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. ;)