If I've interpreted the following post correctly, you seem pretty confident that backside security and supertesting has modified Supertrainer conduct.

Is this view based soley upon the results at Churchill from May 1st onward?

TGJB wrote:

> CH-- you have no way of knowing what HL would have done AT THIS
> POINT if the drug testing issue didn't exist, or if he didn't
> get cut up-- all you have is an opinion with no evidence, like
> you did with Summerly. And you were wrong.
>
> I for one am NOT HAPPY about the news that HL got banged up.
> Before that it was easy-- if the horses trained by the move up
> guys were running at Pim I would bet out on him at a big price,
> if not I wouldn't. Now it's more complicated. My guess is that
> the decision to run or not will nominally be made because of
> the cuts, but really made on another basis.
>
>