Allday Music

[TGJB]

For the 100th time-- horses can not produce a CO2 level (the test for alkalyzing agents) above around 30-31 on their own. The threshold for a positive, depending on the state, is 37 or 39 (for protect-their-ass-in-court reasons). This leaves a wide gap where trainers can AND DO drug horses. Every day, almost every track. I know factually about them at one major circuit.

Additionally, it took 6 years after milkshakes were \"banned\" in Kentucky before they even ANNOUNCED they were testing for them. They did NOT announce in Fall of 06 that the guy who did the testing had quit, and they had not replaced him as of 2 weeks before the BC-- THEY WERE NOT GOING TO TEST FOR CO2 AT THE BC-- until I put the word out to a major DRF reporter, who called Churchill. They told him they were going to spot check some horses. Did they? Did any come up positive? Who the f--k knows?

Until they start publishing the CO2 tests we are in the dark.

And yes, from what I have heard from many sources they have been watching Pletcher in NY. But that aside, once again there is the issue of circumstantial evidence-- over a LARGE sample (from 8/1 to now) he has done MUCH better outside NY.

[sighthound]

>> The threshold for a positive, depending on the state, is 37 or 39 (for
> protect-their-ass-in-court reasons). This leaves a
> wide gap where trainers can AND DO drug horses.

What would you like the TCO2 allowable level lowered to?

What effect does a TCO2 of 36 vs 31 have on a horse?  How many lengths do you think this is? (considering that milkshaking doesn\'t make a horse faster, it works to allow the horse to hold it\'s speed longer before fatiguing).

[TGJB]

You get me the CO2 test results, and I\'ll be able to answer that. And I\'ve made that offer to the authorities.

[sighthound]

You would need pre- and post-race sampling.

Legal things that contribute to higher than \"normal\" TCO2 levels in non-milkshaked TB racehorses (or why the level is set at 37-39 mM/L in most racing jurisdictions):

Diet - a huge influence
Some approved gastric ulcer medications
Horses normally receiving electrolytes and basic substances on a daily basis to prevent tying up
Horses that receive 10cc of lasix pre-race versus receiving lesser doses
Horses with chronic small airway disease

Most equine reference books list 26-33 mM/L being average range for healthy adult horses.  Be aware that when \"normal\" ranges are being established, usually 10-20% of measured values in \"normal\" horses are not included in the range as they are outliers - on the edges of the \"bell curve\", but certainly normal.

factors influencing TCO2 in TB race horses -
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?    enter \"horse\" and \"TCO2\" as search terms

General lay discussions of measuring TCO2, and problems inherent:
www.harness.org.au/ausbreed/papers/TC02RYAN.HTM
www.oddsonracing.com/docs/MilkshakeUpdateJune05_5.cfm

And for those interested, NYRA medication rules
www.racing.state.ny.us/stats/August2007%20FINAL2.pdf

[TGJB]

And if we get the tests, we can start having all these discussions. Like, why do trainer A\'s horses average 36, while trainer B\'s average 31.

Or, we could just go on pretending there is no problem. That when Lake, Catalano, etc. claim them, and within 2 races they are running 5 points better than ever before after 30 lifetime starts, it\'s good horsemanship.

It\'s tougher to tell with the top trainers, because the horses don\'t change hands as much. But if you know how to look, (i.e. Frankel spring of 01) you can figure it out.

[sighthound]

I haven\'t seen anybody say here that there is no problem.  What needs to be known is if the true extent matches the perception.

> And if we get the tests, we can start having all
> these discussions. Like, why do trainer A\'s horses
> average 36, while trainer B\'s average 31.

There was a study in CA that looked at this a bit, you might want to order it off PubMed (the full article will have quite a bit more detail):

Equine Veterinary Journal 2006 Nov, 38(6):543-8 Factors influencing pre-race serum concentration of total carbon dioxide in Thoroughbred horses racing in California. Cohen ND, Stanley SD, Arthur RM, Wang N. Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-4475, USA.

REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Many racing jurisdictions monitor pre-race serum concentration of total carbon dioxide (TCO2) among racing horses. To our knowledge, factors influencing concentration of TCO2 among horses participating in racing have not been systematically evaluated and reported.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if characteristics of horses and racing conditions routinely recorded were significantly associated with pre-race concentration of TCO2, while accounting for and estimating effects of trainer and horse.

METHODS: Pre-race serum TCO2 concentrations from 5028 starts made by 2,349 horses trained by 287 trainers at 2 racetracks in California during 2005 were examined.  Data regarding characteristics of starters and race conditions obtained from a commercial database were recorded for each start.  Data were analysed using mixed-effects, with TCO2 concentration as the dependent variable, and trainer and horse nested within trainer as random effects.

