Yikes - ATR Live

Riot · #1 11-05-2007, 09:04 AM

Quote:

In light of the capabilities of many of racing's testing labs and the fact that there are no tests for many designer drugs (cobra and cone snail venom are recent examples), it's hard to reach the conclusion that a certain trainer must be clean because he/she has no positives, or only a few.

The above quote is talking about humans, not horses, and is talking about designer steroids in this case. I've no doubt some trainers may go there to try and build a more-muscled, aggressive-on-the-track horse, but I am certainly not prepared to paint every trainer as guilty until proven innocent.

I would rather look at what drug testing in horses can detect, and has eliminated. There's alot there, and alot of important stuff there.

I have no problem looking at trainers with multiple drug positives (obviously don't care about regulations) far differently than trainers that historically come back clean, time after time, horse after horse.

Quote:

By that standard, Patrick Biancone ran a clean barn in the US prior to 2007 - and who, in light of recent revelations, believes that?

I don't quite know what people think trainers do with "drugs", or what effect it could have on a particular horses performance.

Cobra venom. Is every horse going to get it before they go to a race? Of course not. Why should they? It's use (misuse) would be for a sore horse, so they don't feel pain.

If a horse isn't painful coming into a race, no need to give it. If a horse is painful and could miss an important race, an unscupulous trainer could use it.

Cobra venom isn't going to make the horse run faster, or farther, but it will enable them to run when they shouldn't. And there is certainly no need to give it to horses that are not sore, even in the barn of the most unscrupulous trainer, as it's not gonna do squat for those horses.

parsixfarms · #2 11-05-2007, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

I am certainly not prepared to paint every trainer as guilty until proven innocent.

I have no problem looking at trainers with multiple drug positives (obviously don't care about regulations) far differently than trainers that historically come back clean, time after time, horse after horse.

I tend to agree with you on both of these arguments. I do believe that the vast majority of the trainers on the backside are honest, hard-working individuals who play the game within the rules. The point that I was trying to make is that, like drug testing in human athletic contests, the cheaters are always likely to be ahead of the testers. The conclusion that has been drawn by many on this thread that a certain trainer must be clean because he/she has no, or only a few positives, does not necessarily follow from the facts on which the conclusion is based.

Cannon Shell · #3 11-05-2007, 02:38 PM

Pretty much we trainers are all scum

docicu3 · #4 11-05-2007, 02:41 PM

So who is the horsemens friend in the Govenors race tomorrow?

Cannon Shell · #5 11-05-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by docicu3

So who is the horsemens friend in the Govenors race tomorrow?

Not Lyin Ernie

phystech · #6 11-05-2007, 03:28 PM

I ran a horse about two years ago. He was coming back from 32 days off between races.

Prior to the race, as the day's scratches were being announced, I heard the announcer say my horse had worked a few days before in 37.4.

I looked at my trainer and asked how he went. The response was "I don't know - I didn't work him".

#7 11-05-2007, 03:42 PM

This is why this show is the best horse racing show on the radio and worth spending a few dollars a month for. Although it still is not Noble's saturday morning show. LOL

The reason why everyone knows Dutrow is a cheater is because what happens when he claims horses or takes them from other trainers. A good trainer can move a horse up a little, but he certainly can't move him up 15-20 beyer numbers.

The fact is a good trainer can make a horse a little better, and a bad trainer can make a horse much worse, but there is nothing that Dutrow can legally do to move a horse up the way he moves a horse up.

One horse convinced me he was a 100% absolute cheater and that was Kip Deville. That horse got way too much of whatever he was giving him in that first race at Colonial Downs when he took a 20 length lead or whatever it was. He was a nice horse in TX before the IEAH purchase but that one must really love the "juice" that they are drinking in the Dutrow barn.

Riot · #8 11-05-2007, 04:12 PM

Quote:

I looked at my trainer and asked how he went. The response was "I don't know - I didn't work him".

Just fills one with confidence in the sport, doesn't it

Riot · #9 11-05-2007, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Pretty much we trainers are all scum

Well, according to some of the message boards I've read this past weekend, yeah

Fans and gamblers: let be frank, most of us are people whose only contact with horses is watching them on TV at the OTB. We don't know what drugs are used, let alone what those drugs can or cannot do. We don't even know the names of those drugs, other than "lasix" and "steroids".

We have no idea how horses are trained, or what training can or can not do for a horse. We don't know the common drugs, or those necessary and used to keep horses sound and healthy and running in this sport daily, and how those drugs are tested for on race days (what levels of those drugs are permitted).

So all we are left with is .... guessing that the whole thing is crooked. That there are "drugs" bad trainers can give that move horses up to unexpected performances that take our money. That we can't find that magic drug, because we can't test for it.

Unfortunately, I think that's where the majority of the average fans are regarding their understanding of "drugs in racing". And that sure doesn't breed trust.