the Belmont distance adds so many unknowns for CC to win the TC
those same variables affect the competition too
Many things seem to indicate \"all systems go\"
The horse reportedly training well over the Belmont surface
weather looks to be good. He has handled large crowds calmly
His jock has had the TC experience before, is getting some rides there beforehand
While he may not get the distance, there is also the chance he obliterates this field by many horse lengths. His tactical speed is clearly an advantage
Yes, I\'m going to have some backups to CC, but be prepared for an historic win by him too...
Define \"many horse lengths\".
\"Tremendous machine\" lengths
Yeah, Secretariat was the greatest, but he only had 3 other tired horses in that field...
That\'s not an answer, unless you\'re saying 31. Against the whole field.
How about I just pick one, and you give me, oh, 8?
smithkent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I\'m going to have some backups to CC, but be
> prepared for an historic win by him too...
hi smith.
what does \"have some backups\" mean?
Significantly more likely CC misses the board than wins by 8 lengths.
Interesting bet, like a point spread
There would have to be serious $$ to cash for a bet to equal Belmont 1973
No, I\'m saying that unexpected greatness is possible, just like the possibility of abject failure. We all have become used to the bad outcomes for so long that it\'s hard to think it could be otherwise
Smarty Jones and Big Brown ran against much weaker fields than CC will face, comparatively speaking.
No locks at 12f,unknown territory regardless of breeding, accomplishments or figs.
For me, backups with multiple other horses in pick 3 and pick 4
Exactas with multiple horses without CC
wide superfecta wheel/box with no CC
With all backups, include the absolute longest shots, even if you think absolutely no way by standard deterministic methods. If they have 4 legs they can win.
Weird things happen, though I hope not this Saturday.
I took my elderly father to the Santa Anita Derby this year, and want him to see a Triple Crown winner.
There\'s another unknown this time, involving a nasal strip.
If you take out the pre-strip figures it\'s a different sheet.
I think I heard MLB is going to start letting guys use aluminum bats.
smithkent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me, backups with multiple other horses in pick
> 3 and pick 4
> Exactas with multiple horses without CC
> wide superfecta wheel/box with no CC
>
> With all backups, include the absolute longest
> shots, even if you think absolutely no way by
> standard deterministic methods. If they have 4
> legs they can win.
>
> Weird things happen, though I hope not this
> Saturday.
>
> I took my elderly father to the Santa Anita Derby
> this year, and want him to see a Triple Crown
> winner.
ok, thanks.
you don\'t like the 4-5 shot enough to single him. you think some bets against the horse are smart. fair enough.
I wish you and your father a great day. it should be a lot of fun.
Only if they were registered Bar Mitzvah gifts and used through High School and College.
Actually, it\'s a known unknown
CC gets to use it, another factor in his favor I suppose
I followed the wailing and gnashing of teeth here about that, but don\'t think it is what made him so good. You have to allow for the possibility that his numbers got better for reasons of training and maturation. You will need a controlled experiment to prove a horse can improve by leaps and bounds by simply placing a nasal strip on.
He is a freak, not a fraud.
Will all the other Belmont contenders be \"stripping up\"? At least it will be visible, not like drugs.
Let\'s see Saturday...
They can show the world how little it means by not using it.
Equibase says tracks don\'t report it so they don\'t. Tracks say people can\'t always see whether a horse has one, so reporting would be hit or miss. If you get really really close to the paddock, maybe you\'ll know about the rest of the field Saturday.
I hear one guy\'s got a light weight oxygen tank. Legal, no problem.
Yeah, it was probably \"maturation\". Very sudden maturation. Followed by no bounces. Cause that happens all the time.
was staying out of this discussion but think your emotions are letting you lowering yourself to the level of this discussion. Yes the horse jumped with the equipment change, but to overly simplify it to this level is amusing. Think its time I started buying and claiming horses again; just going to start using strips... common
Nowhere have I said it will have the same effect on all horses, just as it doesn\'t with all people-- a point I made about 100 posts ago.
Again-- it\'s easy enough. Run without it, shut me up.
And since there is exactly ONE horse in the world they would have changed the NY rule for, this is one of the biggest piles of crap I have ever seen.
Not arguing that point you have it exactly correct on how NY handled it. I\'m just saying \"logically\" speaking I can\'t attribute the string of efforts to just the strip.
Equipment change information is horrendous across the board. Lord of Love won Saturday as a 1st Gelding, was not on the NYRA site or anywhere disclosed as a change. A horse changes the type of blinkers they use and wins; we will never know, the equipment modification is not disclosed in the data. This is all data you should be able to track and can\'t because its not disseminated in the data you get form equabase...Just saying this points to bigger issue of disclosure and the way the data is communicated to players.
