Interesting discussion

[Scav]

Originally Posted by scanman

So what's the answer, make accusations that Ness is a cheater until technology catches up with him?

Ness went on the other forum and gave an explanation for his success. Okay, until proven otherwise, it is what it is. Just maybe, the man is a very good trainer. I don't know the man, nor anyone who is affliated with him, but his record speaks for itself.

I hope he does respond to your post on the other forum, but in reality, I don't know what he could say that would cause you to have a different opinion of him.

See below what another trainer said, one that I respect, in regards to these crazy moveups

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This guy says that his success is from "getting them fit" which I would take as training them harder. LOL. There may be a rare occasion that you find something out of order like a bad tooth, bad shoe, abcess, ulcers, ect. that can turn around quickly. I doubt that 41% of his claims have such issues.

Here is what I know, I know that statistically, he is blowing normal achievable numbers out of the water with racing stock that has PREVIOUS FORM. This racing stock is showing HUGE improvements first out for Ness, and it continues, until he 'squeezes the lemon dry' and then he dumps it to someone willing to take the risk.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Scav

See below what another trainer said, one that I respect, in regards to these crazy moveups



Here is what I know, I know that statistically, he is blowing normal achievable numbers out of the water with racing stock that has PREVIOUS FORM. This racing stock is showing HUGE improvements first out for Ness, and it continues, until he 'squeezes the lemon dry' and then he dumps it to someone willing to take the risk.

This is where it gets confusing for me. People that claim horses off guys like Ness. Are they really naive (look it up Tom) enough to think that:

1. They can move the horse up even more

or

B. They horse will maintain its current form after the claim

[Scav]

Originally Posted by GPK

This is where it gets confusing for me. People that claim horses off guys like Ness. Are they really naive (look it up Tom) enough to think that:

1. They can move the horse up even more

or

B. They horse will maintain its current form after the claim

I thought I spelled it right when I used it earlier....

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Scav

I thought I spelled it right when I used it earlier....

Hell...I may have spelled it wrong. I just wasnt sure you knew the definition.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by GPK

Hell...I may have spelled it wrong. I just wasnt sure you knew the definition.

oh....I know what it means

It is just like claiming off Catalano, short term, you can get 1 or two races out of them (Magana does this all the time) but long term, they are running at the bottom in only a matter of time

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Scav

oh....I know what it means

It is just like claiming off Catalano, short term, you can get 1 or two races out of them (Magana does this all the time) but long term, they are running at the bottom in only a matter of time

But am I mistaken in thinking that this is just a losing propostition in the long run?

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Scav

See below what another trainer said, one that I respect, in regards to these crazy moveups



Here is what I know, I know that statistically, he is blowing normal achievable numbers out of the water with racing stock that has PREVIOUS FORM. This racing stock is showing HUGE improvements first out for Ness, and it continues, until he 'squeezes the lemon dry' and then he dumps it to someone willing to take the risk.

Understood. I respect and agree with most of what Cannon Shell writes. That being said, I still think that Ness in entitled to the "benefit of the doubt" until proven otherwise.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by scanman

So what's the answer, make accusations that Ness is a cheater until technology catches up with him?

Ness went on the other forum and gave an explanation for his success. Okay, until proven otherwise, it is what it is. Just maybe, the man is a very good trainer. I don't know the man, nor anyone who is affliated with him, but his record speaks for itself.

I hope he does respond to your post on the other forum, but in reality, I don't know what he could say that would cause you to have a different opinion of him.

...and Marion Jones swore under oath that she never took illegal drugs.....until she was caught. Just because he says so, doesn't mean we have to believe him.

There is no answer. As you say, it is what it is, but we can have opinions on the matter.

Mine just happens to be 180 degrees from yours.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by GPK

But am I mistaken in thinking that this is just a losing propostition in the long run?

No, but not many people will claim on for 10k off Catalano, run and win back at 10k, and then drop to 5k, which is what I would do.

If I had a bankroll at Arlington, I would claim off Catalano, run back in 14 days at the same level (I can't remember what the jail rules are here), hopefully run well, if he does run well and wins, drop to 7500 or 5k and be done with it.

I think someone just did this, and Liane Davis took the bait,Tattooed Lady was the horses name, and I doubt this horse sees the track again.

Catalano had this hrose first run at Arlington, horse won for 15k, then dropped to 10k and got claimed, the new owner ran back for 10k and ran 2nd, they dropped to 7500 and Liane Davis took the horse, and the horse just ran last for 7500 on 7/3

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Scav

No, but not many people will claim on for 10k off Catalano, run and win back at 10k, and then drop to 5k, which is what I would do.

If I had a bankroll at Arlington, I would claim off Catalano, run back in 14 days at the same level (I can't remember what the jail rules are here), hopefully run well, if he does run well and wins, drop to 7500 or 5k and be done with it.

I think someone just did this, and Liane Davis took the bait,Tattooed Lady was the horses name, and I doubt this horse sees the track again.

Catalano had this hrose first run at Arlington, horse won for 15k, then dropped to 10k and got claimed, the new owner ran back for 10k and ran 2nd, they dropped to 7500 and Liane Davis took the horse, and the horse just ran last for 7500 on 7/3

How long do the affects of intense Hyperbaric treatments last? Publicly, this is what they are claiming is driving their success as their horses are basically living in Rivelli's chamber until they run. Now, I'm done defending their success, but this could have something to do with it if the horses are subjected to many sessions in the chamber and then nothing off the claim.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by GBBob

How long do the affects of intense Hyperbaric treatments last? Publicly, this is what they are claiming is driving their success as their horses are basically living in Rivelli's chamber until they run. Now, I'm done defending their success, but this could have something to do with it if the horses are subjected to many sessions in the chamber and then nothing off the claim.

