milkshake

[TGJB]

Sight-- that\'s pretty insulting, among other things.

What we are going to do-- and it will take a lot of time and some money, given the large amount of raw data, since the information supposedly has not been compiled in any form-- is to input all the TCO2 data for every starter in every race for the period we do it for, the length of which will be determined by the amount of work involved. That\'s every horse tested in that time period.

We will then start asking the computer some questions, since it will now have the CO2 data, along with horse name, date, trainer, finish position, and TG number run that day.

1-- The first will be the one asked (and answered) by Rick Arthur et al in the California study you posted here: is there correlation between CO2 levels BELOW THE SANCTION LEVEL and finish position, and correlation between CO2 levels and trainers. As you already know from that study, there is, on both counts.

2-- The second will be to establish average CO2 readings by trainer, and list them. Every trainer who has over some minimum amount of starts.

3-- The third will be to look at the trainers who get higher than usual CO2 readings, and cut things up by time period. Just pulling some names out of the air here, of course, but examples of that could be comparing Pletcher\'s readings at the last Saratoga meet with those he got in June and October, or Contessa\'s during periods he does well with those at other times.

We will undoubtedly come up with some other ideas as well, and we will go where the data takes us. If I can figure out how to incorporate TG numbers in the study, we will.

Now, about you. You have hinted that you are in the industry. Who are you? Do you have a dog in this fight? Are you associated with trainers and/or vets, and if so which ones?

[rosewood]

Keep up the battle. It is one hell of a note that a figure maker is the only one in this industry with the cojones to stand up; keep it up and don\'t let them stop you.

Isn\'t it possible that a trainer could know the normal level of TCO2 for all his horses and weigh them before racing and juice up to the limit or at least try to get up close enough that he wouldn\'t go over?

What is frustrating to me is that no one seems to care. As a small player it makes me mad as hell to have $$ unfairly stolen from me on the track or at the window.

Although milkshaking is probably not the most serious kind of cheating; I have asked  what the Magic Bullet is, and have not been told that secret.

The most recent accusation of O\'Neill is an example;
    1) what horse was tested positive
    2) was his horse Saturday up against the limit
   
Doug O\'Neill couldn\'t have gotten a saddle on him and got Gate Dancer from the paddock to the gate, much less run him .

[sighthound]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sight-- that\'s pretty insulting, among other
> things.

It wasn\'t meant to be insulting.  Sorry if you took it that way.  You have an outstanding opportunity (if various jurisdictions will give you the info).  

But you\'ve made no secret that you \"already know\" which trainers cheat via figures, and you want to prove they do.  I hope you do prove it.  But I also hope it\'s done in a manner that will stand up to the intense scrutiny it will receive.

My point was that it\'s very easy to find justification for something one already believes is true.  It\'s a different approach to start with no preconceived ideas, and allow the data to tell you what is true.

> We will undoubtedly come up with some other ideas
> as well, and we will go where the data takes us.
> If I can figure out how to incorporate TG numbers
> in the study, we will.

Sounds like a good plan.  I will be eager to see if you do find valid correlations; if you find patterns for trainers you didn\'t expect, no patterns for trainers you did expect, etc.

> Now, about you. You have hinted that you are in
> the industry. Who are you? Do you have a dog in
> this fight? Are you associated with trainers
> and/or vets, and if so which ones?

Yes, no (other than wanting illegal activity gone), yes.  I have no concern about anything you could find and publish for any particular trainer or vet.  I disrespect \"cheaters\" as much as anybody on this board.  But I think the term is throw around very casually at times.  Let\'s see where it really sticks.

[fkach]

>Let the results lead you to conclusions - don\'t let conclusions lead you to results.<

It\'s actually more complicated than you think. There is some subjectiveness in the figure making process. It\'s not impossible for a specific figure to be biased by the figure maker\'s views on trainers.

For example:

Suppose you have a stat that suggests that trainer X\'s horses tend to pair up a lot. Now let\'s suppose there\'s a race with a very inconclusive result, but one of the horses is trained by trainer X. If \"one\" of several possible logical results suggests that trainer X\'s horse paired up, you might assign the figure that way and support the very stat you are basing the conclusion on in a circular fashion. That does not make it right.

The same could be true of a suspected drug trainer.