Not expecting it. Espinoza is a veteran jock he will only ask the horse to do what he Needs to do to win. If the horse goes to the lead on his own he could wire the field.
With everyone making a deal regarding equipment changes on Chrome the biggest change was going to Espinoza.
I personally think Chrome is still improving.
Good luck
Even worse, I\'ve actually heard rumors that the American League is going to let teams use something called a \"designated hitter\" that won\'t even have to play defense. How does that grab you?
Ken
kencbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even worse, I\'ve actually heard rumors that the
> American League is going to let teams use
> something called a \"designated hitter\" that won\'t
> even have to play defense. How does that grab
> you?
>
> Ken
That would not be fair. Pitchers, like say David Price ($10M per year), could throw at the heads of batters, like say David Ortiz ($14M per year) and not have to fear retaliation? That would be ridiculous!
Completely agree. This is not so much a rule change as a money grab.
You\'re right, all rule changes are the same. Letting players use performance enhancing equipment is exactly the same thing. Especially in a game based completely on betting.
wouldn\'t the offical who checks the horses tatoo number under his lip be close enought to know if any horse has the strip on? Seems pretty easy to me. I mean, that offical is there to make sure the horse who is registred of the race, is the one saddled for the race & not a ringer.
he Belmont distance adds so many unknowns for CC to win the TC
Right! FAST horse, but one of his lowest speed #\'s was going a 1 1/4
those same variables affect the competition too
this 3yo crop is nothing to right home about, but he\'s had a lot go his way and NOT his competitors way. there are some horses in race that have some talent and look the part for 1 1/2. Also, GROD won\'t let CC walk. GROD has speed.
Many things seem to indicate \"all systems go\"
[color=#FF0033]yeah a nasal strip. Sherman said \"we would not go without nasal strip.\" Come on, not go w/o a strip??[/color]
The horse reportedly training well over the Belmont surface
big deal..he\'s a nice horse and fit as can be right now. looks horrible in gallops..btw. Although when looking at horses it\'s nice to see a little something off. too perfect is a bad sign. Which may be good for him.
weather looks to be good. He has handled large crowds calmly
there\'s no bigger stage than the Derby and more horses. not even worth mentioning.
His jock has had the TC experience before, is getting some rides there beforehand ...
jock won\'t cost him this race. CC has speed, victor does what he wants.
While he may not get the distance, there is also the chance he obliterates this field by many horse lengths. His tactical speed is clearly an advantage
IF He don\'t get the distance, he don\'t win....PERIOD! This is 1 1/2 at BIG sandy for TC and you just went 1 1/4 and 1 3/16..there is no fakin. This isn\'t a turf race.
Yes, I\'m going to have some backups to CC, but be prepared for an historic win by him too...
Secretariat like performance within 20 lengths of 31 doesn\'t warrant a hedge of any kind. Believe or die cause that\'s what chrome is on Saturday. He will have it close to his own way again... 1.5 or pack it.
Navigate: Previous Message•Next Message
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote T
This issue has more legs here than a Jay Z story on TMZ. I hate to be anal retentive about language, but the rule in question here stated \"only equipment specifically approved by the stewards shall be worn or carried by a jockey or horse in a race.\" So, if I understand this correctly, there was no \"rule\" against nasal strips, only a practice of prohibiting them, based on this discretionary power. So, I get the consternation about inconsistency of application of such discretionary power, but am I the only one who thinks the travesty is the discretionary power itself? Now, I\'m sure there have to be instances where you need this kind of safety net coverage for equipment anomalies that can\'t be accounted for systematically, but nasal strips have not been a novelty item for quite a few years. How can this, and other equipment uncertainties be left solely to the whim of three individuals whether you\'re talking about a potentially history making race or a state bred claimer? It\'s our same wagering dollar on the line, regardless.
\"Forget it, Jake, it\'s Chinatown.\"
You are thinking logically, and that has no place in this game. Way too easy.
Wasn\'t there also a jockey change with the jump up? How much difference does a jockey make? Tough to quantify.
JB, how healthy is NY racing or all of racing for that matter? Do you think it would have been smarter for them to have disallowed the strip, risked having the horse pass the race and potentially lose every positive piece of publicity associated with the Triple Crown? Over a freaking bandaid! Imagine if they had. Would you feel better now?
A money grab due to increased publicity and handle means lower takeout.
Yes. And it\'s not a close call. It either makes a difference or it doesn\'t. If it doesn\'t, run without it.
OK. It does make a difference. Now what?
Then he shouldn\'t be allowed to use it. For the same reason race day Clenbuterol is banned. And tons of other performance enhancers.
