|
How would one acquire meth to give to a horse? How would you know its actually meth? How would you know its purity? How would you know how much to give and when to give it? Do meth labs give out handbooks on horse doping?
|
Here's what I know about Kellyn Gorder:
* He has a profitable lifetime ROI with his dirt horses. * He has a profitable lifetime ROI with his turf horses. His strength is without routers off of an extended freshening: Route Races, 31-to-60 day layoff: 79-for-342 (23% wins) 25% profit per dollar bet. Route Races, 61-to-100 day layoff: 18-for-96 (19% wins) 69% profit per dollar bet. But, he's not bad with Routers off of a 7 day or less layoff, either: 9-for-37 with an insane $6.55 ROI Also, his stats have fallen off this year. Through 2014: Dirt: 806 starts - 23% wins - $2.13 ROI Turf: 337 starts - 15% wins - $2.35 ROI 2015 stats: 12-for-106 (11% wins) - $1.27 ROI |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You know who I feel badly for? The people that day in and day out keep the sport in business - even in the face of absurd takeout rates, jockeys that intractably put horses in inexplicable and untenable positions, stewards that regularly make a mockery of their responsibilities, and the ever present alchemists, who run up ticket costs by forcing inclusion based on whether they have their "program" working or not. And then the best part of it all is having to endure the barrage of condescension from the "Insiders" as to how all of it is perfectly acceptable. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
He's not a 'drop and pop' guy who runs horses down peoples throats. Those guys get vilified because their win % (an overrated stat) is high due to their aggressive placement of horses. Their methods can incite fans and bettors and annoy rival trainers. |
The reports said 22 picograms was the level.
You can rant all you want but it doesnt change the reality that this guy probably is getting labeled and punished for something he didnt do. |
Quote:
The guy could've run a tighter ship. |
Quote:
http://khrc.ky.gov/Rulings/150050.pdf it makes no mention of the level detected - if that's available someplace for public consumption, that'd been real helpful, and gone a long way... Thanks. |
Quote:
Dr Barker of LSU did a study on environmental contamination on the backside of the FG and found that horses could come into contact with levels of drugs virtually everywhere. http://www.thehorse.com/articles/236...-at-racetracks |
Quote:
under comments from Bill Casner |
Quote:
No trainer would use Meth as a means to win a race and not expect to get caught. Cheaters know how to find stuff that is not being tested for. If it wasn't from contamination, a possible scenario is someone in the backstretch blew some meth up the horses nose and probably cashed a bet. Unfortunately the trainer takes the rap. |
Quote:
How many horses test bad for it? If it was so easy to get a bad test via contamination -- why doesn't it happen more often? |
The irony of the general lament that drugs are ruining racing is ironic considering that horses in 2015 are probably running with less in their systems than at anytime in the last 30 years.
When I started training in 1999 in KY you could literally give 15 shots to a horse on race day. While it wouldnt be effective that quickly you could give a massive dose of painkillers and steroids 4 hours before the race. A large percentage of horses running in major races were getting milkshakes. And yet now all we hear is how dirty the game is and how drugged up the horses are despite the last 10 years having the largest overhaul of medication rules in the sports history. Are things perfect? Of course not. Are there guys who are getting an edge? Absolutely. Do the rules need constant updating? Sure. But the idea that things are worse than they ever have been just isnt correct. The rules are still not ideal as they are different in a lot of cases from state to state and lab to lab. Trainers and vet still dont have a firm idea of exactly what the rules are in many cases and the industry seems to prefer an adversarial relationship with horsemen as opposed to trying to come up with rules that are good for the horses and clear and easy to follow for the humans. The biggest difference between now and 20 years ago is the information overload that we are subjected to. 20 years ago no one following NY racing would have paid 2 seconds attention to positive tests in New Mexico. A lot of the time you didnt even know a guy was suspended until a different name appeared in the program. We all act like things are so much worse but they arent. Its just that everything is a big deal now, greed and ignorance has caused the game to be overpriced and on the track the product just is not all that compelling. I'm not saying that we can just look the other way when situations like this occur. However we need to think a little more critically and less conspiratorial. |
Quote:
Not to mention that different states may have a higher threshold for different drugs. People dont realize that what might be a positive in one state wouldnt be in another. the only positive test i had was for 9 nanograms of acepromazine when KY had zero tolerence (since changed) for that drug despite it being the most commonly used medication in horse sports. At that time LA had a 100 nanogram threshold. CA and NY had a 50 nanogram threshold. So the same sample in those states wouldnt have resulted in a bad test. Seems crazy but thats the truth. Hell in Florida the tracks vets give the lasix AND they are also giving solu-delta on raceday that you declare at entry time. Its not listed anywhere that I'm aware of. If you gave the same medication in any other state you would get scratched and get a long suspension. |
Its funny because its easy yet can also be hard to get a bad test. If every track ran "supertesting" on every horse i'm sure that you would see a ton of positive tests. Not necessarily because people are looking to cheat but because the rules are rarely absolutely clear.
