New poll- best juice

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There may be a bit of truth to this but not in the way West describes. A trainer friend of mine who has a medium sized stable (30 horses) got 3 horses from a owner who had the horses with a big name trainer. He asked the owner to send him the last few vet bills for the horse to see what they had been doing with the horses so he had a little bit of a history. Each horse had between a $1200 and $2000 per month vet bill. This is on horses that were not winning or even running well. There wasnt anything unusual but these horses are getting every possible thing that can be given. A large portion of the bill was gastrogard but they were getting clembuterol, adequan, lubrysn, etc. It obviously wasnt doing much for these three but they werent really any good for my friend either at lower level tracks. I guess the point of the story is that the big trainers are casting a wide net in terms of doing everything possible to keep their horses healthy at a high cost which their owners seem to be willing to pay. In some cases it may be an advantage simply because some of those things may help an individual horse to compete at it's highest level though much may simply be overkill. But there are very few owners that can afford a $2000 a month vet bill especially on horses not earning.

Chuck, while you understand this, most people (fans, bettors, others) don't understand that this cuts both ways. What I mean by that is that you have various points along an entire spectrum. I've used many trainers, across the country -- of course in my opinion, good trainers. I've used top trainers, high % trainers, trainers who win races and produce results -- and in the case of two have been at two ends of "my extreme" so to speak. As a point of reference, I've never used any of the trainers, and I know who they are, where the vet bill is regulary $1200 to $2000 per month, so that's not my extreme, LOL.

So, I have one trainer where the vet bill is regularly de minimis, maybe $200 or so a month -- and again, this guy produces for me. Yes, certain months are higher, some are lower, but around here was the #. He might have put a horse on a program of something and then, sure, it's higher, but that was more the rare exception.

I have another trainer who before I sent him a horse -- right up front, first words out of his mouth were -- "hey, I know you have horses with __________ -- you get vet bills on the low end, right?, at least that's what I heard . . . well, you need to know that . . . my vet bills average $600 to $800 a month . . . I treat my horses with such and such, they are on a program of this and that . . ."

And, they did average that, LOL. A few months lower, on a rare occasion, sure, higher; and this guy produced as well. For me, he was good with a certain kind of horse and fit into my business model. Point being -- it's at both ends of the spectrum, and many point in between. Now, while you know this, there are other elements as well. This is where I was referring to the "save face" aspect. That has nothing to do with medication or drugs. It also could be a trainer who just might not be competitive.

Eric

[Bobby Fischer]

some of the guys over at delaware have a good thing going.

Some rumors are that somehow amicar can mask certain drugs. That doesn't make any sense to me, and i haven't heard of a logical scientific explanation.

Some pretty amazing trainer stats over at delaware park. Some of these guys are not only winning a high%, but moving up animals with bad past performance at other tracks in their first start at del.

Surprising it may be, but Scott Lake is one of the few good% winners who doesn't always use amicar. Nunley is the other i've noticed, although i never heard of a reputation for him.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

LOL. On a related note, I was intrigued by Gary West's comments today on medication, specifically his portrayal/analogy on clenbuterol -- I didn't take notes, but it sounded like he was saying how it's unfair that certain "owners" can afford it, others cannot, and that makes the game unfair.

Eric

You have to remember he is getting his information from guys in Texas for whom a $200 bottle of clembuterol may be considered really expensive. It costs about $4 to $5 per day to use it, hardly expensive. I just think it is funny how indignant guys like West get. He said that "supertrainers" have been created in the last few years due to steroids and clembuterol. That is just laughable. These things have been around for a long time. Clembuterol has been available since the early 90's even though it was not legalized for use in this country until about 8 or 9 years ago. All trainers have access to these things. They are hardly the "designer" drugs.

If an owner cant 'afford' clembuterol and/or steroids then how can they possibly afford horses good enough to compete at a high level anyway? The thought that these are expensive options is 100% wrong. Turning a horse out to let them deal with issues costs far more especially when you consider that the issues may come right back after being put back into training. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, the costs of these 2 particular items is hardly a reason that they should be "banned".

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You have to remember he is getting his information from guys in Texas for whom a $200 bottle of clembuterol may be considered really expensive. It costs about $4 to $5 per day to use it, hardly expensive. I just think it is funny how indignant guys like West get. He said that "supertrainers" have been created in the last few years due to steroids and clembuterol. That is just laughable. These things have been around for a long time. Clembuterol has been available since the early 90's even though it was not legalized for use in this country until about 8 or 9 years ago. All trainers have access to these things. They are hardly the "designer" drugs.

If an owner cant 'afford' clembuterol and/or steroids then how can they possibly afford horses good enough to compete at a high level anyway? The thought that these are expensive options is 100% wrong. Turning a horse out to let them deal with issues costs far more especially when you consider that the issues may come right back after being put back into training. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, the costs of these 2 particular items is hardly a reason that they should be "banned".

Excellent points, and I agree.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You have to remember he is getting his information from guys in Texas for whom a $200 bottle of clembuterol may be considered really expensive. It costs about $4 to $5 per day to use it, hardly expensive. I just think it is funny how indignant guys like West get. He said that "supertrainers" have been created in the last few years due to steroids and clembuterol. That is just laughable. These things have been around for a long time. Clembuterol has been available since the early 90's even though it was not legalized for use in this country until about 8 or 9 years ago. All trainers have access to these things. They are hardly the "designer" drugs.

If an owner cant 'afford' clembuterol and/or steroids then how can they possibly afford horses good enough to compete at a high level anyway? The thought that these are expensive options is 100% wrong. Turning a horse out to let them deal with issues costs far more especially when you consider that the issues may come right back after being put back into training. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, the costs of these 2 particular items is hardly a reason that they should be "banned".

The few guys who were using chlenbuterol in the early 1990s had a license to steal. Some of these guys were giving it to horses on race day. If you are the only guy using chlenbuterol and you are using it on race day, it would be hard not to have a 25-30% win percentage.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The few guys who were using chlenbuterol in the early 1990s had a license to steal. Some of these guys were giving it to horses on race day. If you are the only guy using chlenbuterol and you are using it on race day, it would be hard not to have a 25-30% win percentage.

This is true. It used to come from canada, France and Australia (you know those places where racing is clean). But they did have a test for it in the mid 90's because i know of 2 guys that got caught for using it (harness guys). What about the guys using Lasix on bleeders in the late 60's and early 70's before anyone knew what it was? Anyone thinking that racing was hay, oats, and water back then has never heard of Alex Harthill. Who by the way was the vet for none other than Sunday Silence which was owned by Mr. Hancock.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Anyone thinking that racing was hay, oats, and water back then has never heard of Alex Harthill. Who by the way was the vet for none other than Sunday Silence which was owned by Mr. Hancock.

Just for the Kentucky Derby, right? I don't think Harthill made regular trips to CA to treat Sunday Silence...but maybe he did. Steve Allday used to make monthly visits a couple of years back.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This is true. It used to come from canada, France and Australia (you know those places where racing is clean). But they did have a test for it in the mid 90's because i know of 2 guys that got caught for using it (harness guys). What about the guys using Lasix on bleeders in the late 60's and early 70's before anyone knew what it was? Anyone thinking that racing was hay, oats, and water back then has never heard of Alex Harthill. Who by the way was the vet for none other than Sunday Silence which was owned by Mr. Hancock.

........he may have payed me a visted too