Kev,

This is post from last year on this very topic. It makes a decent case against the argument that Frankel's horses run well in the BC but they just get beat because of tougher competition.

Chris

*****
Author: derby1592
Date: 10-30-03 18:49

As I have said on past occasions on this board, I am very concerned that drug use is prevalent even at the highest levels of racing and I know that many others, including top trainers and owners share this concern. What is encouraging is that people at the top levels of racing are finally starting to take real action. For example:

1) They announced that this year's BC would have new extensive, enhanced drug testing

2) Next year all graded stakes will be required to do similar extensive enhanced drug testing

3) Beginning on 11/1, NY will begin testing for EPO and suspending horses (interesting penalty) that test positive.

4) This is more talk than action right now but there is an initiative underway to try and standardize drug rules across racing jurisdictions.

Who knows what sort of impact these changes will have either short term or long term but at least they are doing something and I applaud them for that.

My biggest argument for really cracking down on this is that EVERYONE who excels today is immediately under suspicion. In some cases, the suspicion is probably justified and in others it is probably not. Until/unless racing gets cleaned up and the cheaters start getting caught and punished it will be very difficult to distinguish talent from chemistry.

Absent a "smoking gun" is there any good "objective" way to spot the bad guys? Because of all the "noise," probably not; however, looking at the sheet figures earned by horses may provide some insight.

For illustration purposes, let's pick the most visible and most controversial trainer as an example: Bobby Frankel. He has had a phenomenal year. Nobody will argue that. Is it because his training ability and racing stock are vastly superior to all of his peers or is it for some other less laudable reason?

I don't claim to have a definitive answer but results from this year's Breeder's Cup certainly help fuel existing suspicions. True, it is only one day and there are other possible explanations for the poor showing by most of his runners, but the objective numbers seem to tell a compelling story.

Let's start by looking at the last 90 day stats. Keep in mind this is all recent data.

According to the new "sneak preview" TG stats - in the last 90 days, Frankel had 76 starters and 22% of those runners ran a new top and only 5 percent of them ran an "X." That means that only 4 horses ran an X for Frankel during the last 90 days! Compare that to the overall average for all starters (36% ran X) or for all stakes horses (30% ran X).

Now let's look at the figs earned compared to the tops for all the Frankel runners in the 2003 BC:

Horse, Top, BC Fig, Category (as defined in Sneak Preview)

Sightseek, -3, 3.75, X
Peace Rules, -0.5, 12.25, X
Aldebaran, -4, 1.75, X
Midas Eyes, -2.75, 5.5, X
Heat Haze, 2.75, 4, Off
Megahertz, 4, 4.25, Pair
Tates Creek, 2, 5.75 (lame), Off - but a quarter point from an X
Medaglio D’oro, -2.25, -1.5, Pair

In summary, Bobby Frankel had as many runners X in the first 4 Breeder's Cup races as in his last 76 starters! You could certainly make a lot excuses for his BC starters including distance, competition, surface, pace, layoffs, weather, racing luck, etc. but you have to figure that his prior 76 runners had faced just as many such negative circumstance and potential excuses and still only 4 of them ran an X.

Even with this small sample, it is fairly obvious that there was probably some other "intervention" that led to the dramatic change in the numbers. The most obvious, at least to me, is the much publicized, new, rigorous testing for this year's BC. This may not be THE explanation and, as many have already stated, we will never really know but it is nice to think that just maybe the latest actions will "level" the playing field in graded stakes races and talent will shine through over chemistry (at least for a while).

Cheers.

Chris