Yikes - ATR Live

[Hawk]

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

[Riot]

I'm sure Monday will be high

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by Hawk

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

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

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Hawk

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

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.

Originally Posted by docicu3

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

The internet listenership is easily tracked actually..

[docicu3]

Originally Posted by Kasept

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....

[parsixfarms]

"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?

[Riot]

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.

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]

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.