I was educated by a vet who worled in both the field and lab who told me that the RMTC is using a 95% standard in their withdrawl times. That means that using those withdrawl times under normal circumstances the test will result in a negative test at least 95% of the time. That is scary from my view because if you run enough horses you may find yourself in that dreaded 5%. Of course you may have and skated because the lab wasnt testing for that med that day or your horse got beat a nose and wasnt sent for a test. Naturally you have no idea that any of this occurred because you may have followed the published rules to a T. The attitude is that regulators are ok with this standard because positive tests make them look like they are doing a good job even if they crater public confidence. That is the reason that thresholds have been arbitrarily assigned without regard to effect on performance and why the zero tolerence politically correct push gets so much support. The medication rules in this country are screwed up but in many ways not the way you think |
Quote:
I guess he's just had some bad luck with the testing process. He had one test positive for Clenbuterol in 2013. He won the Meth contamination lottery in 2014. They searched his barn and found syringes and unlabeled bottles. His ROI stats have fallen off a cliff since. I am sure he's Mother Teresa like everyone says he is -- but he's at least guilty of not having run a tight ship. |
Quote:
I'm not saying that he is mother Teresa just that one horse testing positive at 20 picograms doesnt mean that he intentionally gave any horse meth. It probably means that he simply had a bit of extreme bad fortune. |
Quote:
|
simply put, we can't win on this.
trainers who get one or a hundred positives get defended. how is anyone to know who got contaminated, and who didn't? how to know when someone obviously did something, and who didn't? he had unlabled meds, and syringes-does that matter or not? i don't think anyone is happy to see a trainer 'caught', but they are happy to know a potential cheater is possibly removed...but then bettors get told they're stupid for being happy a potential cheater is removed. than you have people who have a rap sheet a mile long, still in the sport. nominated for the hall of fame. caught with cobra venom and let back in a year later. people with long rap sheets who get clients because some clients will do anything to win. what's the answer to this frustrating and ongoing dilemma? |
Quote:
|
Coming at this from a somewhat different angle (I don't know Kellyn or bet his horses)...
I'm a licensed owner, small time via a group, but nevertheless my license affords me unfettered access to the backside. Half the reason I got into ownership is sometimes what I need to keep me sane (day job is intense) is to spend some time in the barn area with my daughters, or a friend, or alone wandering around...chatting casually with our trainers and grooms and assistants...feeding a couple carrots...picking up a curry comb for a few minutes... The other day I was with a first timer at the track and I took her back to the barns and we came upon a farrier doing his thing and the groom waved us over as my friend was fascinated. We asked, and the groom allowed her to feed the mare a carrot (we had a bag with us). It was then I saw the name on the bridle and if it was really that horse, my friend was feeding a Grade II winner. My point to this story? What other sport allows this kind of access? Literally a few hundred people backside who have an almost unchecked access to screwing with another person's horse out of spite or some other sick stupid motivation. Are we ready for and/or would we welcome changes where access is heavily restricted or in some cases eliminated? Who'd pay for that and is it even feasible? When my daughters were born, the hospitals used various wristbands and keycards to control access and that's for a small floor in a secure building with maybe 20 babies at once. Not a huge backside open to the air with upwards of 1000-2000 horses. |
Quote:
It's simply impossible for a trainer and his workers to watch every horse 24/7. Bottom line with Kellyn in particular is if the horse was administered meth as a race enhancer it would not have been shown in the minute quantity it was and if it had been administered in previous days it would have limited the horse's performance. Ever see a meth user come down? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
isn't it a form of 'speed'. just like adhd meds, that they test athletes for? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I think an interesting question to ask, forgive me if I missed it in the longest DT thread in years, is the amount found reasonable to the amount you would want to give a horse to run fast. Is 21 the magic number or close.
I mean if you are going to do it, you would know how much, so if the amount is 1/1000 effective dose or 1000 X effective dose (OK that would kill the horse) it should be meaningful to the guilt and intent. If an expert could say that was the correct dose, then we're not in Kansas anymore, someone gave it to the horse for one reason. If it's way low, your roasting the guy for nothing. My 2 cents Spyder out |
Quote:
|
Forgetting the meth part, what is the defense for the other stuff, mislabeled meds, syringes, etc?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I know one thing, in my business, the buck starts and stops with me. If something happens under my watch, whether I did it or not, I am the one held responsible. In racing we want to make excuses for everything and then we wonder why bettors are angry. We wonder why bettors are fed up and then when we speak up "industry insiders" tell us how dumb we are for questioning the status quo. Sounds like a business model that has nowhere to go but down even further. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Tom Proctor, 17-20% any year, went 3 for 58 (5%) in November-December last year. Must have stopped 'using'.. Or as he said, 'didn't have a 2yo that could run and the good ones retired'. |
Quote:
Regarding the unlabeled products (not mislabeled), acknowledge that Barbara Borden of KHRC made clear that they were legal therapeutics. |
Quote:
|
^^^^^^ now that made me laugh!
|
Quote:
What's precious is comparing Tom Proctor's off-year 2yo record in November-December to a guy who's win rate in the 5 months preceding an investigation has plummeted in half. But whatever. Saratogadew is cool with it, so who am I to ask questions |
Quote:
It would be interesting to compare the speed figures of the runners in that 106 start sample to their numbers from the prior year. I understand the side you're taking, and there is much to be said for it, but being dismissive of stats, especially when they come from someone like Doug, is at best defensive on your part. Stats are actually a very strong argument for the other side of your arguement. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.