thank you for your quick reply

what is the cost of the analysis for kee 10/30 and 10/31 for those who purchased the BC PRE-ENTRY special? $10 or $25?

Fred D

I agree that the integrity of the pool is most important and allowing the robotic wagering a connection to live pools at the rebate shops is a negative because it allows manipulation of the pool.  If it isn't happening already, a more sophisticated P6 fix than when the Volponi won the BC classic is in the future.  That crew had the experience and knowledge to beat the secure wagering network but not enough knowledge to structure the bet so that it would look like a reasonable bet.

Any person or organization that has a connection to the live pools should be licensed and audited (including lie detector tests) periodically.

All the data collection that MJ mentions are valid examples of knowledge we daily live without at the track, but the trainers and owners have.  We all benefit from MJ's knowledge year round, especially at derby time.   But I also believe this is an apples and oranges thing.  I don't believe the integrity of the pool is affected by those examples.

Also taking money from the horsemen by reducing on track handle and thus reducing purse size is a negative. I realize that argument was lost years ago, but it is fact.

Thanks MJ!   Thanks Miff!   Thanks to everyone else for the great input on this board.

Fred D

Jim, thanks for all your positive, informative messages.

donut, most likely, is the goofy, negative clown in disguise and he has already

been banned.

Fred D

supersaver 2010
hold me back 2009

Thanks JB

JB, AB or anyone else:

Any comment on the 8th race at sar Sunday?  Nybred alw optional clmg. at 1-1/8m.

At what odds could you use the winner (Freddy the Cap at 32/1) in a win bet considering his pattern? 20/1, 10/1?

At what odds could you use the winner in horizontal bets (P4, P3) considering his pattern?

At what odds could you use the winner in the top two positions in vertical bets (tris, supers)?

The winner had a 2 top along with two others, almighty silver and groomedforvictory, but to me the race was a bet all race in P3 and P4 races.  All the horses had negatives in their form cycle, difficult to handicap.

Fred D

http://www.drf.com/news/article/82049.html

 The backstretch security measures Oaklawn introduced last year, which include increased camera surveillance and a roving monitor who patrols the stable area, have remained in place for the new meet. There is also a new rule concerning trainers who come up with multiple medication infractions at the track, said Eric Jackson, general manager of Oaklawn.

\"The three strikes and your out rule has been passed,\" he said.

The rule punishes trainers who have three medication positives within a two-year period with up to a year\'s suspension.

The two-year period began last Friday with the opening of the meet. The rule concerns only medication infractions at Oaklawn.

The excuses for positive drug results by trainers and/or their lawyers are getting way out of hand.  Surely, they must think that when they cover their eyes, we will not be able to see.  "Inadvertent exposure to a medication from an unknown source" is as good as it gets.  The trainer and his team are responsible for the amount of drug in the horse's system.

No positive drug result is expressed as the amount of drug present.  It is always expressed as "concentration" - amount of drug per unit volume of either urine or blood.  For example, when a trainer barks that the horse only had 1.6 nanograms of drug present that could not be further from the truth. In fact, the real result was more like 1.6 ng/mL (1.6 nanograms of drug/mL of urine).

This is not an insignificant amount.  Over a 24-hour period a horse probably passes more than 5 liters of urine.  One liter is 1,000 mL.
If one assumes that the excretion of a drug is constant over a 24-hour period, this implies that the horse will pass 8,000 nanograms of the drug.  That is not "a grain of salt in Lake Saratoga".

Remember, we have no clue as to how much drug was originally given. Likewise, we do not know when it was given - how long before the drug test.  

Todd Pletcher is a very good trainer with a talented organization and they are entrusted with talented horseflesh.  When the crew attempts to administer a drug too close to race time in order to get the maximum performance for the race they are responsible for the mistake.  The drug may be legal for training, but not for racing.  The trainer is responsible.