The drugged racehorse

[JJP]

So as handicappers, what do you look for to spot them? I have several criteria that make me suspicious. No I can't PROVE any horse was drugged, but lets not be naive here.

1. Step one: suspicious early betting action. Sometimes it hits you like a sledgehammer; the expected 8-1 shot who's is holding at 6-5 until it drifts to 7-2 late. Or it could be more subtle; the 10-1/12-1 expected odds horse who's holding at 7-2 until it drifts to 5-1/6-1 late. Connections often like to bet early to avoid getting shut out, and "value" players see great bargains late in the betting, unaware they're betting against a juiced horse, therefore the late odds rise. Of course, at small tracks, this may not be significant. But there are some tracks, (ElP, Haw and TP come to mind) where early money is a very powerful angle.

2. Sharp appearance in the paddock & post parade. On the toes, good attitude and ready to run. No signs of lethargy.

3. Improved early speed. If the horse already is a speed ball, they just carry it a lot further.

4. Often a rider switch to a better rider. It doesn't have to be Edgar Prado or JRV. It can be a move to a competent rider from a stiff.

5. Last and not least, a performance and speed figure that suggests something out of the norm.

If you suspect a horse fits these criteria and he runs big, mark him down as one to avoid next time out. There's a horse running tomorrow at a North American track who I believe qualifies. I will not name him but if you look at enough pps, you can figure it out.

[slotdirt]

I disagree on the first point at least, and definitely have issues with your other assertions. Take a horse, for instance, who might be part of a partnership or otherwise has many connections who all bet early. That'd take an 8-1 down to a 8-5 by first flash easily.

[JJP]

First off, you obviously can find exceptions. No, not all early money horses are drugged. Its just one aspect, IMO, of a candidate for juicing. But it is amazing how often the early heavy action horses outrun their expectations.

[Cajungator26]

Ramazutti COULD be a good example of #2 although I've never seen him up close before this past weekend.

[blackthroatedwind]

Personally I find the first post pretty irresponsible.

[Thoroughbred Fan]

Drugged gamblers, what do you look for to spot them? I have several criteria that make me suspicious. No I can't PROVE any gambler was drugged, but lets not be naive here.

1. Step one: suspicious early betting action. Sometimes it hits you like a sledgehammer; they unexpectedly try to bet the derby in January. Some folks are delusional about pickingthe Derby winner early others are on drugs.

2. Shabby appearance in the betting line. Off balance, bad attitude and ready to to fall at any moment. Signs of lethary and confusion.

3. No speed. They are trying to read the book even tho they can't seem to focus on the small print. They are completely oblivious to me screaming from the back of the line.

4. Often switch betting strategy at the window. It doesn't have to be a better strategy. They bet horses you know are stiffs.

5. Last and not least, they ask you for money.

If you suspect a gambler fits these criteria, runs away from them and mark him down as one to avoid next time out. There are several at my local Magna crapped on track as we speak. I will not name them but if you take a whiff when you enter, you can figure it out.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

lest we forget..this game is on the up and up....id like to believe that this is a rare thing not the norm..and fyi..nothing says that a enhanced performance it where this would happen if it did..id be more apt to think dulling a fav performance thus makeing the public choice an out of the money runner would be more beneficial...

[JJP]

Nobody is saying this happens every race, or every day. As a bettor there's a few instances where there's five minutes to post and you look at the board and just scratch your head. One horse is getting far more action than it should be. Not the obvious type, with great form, or the horse ridden by the leading rider or sent out by the track's leading trainer, or even the class dropper. And I'm not saying all "live" horses are drugged, either. Just that its a possible red flag.

[Thoroughbred Fan]

Originally Posted by JJP

Nobody is saying this happens every race, or every day. As a bettor there's a few instances where there's five minutes to post and you look at the board and just scratch your head. One horse is getting far more action than it should be. Not the obvious type, with great form, or the horse ridden by the leading rider or sent out by the track's leading trainer, or even the class dropper. And I'm not saying all "live" horses are drugged, either. Just that its a possible red flag.