The problem is how they allowed the change to the \"rule\". In some of the other sports , for example professional football if a rule change is implemented it is done at the beginning of the next season. Not in the middle of the season. This rule was changed in the middle of the season . I would have liked to see if the connections of CC would have skipped the Belmont if the nasal strip was not allowed. Am not sure who said they would skip the race , but one of CC\'s connections must have said it and that speaks volumes as to how CC\'s connections view the uses of the nasal strip. I can go on and on with this one but....
that rule change wasn\'t made in the middle of the season either.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There\'s another unknown this time, involving a
> nasal strip.
>
> If you take out the pre-strip figures it\'s a
> different sheet.
>
> I think I heard MLB is going to start letting guys
> use aluminum bats.
New jockey, also different shoes. Many things could have made the difference other than the Nasal Strip.
Not a very good analogy.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then he shouldn\'t be allowed to use it. For the
> same reason race day Clenbuterol is banned. And
> tons of other performance enhancers.
What about Lasix?? Do all horses bleed?? If they don\'t, why do they use it?? Because it improves performance??
Whats the difference?? Have non bleeders stay off Lasix. Why don\'t you rail against that?? Because any horse can use it. Just like any horse can use a nasal strip.
You are getting hot and bothered over a nasal strip. Its extraordinary that this is the only horse on earth, or at least running in the Belmont, that this nasal strip anoints such extraordinary powers. Really??
You have no proof, none, that it is the nasal strip that has caused the improvement. You ignore the jockey, shoes, or any number of things.
joemama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is how they allowed the change to the
> \"rule\". In some of the other sports , for example
> professional football if a rule change is
> implemented it is done at the beginning of the
> next season. Not in the middle of the season.
> This rule was changed in the middle of the season
> . I would have liked to see if the connections of
> CC would have skipped the Belmont if the nasal
> strip was not allowed. Am not sure who said they
> would skip the race , but one of CC\'s connections
> must have said it and that speaks volumes as to
> how CC\'s connections view the uses of the nasal
> strip. I can go on and on with this one but....
Baseball just changed a rule during the season. The transfer rule from glove to hand. Bad rule, they changed it. In May.
I am not sure what that rule is , Does changing it in the middle of the season make it right. This leads to another issue that is bigger than horse racing , the general attitude towards rules and regulations, that is that people are paying attention to the ones they want and ignoring the ones they don\'t like. This goes from simply running a red light to the highest authority in our land. What\'s the sense in even having rules if we are going to change them at a moments notice to serve the purpose that is at hand at the moment?
IF nasal strip has no influence on performance then why were the connections of CC feel so strongly about skipping the Belmont if the strip wasn\'t allowed?
That\'s a young lady who has been id\'ing horses for some years at NYRA. Timing problem to get info from paddock to TV truck to add info to crawl very quickly.
Most NYRA equipment changes listed on their site by 11:OO am, so it would be no different than reporting a blinker change, bar shoe etc. Easily done if they really wanted to.
More nonsense.To the extent there is data to support the nasal strip reduces EIPH,NYS Equine Director Dr.Scott Palmer conferred w/KY and Cali equine directors,reviewed the data, made the change, a no brainer.
Palmer a breath of fresh air, early on not even close to the usual politically appointed stooges.Guy is very open minded on transparency issues relative to disclosure of medical records and other player relevant \"stuff\" that were stonewalled by NYSRWB/NYRA.
joemama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem is how they allowed the change to the
> \"rule\". In some of the other sports , for example
> professional football if a rule change is
> implemented it is done at the beginning of the
> next season. Not in the middle of the season.
> This rule was changed in the middle of the season
> . I would have liked to see if the connections of
> CC would have skipped the Belmont if the nasal
> strip was not allowed. Am not sure who said they
> would skip the race , but one of CC\'s connections
> must have said it and that speaks volumes as to
> how CC\'s connections view the uses of the nasal
> strip. I can go on and on with this one but....
No \"rule\" was changed. The \"rule\" said it was up to the discretion of the stewards. They used their discretion. As I said before, it was ridiculous that something like this remained discretionary fifteen years after NY had ruled on its viability in standardbred racing, and that it had been allowed in nearly every other racing jurisdiction. So, in this instance, the NYS Gaming Commission medical director, Dr. Scott Palmer, said \"Equine nasal strips do not enhance equine performance nor do they pose a risk to equine health or safety and as such do not need to be regulated.\" This was supported by the director of equine sports medicine at Tufts University, and by Rose Nolen-Watson, a specialist in pulmonary function at Penn\'s School of Veterinary Medicine, who said, \"The data show a small but consistent effect and the risk is nothing.\" Rick Violette, president of the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen\'s Association who had tried them on a number of horses, said, \"Frankly they don\'t seem to make a whole lot of difference.\" He is obviously not without vested interested in the outcome of Saturday\'s race.
