Allday Music

[TGJB]

And again, positives have nothing to do with what we are talking about with CO2.

[BitPlayer]

A novelty for this board: a factual dispute to which there must be a yes/no answer.  Let\'s see if we can resolve it, taking NY as an example (while acknowledging that different states may have different rules).  Pasted below are the sections (with page numbers) that I think might be relevant in the NY medication pamphlet that Sighthound linked to earlier.

http://www.racing.state.ny.us/stats/August2007%20FINAL2.pdf

It seems to me that a trainer is within the rules if he can achieve an elevated TCO2 level (below 37 or 39 mM, whichever applies) without using a mixture of bicarbonate of soda and sugar (in any form) less than 24 hours before the race program starts.  What I don\'t know is whether Sighthound\'s \"mild alkalizing agent\" would fall afoul of this rule.

Page 4
May be administered any time up to race time:
. . .
Antibiotics, vitamins, electrolytes, and other food supplements as long as they are administered orally and as long as they do not contain any other drug or by their nature, exhibit drug-like actions or properties.

Page 8
No person shall, attempt to, or cause, solicit, request, or conspire with another or others to:
. . .
administer a mixture of bicarbonate of soda and sugar in any of their forms in any manner to a horse within 24 hours of a racing program at which such horse is programmed to race. It shall be the trainer\'s responsibility to prevent such administration.

Page 11
Excessive TCO2 levels in horses are a violation. TCO2 levels are excessive at 37 millimoles/liter, or for horses properly administered furosemide (Salix or Lasix), 39 millimoles/liter. The Board rules establish penalty guidelines, a procedure for trainers to show naturally high levels of TCO2 in a racehorse, and provisions for voidable claims.

[TGJB]

If a trainer gets a 36 by giving alkalyzing agents he a) has broken the rules (page 4, \"drug like actions\",probably page 8 \"in any of their forms\"), and b) will not be sanctioned (under 37). This is what I have been saying here and in other venues for months. The fact that a trainer doesn\'t get a positive is beside the point-- he is still cheating. The problem is the way the system is set up-- the threshold levels are too high. And, once again, there are ways to deal with horses that start out high-- by quarantining them and retesting them if they come up over.

This is not an academic question. The way the system exists now, we have what amounts to insider trading. The mutuel pools are a market, and those with knowledge of which horses have been treated are taking money from those without inside information. The most basic responsibility of those running the game is to insure that the customers get a fair shake-- this is inexcusable.

[BitPlayer]

TGJB -

I\'d like to hear Sighthound weigh in on this issue, but I\'m pretty sure you\'re wrong about one thing.  If you get caught giving a milkshake, you can be sanctioned without regard to TCO2 testing.  Ask Gary Sciacca:

http://racing.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=42126

I think the TCO2 rule was a fall-back measure.  Regulators knew people were giving milkshakes (in some form), but lacked adequate surveillance to catch them all.  TCO2 testing gave authorities a way to curtail the practice without catching people in the act.

[TGJB]

Correct. You will get sanctioned if you get caught tubing, because that\'s something that can\'t get fought in court. The 37 level was set up for exactly the reason Sight said-- because it is so high it could never be argued that it was anything BUT intentional, and therefore will keep the tracks out of court. But that doesn\'t deal with the problem for bettors-- just for the tracks.

[sighthound]

> And by the way, the difference looks like about 4
> points, or 5 lengths at 6 furlongs.

What do you think of the \"finish position and measured TCO2 levels\" slide in the previously posted Stewards education presentation?  Especially considering the standard deviation inherent in the methodology of testing?

> (see a certain Mid-Atlantic trainer) it is much
> more, but he might be using something else as
> well, like raceday Clenbuterol (injected).

The two biggest proven \"move up\" drugs are painkillers and bronchodilators.  Not baking soda.

The shakiest way to come to a conclusion is to start with a conclusion as definitive, then work backwards trying to justify it.

[TGJB]

I didn\'t look at the slide. I also didn\'t work backward, I started a couple of years ago by trying to find out what was being used. I\'ve been working on this for a long time, and am dealing with people close to the issue (on several fronts, some local and some national). And again, I know about the readings at one major venue, and that they confirm what I have been saying.

You should try to get hold of what Rick Arthur (state vet in California who has done more on this than anyone else), has had to say on this subject. I had one radio discusssion with him (on Steve Byk\'s show), you might be able to find it, or statements he has made elswhere.

