BC Sprint Purse Being Withheld

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Like what? What more is at play? Say specifically. You can chide Ellis for taking a chance with a compounded steroid that's not as consistent as the steroid era commercial products (Winstrol, Equipoise, etc.) were and for choosing to run after the discussions with CHRB, but that's about it. He and everything that went on leading up to Cup were well known by the parties involved starting with the record of Masochistic getting a stanozolol injection days after the Pat O'Brien.

The recriminations should be directed towards the governing bodies, no? Everyone was aware of a potential problem weeks out and handled it poorly. They had a trace positive 22 days out and everyone took a wait and see. Then 8 days out they still have it but don't tell Ellis until 3 days out when he can't get a test turned around. Then the entry is accepted and dice rolled. If you're doing out of competition testing, USE IT PROACTIVELY. Horse can't enter.

Separately, I know it's important at Pace Advantage to be a cool kid and **** on everything and everyone involved in the sport, but that doesn't play here. Andy doesn't know Ellis at all as stated above and I know him from having him on radio maybe twice a year. I think I've shaken his hand twice. His reputation is pristine and it's completely understandable that a trainer wouldn't care to reveal what their operation does when attempting to improve a claimed horse. Why would they and alert other outfits to things they may be overlooking in their training?

As for criticism of Jay Privman writing a factually accurate spot news article, I've never seen anything so bizarre. And as for me, ATR coverage of the story was instantaneous and thorough featuring Ellis on all aspects of the circumstances, Dr. Steven Allday, the leading practicing veterinarian in the sport on stanozolol and its' properties and attorney Alan Foreman of RMTC, ARCI, Maryland Jockey Club and Thoroughbred Horseman's Association on the regulatory aspects.

But you didn't listen to any of those segments, did you? I'll summarize their appearances. Ellis is embarrassed and would have handled things differently knowing what he knows now about the steroid in question. Allday criticized him for playing with fire with an unstable metabolic. Foreman said testing continues to be stringent and effective down now to the picogram and the protocols for steroids have effectively eliminated them from the game. If operations want to use them the way Ellis did twice this year between layoffs or on the farm bring horses back from injury, etc., they better be sure the product is out of the horses' system before running. In other words, though the entry management was handled badly, the testing system worked.

Going forward there's execution elements that can be addressed out of this incident which is a good thing. If you're going to out of competition test, put it to use and refuse entry to avoid a problem. Of course it's more important to feign outrage and attack anyone involved in any way rather than understand the hows and whys and potential for improvement.

I really could care less about the methods that were used if they were legal and it was all about timing.

The real issue is the people who were in place to protect the integrity of the race and the sport did nothing a couple days before the race when they still detected an issue. Isnt that the real story here?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

I really could care less about the methods that were used if they were legal and it was all about timing.

The real issue is the people who were in place to protect the integrity of the race and the sport did nothing a couple days before the race when they still detected an issue. Isnt that the real story here?

Tricky.. Don't think CHRB has the power to scratch a horse they feel will test hot. They afforded connections with pre race test results, how could CHRB KNOW that the horse wouldnt clear over the next few days, especially given the transparency they were afforded? If they scratch the horse connections certainly could claim they were outside their authority. they are there to inform and adjudicate not make decisions on behalf of connections. Would guess you would need to re write procedure and have it read your horse must test clear in advance for them to have authority to scratch a horse. Should that be the case in stakes? Maybe

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Tricky.. Don't think CHRB has the power to scratch a horse they feel will test hot. They afforded connections with pre race test results, how could CHRB KNOW that the horse wouldnt clear over the next few days, especially given the transparency they were afforded? If they scratch the horse connections certainly could claim they were outside their authority. they are there to inform and adjudicate not make decisions on behalf of connections. Would guess you would need to re write procedure and have it read your horse must test clear in advance for them to have authority to scratch a horse. Should that be the case in stakes? Maybe

shouldnt it been when all things are considered what is the best decision for the horse, the bettor, the sport? cmon.

Just to add, if this was just one instance of a bad decision being made in terms of protecting the people who support the sport it would be one thing, this type of thing is continually happening which just shows a lack of consideration for those who support the game (with their wallets i might add).

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

shouldnt it been when all things are considered what is the best decision for the horse, the bettor, the sport? cmon.

Just to add, if this was just one instance of a bad decision being made in terms of protecting the people who support the sport it would be one thing, this type of thing is continually happening which just shows a lack of consideration for those who support the game (with their wallets i might add).

I dont disagree in theory you make plenty of sense. They have no power to scratch a horse especially if the connects are of opinion horse will test clean. CHRB would be potentially liable to a huge lawsuit in theory

[3kings]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I dont disagree in theory you make plenty of sense. They have no power to scratch a horse especially if the connects are of opinion horse will test clean. CHRB would be potentially liable to a huge lawsuit in theory

I agree but someone should do the right thing. Breeders Cup doesn't want to because the race was already decimated by scratches and it will lose handle. The CHRB is afraid of over stepping its boundaries and being taken to court. The owner/trainer roll the dice and hope for the best. It would be nice if one of these entities would look out for the bettor or the best interest of the sport.

PS to RHT. Every once in a while when there is an interesting topic can you not dumb it down with this Baffert horse is great all other horses not trained by him suck. Thanks in advance.

[freddymo]

I agree with all of what you are saying BUT there was not a mechanism in place save CHRB overstepping authority. I dont think they had power to force Ellis to scratch.. They gave him the rope on the dope and he is swinging.

