If tracks were so worried about churn, they\'d lower takeout and fix the breakage problem.
Do you know why there\'s breakage? Because they don\'t want to hold up betting lines by paying bettors nickels and pennies. Of course now, with internet and phone betting, i\'m not sure what \'the extra surcharge\' has to do with a person with a phone acct. When someone figures it out, que me in.
As far as the \'test\' goes, i\'m not sure there\'s anyway around paying off the bettors who eventually got shafted (if there\'s theoretically a dq at a later date from a drug pos.)
I guess you can hold off on paying out until a week later....but, that wouldn\'t fly too well with people holding winning tickets.
Handicapping means handicapping EVERYTHING. Who\'s to say that a winning horseplayer\'s theory on his winning pick didn\'t have the \'drug factor\' in the handicapping? Who are we to punish amazing handicapping for someone who has the ability to predict, from past performances, which trainers are cheaters and which guys are not?
Thats all part of the prediction game.....we can\'t start picking and choosing which predictory factors are valid and which ones are not. A game of prognostication is a game of prognostication, not SELECT prognostication.
Select prognostication means we, as the gate keepers of this game, are picking and choosing which handicapping factors are legit?
Being able to sniff out cheaters is also a \'handicapping angle\' for lack of a better term. Anyone smart enough to be able to predict which trainer might cheat on Derby day ought to be paid and not punished.
For the bettors who select and bet on the 2nd place finisher and lose to a drug positive winner, why should we reward those bettors and punish the bettors who correctly predicted which trainer would cheat? I know that sounds crazy, but when you handicap the horses, dont you, at least, consider which trainers might be juicers? Isn\'t that part of your handicapping?