You have taken us far afield here. It\'s not about good horsemanship, or naturally high levels, and there is no question that alkalyzing agents make a difference, whether or not other drugs do as well, or do to a greater or lesser extent. It\'s about protecting the betting public, and once they start publishing the CO2 tests, we can all make determinations, and begin to deal with the problem.

It\'s also no longer about baking soda. It\'s a pill, and it\'s broken up and put into the feed.

[rosewood]

Have faith in mammon
and trust to the quibbling of lawyers.
Rely on the cowardice of politicians.

Mr. Brown,

I for one applaud your long hard work and effort in trying to get any and all information to the betting public. You and I both know that cheating in racing could be cleaned up in short order if it was desired .

I realize that cheating diminishes the accuracy of your superb product and it is in your interest to be able to accurately handicap the outcome of races; however as an owner and consultant, I believe you desire the sport to be cleaned up for the good of all.

It is a hell of a note that the Freedom of Information Act would have to be used to gain test results for CO2 or every other test run.

It\'s almost like a NASCAR race being won by 100 laps and the winner says that you can\'t see under the hood.  How would that play out?

[fkach]

>>>\"That said, suppose you identify five trainers whose horses consistently come in well above average but just below the threshold. What do you do then?\"

Start betting on them.<<<

It isn\'t necessary to have that information.

All you have to do is follow all the trainer changes very carefully.

Before long you\'ll know who the \"move up\" trainers are, who the \"recovery\" trainers are, and the profile of the typical horse they move up etc.... (By \"recovery\" I mean trainers that often get their horses to run back to their recent peak even if the horse was running below that level when they took them).

At that point, from a gambling perspective you need not be interested in how much of the form change is related to CO2, other performance enhancers, superior training, superior vet care etc.... If you have the information before the rest of the world catches on, you have an edge.  

Of course, regardless of whether the improvement is the result illegal or legal activities, the insiders will have an edge over you because they will always have a better idea of which exact ones are likely to move up. Heck even Barry demonstrated that conclusively on this board a couple of times when he told us about Team Valor horses that had corrective surgery before a race in instances where would not have known otherwise. So that advantage is something we have to cope with for legal activities, ailments, corrective actions, and legitimately skilled trainers/vets too.

If the idea is simply to profit from betting, IMO, providing incremental information to the general public is probably the worst thing that could happen. Then, every Tom, Dick, and Harry will start betting the horses immediately. As it is now, if you want to identify horses that are likely to move up and still retain some betting value, you can. You just actually have to do some work.  

This is way more of a factor for owners, trainers, etc... that are being cheated out of purses, getting more and better stock, etc... and for the tracks themselves because of public perceptions.

[fkach]

>If you don\'t know from the data here that Lawyer Ron jumped 4 points under Plech, I can\'t help you. (I actually make the jump 5 points and have it sustained in the following race.) With that horses iron horse history that improvement was utter unadulterated b.s. and if thats an errant cannon shell you\'re a Palestinian. <

And I can provide you a list of several winning horseplayers that are very familiar with figures that all think there was nothing unusual about LR\'s 4YO form because they have a very different view about that form at both 3 and 4.

[BitPlayer]

TGJB -

If you really have the time and inclination to undertake a study correlating TCO2 levels with your figures, you could try contacting Noah Cohen at Texas A&M.  He is the first author of the study that Sighthound cited and obviously has California TCO2 data.  He might be willing and able to share the data with you.  According the the Texas A&M website, his e-mail address is ncohen@tamu.edu.

[sighthound]

BitPlayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TGJB -
>
> If you really have the time and inclination to
> undertake a study correlating TCO2 levels with
> your figures, you could try contacting Noah Cohen
> at Texas A&M.  He is the first author of the study
> that Sighthound cited and obviously has California
> TCO2 data.  He might be willing and able to share
> the data with you.  According the the Texas A&M
> website, his e-mail address is ncohen@tamu.edu.

Or repeat the study on other circuits, involving Jerry and seeing if speed figures have any direct correlation.

[sighthound]

>>> You have taken us far afield here.

What I have tried to do is inject some existing realities recognizing the limitations of TCO2 testing, especially if one is going to use those levels to attempt to identify cheaters.    The strength of TG figures over other products lays within the attention to detail.  The same consideration should be given to this issue.