This is tricky. Apparently this horse has been on Vet's list because of Winstrol treatment before although I have not confirmed it. If true and I am not saying it is I think connections glossed over the geldings history to make this appear as a 1 off ....If true that's not cool

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by 10 pnt move up

I really could care less about the methods that were used if they were legal and it was all about timing.

The real issue is the people who were in place to protect the integrity of the race and the sport did nothing a couple days before the race when they still detected an issue. Isnt that the real story here?

Yes.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Wow. Over the last 30 some odd years (out here) this has been our cleanest trainer. He'd rather lose than win the wrong way. Always been too conservative for many owners' taste.

[philcski]

Those that are saying "I want my money for the Drefong-MYB exacta" yadda yadda think about this: Caffeine has a half life of about 6 hours. Stanozolol (injected, which I'm assuming was the administering method) has a half life of about 24 hours. We are talking about 60 half-lifes- so the performance equivalent of that coffee you had at Starbucks 2 weeks ago. Impact: Zero, zip, nada.

For full disclosure, I completely pitched Masochistic, so I lost money on intrarace bets.

[declansharbor]

Originally Posted by philcski

Those that are saying "I want my money for the Drefong-MYB exacta" yadda yadda think about this: Caffeine has a half life of about 6 hours. Stanozolol (injected, which I'm assuming was the administering method) has a half life of about 24 hours. We are talking about 60 half-lifes- so the performance equivalent of that coffee you had at Starbucks 2 weeks ago. Impact: Zero, zip, nada.

For full disclosure, I completely pitched Masochistic, so I lost money on intrarace bets.

People wager on other people drinking Starbucks?

There was a systemic failure here during the biggest weekend of racing in the US.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by declansharbor

People wager on other people drinking Starbucks?

There was a systemic failure here during the biggest weekend of racing in the US.

System worked the way it was structured, it didn't fail. The system structure is flawed. Your post suggests corruption, which may or may not be intended. I agree the horse in theory should not have run. I don't agree the system was in place to prevent him from running and CHRB elected to allow him to run, in essence defrauding the bettors. It's one thing to say the system is broke let's fix it and another to imply it failed to operate as intended. Connects were given information and CHRB expected them to make a decision based on that information. Connects were of opinion based on previous dosing practice that gelding would test clean. oops

[jms62]

Originally Posted by freddymo

System worked the way it was structured, it didn't fail. The system structure is flawed. Your post suggests corruption, which may or may not be intended. I agree the horse in theory should not have run. I don't agree the system was in place to prevent him from running and CHRB elected to allow him to run, in essence defrauding the bettors. It's one thing to say the system is broke let's fix it and another to imply it failed to operate as intended. Connects were given information and CHRB expected them to make a decision based on that information. Connects were of opinion based on previous dosing practice that gelding would test clean. oops

I don't know how you can get that he suggested corruption from that post. I didn't get that at all.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by philcski

Those that are saying "I want my money for the Drefong-MYB exacta" yadda yadda think about this: Caffeine has a half life of about 6 hours. Stanozolol (injected, which I'm assuming was the administering method) has a half life of about 24 hours. We are talking about 60 half-lifes- so the performance equivalent of that coffee you had at Starbucks 2 weeks ago. Impact: Zero, zip, nada.

For full disclosure, I completely pitched Masochistic, so I lost money on intrarace bets.

This is a dubious position. 2 days after galloping in an allowance the gelding was treated for bleeding and appetite enhancement. Within 48 hours after a stroll THEY KNEW the horse needed therapeutic anabolic steroids in order to compete at maximum levels 70 days later and test clean(or so they thought.
I get the trace elements in the geldings system had 0 impact that day on the horses effort but is that really the spirit of banning them from performance enhancement? This horse needed steroids to trainer harder keep weight on so that on race day he would be at optimum fitness. And there are several professional that have written that anabolic steroids continue to have dramatic benefit even after complete detectable withdrawal.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by freddymo

This is a dubious position. 2 days after galloping in an allowance the gelding was treated for bleeding and appetite enhancement. Within 48 hours after a stroll THEY KNEW the horse needed therapeutic anabolic steroids in order to compete at maximum levels 70 days later and test clean(or so they thought.
I get the trace elements in the geldings system had 0 impact that day on the horses effort but is that really the spirit of banning them from performance enhancement? This horse needed steroids to trainer harder keep weight on so that on race day he would be at optimum fitness. And there are several professional that have written that anabolic steroids continue to have dramatic benefit even after complete detectable withdrawal.

We all know what Ellis was doing here. He was giving the horse as much steroid as he thought he could possibly get away with and stay within the rules. This wasn't therapeutic. But he didn't know as much as he thought he did about using it and it burned him.

How do you tell the owner you have to scratch from the race you've been doping...err...planning for all year?

[Indian Charlie]

I want to know if Ellis tried to enter Masochistic in the Malibu!

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

We all know what Ellis was doing here. He was giving the horse as much steroid as he thought he could possibly get away with and stay within the rules. This wasn't therapeutic. But he didn't know as much as he thought he did about using it and it burned him.

How do you tell the owner you have to scratch from the race you've been doping...err...planning for all year?

Craig.. I get that despite being fully aware of the difference you're eager to paint every horseman with the same brush, but to call the Ellis training plan 'doping' is a disservice to the broader discussion.