BC Sprint Purse Being Withheld

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Do I think Ellis cheated NO. He is smart great trainer. He learned what to do legally to give his barn and connections the best opportunity to compete and earn. Did he push envelope to edge cross the line, and make a horrid decision, of course.

He wasn't as smart as he thought he was in the end though.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

He wasn't as smart as he thought he was in the end though.

Yeah it's going to leave a mark. I don't think Miller or Ellis are cheating, until they fix the loopholes its within guidelines and guidelines are set forth to educate people what is and isnt acceptable tolerance to medication use. Very hard to fault anyone who knows the rules and comes as close as they possible can to breaking them without crossing line. The real puzzle in this is why the heck did he take such a risk given the info he had. Now the jig is up for all these 70 day steroid guys, I bet they would have paid him to scratch the horse so not to further expose the recipe..lol Kidding

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by cakes44

This is very good. Not sure how many get the reference anymore though.

It is complete BS. I have no idea why IC keeps bringing this up when I pointed out to him years ago that it was BS. We found the article. The only guy who didn't know the age of the horse was the guy who wrote the article. Ellis never said anything about the Malibu or the Strub Series. He knew how old his horse was.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It is complete BS. I have no idea why IC keeps bringing this up when I pointed out to him years ago that it was BS. We found the article. The only guy who didn't know the age of the horse was the guy who wrote the article. Ellis never said anything about the Malibu or the Strub Series. He knew how old his horse was.

I remember that. I bring it up repeatedly because of how absurd it was and I'm skeptical about your claim of ellis's innocence. I'm not saying you were lying, but I am saying your claim seemed far fetched. I don't think that writer made other mistakes and I never thought of Ellis as blessed with an overabundance of intelligence. The explanation you gave was also a very obvious one that anyone could come up with. Unless that writer came out and said it was his mistake, all evidence points to Ellis. Especially how specific it was.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

I remember that. I bring it up repeatedly because of how absurd it was and I'm skeptical about your claim of ellis's innocence. I'm not saying you were lying, but I am saying your claim seemed far fetched. I don't think that writer made other mistakes and I never thought of Ellis as blessed with an overabundance of intelligence. The explanation you gave was also a very obvious one that anyone could come up with. Unless that writer came out and said it was his mistake, all evidence points to Ellis. Especially how specific it was.

We looked at the article. There was no quote from Ellis mentioning the Malibu or the Strub Series. There is not even a 1% chance that Ellis did not know Declan's Moon's age. The chances are zero.

To accuse a guy of saying something when there is no quote is absurd. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about politics, horses, or any other subject. If you are going to claim that a guy said something publicly, you need to have a quote. In this case, there was no quote. There was no quote because he never said it. In addition, Samantha Siegel is a very hands-on owner. She and Ron speak practically every day. So you would have to be claiming that she didn't know how old the horse was either. What you're saying is beyond absurd.

[Benny]

Wins Often Followed 2016 Steroid Treatments in California
By Frank Angst

While it’s a small sample size, horses reported to receive steroid administrations in 2016 in California who have come back to race fared very well in their first starts after those treatments, winning at about three times the normal rate.

Looking at the reported anabolic steroid administrations in 2016 in California, 16 times horses have raced after receiving one of those treatments (through Dec. 29). In the first start after one of those treatments those horses won six times, a 37.5% win rate. For 2015—the most recent full year available—the average win rate for all horses in California was 13.5%.

Three other times in those initial starts after a steroid treatment, horses earned placings. Combined with the wins, that’s a 56.2% placing rate, also well above the norm of 40.5%. (The 56.2% counts Masochistic’s runner-up finish in the TwinSpires Breeders’ Cup Sprint (G1), although he has since been disqualified to last.)

While it’s a small sample size, the 37.5% win rate and 56.2% placing rate are particularly impressive considering that steroid administrations are called for when a horse is debilitated, anorexic, or anemic.

The average number of days between these 16 administrations and the first start after a treatment was 99 days. Horses who receive a reported steroid administration in California must wait at least 60 days before returning to racing.

In California in 2016 there were 44 reported anabolic steroid administrations to 35 Thoroughbreds by 15 trainers. All were placed on the vet's list. Anabolic steroid administrations can be identified as they are the only treatments for Thoroughbreds listed as: “medication-60 days.”

Of those 35 horses who received at least one steroid administration reported to the California Horse Racing Board, 16 have come back to race, 14 are eligible to return but have not yet started, and five received the steroid administration in the past 60 days (through Dec. 29) and are currently ineligible to race.

Of course the interest in the administrations was sparked by Masochistic’s positive for the synthetic anabolic steroid stanozolol following his runner-up finish in the Breeders’ Cup Sprint. The race came 68 days after a reported Aug. 29 stanozolol treatment. It was the third time in 2016 that Masochistic received a steroid treatment.

The California Horse Racing Board publicly reports its vet’s list, but interestingly enough, none of the three times Masochistic was placed on the vet’s list in 2016 for anabolic steroid treatments is listed on the publicly posted information at the CHRB’s web site. Masochistic is the most accomplished horse in 2016 to have a reported anabolic steroid treatment in California and his three reported treatments are tied for most in the state.