So there was no rule prohibiting them, but merely a practice not supported by documentation, and not only contrary to other racing jurisdictions, but also the state\'s own internal regulation regarding its other equine activity. If there\'s a baseball analogy, it would be akin to allowing a team of umpires in the American League to decide each game whether some form of equipment, for which there was no documented evidence of its beneficial use, could be used or not, while in the National League it had been determined that this form of equipment was absolutely fine. That would be lunacy, and the only sane move is to establish a rule that is not discretionary, but is uniform and based on existing scientific evidence and opinion. The fact that it was done now is not the absurdity. That it took fifteen years for it to happen, is.
An the connections of CC would not run without the nasal strip because?
Perhaps they may would have run him regardless, but the threat had some impact. In any case, I\'m certain the answer would be pretty much the same as it would be if the stewards had discretion whether to allow Lasix but had not yet allowed it and CC needed it. The strip promotes more effective and efficient breathing, reduces the chances of EIPH, etc.
Moosepalm has explained the foolishness of NY\'s position before this became an issue.
If nasal strips are \"performance enhancers\" then it\'s hard to know what would not be in the same class -- blinkers, shoes, Lasix, etc. This should be a non-issue.
How about blinkers, turn downs, shadow rolls and tongue ties? Are they \"performance enhancers\"? If not, why bother with them? How about Lasix? Clearly a race day performance enhancer. Are you also opposed to that?
It\'s nothing more than correcting an error when the error becomes evident.
Because they think their horse performs better with it.
That\'s what I thought. Because they THINK the horse preforms better with it. Gues s the connections just superstitious.
Who knows? Who cares? Racing permits all kinds of optional race day equipment. I assume they\'re intended to enhance the horses performance. Why not nasal strips?
Briefly-- tongue ties, blinkers, operations and the like don\'t allow horses to run faster than their bodies are normally capable of, just let them run to their ability.
Almost all the current era performance enhancers (EPO, Clenbuterol etc.) work on the basis of getting extra oxygen to the cells. If the strip works at all it does the same thing and he shouldn\'t be allowed to use it. If it doesn\'t he doesn\'t need it.
Re Lasix-- I am the only one I know that has put forward a reasonable position on this, which means it has no shot to happen. They should go back to the state certifying bleeders, only bleeders can use it, and they carry a weight penalty. It looks like 5 pounds is about right, based on the work we did (small sample, but the only one done attempting to quantify the effect on RACEHORSES that I know of).
As for whoever asked for \"proof\" about the effect on CC-- what we have is evidence. There is no such thing as proof, especially when we don\'t even know who wears them and who doesn\'t. But we have his sheet, which is a one in maybe 100,000 occurrence-- like I said, the last horse I saw improve that much in one shot from an established level AND STAY THERE WITHOUT BOUNCING was Cigar, and it \"coincided\" with CC getting more air. We also have that Contessa just started putting strips on his horses and won with the first three, for what it\'s worth.
If CC ran without the strip Saturday we would have more evidence, one way or the other. I know which way I would be betting. And I would like someone here to tell me with a straight face that if he ran without it they would bet serious money on him.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Briefly-- tongue ties, blinkers, operations and
> the like don\'t allow horses to run faster than
> their bodies are normally capable of, just let
> them run to their ability.
>
> Almost all the current era performance enhancers
> (EPO, Clenbuterol etc.) work on the basis of
> getting extra oxygen to the cells. If the strip
> works at all it does the same thing and he
> shouldn\'t be allowed to use it. If it doesn\'t he
> doesn\'t need it.
>
> Re Lasix-- I am the only one I know that has put
> forward a reasonable position on this, which means
> it has no shot to happen. They should go back to
> the state certifying bleeders, only bleeders can
> use it, and they carry a weight penalty. It looks
> like 5 pounds is about right, based on the work we
> did (small sample, but the only one done
> attempting to quantify the effect on RACEHORSES
> that I know of).
>
> As for whoever asked for \"proof\" about the effect
> on CC-- what we have is evidence. There is no such
> thing as proof, especially when we don\'t even know
> who wears them and who doesn\'t. But we have his
> sheet, which is a one in maybe 100,000
> occurrence-- like I said, the last horse I saw
> improve that much in one shot from an established
> level AND STAY THERE WITHOUT BOUNCING was Cigar,
> and it \"coincided\" with CC getting more air. We
> also have that Contessa just started putting
> strips on his horses and won with the first three,
> for what it\'s worth.
>
> If CC ran without the strip Saturday we would have
> more evidence, one way or the other. I know which
> way I would be betting. And I would like someone
> here to tell me with a straight face that if he
> ran without it they would bet serious money on
> him.