Suppose there\'s a race with a very inconclusive result, but one of the horses is trained by trainer Y, he is a suspected drug trainer, the horse won by a big margin, and this was the first time the trainer had the horse. The first conclusion is going to be that the horse must have moved up a lot. So he will be assigned a super fast figure even though the results were inconclusive other than being supported by the assumption that he probably moved up because of drugs.

These are rare exceptions because usually there is plenty of evidence to support a figure because there are many horses in a race on which to base it. But there are exceptions and the results could get skewed slightly by bias unless the figure maker is very careful.

[TGJB]

Sight-- you say you don\'t mean to insult me, then do it again (both my intelligence and integrity, by the way).

Fkach-- if you think we make figures based on who we think is using something, you REALLY have no idea what you are talking about.

Both of you-- you really should read carefully what I said about what we\'re going to do before you post again on this subject. When we eventually get the data input, we will be doing broad population studies of horses based on where they finish correlated with their CO2 levels, and ALL their trainers based on their average CO2 levels.

[sighthound]

Sight-- you say you don\'t mean to insult me, then do it again (both my intelligence and integrity, by the way).

Well, again, it was not intended as such.  

Both of you-- you really should read carefully what I said about what we\'re going to do before you post again on this subject.

I did.  My comment was, \"Sounds like a good plan\".

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

It appears to me that the \"Cheater Apologists\" are mistaking the Scientific Method with a Criminal Process Presumption of Innocence. They are two vastly different concepts. There is no Presumption of Innocence from observations under the Scientific Method.

Ask a Question: \"Are certain trainers Cheating\"?

Do Background Research: The data shows move ups and suspicious performance rates for specific trainers.
 
Construct a Hypothesis: \"Plech, Dutrow, Lake and others are using illegal performance enhancing substances including Carbonates\".
 
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment: \"Obtain the blood and carbon samples from their runners and others\"
 
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion: Which horses are running unusally fast what is their carbonate level, and who is their conditioner?
 
Communicate Your Results: Right here baby and endure questions from those that hold only opinions and wouldn\'t know science if it bit them in the buttocks that hold their brains.

CtC




 TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sight-- you say you don\'t mean to insult me, then
> do it again (both my intelligence and integrity,
> by the way).
>
> Fkach-- if you think we make figures based on who
> we think is using something, you REALLY have no
> idea what you are talking about.
>
> Both of you-- you really should read carefully
> what I said about what we\'re going to do before
> you post again on this subject. When we eventually
> get the data input, we will be doing broad
> population studies of horses based on where they
> finish correlated with their CO2 levels, and ALL
> their trainers based on their average CO2 levels.

[fkach]

>Fkach-- if you think we make figures based on who we think is using something, you REALLY have no idea what you are talking about. <

I was very careful to say that in the vast majority of races, there is a lot of information on which to base a figure because there are multiple horses with clear records to look at. Those records are typically fairly consistent with the race results and the figures assigned etc..

There are exceptions though. Then biased views on trainers \"could\" impact a figure maker\'s thinking without him/her knowing it. Those rare exceptions would then impact the overall results.

I could easily illustrate an example, but it would serve no purpose because I am not saying that kind of thing it happens here. I am saying it CAN happen -  (and maybe especially) among very sophisticated thinkers - looking for every possible source of evidence for how to assign a very tough figure. I don\'t think we need to debate a \"theoretical problem\".

[sighthound]

>> It appears to me that the \"Cheater Apologists\" are mistaking the Scientific Method with a Criminal Process Presumption of Innocence. They are two vastly >> different concepts. There is no Presumption of Innocence from observations under the Scientific Method.

Neither is there a presumption of guilt.

> Construct a Hypothesis: \"Plech, Dutrow, Lake and
> others are using illegal performance enhancing
> substances including Carbonates\".

Sorry, Clown.   The above isn\'t scientific method.  The correct hypothesis would be, \"There is no correlation between TCO2 levels and performance\".

If the hypothesis is disproved, by finding statistically significant associations between TCO2 levels and performance, you\'ve found what you are looking for.

Of course, the answer to that question has already been found.   Certain bicarbonate levels help delay the onset of muscle fatigue, and helps decrease muscle soreness the day after hard works.   That is why certain doses of bicarbonates are given in equine sports medicine (and to dogs, and to humans).  

That\'s why good trainers add a bit (there are many products on the market), or feed high-performance racehorse feeds that contain some basic substances with buffering capacity.    Many trainers feed additives and supplements that contains alkalynizing agents, unrealized by the trainer (which can push a horse over legal threshold).  