Observing this inconsistency on Dec. 30 I requested access to the full list of reported anabolic steroid treatments in 2016 in California and CHRB spokesman Mike Marten quickly responded with access to an InCompass program to generate the full list. Marten said the publicly available vet’s list on the CHRB site is not as advanced as the InCompass program he provided.

Masochistic is trained by Ron Ellis, who accounted for seven of the 44 reported steroid administrations in California in 2016 through Dec. 29. For the full list of 2016 anabolic steroid treatments reported to the CHRB, click here.

[10 pnt move up]

Barn tips have been replaced by steroid injection lists.....this game

[philcski]

Good article by my man Frank as always, but I would like to see it broken down by off odds as well.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by philcski

Good article by my man Frank as always, but I would like to see it broken down by off odds as well.

With all due respect to Frank whom I like and think highly of, it's yet the latest disingenuous BH propaganda piece. It's a mash-up of half truths and distortions of information and statistically insignificant results derived from.. wait for it.. the legal administration and reporting of medications.

Here's an added layer of info, the Thoro-Graph sheets of the 15 horses (Link in TG forum post): https://www.thorograph.com/phorum/re...845#msg-105845

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

With all due respect to Frank whom I like and think highly of, it's yet the latest disingenuous BH propaganda piece. It's a mash-up of half truths and distortions of information and statistically insignificant results derived from.. wait for it.. the legal administration and reporting of medications.

Here's an added layer of info, the Thoro-Graph sheets of the 15 horses: https://www.thorograph.com/phorum/file.php?1,file=212

Have a heart..Just say these guys are loading up their claims and runners with ROIDS and then running them within the the boundaries of said rules LEGALLY.. Its sorry to suggest these beasts are being HELPED and CARED for out of the goodness of man kind.. Geez man call a spade a spade or say nothing

[taxicab]

So.....
This entire "story" has obviously turned into a black eye for the CHRB.
Looking into the Derby Trail Crystal Ball....
Does anyone think the California Horse Racing Board will "tweak" their rules on steroid applications ?
The way I see it, the CHRB has three choices:
A) Bump up the steroid withdrawl time to at least double what it is now.
B) Ban any steroid use in horses........period.
C) Don't make any changes in the current policy/rules.

I would think C is not a great idea.......

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Kasept

With all due respect to Frank whom I like and think highly of, it's yet the latest disingenuous BH propaganda piece. It's a mash-up of half truths and distortions of information and statistically insignificant results derived from.. wait for it.. the legal administration and reporting of medications.

Here's an added layer of info, the Thoro-Graph sheets of the 15 horses: https://www.thorograph.com/phorum/file.php?1,file=212

Download doesn't work directly but for anyone wanting to view the sheets, it's under the thread "CA Steroids". As I suspected, the horses are not running out of their skin, but rather maintaining form, most likely pairing their last. Looking at these without knowing they were on a steroid list no one would blink an eye.

I don't think it's a hit piece, it's reporting the statistics- which do stand out as abnormal, however the ROI/off odds are important to color the picture.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by philcski

Download doesn't work directly but for anyone wanting to view the sheets, it's under the thread "CA Steroids". As I suspected, the horses are not running out of their skin, but rather maintaining form, most likely pairing their last. Looking at these without knowing they were on a steroid list no one would blink an eye.

I don't think it's a hit piece, it's reporting the statistics- which do stand out as abnormal, however the ROI/off odds are important to color the picture.

The article certainly doesn't dig very deep. For the most part, all the other SoCal horses were coming off long layoffs (5-6 months) or making their debuts. Some of those horses were administered steroids presumably at the start of the layoff (Silent Bird, Longstocking) while others (the Miller horses) seemed to get them at the end of the layoff (~3 months out of a race). It's debatable whether this is appropriate use, but it is certainly more palatable than this BC fiasco.

What makes Masochistic unique, and what cmorioles has pointed out already, is that this horse was administered steroids while actively campaigning, which defies the intent of the regulatory changes surrounding anabolic steroids that started in 2008 to keep them out of sanctioned races.

Did the CHRB do a good enough job hammering the intent of the rule changes into the horsemen's heads?

In the last year when the Vet List wait period was 30 days, there was ~500 administrations of steroids in CA racehorses. In the first year that the wait time was extended to 60 days, there was ~50 administrations.

Crudely speaking, I'd say about 90% of the horsemen got the message.

[10 pnt move up]

Ellis got slapped pretty hard, basically if you have a top class horse you better move barns for 2017.

[bare it all]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

Ellis got slapped pretty hard, basically if you have a top class horse you better move barns for 2017.

Even if someone moved now, is the horse already banned by being in the barn at the beginning of the year?

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by bare it all

Even if someone moved now, is the horse already banned by being in the barn at the beginning of the year?

i dont think that would be fair and how they would look, am sure there is a "no horse transferred by x date" in the ruling can run.

[Benny]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...test/96406784/