The drugged racehorse

[JJP]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

There's a big difference between being aware of trainers who cheat and the suggestions in the first post in this thread.

First off, what was so irresponsible? I mentioned no names of trainers or horses. I also stated that it was just opinion, and I couldn't prove any horse was drugged. Its a reality in racing, like it or not, at least some of the time. As handicappers, we have to factor it in.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by JJP

First off, what was so irresponsible? I mentioned no names of trainers or horses. I also stated that it was just opinion, and I couldn't prove any horse was drugged. Its a reality in racing, like it or not, at least some of the time. As handicappers, we have to factor it in.

I think it was irresponsible because you were making suggestions to people that were flat out poor and if someone didn't know better they would be led badly in the wrong direction. To me this is a very bad thing to do.

Beth accurately pointed out that this theory of being able to identify some physicality to indicate drugging is not only flawed but patently absurd. Only the most astute observers of horseflesh, and ones that do this on a daily basis, while maintaining notes, would have any chance of doing this with any real degree of accuracy, and even they will tell you what you are suggesting is very difficult. For you to intimate that a horse " on his toes " might be drugged is a VERY bad piece of advice.

On your betting action theories....there are many reasons a horse may be taking more money than YOU would expect, and the most plausible is that you mishandicapped the race. But, to suggest that what one considers unusual betting action somehow translates into a horse who has been drugged is indefensible and flat out wrong in that while I suppose there is a scintilla of a possiblity you are right there are MANY more reasons that you would be wrong. Once again you are leading people in the wrong direction.

As for your suggestion that a switch to a better rider indicates a possibly drugged horse...well much like the previous example it more likely means a whole lot of other things.

Now, the other two things you suggested do have some merit, but they can only be observed after the race has been run, but are worth noting for future handicapping.

Once again, I believe it is irresponsible to suggest the things you did to people because should even one person take you seriously they have been severly led in the VERY wrong direction.

[JJP]

I'm not in the teaching business and I'm not trying to lead anyone. If I would change anything in the opening post, I would rank the factors in terms of importance, not chronologically like I had them listed.

1. Unusual performance or figure out of the norm. We're not talking about lightly raced horses here who could easily keep on improving. Its the 5 or 6YO who runs the fig of its life.
2. Very live on the board, especially early on but maintains surprising betting action from opening to closing odds.
3. Sharp improvement in early speed.
4. Sharp paddock and post parade. This in and of itself is NOT a sign a horse is drugged by any means. If anything it may be a function of point number two; live horses on the board almost always look sharp, and that includes a lot of legit, on the improve horses. But if the 6YO bum has just run like the second coming of Ghostzapper, its just a bit more evidence something may have been up.
5. Jock switch to better rider. Or a switch to a rider who's won with the horse before. This isn't corrupt but just a sign of positive trainer/owner intent to get the job done.

[JJP]

I'm not sure Ramazutti winning was such a shock, it was the fact he did it without the lead. I thought he had to be on the lead to win a race like that, and there was other speed in the race. But he proved he could rate.

[Gander]

Theres nothing Pletcher horses cant do. The sooner you learn that the better you'll do. Style means nothing to them. That horse was as logical as Bee Charmer who took all sorts of weird money.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by JJP

I'm not sure Ramazutti winning was such a shock, it was the fact he did it without the lead. I thought he had to be on the lead to win a race like that, and there was other speed in the race. But he proved he could rate.

I totally agree. I didn't like him, and used six in the Pick-4 without him, but it was winning without the lead that suprised me as well. I didn't use him simply because he couldn't get the lead.

[Gander]

I am certainly not advocating that I loved Ramazutti. Truth is I was dying to play this race but I was broke. I would have probably keyed my bets around Devils Preacher and Spider Power and they both were up the track. But if I was going deep in pick 4's I would have used Ramazutti.