Ask The Experts

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boxcar-- When you put the word \"illegal\" into your
> question, it is no surprise that people won\'t give
> you examples, since they don\'t want to be sued.
> Unless someone has factual knowledge of exactly
> what was done to move the horse up, all we can say
> is that the horse was in fact moved up.

True enough.  By the same token, the same sheeters who want to hide from possible lawsuits aren\'t at all shy about about pontificating about how crooked the game is, how overrun with cheaters it has become, and how badly, generally, the racing industry\'s state affairs has deteriorated over the last two decades or so.  Moreover, what value would there be be in making inquiries about the use of legal drugs!?  Legal is legal.  If a racing jurisdiction has seen fit to legalize this drug, that drug or some other drug, then so be it.  As a bettor I may not like it, but why concern myself over something over which I have no control?  Or if it is of large concern to me, I could always opt out of the game.  No one is holding a gun to my head to play.
>
> So let\'s put this another way. I suggest you go to
> the Red Board Room for a few days, and pull down
> the sheets for all Scott Lake starters at Philly
> and Maryland. Look at the figures they were
> running BEFORE he got them, and those they have
> run since.

First off, you\'re assuming I know how to read the sheets.  I do not.  This is precisely why I came here to get the expert opinion of the Jerry Browns of this world.  

And secondly, I don\'t have the time to make a project out of this -- primarily because I\'m still working on my own software project.  I figured, I might be able to get a few good recent examples, relatively brief interpretations of the numbers and go from there.
>
> You are making the mistake of handicapping these
> horses in the context of one race they run in.
> That\'s not the question-- it\'s about whether they
> improve overall after going to a \"move-up\" barn.
> When we see the same trainers getting sudden,
> extreme, and long lasting improvement with LOTS of
> horses, we draw conclusions. The way to measure
> that improvement is with figures comparing them
> before and after, not by handicapping.

You are the second one who has told me this.  And this means that I can\'t use my qualitative-oriented methodology to make any meaningful judgements of any sheeter\'s interpretations.  In fact, this \"move-up\" phenomenon (I probably would be told) is exactly why so many of these \"over-achieving\" equine athletes figure so well in my program\'s reports.  And this brings me to my final point.

As stated recently on the Derby List, I have long been a skeptic as to the extent of illegal drug usage mainly because the long term statistics, such as percentage of winning faves, second choice horses, and winners in other odds ranges have remained amazingly consistent for the last 40 years or so.  Moreover, my core \"high percentage\" plays perform just as consistently.  My conclusion, therefore is this: Regardless of the degree of illegal drug usage in the industry, race outcomes are remarkably formful, generally speaking.  Even if horses are routinely administered their \"cocktails\", \"milkshakes\", etc. -- even if illegal drugging is occurring on a grand scale -- then I have to think that the drug effects are largely negated because \"they\'re all\" running on them!  One of the better horses (i.e. legitimate contenders) on paper will likely win, anyway.  And I state this as a player who has never gone beyond the 7th race back when evaluating current form -- and most of the time never has to go back beyond the 4th back.  Me approach focuses intently on current form and everything a trainer has been doing recently with his horse in bringing him up to today\'s race.

In closing, I want to thank all you sheeters for your indulgence -- for allowing me to invade your space .  And a special note of thanks to all of you who have responded to my questions.  You made my trip over here worthwhile.  I have learned something.  I\'m only sorry I didn\'t get to meet the Big Kahuna.  But maybe in the next life...

Regards,
Boxcar

RICH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boxie
>
> As a member of both the DL and TG board since 96.
> It is fact there are several big move up trainers,
> started about 2000-2001, do a search in these here
> archives or maybe some member can direct you to
> these specific comments. You may not get specific
> races, however, there are specific patterns. For
> example, the 8yr off a claim that runs for the
> \"new\" trainer that gets his \"new\" charge to
> improve by 7-10 lengths over any previous run in
> the past 6 yrs.
>
> Rich


Thanks, Rick, for your reply. A couple of things.  First as you know, the the most vocal Raggie on the DL has claimed that this has been going on for at least 20 years.  Now, you opine that it\'s been going a lot less than this.

Secondly, I really would like to see current examples because as stated to Mr. Brown, I would like the opportunity to study the race fields, suspected druggies and race outcomes through the data output of my program.

As you know, Rich, this same Raggie recently opined openly on the DL that Asmussen\'s recent 6 winners at FGX was \"shameful\".  I didn\'t see it that way after I analyzed those 7 races through my software\'s output (one race his horse got beat by a nose, you might recall).  Six of those low priced winners figured very well on paper.

This same fellow yesterday sent an example in email to me of what he thought was a druggie who ran recently at LRL.  Again, after I examined that race, the horse\'s chart, my program\'s report, etc.  I didn\'t see anything out of the ordinary.  This, too, was another horse who was sent off as the favorite, sported very competitive figs, etc. and he won.  In other words, on paper he figured to be there at the end.

Rich, just how prevalent is this illegal drug problem, in your opinion?  Ben Bloomberg on the DL has essentially said he could write several books on  trainers he doesn\'t like to handicap.  In another post of his, he listed several So Cal trainers that he also didn\'t like to handicap, but then in the next breath denied that any of them were on his \"suspicious activities\" list, after I pressed him some on the issue.  He just didn\'t like to handicap more than a few trainers for some reason on which he chose to not elaborate.  So evidently, some sheeters see this problem as being very widespread.

Boxcar