JB,
Excellent response.
I used the word proof, and while we can go round and round about what exactly caused the jump up, the strip is certainly a plausible reason for it happening.
I also mentioned Lasix, and had no idea you have been a proponent against it. I will retract that statement, and applaud you for your stance.
If CC has a breathing issue that is helped by a nasal strip, is there a surgical procedure that can help this??
If he wasn\'t allowed the strip, wouldn\'t bet serious money on him. I believe Alysheba ran without Lasix ( I could be wrong), difficult to bet him on that day too. I don\'t know how much it helps, but anything that would detract from CC\'s current form cycle should make anyone think twice about using him.
Pdub-- To be clear, I\'m not a hay and oats purist. I think it should be legal for those that actually need it, they just shouldn\'t have an edge. But more importantly it should be legal because it would create chaos for bettors if bleeders couldn\'t use it-- those with inside information would have a huge advantage (probably true with strips as well). There is a reason that Lasix is the ONLY drug listed in the program-- it\'s that important
It\'s also necessary for other reasons. I think the estimate is around 20% of horses bleed without lasix, and they need rest before starting again when they do. You\'re in California-- they\'re already down to 4 days, and 5 horse fields a couple of races a day. How would you like to be the racing office trying to fill races without Lasix?
\"tongue ties, blinkers, operations and the like don\'t allow horses to run faster than their bodies are normally capable of\"
The only thing that allows a horse to run \"faster than their bodies are normally capable of\" is a trailer. Obviously all of these things allow a horse to run faster than he would without them. Else they wouldn\'t be used. There\'s absolutely no difference between these things and a nasal strip. They\'re all simply permitted equipment that can allow a horse to perform better than he would otherwise. I don\'t understand why this is such a big issue. They\'re legal. Any horse that can benefit from them can use them. Not all can. Just like shoes, blinkers, tongue ties, and a host of other things.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pdub-- To be clear, I\'m not a hay and oats purist.
> I think it should be legal for those that actually
> need it, they just shouldn\'t have an edge. But
> more importantly it should be legal because it
> would create chaos for bettors if bleeders
> couldn\'t use it-- those with inside information
> would have a huge advantage (probably true with
> strips as well). There is a reason that Lasix is
> the ONLY drug listed in the program-- it\'s that
> important
>
> It\'s also necessary for other reasons. I think the
> estimate is around 20% of horses bleed without
> lasix, and they need rest before starting again
> when they do. You\'re in California-- they\'re
> already down to 4 days, and 5 horse fields a
> couple of races a day. How would you like to be
> the racing office trying to fill races without
> Lasix?
JB,
I didn\'t mean to imply it should be banned. I agree with your views on lasix, used when necessary, etc...
I live 20 minus from GGF, been there maybe twice in 5 years. One was to watch the great Mike Smith lose a stakes race. (After the loss, he spent time signing and taking pics with fans.) I haven\'t mentioned Smith in at least 20 posts, I\'m behind.
I used to make it a several times a month, as well as Bay Meadows. The current state of No Cal racing is beyond depressing. How I miss the days of Hansen, Gonzo, etc... Top So Cal sprinters coming up on Memorial Day for the Oakland Hdcp. Top So Cal turfers racing in the SF Mile. Even the turf stakes suck now.
5 horse races a couple times a day?? Up here its the norm.
Saturday will remind me again why I love this sport.
You\'re right, Clenbuterol injected directly into the trachea on race day and EPO and steroids don\'t let a horse run faster than he is normally capable of. It was simply irrational to ban them.
You can read some amazing things here.
Vet records for 4 Grade 1 races will be published by NYSGC on their website starting tomorrow.
Jim P,
My point on the nasal strip is that the New Yorkers changed a rule for this horse because he would contend for the Triple Crown.
What you think the powers that be in NY would have said if the connections of Ride on Curlin had said, \"if ROC doesn\'t wear the strip, we won\'t run.\"
They would have told them to take a hike.
The rule was changed for one horse. No other way to look at it.
TGJB,
Re: Tongue ties
If a horse doesn\'t wear this piece of equipment and displaces his/her soft palate wouldn\'t their airflow be disturbed ?
Flighted
Yes. But keeping a horse from choking and getting him extra air are two different things. Clenbuterol is a broncho-dilator, theoretically nasal strips do something similar mechanically.
joemama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An the connections of CC would not run without the
> nasal strip because?
First of all, this is completely irrelevant to the issue. If they \"think\" it helps their horse, it\'s simply a lay person\'s opinion. It\'s not science. It\'s like people who swear by some vitamins when there\'s no supporting evidence. They\'ll believe what they want to believe, but even if they live to be one hundred, that doesn\'t make it science.
