I was not nearly as "involved" in racing back then as now (and by involved, I mean a fan), so I don't have specific information. I'm looking at this with no pre-conceived notions, I just feel it is REASONABLE to be suspicious. I don't think Pletcher's stable was that large back in 2002, but I don't know for sure.
Also, there is speculation that this was right around the time he started his relationship with Dr. Allday.

He was pretty big back then too.

note also that left banks demise was announced in october. his initial surgery was in august. these three horses didn't die within eleven days of one another. certainly not unheard of however for more than one horse in a barn to suffer an illness at the same time.

but golfer if there is no suggestion of foul play, etc, what are you suggesting about these 'illnesses' as you put it?

You are right, 2 of them died within 11 days. Left Bank hung on for a while longer. I didn't say there is no suggestion of foul play, only that I personally have no knowledge of it, and don't want to suggest that I do. However, I do believe it is reasonable to leave open the possibility that there was.

why? i'd hate for someone to use coincidence and circumstance to infer anything about me.
i try to give people the benefit of the doubt. til there is sufficient proof of wrongdoing, i see no reason to suggest at all that there could be something funny going on.

It is reasonable

What everyone is dancing around with their not-too-subtle insinuations is that the only explaination some buy for an unexpectedly exceptional performance by a horse is drug abuse.

Absolutely NOT!! It is not the only explanation, but it is ONE POSSIBILITY.

Agreed it's certainly one possibility.

But I tend to consider that for trainers that have multiple, repeated drug positives over the years in their histories, rather than for those that do not.

I am quite sure the insurance companies would not only demand necropsies by proven competent laboratories (gross, histopathology, toxicologic), but if any results were in question, would have a second or even a third laboratory examine the findings.

Careful, many states now have laws against stalkers.

Yes, indeed, but we are not talking about those trainers.

Curious if Sirius is able to track listener numbers, Steve?

I'm sure Monday will be high ;)

Probably not with the internet audience but I'll wager archives is setting records with the Nov 2nd first hour.

They take polls monthly.. Their own in-house, Neilsen-style ratings, to get an idea of who's listening to what, because there are no Arbitrons for satellite radio.

The internet listenership is easily tracked actually..

So you get total numbers from both archive only as well as those that dial the radio in the car and they separate it like that for you......you have to tell us how many people hit that link for 11/2/07 archives and what the norm numbers are for a typical show.

And you need to sleep more boss....

"Drug-testing, from a historical perspective, is a colossal flop," said Chuck Yesalis, the retired Penn State professor, an expert on such matters. "One might argue that its done more damage than good because it has kept a façade — 'So-and-so must be clean because he never flunked a drug test.' "

This quote is from Jon Saraceno's column in USA Today on September 26, 2007, in the aftermath of Marion Jones' admission that she used steroids before the Sydney Olympics; her defense up to that point had always been that she never failed a drug test. 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. 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 agree 100%.. Investigative reporting and query into a subject that has the public's best interest at heart is NEVER going to meet meaningful legal issue. Isn't Sirius a premium sevice and not as subject to FCC regulations.

The show was great but Allday was spilling the beans all you needed to do was help him lift the can higher and pour more out.

Whatever it's easy to be a monday morning quarterback and my comments are only meant as such. When live it's tough to get everything done.

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.

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.

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.

Pretty much we trainers are all scum

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

Not Lyin Ernie

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.

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".

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.

This show is going to be ridiculous, this Jerry guy just accused everyone and their mother as cheaters, including Allen Jerkens. Steve's phone line probably is looking like mine in college.

It's not ringing at all? :p

No, only those that win. :D

This is funny. :D

I have NO doubt at all that Dutrow is a cheater.

Really?

How would you assess the two trainers of this horse? By your definition, the second trainer is most likely a cheater when they jumped the horse up 20 points after one race ! :

Beyers: 41-67-44-60-70 - new trainer - 64-84-91-86-85