I don't think anyone here disputes the fact that shady things happen sometimes. I think unless you "know" then you will kill your bankroll and drive yourself crazy trying to figure it out. There are more pressing concerns that you can concretely know, like which jocks to never bet. Why? Becasue they prove time and time again they are terrible. There's the proof...replays.

-TF

[JJP]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

lest we forget..this game is on the up and up....id like to believe that this is a rare thing not the norm..and fyi..nothing says that a enhanced performance it where this would happen if it did..id be more apt to think dulling a fav performance thus makeing the public choice an out of the money runner would be more beneficial...

There's many ways to lose a race without being drugged. And yes, I know somebody will bring up the incidents in KY a few years back where some horses breathing was obstructed to make them lose. I do agree with you that its NOT the norm. However, as a handicapper, we can't be naive that it never happens.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Cajungator26

Ramazutti COULD be a good example of #2 although I've never seen him up close before this past weekend.

Um, check your PP's honey, he is always on the lead, in fact, almost won a graded stakes at Gulfstream last year gate to wire at like 40/1

[blackthroatedwind]

There's a big difference between being aware of trainers who cheat and the suggestions in the first post in this thread.

[paisjpq]

each and every one of your arguments has huge holes in it...

one person already pointed out that a partnership horse may take extraordinary amounts of unwarrented money...look at any west point runner if you don't believe me.

horses have personalities and attitudes like any other creature...they may be on their toes one day and dull as a post the next...it does not mean that they have been drugged...the only way that there might be any validation for this argument is if you are able to observe said horse on a daily basis to then note a sudden change in behavior...but even that is not going to be reliable because something as small as temperature and humidity changes can have a dramatic effect on a horse.

a sudden change of form often looks suspucious and if coupled with a new barn might be a valid case for drugging...but also could be due to better care...or time off...or the horse rounding into form...etc etc.

A switch to a better jock is more often a lucky break on a triners part than anything else...do you honestly think that a trainer is going to call a top jocks's agent and tell him that he has a 'sure thing' horse for the guy to ride...all but admitting that the horse will be on an illegal substance? please.

I'm not trying to deny that there are unscrupulous trainers and owners in this game but your method for 'uncovering' drugged horse in a race is not what i would call sound logic.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Scav

Um, check your PP's honey, he is always on the lead, in fact, almost won a graded stakes at Gulfstream last year gate to wire at like 40/1

He looked really good in the paddock, Tom. I haven't seen him before, so I wasn't sure if that was typical for him or not (coat really shiny, dancing on his toes.) He hasn't won a race since '05 and he didn't run on top of the pace the whole time on Sunday.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

each and every one of your arguments has huge holes in it...

one person already pointed out that a partnership horse may take extraordinary amounts of unwarrented money...look at any west point runner if you don't believe me.

horses have personalities and attitudes like any other creature...they may be on their toes one day and dull as a post the next...it does not mean that they have been drugged...the only way that there might be any validation for this argument is if you are able to observe said horse on a daily basis to then note a sudden change in behavior...but even that is not going to be reliable because something as small as temperature and humidity changes can have a dramatic effect on a horse.

a sudden change of form often looks suspucious and if coupled with a new barn might be a valid case for drugging...but also could be due to better care...or time off...or the horse rounding into form...etc etc.

A switch to a better jock is more often a lucky break on a triners part than anything else...do you honestly think that a trainer is going to call a top jocks's agent and tell him that he has a 'sure thing' horse for the guy to ride...all but admitting that the horse will be on an illegal substance? please.

I'm not trying to deny that there are unscrupulous trainers and owners in this game but your method for 'uncovering' drugged horse in a race is not what i would call sound logic.

