STORY ABOUT THE SURPRISE TEST

[high roller]

Kentucky Derby Horses Get Surprise Blood Tests
Posted May 4th 2007 8:09AM by Michael David Smith
Filed under: Horse Racing, Breaking News

All 20 horses in Saturday\'s Kentucky Derby were given surprise blood tests this week, and while Churchill Downs says there is no reason to believe performance-enhancing drugs are a problem, this is clearly an attempt to get out ahead of what could become a major scandal in the sport.

Veterinarians working for the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority tested the horses for blood-doping agents like EPO. The results of the test are not expected to be available until after Saturday\'s race, which means we could fact the prospect of seeing a horse win the Derby and learning only later that the horse\'s trainers gave it performance-enhancing drugs.

Hypothetically, if a horse wins the Derby and is later found to have cheated, the horse would be stripped of the Derby crown and the owners would lose the prize money, but for betting purposes, the horse would still be considered the winner.

[flushedstraight]

high roller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hypothetically, if a horse wins the Derby and is
> later found to have cheated, the horse would be
> stripped of the Derby crown and the owners would
> lose the prize money, but for betting purposes,
> the horse would still be considered the winner.


So I can still cash my Liquidity/Great Hunter exacta?

[SoCalMan2]

Anybody think we may be seeing some unusual scratches? I have heard of Derby fever but never Derby nausea.

[MO]

This is great news and bad news all at the same time.

Lets say Circular Quay wins,and Street Sense runs 2nd. CQ is found to be positive and loses his purse, crown, etc. Moving SS up.

What about the betting public? The \"winning tickets\" are already cashed and those who were cheated on SS don\'t get paid.

This was a great idea - but way too late.

[MO]

......unless they hold off the payoff on all bets until after the test results are published.

[SoCalMan2]

You think Churchill Downs will deny itself those last two races of churn?  I suspect that churn is worth a lot more than the time value of holding off payoffs.  Also, the bettors are not a constituency anybody worries about.  We are too disparate and viewed negatively by the rest of the public.  Nobody is going to care if we get cheated.  I do think a bettors\' movement would be a worthwhile thing.

[Uncle Buck]

I can\'t see this being a \"surprise\" on the backside. Some had to know it was coming. They definitley should expose the cheaters if in fact there are any caught prior to the race. That would certainly amplify the \"egg on the face\"

[Bally Ache]

There\'s already precedent for this.  In 1968 Dancers Image tested positive for bute after the race and was disqualified.  If you bet Dancers Image you won (9/2 as I remember) . If you bet Forward Pass, the \"official\" winner you lost.

Dancers Image won the race on the track and nothing they say or do can ever change that.

[MO]

Your point is well taken and therein lies the rub: no public betting = no horse racing.

The industry - if it wants to survive - has AN OBLIGATION to kiss the asses of every person forking money over thru the windows.

[imallin]

If tracks were so worried about churn, they\'d lower takeout and fix the breakage problem.

Do you know why there\'s breakage? Because they don\'t want to hold up betting lines by paying bettors nickels and pennies. Of course now, with internet and phone betting, i\'m not sure what \'the extra surcharge\' has to do with a person with a phone acct. When someone figures it out, que me in.

As far as the \'test\' goes, i\'m not sure there\'s anyway around paying off the bettors who eventually got shafted (if there\'s theoretically a dq at a later date from a drug pos.)

I guess you can hold off on paying out until a week later....but, that wouldn\'t fly too well with people holding winning tickets.

Handicapping means handicapping EVERYTHING. Who\'s to say that a winning horseplayer\'s theory on his winning pick didn\'t have the \'drug factor\' in the handicapping? Who are we to punish amazing handicapping for someone who has the ability to predict, from past performances, which trainers are cheaters and which guys are not?

Thats all part of the prediction game.....we can\'t start picking and choosing which predictory factors are valid and which ones are not. A game of prognostication is a game of prognostication, not SELECT prognostication.

Select prognostication means we, as the gate keepers of this game, are picking and choosing which handicapping factors are legit?

Being able to sniff out cheaters is also a \'handicapping angle\' for lack of a better term. Anyone smart enough to be able to predict which trainer might cheat on Derby day ought to be paid and not punished.

For the bettors who select and bet on the 2nd place finisher and lose to a drug positive winner, why should we reward those bettors and punish the bettors who correctly predicted which trainer would cheat? I know that sounds crazy, but when you handicap the horses, dont you, at least, consider which trainers might be juicers? Isn\'t that part of your handicapping?

[MO]

Great post. Now you know why I gave up pro handicapping and am switching to poker.

Good luck in the Derby!

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Excellent Post,

I\'m stunned TGJB has not offered an opinion on this news. Probably too busy, Saturday has to be a big day for TGraph.

Can you imagine the paranoia surrounding the Pletcher Barn at this moment? \"They surprised tested us three days BEFORE the Derby!\" \"Did they wear off?\" \"What if we run and they are detected?\" \"Can we avoid a detection by scratching?\" \"If you don\'t run in the race can you be penalized with a suspension even with a Positive?.....A Positive without an official effort is a non offense isn\'t it?\"

This is murder for that barn. They have to be in utter confusion.

Todd or your minions. If you\'re listening you have to scratch. A positive upon a non effort is not racing with performance enhancing drugs.

Do the right thing and stop the EPO forever.

This is wonderful.

SoCalMan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anybody think we may be seeing some unusual
> scratches? I have heard of Derby fever but never
> Derby nausea.

[TGJB]

I am busy, but--- they mean well, but until they publish the CO2 readings for all the horses it doesn\'t matter much what else they do. 99% of the industry does not understand that the sanction levels are set at a point well above what a horse can produce on its own, leaving a gap where horses can be treated (moved up) but be legal. They have made milkshakes (now available in pill form) legal.

[Bally Ache]

I think you have to assume that the trainers involved were at least given a broad hint if not an outright statement that this was coming.  Nobody wants a repeat of 1968.

I used to work for a guy who ,when he walked down the hall, would bang his spoon against his coffee cup.  He told me once he did this so we would know he was coming.  He didn\'t want to catch us doing something we weren\'t supposed to be doing.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

I think they do mean well. I wasn\'t aware of the high CO2 Threshold, but it makes sense to a certain extent. They get some leeway, but at a point the sanctions apply.

This testing involved EPO according to Veitch, but having the blood 3 days before the Derby it clearly can be screened for all substances. I\'m excited by this news. At a minimum it needs to become standard practice in all Graded Stakes.

On another note. I\'ve recently completed a careful review of the Wood. I remember reading that some felt NoBiz surged to hold Sightseeing safe. Utter nonsense, Sightseeing was getting to Nobiz in a big way.

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am busy, but--- they mean well, but until they
> publish the CO2 readings for all the horses it
> doesn\'t matter much what else they do. 99% of the
> industry does not understand that the sanction
> levels are set at a point well above what a horse
> can produce on its own, leaving a gap where horses
> can be treated (moved up) but be legal. They have
> made milkshakes (now available in pill form)
> legal.