Interesting discussion

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

1) Don't know
2) Don't know
3) Don't know

I would guess not since they've been closed for two months and there has been no word yet.

I would think that if Tampa wanted to "catch" Ness with a positive, they would have taken the samples and tested them. Even though the track has been closed, samples would have sent to a lab for testing and a report would have been issued. Since there is no report, I would come to the conclusion "these samples" were probably not taken.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by scanman

I would think that if Tampa wanted to "catch" Ness with a positive, they would have taken the samples and tested them. Even though the track has been closed, samples would have sent to a lab for testing and a report would have been issued. Since there is no report, I would come to the conclusion "these samples" were probably not taken.

They can test blood till the pigs fly and they won't find the good stuff that some of these guys are using. At least they won't find it yet....

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Scav

They can test blood till the pigs fly and they won't find the good stuff that some of these guys are using. At least they won't find it yet....

So what's the answer, make accusations that Ness is a cheater until technology catches up with him?

Ness went on the other forum and gave an explanation for his success. Okay, until proven otherwise, it is what it is. Just maybe, the man is a very good trainer. I don't know the man, nor anyone who is affliated with him, but his record speaks for itself.

I hope he does respond to your post on the other forum, but in reality, I don't know what he could say that would cause you to have a different opinion of him.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by scanman

So what's the answer, make accusations that Ness is a cheater until technology catches up with him?

Ness went on the other forum and gave an explanation for his success. Okay, until proven otherwise, it is what it is. Just maybe, the man is a very good trainer. I don't know the man, nor anyone who is affliated with him, but his record speaks for itself.

I hope he does respond to your post on the other forum, but in reality, I don't know what he could say that would cause you to have a different opinion of him.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by scanman

So what's the answer, make accusations that Ness is a cheater until technology catches up with him?

Ness went on the other forum and gave an explanation for his success. Okay, until proven otherwise, it is what it is. Just maybe, the man is a very good trainer. I don't know the man, nor anyone who is affliated with him, but his record speaks for itself.

I hope he does respond to your post on the other forum, but in reality, I don't know what he could say that would cause you to have a different opinion of him.

See below what another trainer said, one that I respect, in regards to these crazy moveups

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This guy says that his success is from "getting them fit" which I would take as training them harder. LOL. There may be a rare occasion that you find something out of order like a bad tooth, bad shoe, abcess, ulcers, ect. that can turn around quickly. I doubt that 41% of his claims have such issues.

Here is what I know, I know that statistically, he is blowing normal achievable numbers out of the water with racing stock that has PREVIOUS FORM. This racing stock is showing HUGE improvements first out for Ness, and it continues, until he 'squeezes the lemon dry' and then he dumps it to someone willing to take the risk.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Scav

See below what another trainer said, one that I respect, in regards to these crazy moveups



Here is what I know, I know that statistically, he is blowing normal achievable numbers out of the water with racing stock that has PREVIOUS FORM. This racing stock is showing HUGE improvements first out for Ness, and it continues, until he 'squeezes the lemon dry' and then he dumps it to someone willing to take the risk.

This is where it gets confusing for me. People that claim horses off guys like Ness. Are they really naive (look it up Tom) enough to think that:

1. They can move the horse up even more

or

B. They horse will maintain its current form after the claim

[Scav]

Originally Posted by GPK

This is where it gets confusing for me. People that claim horses off guys like Ness. Are they really naive (look it up Tom) enough to think that:

1. They can move the horse up even more

or

B. They horse will maintain its current form after the claim

I thought I spelled it right when I used it earlier....

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Scav

I thought I spelled it right when I used it earlier....

Hell...I may have spelled it wrong. I just wasnt sure you knew the definition.

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Scav

See below what another trainer said, one that I respect, in regards to these crazy moveups



Here is what I know, I know that statistically, he is blowing normal achievable numbers out of the water with racing stock that has PREVIOUS FORM. This racing stock is showing HUGE improvements first out for Ness, and it continues, until he 'squeezes the lemon dry' and then he dumps it to someone willing to take the risk.

Understood. I respect and agree with most of what Cannon Shell writes. That being said, I still think that Ness in entitled to the "benefit of the doubt" until proven otherwise.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by scanman

Understood. I respect and agree with most of what Cannon Shell writes. That being said, I still think that Ness in entitled to the "benefit of the doubt" until proven otherwise.

So are Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. Do you believe them? They haven't failed a test either. I dont think anyone shouldnt be skeptical about these guys who seemingly appear out of nowhere and suddenly do extraordinary things. If they are clean than they will have long successful careers. If not they go the way of Juan Serey, Oscar, Preston King, and many others.

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So are Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds. Do you believe them? They haven't failed a test either. I dont think anyone shouldnt be skeptical about these guys who seemingly appear out of nowhere and suddenly do extraordinary things. If they are clean than they will have long successful careers. If not they go the way of Juan Serey, Oscar, Preston King, and many others.

I haven't followed the issue with Clemens or Bonds close enough to have an opinion, but no positive = no guilt. But that leads to the other issue of whether or not baseball was/is testing for the "right" drugs to show an illegal positive, which I guess is the same issue that we have with racing.

Yes, be skeptical if you like, but those who scorn a man's good name without facts serve no purpose.

