Mitchell goes into the D-Barn...

[xichibanx]

Mike Mitchell gets 30 days detention barn for positive on 7/4 with Tricky Day.

http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=29313

xichibanx

[BitPlayer]

Actually, according to the San Diego Union Tribune, it\'s surveillance, not a detention barn.  See below:

DEL MAR – Track security personnel will be stationed at trainer Mike Mitchell\'s stable area here for the next 30 days for 24-hour surveillance before any horses he enters race. The procedure is a consequence of a high total carbon dioxide (TCO2) test by Mitchell-trained Tricky Day following a July 4 race at Hollywood Park.

The surveillance, which will cost Mitchell $500 a day, enforces a contractual agreement involving various horsemen\'s groups reached last year intended to curb perceived proliferation of the practice known as \"milkshaking\" at Southern California tracks.

Four trainers had horses test out at TCO2 levels higher than the permitted 36 millimoles per liter during the Santa Anita winter-spring meeting and were required to send entrants through a 24-hour detention barn for the monthlong period.

Del Mar\'s planned detention barn facility was deemed inadequate, mandating the posting of surveillance personnel at the stable of Mitchell, a six-time meet-leading trainer.

Now if they could just figure out how certain trainers continue to prosper despite things like security barns, 24 hour surveillance, and greater testing.

I am clueless, but if I had to guess I think a couple of the high profile guys are doing things that involve treatment of some sort that takes a couple of months to show results and lasts for awhile. If not steroids, something like it. Too many of the horses that come back improved after changing barns do so after freshenings. That makes it more difficult to pin them down as cheating because a legitimately superior trainer, with better facilities and better care could theoretically move a horse up after a few months.    

Of course, if they do figure it out, they must then actually make sure it is illegal.

[SoCalMan2]

$500 a day for 30 days adds up to 15 grand.  Did the guys who were in the detention barn at Santa Anita earlier this year have to pay for the detention barn?  I would think that this a tough monetary penalty -- Mitchell may prefer to use the detention barn if it is cheaper.

As for Classhandicapper\'s comment, there are certainly drugs and/or procedures that are not administered on raceday (Epogen (or is it EPO) comes automatically to mind).  I think that TGJB mentioned that the detention barn concept is something but does not go all the way.

SoCal,

Are all the non-race day things that can be used actually identified as illegal?

That has been the biggest issue for me and party why I\'ve posted a lot of contrary opinions regarding the cheating issue. It\'s not enough for a bunch of horseplayers and horsemen to know that someone is using something to improve his horses. It has to actually be identified as illegal beforehand and not after the fact.

   

[SoCalMan2]

CH

I am no expert in this area.  I think one of the problems is that a lot of stuff that is identified as illegal can be modified very slighty (just change the molecule a little) and voila a new drug is created. I very much like the idea that has been posted here where the trainer or the veterinarian must report everything that is injected or ingested by the horse and then be held accountable if something not reported is found. I am no expert so I have no idea how this would work, but it seems to me to be more fair to the bettors (which is the sine qua non of the sport -- other than on the Arabian Peninsula). If you are always forced to identify the illegal item ahead of time, then you will forever be facing new slightly tweaked illegal items.

SCM2

[HP]

Class,

In this particular case, what difference does \"legal\" or \"illegal\" make and what are you talking about?  

The rule is CLEAR AS DAY and Mitchell violated it. He\'s not even appealing, as far as I can see. Here is a case where there is an agreed-upon standard and it\'s in a CONTRACT and Mitchell\'s horse comes up in violation of the standard and you\'re getting into this totally irrelevant area again.

It was irrelevant in the Pletcher case too, where Pletcher\'s horse tested positive and the substance was ILLEGAL and you STILL went on about \"legal\" vs. \"illegal.\"

The only issue in the Pletcher matter is the AMOUNT of the substance used. It is WITHOUT QUESTION illegal. Ask Barry Irwin!

You are just pathologically incapable of acknowledging that these guys are cheating and even when they get caught you are ready to turn the subject into mush with this phantom \"legal v. illegal\" issue. I\'m assuming that you just can\'t accept the fact that it\'s Dr. Allday (White Mercedes), etc. and not any astute handling of lightly raced stock that has resulted in Pletcher\'s incredible run. But here you are again when the worm turns against Mitchell.  

I could see where the \"legal\" vs. \"illegal\" debate might be relevant, but it is NOT relevant either in this Mitchell matter or with Pletcher. In both cases, ILLEGAL and CHEATING. Period.

Is there ever going to be an instance where the facts put a dent in your opinion on this?

HP

HP,

If I had any idea WTF you were talking about I might try to have a conversation with you.

[TGJB]

This question of whether something is illegal (or more to the point, even known of), is why in my 4 point letter to DRF I said we need trainers and vets to sign off on everything that goes into the horse for a specified time before the race (like a week or two), and need to freeze blood. That way, if something shows up later (either because there wasn\'t a test earlier or because they weren\'t testing for it), it\'s a violation simply because it wasn\'t listed. If they do list something, we get to study it, and develop a test.

[HP]

Class,

Skip the conversation.  Just take a break from posting for a week.  Please.  

TGJB,

I love that idea, but in the mean time it\'s pretty clear to me the security barn and 24 hour surveillance is not doing much in terms of stopping some of the \"suspects\".  Like I said above, this is evidence that if there is widespread cheating, they are using something that is more like a long term treatment. I\'d also guess it\'s currently \"not illegal\".

