves. Lucky you, but poor me and my like.
Proof - your website clearly states advertisements are not allowed but you recently allowed (like the BloodHorse print publication has had to do to stay in print) what are really advertisements disguised as articles. Remember, the one about calcium depletion with Lasix - but was promoting a new product to replace calcium and so wel could all keep using Lasix happily everafter. As if calcium depletion is the biggest problem with Lasix. Is that the problem it addresses? Or EIPH? Are there not other consequences? You are being supremely disingenuous. How terrrribly disappointing. Even hypocritical.
You simply and completely failed to address the \"several other good questions\" at all. Rather, you avoided them. Are you surrounded by numbnuts buzzing in your ear as we speak? Pesky aren\'t they.
Belittling me will get you nowhere. It only makes you look short-sighted and small-minded. Maybe you\'re not as smart as I thought. You might think Allday is a problem for the business, but I am beginning to think you are as much so with your very personal agenda masquerading as a crusader for reform. You just want it easy for yourself. Don\'t you run a partnership dependant upon the less knowledgeable than you?
It is short-sighted,non-creative thinkers like yourself that can\'t see a business here without Lasix. What else would you like to allow? Undisclosed periostal stripping to start? Foolish you, not me.
Be brave JB, think the big thoughts.
Whaaaa?
The only thing worth addressing there is the advertising thing. Didn\'t know we said that anywhere (though we more or less have a policy, for the moment), and we didn\'t get paid for the calcium thing you think is an ad.
I\'ll try to be brave.
Whaaaa? is my question.
Do you deny that Lasix has performance enhancing properties?
What were the \"several good questions\" you originally acknowledged?
I know you are at the Spa, enjoy yourself, but please, don\'t try to be brave. Be brave.
1-- only to the limited degree I described.
2-- I answered the good ones over two posts.
3-- I didn\'t leave yet. No shot I would be in this conversation up there.
You want to lighten up on the personal attacks. That\'s me being extraordinarily nice about it.
1, Well you are wrong, check the facts. You wrote \"it solves a physical problem\" but you mention no problem. So, do you mean EIPH? How does it \"solve\" it? How so? Please be specific. And I know you must know there are other performance enhancing properties subsequent to its use. Either you are playing dumb or are uniformed.
2. Really? How subjective.
3. This a conversation? Genuine conversation requires listening, not merely hearing. Have a good time when you can get away.
Didn\'t realize you were so sensitive. I get the oblique putdowns, but they don\'t deter me. You are silly to try to blow off the idea of racing without Lasix as merely hunt meets from down here. Get off your high New York horse and look around.
Rest easy, I can ban myself. Beginning to wonder if it is worth my while anyway.
If you disagree, convince me.
Not interested in convincing you, too busy trying to solve the drug problem for my own personal advantage. And yeah, that\'s exactly what I said-- racing without Lasix is a hunt meeting.
Yes, numerous numbnuts will surround you with cheers, but we both know they don\'t think for themselves. Lucky you, but poor me and my like.
If you seriously mean numbnuts i must say they don\'t tingle like they used to
since approching 50 years old. If you meant numbskull,now that\'s an entirely
new ball of wax. Performance enhancing in the sense that it\'s similar to an
unsound horse on painkillers is total rubbish. Performance advantage possibly.
Not this extreme, but in the sense of one guy wearing air jordans and the other
wearing Chuck Taylors. Pre and post Lasix admin testing, more sophisticated testing , random testing with much harsher penalties, etc.. . As far as discontinued use of Lasix because of pollution to the gene pool, I\'ll need some
real proof.
Catnapper:
I was the one that posted the article re/ KER. Seriously pal, if I were schilling for them do you think I would have chosen this forum?
Although the way you brought and bring attention to the article may make you worthy of a Thank You at the very least.
Go to their website, KER. Oops, there\'s that schill thing again. Familiarize yourself with their work and then decide how important advertising on Thorograph is to them.
Start on this page:
http://www.ker.com/library/PublishedResearch/
Thanks, Jerry for sending this out. I did my part and I know you will keep us informed on how we can continue to make racing the best we all deserve!
I\'m not filling out any survey, talk abt perpetually pissing into the wind and I will be complaining forever.
the posts regarding drugs are hysterical-they will always beat the system. Players will always whine about it, and some small ignorant faction of pea brains will delude themselves into not playing from it.
the only problem facing the sport that matters is the usurious take out.
the people that know a little but think they know a lot aka doctors, lawyers, brokers etc know enough to not play.
unlike these people who are doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome as the last million times-
I surveyed 120 people who bet poker and sports online but not racing. They will break the law because those things are beatable unlike horse racing which unless one is getting the best rates and the best information is not.
Coin flip amongst many serious players, takeout or pool integrity, takeout by a nose!