The problem with your argument is you are picking on one point at a time. One of the variables alone isn't enough evidence. But what about when all the variables come into play? Of course its not a guarantee but it could be a red flag. I'm not so sure I agree on your point about the trainers and jock agents. Would the trainer come right out and say they were going to juice? I doubt it, but he probably tells the agent he "really likes so and so", even though the horse's form is only modest.

As bettors, we all love to believe that every race is won by a big overlay when in fact, that isn't the case at all. Live horses win more than their fair share of races.

[JJP]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

There's a big difference between being aware of trainers who cheat and the suggestions in the first post in this thread.

First off, what was so irresponsible? I mentioned no names of trainers or horses. I also stated that it was just opinion, and I couldn't prove any horse was drugged. Its a reality in racing, like it or not, at least some of the time. As handicappers, we have to factor it in.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by JJP

The problem with your argument is you are picking on one point at a time. One of the variables alone isn't enough evidence. But what about when all the variables come into play? Of course its not a guarantee but it could be a red flag. I'm not so sure I agree on your point about the trainers and jock agents. Would the trainer come right out and say they were going to juice? I doubt it, but he probably tells the agent he "really likes so and so", even though the horse's form is only modest.

As bettors, we all love to believe that every race is won by a big overlay when in fact, that isn't the case at all. Live horses win more than their fair share of races.

Actually, Beth is pretty spot on with her analysis.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by JJP

First off, what was so irresponsible? I mentioned no names of trainers or horses. I also stated that it was just opinion, and I couldn't prove any horse was drugged. Its a reality in racing, like it or not, at least some of the time. As handicappers, we have to factor it in.

I think it was irresponsible because you were making suggestions to people that were flat out poor and if someone didn't know better they would be led badly in the wrong direction. To me this is a very bad thing to do.

Beth accurately pointed out that this theory of being able to identify some physicality to indicate drugging is not only flawed but patently absurd. Only the most astute observers of horseflesh, and ones that do this on a daily basis, while maintaining notes, would have any chance of doing this with any real degree of accuracy, and even they will tell you what you are suggesting is very difficult. For you to intimate that a horse " on his toes " might be drugged is a VERY bad piece of advice.

On your betting action theories....there are many reasons a horse may be taking more money than YOU would expect, and the most plausible is that you mishandicapped the race. But, to suggest that what one considers unusual betting action somehow translates into a horse who has been drugged is indefensible and flat out wrong in that while I suppose there is a scintilla of a possiblity you are right there are MANY more reasons that you would be wrong. Once again you are leading people in the wrong direction.

As for your suggestion that a switch to a better rider indicates a possibly drugged horse...well much like the previous example it more likely means a whole lot of other things.

Now, the other two things you suggested do have some merit, but they can only be observed after the race has been run, but are worth noting for future handicapping.

Once again, I believe it is irresponsible to suggest the things you did to people because should even one person take you seriously they have been severly led in the VERY wrong direction.

[JJP]

I'm not in the teaching business and I'm not trying to lead anyone. If I would change anything in the opening post, I would rank the factors in terms of importance, not chronologically like I had them listed.

1. Unusual performance or figure out of the norm. We're not talking about lightly raced horses here who could easily keep on improving. Its the 5 or 6YO who runs the fig of its life.
2. Very live on the board, especially early on but maintains surprising betting action from opening to closing odds.
3. Sharp improvement in early speed.
4. Sharp paddock and post parade. This in and of itself is NOT a sign a horse is drugged by any means. If anything it may be a function of point number two; live horses on the board almost always look sharp, and that includes a lot of legit, on the improve horses. But if the 6YO bum has just run like the second coming of Ghostzapper, its just a bit more evidence something may have been up.
5. Jock switch to better rider. Or a switch to a rider who's won with the horse before. This isn't corrupt but just a sign of positive trainer/owner intent to get the job done.

[JJP]

I'm not sure Ramazutti winning was such a shock, it was the fact he did it without the lead. I thought he had to be on the lead to win a race like that, and there was other speed in the race. But he proved he could rate.