Andy Beyer, Dutrow, DRF

[jwkniska]

Originally Posted by Kasept

That would be wrong. The ruling was overturned on the trace levels of Class 4 medications isoxsuprine (blood flow promotion) and naproxen (equine aspirin) for which Can't Beat It tested. And additionally, Illinois changed their threshold rules to be in line with the rest of the country's racing jurisdictions.

didn't know they overturned it. Thanks Steve.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by gales0678

how do we know rick beat on sat though?

also didn't he have a horse in the next race that was the favorite and was off the board?

Right...and when do you think he would bet? A favorite or an 8 to 1 shot? Who would he be more likely to juice? A favorite, or an 8 to 1 shot?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Right...and when do you think he would bet? A favorite or an 8 to 1 shot? Who would he be more likely to juice? A favorite, or an 8 to 1 shot?

again explain to me how you know Rick bet this race?

[cmorioles]

I don't. But I know he bets, he says so. I really don't care if he bet on this particular race. What does it matter?

That said, I'd be shocked if he didn't bet on the race. What makes you, oh wise sage, think he did not?

[gales0678]

we all know he bet St Liam in the BCC at a short price in the BCC , so why do you think he didn't bet the favroite in the next race?

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I don't. But I know he bets, he says so. I really don't care if he bet on this particular race. What does it matter?

That said, I'd be shocked if he didn't bet on the race. What makes you, oh wise sage, think he did not?

i don't think you or i know when any trainer makes a bet on a particular horse or doesn't bet a particular horse , that's all i'm saying

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by gales0678

i don't think you or i know when any trainer makes a bet on a particular horse or doesn't bet a particular horse , that's all i'm saying

I never said I did. I'm just saying they have the ability to bet or not bet, and also control whether a horse is at its best. Of course, all trainers do this, but those that move horses up suspiciously are probably more likely to bet when they perform whatever "miracle" cure it is they are using.

[the_fat_man]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I think one thing that is being overlooked in all this is that a lot of these guys, and Dutrow definitely, bet, and they bet a lot.

If they are cheating, they are stealing from everyone, whether you bet on him or against him.

Dutrow (and others like him) steal from us when they bet their (assumed to be) juiced horses.

Whales steal from us when they're allowed to bet after the race has started. AND
Stewards steal from us with their poor/inconsistent decisions.


I can do something about the former: by looking for patterns. In this sense, cheating trainers are not unlike flawed (or limited availability) data. (For an example of an attempt at 'cheating' the public, take a look at the chart for yesterday's 9th at AQU. A slight misrepresentation of the facts. )

The betting after the fact, and steward issues, are something completely different, however. There's no defense.

Everyone is up in arms that the tracks don't test more stringently for drugs; in order to make the game 'fairer'.

The tracks don't want a 'fair' game.

The focus needs to come off the cheating trainers and on to more significant issues that impact the bettor.

[gales0678]

if that was the case and ricky was so sure it was a lock , why didn't he mail it in and hammer the horse more , surely his bankroll is large eneough to have made the horse a lot lower than than 8/1 no?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by gales0678

if that was the case and ricky was so sure it was a lock , why didn't he mail it in and hammer the horse more , surely his bankroll is large eneough to have made the horse a lot lower than than 8/1 no?

He wasn't sure if his juice could beat Wolfson's juice head up?

[gales0678]

now he knows other trainers are juicing and what races those other trainers will be juicing in ...

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by gales0678

now he knows other trainers are juicing and what races those other trainers will be juicing in ...

You really need to take a reading class. Comprehension seems to be a weak point, to be kind.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

In recent years, we've seen high profile horses like Lure, A P Valentine, Saarland, Songster, and George Washington have fertility problems, and Lost in the Fog died of cancer. Are we implying, by logical extenstion, that Shug, Zito, Albertrani, O'Brien and Gilchrist aren't "hay, oats, and water" either?