I have even heard him say "run out of the tank"

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Scav

I have even heard him say "run out of the tank"

Again..I'm sure there is more, but The Chamber is proven to be beneficial

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

...and Marion Jones swore under oath that she never took illegal drugs.....until she was caught. Just because he says so, doesn't mean we have to believe him.

There is no answer. As you say, it is what it is, but we can have opinions on the matter.

Mine just happens to be 180 degrees from yours.

Fair enough and I do respect your opinion. Though, what did you expect Ness to write, "I get a 41% win-rate off a claim because my horses are juiced?"

There just seems to be a prevailing mentality that "if a trainer is successful, he must be a cheater". In Ness' case, it hasn't been proven, so for now, let's give the man his due.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by scanman

Question for anyone:

What are the testing procedures for tracks like Belmont, Hollywood, Churchill versus tracks like Tampa, Canterbury, Penn National?

The procedures are similar. The labs that test for smaller tracks are not inferior to the bigger ones and in fact in many cases are the same. The difference is the amount of substances tested for. Even the bigger tracks (states) are usually not testing for more than 10-20 things and on some occasions less then that. Considering the amount of drugs available it is a drop in the bucket. Supertesting has been done for stakes at Keeneland and those tests are usually looking for 400 or more drugs and as far as I know there have been no positives. In a lot of cases positives are closer to speeding tickets than real crimes. When you hear Larry Jones has not had a positive in 25 years you have to take that in the context of what it really means. Meaning that under the old rules in KY which the majority of his career was spent under, it was almost impossible to get a positive test because most everything was legal and hardly had any withdrawl. The things that cause horses to magically improve and get trainers at 40% arent things that are widely known and tested for.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by scanman

Understood. I respect and agree with most of what Cannon Shell writes. That being said, I still think that Ness in entitled to the "benefit of the doubt" until proven otherwise.

So are Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. Do you believe them? They haven't failed a test either. I dont think anyone shouldnt be skeptical about these guys who seemingly appear out of nowhere and suddenly do extraordinary things. If they are clean than they will have long successful careers. If not they go the way of Juan Serey, Oscar, Preston King, and many others.

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The procedures are similar. The labs that test for smaller tracks are not inferior to the bigger ones and in fact in many cases are the same. The difference is the amount of substances tested for. Even the bigger tracks (states) are usually not testing for more than 10-20 things and on some occasions less then that. Considering the amount of drugs available it is a drop in the bucket. Supertesting has been done for stakes at Keeneland and those tests are usually looking for 400 or more drugs and as far as I know there have been no positives. In a lot of cases positives are closer to speeding tickets than real crimes. When you hear Larry Jones has not had a positive in 25 years you have to take that in the context of what it really means. Meaning that under the old rules in KY which the majority of his career was spent under, it was almost impossible to get a positive test because most everything was legal and hardly had any withdrawl. The things that cause horses to magically improve and get trainers at 40% arent things that are widely known and tested for.

Thanks, I appreciate your insight.

The "no positives" at Keeneland is encouraging.

As one who is directly affected by this issue, where do you see the industry going concerning testing? Also, will the industry and/or labs ever be able to test for everything that "needs" to be tested for?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by scanman

Thanks, I appreciate your insight.

The "no positives" at Keeneland is encouraging.

As one who is directly affected by this issue, where do you see the industry going concerning testing? Also, will the industry and/or labs ever be able to test for everything that "needs" to be tested for?

I think that the awareness levels about testing has dramatically improved. The fact that the issues are being seriously considered is a positive step. I dont think that they are necessarily going about it very effectively but things are better than they were just a few years ago. That being said there is just so much to do, so much research that is not being funded or done especially in the area of accurate and effetive withdrawl times and realistic levels and most importantly in areas of the currently undectable drugs.

I have always been a proponent of greater investigative tactics as the key to winning this battle between the labs and the new drugs. Balco's drugs werent discovered by testing, they were uncovered by an IRS agent's investigation. The amount of money spent on investigation in this sport is an embarassment.

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So are Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. Do you believe them? They haven't failed a test either. I dont think anyone shouldnt be skeptical about these guys who seemingly appear out of nowhere and suddenly do extraordinary things. If they are clean than they will have long successful careers. If not they go the way of Juan Serey, Oscar, Preston King, and many others.

I haven't followed the issue with Clemens or Bonds close enough to have an opinion, but no positive = no guilt. But that leads to the other issue of whether or not baseball was/is testing for the "right" drugs to show an illegal positive, which I guess is the same issue that we have with racing.

Yes, be skeptical if you like, but those who scorn a man's good name without facts serve no purpose.

I hope Ness is clean and has a long successful career (and you too). The sport needs positive stories and with Ness, so far so good.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Ness has a fairly cheap day rate - I'm curious if it's true that he rarely uses the vet as he claims.

I assumed his vet bills might be gigantic.

Maybe he's just moving them up with good old fashioned hay, oats, and water bought on the cheap with big volume discounts.