As soon as someone figures out exactly what it is racing will probably make it illegal. However, it seems likely that those that are engaging is any activity like this will keep all the purses, glory, etc... and move onto the next legal performance enhancer until your idea or something like it is implemented. Even then, they will keep all the success they are presently accumulating. It doesn\'t shock me that some owners are willing to use trainers that are \"suspected\" of using performance enhancers that are not illegal...yet. Whenever there is big money involved, some people are very attracted to grey.

[TGJB]

Based on information and belief, it is not long term, but not a race day drug either. I\'m working on it, others are as well, we\'ll see what happens.

[richiebee]

This post is not intended to anger or incite.

TGJB, I know you have an interest in racing which goes beyond selling information which you have collected to handicappers. I acknowledge that you advise owners/ bloodstock entities on the purchase of racehorses. I also recognize that other posters on this board are racehorse owners and breeders; still others might make a living in the game as racing officials and journalists. All of you have a vested interest in the future of racing.

I retired from the racing game in 1987. Since then, I have taken \"conventional\" jobs which allowed me to pursue my favorite recreational activity, to go to the track here in NY or over in NJ 2 or 3 times a week, to visit with friends who enjoy watching and betting on the races. With the advent of computer wagering, I can sneak in a bet now or then on the fly without attending live.

I really do not care, as a handicapper/racing fan, if the game is \"cleaned up\". I believe, that as a Blood Horse subscriber, as a daily reader of the Racing Form, as an occasional purchaser of TG products and a follower of the TG board, as a person who has maintained contact with some of the people I know who are still working on the backside, that I have more knowledge and information than 80- 90% of the people I am wagering against.

I am cognizant of the fact that these 10- 20% of the people more informed than I may be wagering an inordinate percentage of all the monies wagered.

If you have read this far, and are waiting for me to make a point, here it is: I feel like I would lose a slight advantage if the playing field is somehow leveled. I have gotten used to playing the game with the knowledge that there are supertrainers and what I call \"stuportrainers\", who somehow remain in the game year after year with a high volume of starters and a low strike rate. One trainer in NY has probably saddled over a thousand runners in the last 4-5 years with a win percentage of less than 5%; to me, this man must either have an irresistible personality or he is laundering his owners\' money.

Maybe I would be more apt to shout \"CLEAN UP THE GAME\" if I thought such a cleansing was an attainable objective. Chicanery has always been a part of the game, and the best practitioners of this chicanery have always been admired and villified at the same time. Just in the time I\'ve been in the game, we\'ve had Oscar Barrera, Pete Ferriola, Gasper Moschera and Rich Dutrow, Jr. plying their trade in NY, the jock who got lost in the fog down in Louisiana, Dale Romans dad beating the track identifier (and the public) at Churchill on Derby Day for a big score, Linda Rice\'s dad, Clyde, fooling the clocker up at Penn National and cashing a big bet on Titillating at Belmont, etc. My personal favorite is the trainer who caught a lifetime ban in England for running a 3YO in a race which was limited to 2YOs. He swears he would have never gotten caught if it weren\'t for the fact that the jock allowed the horse to win by 20 lengths... in a 5 furlong race.

So freeze the blood, give owners and trainers Sarbanes Oxley like liability, these are all good ideas, but a lot of the cheaters are making their biggest scores at the windows and not through the award of purse moneys. Purse monies can be redistributed, but pari- mutuel payouts can not.

I draw the line at the inhumane treatment of thoroughbreds. At this point, I would no longer be interested in wagering, and the game wouldn\'t be around for long anyway.

richie,

\"If you have read this far, and are waiting for me to make a point, here it is: I feel like I would lose a slight advantage if the playing field is somehow leveled. I have gotten used to playing the game with the knowledge that there are supertrainers and what I call \"stuportrainers\", \"

I\'m glad you said it and not me.

I made a similar point in the past and it wasn\'t received very well. IMO cleaning up the game is more about being fair to clean trainers, clean owners, and breeders that want to judge horses based on legitimate performances etc...    

When it comes to the gambling aspect of it, for very serious horseplayers, I know a few with no inside information that have joked that they will have to quit betting if the game is cleaned up because they will lose their only edge.

The cheating is just another complicating factor (among many) for a handicapper to weigh. If you study trainers and get on or off certain things before the general public figures it out, there\'s an edge in that. Does it really matter if someone else has a bigger edge? They always will anyway because they know the day to day changes of the horses\' health, fitness etc....

Personally, I think most of the people here love the sport so much they would just rather see it clean.

[asfufh]

Richiebee says\"So freeze the blood, give owners and trainers Sarbanes Oxley like liability, these are all good ideas, but a lot of the cheaters are making their biggest scores at the windows and not through the award of purse moneys. Purse monies can be redistributed, but pari- mutuel payouts can not.\"
 
Richiebee, You appear to be assuming that the cheaters only cheat to win a race and therefore with your experience and some inside info, you have an edge over the betting crowd. I submit that people willing to cheat and collect their ill begotten gains via the pari-mutual windows will just as soon do something to stiff a horse (or horses) as to boost a horse. (Remember the Winter Hill Gang scandal where if memory serves correctly they were paying jockeys to stiff the better horses in a race and then boxed the longshots in exotic bets). Wouldn\'t you have a tremendous advantage in a race if you know the ML 3-5 fave is not going to run a lick today.
How do you maintain your edge under these circumstances......unless you get the word directly, you are at the same disadvantage as the rest of us. The cleaner that racing is the better for all (except the cheaters). Asfufh