I hope Ness is clean and has a long successful career (and you too). The sport needs positive stories and with Ness, so far so good.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by scanman

So what's the answer, make accusations that Ness is a cheater until technology catches up with him?

Ness went on the other forum and gave an explanation for his success. Okay, until proven otherwise, it is what it is. Just maybe, the man is a very good trainer. I don't know the man, nor anyone who is affliated with him, but his record speaks for itself.

I hope he does respond to your post on the other forum, but in reality, I don't know what he could say that would cause you to have a different opinion of him.

...and Marion Jones swore under oath that she never took illegal drugs.....until she was caught. Just because he says so, doesn't mean we have to believe him.

There is no answer. As you say, it is what it is, but we can have opinions on the matter.

Mine just happens to be 180 degrees from yours.

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Bigsmc

...and Marion Jones swore under oath that she never took illegal drugs.....until she was caught. Just because he says so, doesn't mean we have to believe him.

There is no answer. As you say, it is what it is, but we can have opinions on the matter.

Mine just happens to be 180 degrees from yours.

Fair enough and I do respect your opinion. Though, what did you expect Ness to write, "I get a 41% win-rate off a claim because my horses are juiced?"

There just seems to be a prevailing mentality that "if a trainer is successful, he must be a cheater". In Ness' case, it hasn't been proven, so for now, let's give the man his due.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Scav

They can test blood till the pigs fly and they won't find the good stuff that some of these guys are using. At least they won't find it yet....

there was an interesting piece on Real Sports about this cycling team that in an effort to attract sponsorship, randonly tests their cyclists like once a week. Since cycling is a mess with drugs (much like horseracing) the sport is on the verge of collapse. No companies want to be associated with cheaters and drug users thus they've experienced a severe decline in sponsorship dollars.
So this team decided to go overboard proactively in testing to try and insure the sponsors would be safe entrusting them to police themselves.

The interesting point of the story was that the first thing they determined was there would be no way to effectively detect every drug, much less designer drugs and desinger masking agents, so rather they test overall blood chemistry and note any major changes in the chemical makeup of the individual cyclist - anything that would signal a change in chemisrty that improved performance would be considered a positive, even though they have no idea what they are positive for

[scanman]

Question for anyone:

What are the testing procedures for tracks like Belmont, Hollywood, Churchill versus tracks like Tampa, Canterbury, Penn National?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by scanman

Question for anyone:

What are the testing procedures for tracks like Belmont, Hollywood, Churchill versus tracks like Tampa, Canterbury, Penn National?

The procedures are similar. The labs that test for smaller tracks are not inferior to the bigger ones and in fact in many cases are the same. The difference is the amount of substances tested for. Even the bigger tracks (states) are usually not testing for more than 10-20 things and on some occasions less then that. Considering the amount of drugs available it is a drop in the bucket. Supertesting has been done for stakes at Keeneland and those tests are usually looking for 400 or more drugs and as far as I know there have been no positives. In a lot of cases positives are closer to speeding tickets than real crimes. When you hear Larry Jones has not had a positive in 25 years you have to take that in the context of what it really means. Meaning that under the old rules in KY which the majority of his career was spent under, it was almost impossible to get a positive test because most everything was legal and hardly had any withdrawl. The things that cause horses to magically improve and get trainers at 40% arent things that are widely known and tested for.

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The procedures are similar. The labs that test for smaller tracks are not inferior to the bigger ones and in fact in many cases are the same. The difference is the amount of substances tested for. Even the bigger tracks (states) are usually not testing for more than 10-20 things and on some occasions less then that. Considering the amount of drugs available it is a drop in the bucket. Supertesting has been done for stakes at Keeneland and those tests are usually looking for 400 or more drugs and as far as I know there have been no positives. In a lot of cases positives are closer to speeding tickets than real crimes. When you hear Larry Jones has not had a positive in 25 years you have to take that in the context of what it really means. Meaning that under the old rules in KY which the majority of his career was spent under, it was almost impossible to get a positive test because most everything was legal and hardly had any withdrawl. The things that cause horses to magically improve and get trainers at 40% arent things that are widely known and tested for.

Thanks, I appreciate your insight.

The "no positives" at Keeneland is encouraging.

As one who is directly affected by this issue, where do you see the industry going concerning testing? Also, will the industry and/or labs ever be able to test for everything that "needs" to be tested for?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by scanman

Thanks, I appreciate your insight.

The "no positives" at Keeneland is encouraging.

As one who is directly affected by this issue, where do you see the industry going concerning testing? Also, will the industry and/or labs ever be able to test for everything that "needs" to be tested for?

I think that the awareness levels about testing has dramatically improved. The fact that the issues are being seriously considered is a positive step. I dont think that they are necessarily going about it very effectively but things are better than they were just a few years ago. That being said there is just so much to do, so much research that is not being funded or done especially in the area of accurate and effetive withdrawl times and realistic levels and most importantly in areas of the currently undectable drugs.

I have always been a proponent of greater investigative tactics as the key to winning this battle between the labs and the new drugs. Balco's drugs werent discovered by testing, they were uncovered by an IRS agent's investigation. The amount of money spent on investigation in this sport is an embarassment.