As far as the connections threatening to pull out if the strip wasn\'t allowed, all we know is that it was a threat. Why shouldn\'t they do that? They were holding the stronger hand. Unless they actually pulled out, this is simply speculation.
A horse can only run as fast as he is capable of. Some things, like the things you mention, can cause a horse to run faster than he otherwise would. But it\'s not possible for a horse to run faster than he\'s capable of because if he runs faster then he obviously was capable of running faster. Some things that can cause a horse to run faster than he otherwise would are legal and some are not. The distinction between legal and illegal is based on other factors. Sometimes that distinction is arrived at arbitrarily. Sometimes there is a more logical basis for the distinction, such as the health and well being of the horse. Nasal strips are now legal. So what\'s the fuss? Is anyone arguing that there is some risk to the horse of using nasal strips? I haven\'t heard such an argument. So this is one of those items that fall into the arbitrary category. Just like blinkers, tongue ties, etc.
Perhaps. Or maybe they just decided to get in step with other jurisdictions. Who knows what their motivation was? We can only speculate. So what\'s the fuss? CC is apparently running with the strip. We know that. We also know how he has run in the past with the strip. Seems like we know all we need to know. I would be more upset if I was trying to handicap this race and some outside agency (like the stewards) decided that CC could not run with the strip in this race. Then I would have some new \"unknown\" to plug into the handicapping process. Why doesn\'t everyone just go handicap the race with the past performances that we know.
So basically you decide to pretend the words \"normally capable of\" were not there, and substituted \"otherwise would\". Right?
If you look at the horse\'s TG sheet you should be able to see why it\'s a \"big deal\". Or, just name another since Cigar (100,000 horses ago) who had a sheet like that without a trainer change to a move-up guy.
Hey Jerry,
Just curious if you saw my second post about the shoe change coming BEFORE the jump-up race in December? I was anxious to hear your thoughts on whether you felt that the \"new design shoe on\" was more likely to explain the jump up and no regressions results we\'re seeing than the \"nasal strip on\"? Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Jim
Exactly. Because \"normally capable of\" is a meaningless term. So I thought I would direct the conversation to terms that are defined. We know that certain equipment helps a horse runs faster than he \"otherwise would\". The list of such equipment is lengthy. It includes shoes of all types, saddles, bridles, blinkers, tongue ties, nasal strips, and probably most influential of all - whips. All of those are presently deemed to be legal by the powers that be in racing. We also know that ingestible items can also cause a horse to run faster than he otherwise would. Most of those have been deemed to be illegal. We can only hope that none of those illegal items are being used. That much I think I know. What I can\'t figure out is why on a handicapping board there is so much consternation about any one of those previously listed legal items that we all can choose to include or exclude in our handicapping process. We know what the CC past performances look like with the nasal strip and he\'s running with the strip again. So let\'s handicap. Why all the fuss? Wouldn\'t you, as a handicapper, be more concerned if the stewards injected anything into the conditions that might make those known past performances less valid. Such as prohibiting nasal strips. That should cause a fuss. They haven\'t done that. So let\'s handicap.
Jim-- yeah, saw that at night and forgot.
1-- The original story was that the shoe change happened a race later. After the strip thing became an issue, that changed to a race earlier, I didn\'t tell the trainer what I did. Don\'t know about the trainers you know, but... it\'s at least questionable.
2-- No, I don\'t believe shoeing could cause that big a change, not even cleats (turndowns), which as I understand it is not the supposed story here anyway.
3-- The only parallel I can think of is Cigar, 20 years ago. As I said earlier, I\'ve been told recently that Allday started treating him, I can\'t confirm it. I also heard another related story which is worse. Regardless, I still want someone to give me another example of something like this.
You are right, there is a long list of things that affect the non-consequential thing you mentioned. Which has nothing to do with the original post you addressed, or this conversation. Your original completely inane comment was that only a trailer could make a horse run faster than he normally was capable of. I mentioned Clenbuterol, EPO, and steroids, and you took the conversation elsewhere.
If you want to tell me blinkers and broncho-dilators are equivalent, let it fly, I\'m done with this nonsense.
Let not forget about the stuff that is used that is not specifically banned. The item I am thinking of I guess would be called a topical in a sense and would not be detectable and is probably not on any illegal substance banned list. For example Ben Gay or Icy Hot. I\'ve seen that stuff stuck in places I\'d rather not mention.
Really. Soft palette displacement?
\"Dorsal displacement of the soft palate is a disorder of the upper airway in horses. It is one of the most common upper airway obstructions, and it causes poor performance and abnormal noise while exercising.\"
\"Initial treatment for intermittent DDSP often involves equipment changes and a conservative approach. Tack such as a figure-8 noseband, tongue-tie, or bits that help keep the tongue in place are often used to prevent a horse from displacing his soft palate during exercise.\"
And then there\'s the Myectomy.