Impossible to tell about the specific horses mentioned. Certainly a strong likelihood for the North American based ones though... Are you saying you think that list of North American trainers above weren't using steroids while they were legal? Or continue to use other legal pertinent performance maximization products? Because they did and do.

The funny and impossible thing about this discussion is that it is all based on perception of who people want to believe are 'good' or bad' guys when specific names come up based on 'public' information which CANNOT POSSIBLY TELL THE WHOLE STORY. There are a number of guys that I 'know' are probably taking advantages and their names haven't come up in any of these conversations. Those names don't come up because of the public's desire to believe said or certain individuals are good trainers and good guys. Here's a bulletin... Some are and some aren't. Some of them cheat as much or more as the guys that have made themselves poster boys by their own practices.

Everyone's minds are largely made up on this subject and there is little apparently anyone is going to say or present as evidence to change either side's mind.

[cmorioles]

I don't know which trainers are good guys, and which are bad guys. I don't know who cheats and who doesn't. However, I can tell you which ones move horses up by double digit lengths on a pretty regular basis. My guess is that anyone doing this is probably cheating, good guy or bad guy, especially when they are taking over horses not previously trained by Arthur Wendell.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I don't know which trainers are good guys, and which are bad guys. I don't know who cheats and who doesn't. However, I can tell you which ones move horses up by double digit lengths on a pretty regular basis. My guess is that anyone doing this is probably cheating, good guy or bad guy, especially when they are taking over horses not previously trained by Arthur Wendell.

Well put. I appreciate everyone approaching this topic thoughtfully and with real concern for what the industry does and plans to do to make things as fair and honest for everyone as possible. That's why Andy Beyer's earnestness on this topic has gravitas, and why he can say things that most others can't or won't. I'm as eager for the level playing field as anyone and hope when it comes that we're surprised how honest the vast majority of players in the training arena are.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Impossible to tell about the specific horses mentioned. Certainly a strong likelihood for the North American based ones though... Are you saying you think that list of North American trainers above weren't using steroids while they were legal? Or continue to use other legal pertinent performance maximization products? Because they did and do.

The funny and impossible thing about this discussion is that it is all based on perception of who people want to believe are 'good' or bad' guys when specific names come up based on 'public' information which CANNOT POSSIBLY TELL THE WHOLE STORY. There are a number of guys that I 'know' are probably taking advantages and their names haven't come up in any of these conversations. Those names don't come up because of the public's desire to believe said or certain individuals are good trainers and good guys. Here's a bulletin... Some are and some aren't. Some of them cheat as much or more as the guys that have made themselves poster boys by their own practices.

Everyone's minds are largely made up on this subject and there is little apparently anyone is going to say or present as evidence to change either side's mind

With all due respect, I don't agree. Discussion can't hurt.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by justindew

With all due respect, I don't agree. Discussion can't hurt.

No.. Of course it can't hurt. But you can see readily that there are no allegiances being switched by the debate.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by Kasept

No.. Of course it can't hurt. But you can see readily that there are no allegiances being switched by the debate.

No allegiances of the active posters in this thread are being switched, but there are a lot of people reading this thread (and not posting) that may be swayed one way or another by reading the 'discussion'.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

No allegiances of the active posters in this thread are being switched, but there are a lot of people reading this thread (and not posting) that may be swayed one way or another by reading the 'discussion'.

Ditto

[Rudeboyelvis]

A testing regiment similar to what is used in Cycling (with just as stiff penalties) would go a long way in deterring a lot of this behavior.

A blood chemisty work up on all detained horses with baseline markers and established thresholds for all elements that impact performance (eg. red blood cell count, etc).

I'm not a chemist or a vet, and do not even know if this would translate to horses, but they do this in Cycling- For instance if their red blood cell count is elevated over the threshold, they are guilty - period. It doesn't matter what they "used" to get there as there obviously not test for it anyway.

We do similar tests for Total CO2 (milkshaking) by testing for the gas volume in solution in the blood - not the level of bicarbonate soda.