I keep waiting for some sort of media coverage (trade or mainstream)regarding the Derby results vis a vis the improved testing and security.  Every horseman and serious horseplayer I know has been talking about nothing else.

The bottome line is that we do not and cannot definitively know whether the new protocol had any impact on on the result. However, I do know two things:

-As a small-time horseman who uses a square trainer, the better the testing is, the better I like my chances of surviving in the game.  I can\'t and won\'t pay $2k per horse per month to have the White Mercedes visit my horses.  If the supertrainers stop hitting at 25%-30%, there has to be more on the table for everyone else.

-The new regime doesn\'t guarantee a fair shake, but it does promise a FAIRER shake.  There are enough variables to consider without having to know equine pharmacology. We may have to un-learn some precepts we\'ve developed of late, but horseplayers will be better off in the end.

If you agree, let your voice be heard. My letter is in the mail to the Blood-Horse.  It isn\'t often that we have something to applaud .

I agree: there\'s no excuse for not implementing the supertest across the board.

Still, considering how long it has taken to get this far, it\'s an admirable start.  Now, they can steal the crumbs, but not the cake.

The supertesting regime was introduced last year by the American Graded Stakes Committee of TOBA; implementation had been stalled until this weekend.

Here\'s the way it works: if a racetrack wants to keep graded status for its stakes races, it must perform the supertesting as specified.  Therefore, you can look forward to supertesting in the Preakness, Belmont, Breeders Cup, etc. Assuming the test protocol remains in force, of course (its easy to see where some \"powerful\" forces may not be too pleased with yesterday\'s result.)

Interesting how it took an auxilliary body, such as the American Graded Stakes Committee, to finally put a policy in place.

The old diner is Chez Sophie on Rt. 9.  Also, a new restaurant opened over the winter called Tiznow; quite good bistro fare

Chris touched briefly on a subject that isn\'t often discussed in the dope debate: the role of the owner.

There seems to me to be an overwhelming attitude  of \"just win, baby,\" among many owners.  If this means turning a blind eye to trainers\' transgressions, so be it.  Unfortunately, we want it all, and we want it now (the dominant theme of our culture.)

I happen to be a small time (very small time) owner. I have two state-breds in training in NY. It is far more important to me to have my horses remain sound than to post an impressive winning percentage.  I simply can\'t afford a revolving stall door.

I don\'t think anyone would argue that the practice of hopping horses sacrifices the long-term well being of the animal for a quick purse.  Apart from any moral objection, is this short-sightedness in the owners\' best interest?

We all like getting a purse; NY day-rates aren\'t cheap.  But it isn\'t worth risking the horse and our investment in them.

Well said!  If only we could see such a cogent argument made and debated in the Blood-Horse, at the Jockey Club Round Table, et al.

Has anyone noticed that NYRA is conspicuously absent from the new NTRA Wagering Integrity Coalition?

Of course, everyone remembers how much Rudy G loves the New York Racing Association, and vice versa.  Who wants to wager that Barry and the boys come in for a beating at the end of the day?  Ah, politics.  

Perhaps I\'m not a big enough Rudy-phile, but I\'d prefer to see a security specialist such as Kroll-O\'Gara on the case.  Or, why not save a few shekels and dust off the old IBM report that was commissioned on the topic(and subsequently ignored.)

How does being an ex-mayor qualify one as an information security consultant, anyway?