So am I. You aren\'t listening. It\' a useless discussion.
Those things let horses breath normally, as a normal unobstructed horse would. They don\'t let them go beyond that. Clenbuterol (for example) does more than that, it expands air passages past normal. If this thing expands airways it does something similar.
And by the way, throat operations should be made public. They are gigantic handicapping info, even more than first Lasix.
I\'ve worn a nasal strip to bed when I\'m congested, they\'re so simple and they work instantly at pulling open your nasal passages to breath easier, without drugs or nasal spray etc.
You guys ever hear anyone postulate that somehow the NFL players wearing them have an advantage over those that do not?
Did Adrian Peterson win an MVP Award because he wears a nasal strip on Sundays?
I\'m real new around here, but I\'m a bit taken aback that this topic, (given the AMAZING handicapping angles I\'ve discovered here) is seriously being pinged back & forth over the net for this long...
I agree, ten plus million posts on a nasal strip! Next we will read that they feed \"Chrome a couple of apples on Wednesdays. bbb
\"I agree, ten plus million posts on a nasal strip! Next we will read that they feed \"Chrome a couple of apples on Wednesdays\"
Actually CC moved forward after a certain cookie was fed to him by the wife of one of the owners. Makes as such sense as a $12 nasal strip making a slug to a possible TC winner.
OK. So he was helped by them. Ever see a horse move froward with Lasix? What\'s the difference?
Or the Belmont without nasal strips.
I was thinking of War Emblem but he was transferred to Baffert. Although wasn\'t that after his jump up in the Illinois Derby?
Sure. War Emblem jumped forward 7+ points and stayed there for 4 races, the first 2 of those while still under Springer\'s care.
In addition to War Emblem, Orb jumped forward 6 1/2 points and held it together for 3 races. Mine That Bird jumped up 6 1/4 points and backed it up in the Preakness. Street Sense, 7 points.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Briefly-- tongue ties, blinkers, operations and
> the like don\'t allow horses to run faster than
> their bodies are normally capable of, just let
> them run to their ability.
>
> Almost all the current era performance enhancers
> (EPO, Clenbuterol etc.) work on the basis of
> getting extra oxygen to the cells. If the strip
> works at all it does the same thing and he
> shouldn\'t be allowed to use it. If it doesn\'t he
> doesn\'t need it.
>
> Re Lasix-- I am the only one I know that has put
> forward a reasonable position on this, which means
> it has no shot to happen. They should go back to
> the state certifying bleeders, only bleeders can
> use it, and they carry a weight penalty. It looks
> like 5 pounds is about right, based on the work we
> did (small sample, but the only one done
> attempting to quantify the effect on RACEHORSES
> that I know of).
>
> As for whoever asked for \"proof\" about the effect
> on CC-- what we have is evidence. There is no such
> thing as proof, especially when we don\'t even know
> who wears them and who doesn\'t. But we have his
> sheet, which is a one in maybe 100,000
> occurrence-- like I said, the last horse I saw
> improve that much in one shot from an established
> level AND STAY THERE WITHOUT BOUNCING was Cigar,
> and it \"coincided\" with CC getting more air. We
> also have that Contessa just started putting
> strips on his horses and won with the first three,
> for what it\'s worth.
>
> If CC ran without the strip Saturday we would have
> more evidence, one way or the other. I know which
> way I would be betting. And I would like someone
> here to tell me with a straight face that if he
> ran without it they would bet serious money on
> him.
Nasal strips are a piece of equipment -- NOT a drug. Therefore I don\'t see the problem.
Are you against tongue-ties? Are you against equipment that helps to keep a horse calm since anxiety can cause a horse to lose its air? Or equipment which makes the horse more rateable, helping him ration his air?
Do you think that the thousands of horses every year who have surgery to help their breathing shouldn\'t be allowed to race?
If equipment (or surgery) helps a horse get its air (which isn\'t the definition of performance-enhancing), then we should all be for that.
So, how about a mini-oxygen tank?
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, how about a mini-oxygen tank?
How about we finally give this subject a rest??
And I\'m the one that has to comment on everything??
Its been talked about to death for 2 weeks.
You\'re right, everyone else is wrong.
Its a great race day, try and enjoy it.
I\'m responding directly to a guy who said it\'s okay specifically because it\'s not a drug.
Be smart here.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I\'m responding directly to a guy who said it\'s
> okay specifically because it\'s not a drug.
>
> Be smart here.
Fair enough JB,
Its become a pretty polarizing discussion. Neither side is going to change their opinion.