RESULTS:   Sex, class and distance of race, frusemide administration and cloudy weather conditions were significantly (P<0.001) associated with pre-race TCO2 concentration.   Horses that finished in the top 3 positions had values that were slightly (0.2 mmol/) but significantly (P<0.001) greater than horses not finishing in the top 3. There were significant effects of trainer on pre-race TCO2 concentration.

CONCLUSIONS:  A variety of factors may influence pre-race TCO2 concentration in horses.   Horses with better performance tend to have higher pre-race TCO2 concentrations.

POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: TCO2 concentration is associated with improved performance although the magnitude of effect was quite small.  Regulatory programmes based on monitoring should consider the influence of other factors on TCO2 concentration.

[Street Sense]

sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> The threshold for a positive, depending on the
> state, is 37 or 39 (for
> > protect-their-ass-in-court reasons). This leaves
> a
> > wide gap where trainers can AND DO drug horses.
>
> What would you like the TCO2 allowable level
> lowered to?
>
> What effect does a TCO2 of 36 vs 31 have on a
> horse?  How many lengths do you think this is?
> (considering that milkshaking doesn\'t make a horse
> faster, it works to allow the horse to hold it\'s
> speed longer before fatiguing).


You act as though you don\'t think the latter fact is a big deal when not fatiguing can and does lead to horses winning races or finishing stronger than they would\'ve without the additional oxygen in the bloodstream.

[sighthound]

> You act as though you don\'t think the latter fact
> is a big deal when not fatiguing can and does lead
> to horses winning races or finishing stronger than
> they would\'ve without the additional oxygen in the
> bloodstream.

I do think it a big deal. It\'s illegal.  Period.  But what milkshaking can do (and can\'t do) is important to understand - especially is one is going to do it backwards, and try and determine the presence of milkshaking via speed figures.  

In racehorses I wouldn\'t look for increases in speed, but as you say and describe, in smaller increase lack of fatigue.

Milkshaking doesn\'t give additional oxygen or oxygenation in the blood.  Rather, it adds buffer to help the body control the tendency of the body to become acidotic during intense anaerobic exercise.  Your muscles may not hurt as much later on.  Either will the horses.

[Chuckles_the_Clown2]

Jerry, of course its about me, but you\'re the only one that I allow to make that charge and each time you make it I restrain myself, considering that restraint repayment of the debt I owe. Today I paid off a large chuck of that debt.

However, I think what you may not be considering is the evolution of the cheating, especially as it pertains to Plech and the Doc. Your focus is on the \"carbs\". I think they are a factor. But I don\'t believe they jumped Lawyer Ron 4 points. Another issue is NY cheating. If it was just carbs where unnatural levels are considered within the regulations artificial threshold why would Plech slump in the Big Apple? Why would he discontinue? Attributing Plech\'s NY slump to carbs isn\'t reasonable. Another item for you to consider is Plech\'s shippers. Why do his shippers run top and new top races when he\'s mired in mediocrity in NY? The answer is that Plech ships for big races and those shippers are sent out very well intended and that intent includes far more than carbs and Plech\'s quite average ability.

The only silly folk around here are Richie and his apologists

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, I\'m cutting it off here. Yes, Chuckle\'s
> posts are really about him, and an attempt to get
> attention. Yes, his theory about blood doping was
> silly. But I agree with him on the big picture.
> There is such a thing as evidence, even when there
> is no proof. And if you want some evidence, check
> out how Pletcher\'s horses have been running in NY
> compared to everywhere else since August 1 (like,
> this weekend for example-- all out of town).
>
> Barry, you\'ve got to be kidding because a) this is
> a board, it\'s ridiculous to demand that someone
> travel for something that will have no legal
> impact, b) Pletcher and Allday would never show
> up. If you ever can get a situation where those
> guys can be questioned under oth by me and their
> records, assistants and clients subpeoned, I\'ll
> travel to it myself.
>
> Again, we are letting horses be drugged every day
> (milkshakes) the way the rules are written. We
> KNOW this is taking place, or at least I do, based
> on information, not belief. I also have reliable
> info from people I trust who have spoken directly
> to Allday, where he has told them about illegal
> things he has done.
>
> I will take down any posts that are just more name
> calling. If you don\'t have something real to add
> on the subject, don\'t post.

[richiebee]

Chucker:

In the DRF and probably your local newspaper they have \"Racing Results\".

In New York on Friday, the Top Flight Handicap was won by Mini Sermon, trained
by TAP. TAP also won a maiden race on the card.

In New York on Saturday, Pletcher\'s Atoned, after clipping heels in the early
stages of the race, nearly captured the Demoiselle. TAP also won the 9th race,
a NYB turf race. TAP is as of this morning 5/29 at the current Aq meet, with 5
seconds. I guess the folks who have \"Plech\'s\" barn staked out do not like cold
weather.

And because your theory is that TAP runners are only under scrutiny in New York,
there is no need to mention his major stakes wins at CD and Hollywood (2) this
weekend.