>>It\'s not about good horsemanship, or naturally high levels, and
> there is no question that alkalyzing agents make a
> difference, whether or not other drugs do as well,
> or do to a greater or lesser extent. It\'s about
> protecting the betting public, and once they start
> publishing the CO2 tests, we can all make
> determinations, and begin to deal with the
> problem.
 > It\'s also no longer about baking soda. It\'s a
> pill, and it\'s broken up and put into the feed.

Well, there\'s lots of pills people use, and you can buy them at the local drugstore:  Tums, potassium citrate, etc. They also sprinkle baking soda on the feed.  They make up baking soda-electrolyte-sugar capsules and pill the horse.   Many horses, of honest trainers, as part of their daily ration get a teaspoon of baking soda sprinkled on their feed.

Alkalinyzing agents are thought to work best within a 4 to 6 hour time period before metabolizing into uselessness - hence why detection barns work.

Here\'s some of the comments from that Stewards education slideshow  http://cobweb2.louisville.edu/eip/Steward_Schools/Medical2007.pdf  , regarding southern California TCO2 testing:

- between September 2005 and December 2006, 35,000 samples were tested in southern California, and only three came in over 39 mM/L.

Okay, so what about those 31-35 levels we are all worried about:

- \"26,607 horses looked at, comparing finishing position in race to TCO2 level\"  - all horses were between 31.51 and 30.73 mM/L   (+/- the standard deviation inherent within testing accuracy)  for finishing positions 1st through 14th.

It should be noted that the laboratory standard deviation (that of the equipment used) is greater than that spread.  Look at how the winning horses had a higher TCO2 level than horses finishing later - except for those that finished last out of large fields (nearly equal to the winners)

- \"Can a trainer\'s TCO2 averages be used to regulate bicarbonate-loading trainers?    Not feasible with an adequate degree of certainty, the most egregious trainers could be identified correctly only 19 out of 20 times\".

-  Prior to implementation of measuring all TCO2 levels, and warning trainers if their levels exceeded 36 mM/L, 1.4% of all samples exceeded 36 mM/L.  Current rate is 0.2%.

That\'s not alot of milkshaking going on.   How many \"move up\" trainers do you have listed as suspicious for milkshaking being the method of choice on the southern California circuit?   I think one must look elsewhere on that circuit.

Now, California is an exception, where all horses are tested pre-race.  Some jurisdictions only test the winners and one random horse post-race.

[miff]

Sight wrote:

\"Alkalinyzing agents are thought to work best within a 4 to 6 hour time period before metabolizing into uselessness - hence why detection barns work\".



Sight, on this whole issue, I am very much in line with your observations which are echoed by many others involved in NY on a daily basis. On detention barns though, many honest trainers in NY are diabolically opposed to them.You may know that NYRA has listened to arguments to discontinue them or somewhat change the system.

For the most part detention barns have been a failure,with added expense to outfits that cannot afford it. The usual suspects in New York have not missed a beat due to detention barns, I cannot speak for other venues.

Also understand that measuring the benefit of milkshakes is not scientifically possible and there are those who feel it is not significant, others do.In the end, milkshakes are old news(new improved formula/makeup perhaps) and probably not the reason certain outfits get unrealistic results. Agree with Jerry though that it is one of the problems which racing could deal with in a more comprehensive/transparent manner.It makes no sense for racing to cover up something that can be eliminated for the most part.


Mike

[SoCalMan2]

Apologies if somebody already asked my question below.  Also, i am an ignoramus when it comes to the physiology of horses, so apologies if my question is completely idiotic, BUT

It seems to me that milkshaking is nothing more than giving a horse some alkaline material to soak up some of the acid that builds up from anaerobic muscular activity the removal of which allows the horses to feel less pain in their legs from the build up of the acid.  It doesn\'t seem to me to be too terribly harmful or dangerous.  It is not like Bute which would allow a horse run through pain in a leg that may indicate a physical problem that should not be run with.  It is not like milkshaking makes unsafe horses race.  It just makes good athletes tire less.  Right?  Why not make milkshaking legal just like lasix?  Trainers have to say whether or not they milkshaked a horse.  It seems to me so simple and easy, what am I missing.  In fact, it seems to me that milkshaking should be legal ahead of lasix being legal.  Again, maybe I am missing something here, but why isn\'t this issue this easy?