Good luck today with your action.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, how about a mini-oxygen tank?
Seriously?
The horse is breathing the same air as every other horse in the field, not super-oxygenated air being pumped directly into him.
You didn\'t answer if you also think that everything else that could help a horse get his maximum air should be illegal, from tongue ties to figure 8s to blinkers and all sorts of other equipment? Anything that helps a horse relax helps him get his air.
Nasal strips have been around a long time. They were a fad 15 or 20 years ago then basically disappeared from the scene when trainers just weren\'t seeing them having a worthwhile impact. But maybe it can help one, just like other equipment can help certain horses, or certain horses needing surgery to help them breathe better. But none of these things are performance enhancers as you labeled them.
If you are the \"real\" underachieving,over rated fraud, Normandy Invasion, we are done,enough!
Hopefully for the last time, but I doubt it.
Not all drugs are illegal. Ones that perform certain functions are. The deciding factor is not whether something is a drug, but what it does.
The performance enhancers people use now are usually those that increase the amount of oxygen getting to a horse, either by increasing the amount of red blood cells (EPO), or air (Clenbuterol, which is a broncho-dilator, and as such is banned for raceday use. In NY, actually for 14 days from a race).
The nasal strips are, by definition, also dilating airwaves, just doing it mechanically. That increases air supply. If it doesn\'t do that it doesn\'t do anything at all-- so it either does something we don\'t want done, or it has no function, and there is no need for it.
I use them, as I have said, and they work great. Before they came along I used Afrin to get the same result (and the strips work much better). Is Afrin legal? Ask the stewards whether it\'s okay to use it.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hopefully for the last time, but I doubt it.
>
> Not all drugs are illegal. Ones that perform
> certain functions are. The deciding factor is not
> whether something is a drug, but what it does.
>
> The performance enhancers people use now are
> usually those that increase the amount of oxygen
> getting to a horse, either by increasing the
> amount of red blood cells (EPO), or air
> (Clenbuterol, which is a broncho-dilator, and as
> such is banned for raceday use. In NY, actually
> for 14 days from a race).
>
> The nasal strips are, by definition, also dilating
> airwaves, just doing it mechanically. That
> increases air supply. If it doesn\'t do that it
> doesn\'t do anything at all-- so it either does
> something we don\'t want done, or it has no
> function, and there is no need for it.
>
> I use them, as I have said, and they work great.
> Before they came along I used Afrin to get the
> same result (and the strips work much better). Is
> Afrin legal? Ask the stewards whether it\'s okay to
> use it.
Well, I\'d argue that mechanically a tongue tie and other equipment do the same thing, so you\'re saying they should be illegal? Should it be illegal for a horse to run who has had surgery to correct its breathing? Why won\'t you answer instead of ignoring other equipment which has the same effect and targeting only the bandaids slapped across the horse\'s nose?
Those things correct a problem, as (in theory) does Lasix, they do not let a horse run better than his natural ability. (The big argument about Lasix is whether it in fact does that as well).
As to not answering, you\'re coming in late on this conversation. I made all these points 100 posts back.
And yes, there are lots of arguments to be had about OTHER things (Lasix among them). But here we are talking about something that does the same thing as drugs that are banned.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those things correct a problem, as (in theory)
> does Lasix, they do not let a horse run better
> than his natural ability. (The big argument about
> Lasix is whether it in fact does that as well).
>
> As to not answering, you\'re coming in late on this
> conversation. I made all these points 100 posts
> back.
>
> And yes, there are lots of arguments to be had
> about OTHER things (Lasix among them). But here we
> are talking about something that does the same
> thing as drugs that are banned.
Is it possible this does nothing more than allowing him to breathe normally?? There isn\'t evidence it creates a superhighway of oxygen.
Pdub-- that\'s where this conversation should be taking place. What\'s normal, what\'s it fixing. Problem I got is what his sheet looks like. One in 100,000, me kidding.
Couple of things.
First, he used the strip in his November race with no improvement so the jump up was second time nasal strip.
Second, even if it is the reason for his improvement, how is using a nasal strip to keep soft nasal tissue from collapsing which can happen with horses during strenuous exercise any different from using a circle 8 nose band, tongue tie or special bit to keep the tongue in place to prevent soft palate displacement which can also occur during strenuous exercise? Is soft palate displacement any more natural than collapsed soft nasal tissue?
If it\'s not,why are they using it?
I\'m saying it is. I just don\'t understand why you think it should be treated any differently than the other equipment I mentioned.
I DO NOT think it\'s the same. That\'s the point. If it was you could use them.
I got that you don\'t think they\'re the same but I don\'t think you\'ve made a convincing case for why you think they are not.
We got our answer. Didn\'t we!