What percentage of trainers cheat

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If you are racing with allowable levels of legal medication how are you cheating? Since when is hay, oats and water the only "non-cheating" level?

Chuck, that's my point. It's very simple. The results people see are dictating the opinion. First, if the standard is allowable levels of medication, that's great. However, second, with most people not understanding the rules, and knowing enough about that side of the game, few positive tests dictate that most people will believe that a very small % of trainers "cheat" so to speak. As a side note -- as I've said numerous times, this is also not just about trainers. It's about far more people on the food chain, but we don't have to open that discussion again.

Also, about the hay, oats and water -- I very clearly said that was not the standard. So, are you telling me that the % of trainers who race exclusively with allowable medications is extremely low?

The real problem is that people who want to play the game the right way -- they are often at a competitive disadvantage. It's a shame.

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Also, about the hay, oats and water -- I very clearly said that was not the standard. So, are you telling me that the % of trainers who race exclusively with allowable medications is extremely low?

The real problem is that people who want to play the game the right way -- they are often at a competitive disadvantage. It's a shame.

Eric

The % of trainers that race exclusively with allowable meds is very high.
The competitive disadvantage is caused by a select few that dont feel that those rules apply to them and understand that the authorities in charge of stopping them are sadly inept.

[Left Bank]

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...emy&id=3881946

[Cannon Shell]

http://troyrecord.com/articles/2009/...b562231384.txt

Another misguided attempt to knock the messenger. I especially like his "research". In a sport where a huge majority of followers already feel that trainers are cheating (regardless of the actual amount that are) defending Dutrow is a slap in the face to the game. Surely 100% of trainers aren't clean but defending Dutrow and Wolfson like HE HAS ANY PROOF THAT THEY AREN"T CHEATING is much worse than any offense that Beyer has supposedly committed. This is like saying that Osama bin laden might not be guilty because Bush had no proof that Iraq had WMD. There is a reason that these guys are under suspicion. It isn't paranoia started by Andy Beyer.

[SniperSB23]

Wow, there's still a Troy Record?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://troyrecord.com/articles/2009/...b562231384.txt

Another misguided attempt to knock the messenger. I especially like his "research". In a sport where a huge majority of followers already feel that trainers are cheating (regardless of the actual amount that are) defending Dutrow is a slap in the face to the game. Surely 100% of trainers aren't clean but defending Dutrow and Wolfson like HE HAS ANY PROOF THAT THEY AREN"T CHEATING is much worse than any offense that Beyer has supposedly committed. This is like saying that Osama bin laden might not be guilty because Bush had no proof that Iraq had WMD. There is a reason that these guys are under suspicion. It isn't paranoia started by Andy Beyer.

Great post Chuck. I love the "you can look it up" line. Guess what? I did, and there isn't a single horse in the whole book that even remotely comes close to the big jump up of This One's for Phil. He is acting like improving from a late 2yo race to and January 3yo race by 36 points is common place. It might be for horse that ran horribly once or twice, but not for horse with two open length wins, including one in a stakes!

He could have cited at least one horse, couldn't he? I found several horses that improved more than 20 points from 2 to until the end of June at 3, but all did so routing with the exception of Smoke Glacken. Further, ALL of them did it in steps over time, not in one giant leap.

The real debate here is which writer is more clueless, Kling or Plonk?