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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

And NJ's policy of testing anytime, anywhere, unannounced seems well founded .

Personally, I have no idea who cheats and who doesn't. But one opinion I DO have is that we, the bettors, are the only ones who will bring about change. Based on my somewhat-limited experience with racetrack management, I feel like no one in this business does anything radical unless they know for a fact that the move won't cost them their jobs (i.e. result in a loss in revenue in the short term). Why would we expect the tracks come down on drug use if we keep betting? Coming down on drug use costs money and might piss off trainers, who the tracks can't afford to piss off any more than absolutely necessary.

If bettors say "enough is enough, we're playing poker," then will tracks MIGHT have no choice but to make some meaningful changes......assuming of course that their first step, creating some lame ass poker-related wager like "The All-In" or "The Full House", fails.

Ricky?

Are you two tight?

How about this- If BR's Girl (1st time Wolfson, taking over from Pletcher) wins in the 4th at GP today, then we all agree that Wolfson is a cheater. If she loses, we drop the issue and vow to never bring it up again. Deal?



































(this is a joke)

never met or spoke with the man if that's what you mean by tight

Then why are you call him Ricky?

Reality today is any horse that runs a big figure is going to be under a certain amount of suspicion was he juiced or not. Is it fair to paint all horses under the same umbrella? Probably not, but it is what it is, the same can be said for baseball, track & field, extreme fighting. The problem is not restricted to horseracing. My displeasure is with certain trainers that lash out when let's face it any horseplayer worth his or her salt knows they have cheated and are probably still cheating.

Rick , Ricky , Richard , Dick = all the same person know?

Always nice to pay homage to such a stand up guy. ;)

Actually, I can only recall one person on message boards referring to him as Ricky.

Makes me wonder.

i will refer to him as Mr Dutrow in the future so as to not cause any confusion

will that be sufficent?

I'm a vet, I don't cheat, I'll defend trainers I know, and your implication that if I defend a trainer it means I'm a cheat is moronic bullshiat.

There you have it, Wolfson is a juicer.

BR's girl was blinkers off! That shows Wolfson to be an astute horseman, more so than this Pletcher fella' that used to train her

Well there's Anthony or Sydney also, that might cause some confusion.

Mr R Dutrow work ?

This discussion has reached the point of ridiculousness.

You learn to read. I do not blindly defend all trainers, never have, and I never defend the scum in my profession that cheat.

Don't mind at all having friends that know me and are willing to defend me from ignorant personal attack. Internet list bullies are just that. As you know.

You don't like my opinion on matters concerning horse racing? Too bad.

I know pharmacology, drugs (legal and otherwise), physiology and anatomy of the horse, and I talk to fellow vets working tracks around the country.

It's not that big a secret what some few idiots are currently trying to use on horses, or what the "hot new thing" in cheating is.

To see some gamblers - pardon me, horseplayers - jump blindly and willing on the, "Everybody is cheating with magic undetectable expensive designer moveup drugs that make a horse improve by 15 lengths and win the Triple Crown!" bandwagon is sad, uneducated, and a misdirected waste of good bile away from those that do cheat.

The public can imagine whatever magical fantasy drug effects they want or dream they are seeing, but in reality one also has to actually be able to build such a drug to pull that fantasy off - without whacking out or killing the horse (or a current drug's side effects have to be both desireable and attainable).

Railing away with with broad accusations against whatever trainers are the current popular whipping boys, forgetting that what they are being accused of has to also at least be remotely technically possible - not for me, and I sure as hell don't apologize for not jumping on that bandwagon.

I'm talking of the general way I hear most horseplayers talk about trainers and cheating - this trainer has alot of drug overages and is on the bad list, that trainer has alot but the public never mentions him, the next trainer has nothing but is widely thought of as being an unquestioned and absolute cheat.

Here's another question that will probably cause a huge dustup: can anybody's speed figures accurately identify drug using trainers, when the figures are educated assessments of performance, not really stand-alone and merely reported data points?

Forget the figures. Watch races. As I often say on this topic, it's not necessarily that they win, it's how they win. Some of the horses referenced from this past weekend almost won in a common gallop.

it has?

but like beyer said, there needs to be some real teeth involved in whatever 'punishment' is handed out to these trainers when they get caught with a positive.
hell, many trainers call a suspension a much needed vacation. that's a hell of a mindset.
but hey....a small fine, a slap on the wrist, get nominated for an eclipse...or even win one-like i heard on the show, what reason is there not to cheat? it's so easy, and rewarding. it's obscene.

Cigar was a great ambassador of the sport
 

Ditto

The point on top of your head has been made

Yeah, he moved him up by switching him from the turf to the dirt.

Cigar sucked on the turf for Mott.... and ran a huge dirt race for Hassinger before he moved him to the turf and never let him see the dirt again.

Why is it Mott's fault that Hassinger moved Cigar off of the turf after his explosive 96 Beyer MSW win in start #2 - earning almost the same Beyer that 3yo Champion Prarie Bayou did in the Preakness that same weekend.