Unfortunately, there have also been many documented instances over the years of trainers killing horses, or causing dehydration, colic, electrolyte imbalance, etc.,  by giving too much.

It\'s known that TCO2 levels can vary widely among horses, and even an individual horse can have vastly varying levels, depending on factors such as sex, age, time of day, water intake, climate, ambient temperature, exercise, pre-race excitement and presence of respiratory disease.  

There is also significant risk of laboratory error involved in the drawing, storing, and shipping of drawn blood.

Thus we have the current threshold levels of TCO2 established that are deemed \"legal\" (and thus could be naturally occuring, or due to good management common in the racehorse industry), and those that are considered \"illegal\".

An additional problem is that when one measures TCO2, there is an error rate of +/- 1.2 mmol/L to 1.4 mmol/L (so levels are reported as a \"range\").

The question of interest, to the gambling public, becomes one of degree.  

However, that is obviously complicated by all of the above concerns.   If a certain trainers horses are always coming back at roughly 33-34 mmol/L (below the \"illegal\" threshold), and another trainer\'s horses are always coming back in the area of 32-33 mmol/L -  is that \"cheating\", or is trainer A simply better educated on optimal care of the equine athlete?  And his horses run consistently better than trainer B\'s?

>> Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion: Which horses are running unusally fast what is their carbonate level, and who is their conditioner?

Bicarbonate loading has not been found to increase speed.  It\'s gross action is to delay the onset of muscle fatigue.  Horses (humans, dogs) can run slightly longer, and hold their speed a little longer - but it does not increase their natural turn of foot.

>>> Communicate Your Results: Right here baby and endure questions from those that hold only opinions and wouldn\'t know science if it bit them in the buttocks that hold their brains.   CtC

Feel free to post your scientific bona-fides or CV.

[marcus]

nice post ctc , imo - i like it . eventually the hold outs against positive change will accept full disclosure   ...

[fkach]

I think sightsound has actually identified the major issue.

There\'s already almost total agreement that some trainers are moving their horses up.

Apparently there is growing evidence that some trainer\'s horses have higher than average levels of TCO2.

Apparently there is growing evidence that horses improve their performances when they have higher levels of TCO2 (not that we really needed any more evidence given that we already knew that milkshakes have been given for that reason for a long time).

The problem is defining what is natural, what is not natural, what is within the possible testing error range etc.... so you can clearly say that trainer \"X\" is breaking the rules. That\'s the reason the legal level has a \"margin of safety\" built into it that puts it at a different level than what is considered normal or average to begin with.

If we see a lot of specific trainer data, it will give us probable explanations for a lot of the \"move ups\" etc... and perhaps help with the handicapping process.

But is it going to change the \"legal\" level and lead to more suspensions?

[miff]

Jerry,

Re your reply to Sight and Fkach.You were the one who ONLY cited TAP in your original post.

What do expect people to think. You specifically state/suggest that, for example, you want to see the CO2 levels of TAP\'s runners at Saratoga this year when the barn could not win and horses performed poorly for their caliber.

What exactly are the intelligent people who post here supposed to think other than you have a preconceived notion that TAP is shaking horses from one meet to another.


Mike

[TGJB]

Without getting into the question of Pletcher specifically, I don\'t have preconceived notions-- I draw conclusions from the huge amount od data I look at daily, and specific information I receive.

But more importantly, I NEVER incorporate that into figure making. If I did what you are implying, I would never give a move-up trainer\'s horses a bad number-- just give everyone else an even better number.

You guys do realize I don\'t just use one horse in a race, right? And most of the time, the surrounding races?

[TGJB]

Sight-- There are a lot of things I could respond to here, but I have to ask-- have you ever administered or prescribed alkalyzing agents to horses in any form, whether it is \"benignly\" in a feed additive, or any other way?

[ajkreider]

Since \"scientific method\" is being bandied about here, it bears mentioning that correlation does not equal causation (\"post hoc ergo propter hoc\", I believe).  Finding different CO2 levels in TAP\'s Saratoga runners shows nothing significant, as there are other variables that may be in play. The horses\' performance variation might even be explained by chance. A trainer that hits 25% of the time over a five year period will have significant periods in that time where the hit rate is much lower - and higher- than that.  (Just like coin flips don\'t alternate heads and tails).

It would be interesting, and worthy of further examination - but that\'s it.

(In case everyone knows this already, it\'s not my intent to be patronizing)