Rather than trying to explain why there is a wide divergence between TAP\'s
numbers in and outside of New York, why don\'t you work with a smaller sample
and try to explain why TAP was able to keep winning Graded Stakes (where you
would think there would be heightened scrutiny) at Saratoga even while his
overall strike rate dropped below 10%?

You keep mentioning LR\'s Saratoga performances. How could they be possible
given the (rumored) intense scrutiny that TAP\'s barn is under?

I follow NY racing pretty much exclusively Chuck. There is one high percentage
trainer who along with his owners has repeatedly proven that he believes that
the rules of racing do not apply to him. There is another high impact trainer
who has gotten some eye catching results first off the claim (said trainer
yesterday put over an $80 first timer with what I will venture to say was a
misleading or incomplete work tab).

There is plenty of cheating going on out there, drug fueled and otherwise. As a
contrarian, I see your need not to go after the obvious miscreants but rather
to crusade against a man who has probably saddled well over 15,000 runners in
his career, yet has but one positive test result.

[TGJB]

Sight-- You did read what you wrote, right? Especially the part about the trainers?

[TGJB]

Sight-- \"lack of fatigue\" is reflected in final time, which is reflected in speed figures. There is no more accurate measure of performance. If drugs didn\'t affect performance, there would be no point in using them.

[fkach]

>>Or, we could just go on pretending there is no problem. That when Lake, Catalano, etc. claim them, and within 2 races they are running 5 points better than ever before after 30 lifetime starts, it\'s good horsemanship. <<

One of the problems with this kind of analysis is that you DO have to leave some room for the fact that some owners, trainers, vets, blacksmiths and even grooms have superior knowledge and skill in purchasing and training horses or can afford better care/products etc...  

The trick is in seperating the logical and explainable move ups from the illogical ones. I agree that some leap off the pages at you. But I don\'t think enough of the analysis on this forum is objective or comprehensive.

A couple of people seem to have an agenda or strong bias and IMHO others have a much too narrow view when it comes to measuring how well horses have run in the past or could be expected to run over time.

IMHO, most cases fall into a grey area that leave you suspecting foul play without being clear enough to know.

I don\'t know anything about CO2 levels or the information you have, but I\'m willing to guess that part of the reason the standard is higher than the typical level is that there are exceptions (outliers) or measurement problems that would make enforcement of lower levels problematical.  

Also, even if some trainers are using something that raises the CO2 level but keeps it below the legal limit, then they are not really breaking the rule. They are breaking the spirit of the rule and doing something both of us are very much against (probably for some of the same and some different reasons).

When we discuss this issue, IMO we need to be careful not to simply assume that all performance enhancement is illegal.  There are multiple things going on. There are probably people using legal \"grey area\" things and techniques and people using illegal things. We may want to eliminate it all, but they are still different things. It we aren\'t specific it makes the conversation a little confusing.

[fkach]

Exactly!  


richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chucker:
>
> In the DRF and probably your local newspaper they
> have \"Racing Results\".
>
> In New York on Friday, the Top Flight Handicap was
> won by Mini Sermon, trained
> by TAP. TAP also won a maiden race on the card.
>
> In New York on Saturday, Pletcher\'s Atoned, after
> clipping heels in the early
> stages of the race, nearly captured the
> Demoiselle. TAP also won the 9th race,
> a NYB turf race. TAP is as of this morning 5/29 at
> the current Aq meet, with 5
> seconds. I guess the folks who have \"Plech\'s\" barn
> staked out do not like cold
> weather.
>
> And because your theory is that TAP runners are
> only under scrutiny in New York,
> there is no need to mention his major stakes wins
> at CD and Hollywood (2) this
> weekend.
>
> Rather than trying to explain why there is a wide
> divergence between TAP\'s
> numbers in and outside of New York, why don\'t you
> work with a smaller sample
> and try to explain why TAP was able to keep
> winning Graded Stakes (where you
> would think there would be heightened scrutiny) at
> Saratoga even while his
> overall strike rate dropped below 10%?
>
> You keep mentioning LR\'s Saratoga performances.
> How could they be possible
> given the (rumored) intense scrutiny that TAP\'s
> barn is under?
>
> I follow NY racing pretty much exclusively Chuck.
> There is one high percentage
> trainer who along with his owners has repeatedly
> proven that he believes that
> the rules of racing do not apply to him. There is
> another high impact trainer
> who has gotten some eye catching results first off
> the claim (said trainer
> yesterday put over an $80 first timer with what I
> will venture to say was a
> misleading or incomplete work tab).
>
> There is plenty of cheating going on out there,
> drug fueled and otherwise. As a
> contrarian, I see your need not to go after the
> obvious miscreants but rather
> to crusade against a man who has probably saddled
> well over 15,000 runners in
> his career, yet has but one positive test result.

[sighthound]

Of course.  But before you get too excited, you need to read the whole thing.