I have no doubt that racing being dirty is keeping alot of legitimate money out of the game. At the same time I have no doubt that it is keeping a lot of less scrupulous money in the game. And we know what they say about a bird in the hand.

As a bettor I'm sympathetic to Richiebee's postition on drugs. I know they are "morally" wrong. And I'm sure they skewer number based approaches to handicapping. But...it's my take that drugs aren't used to create complete form reversals; rather as a bit of insurance. For the most part Dutrow's and Frankel's horses run to their workouts, so if they're showing bullets, or a well intended series of workouts I'm inclined to use them. Whatever else is going on is beyond my control. And I do think that any good situation handicapper is going to have drugs being a tail wind rather than a head wind more often than not.

But, still, I would agree that those who want to rid racing of drugs have the moral high ground. And while I may also think that in the end getting rid of drugs would solve racing's myriad problems about as effectively as shutting down the brothels in Tiajuanna would solve Mexico's, there are some basic steps Racing executives could take to at least pretend they care.

The first is to make a horse that is disqualified from a purse for drugs forfiet not only the purse, but its eligibility for the condition of the race. As it stands now, a horse can be disqualified for a positive from a 1x race, for example, and then eight months later, after the disqualification process runs its course, run in that same 1x condition again.

"So we cash the bet now, and if we get caught, we come back and win the purse again."

No, lose the purse, lose the condition.

For horses that test postive in Stakes or Graded Races, not only should they forfiet the purse for that race, but they should also pay a very sizable fine, (maybe equal to today's winning purse which, then, of course would be earmarked for track improvements) before they can enter again.

And, another step the Racing Form could take, if the publisher was willing to put his mouth where his money is, is to note when a horse has been disqualified and/or a trainer has been suspended for drug positives.

As it stands now you might read somewhere in a horses PPs: disqualified from purse money. As if the questions when (the actual effective date of the purse
disqualification for a horse suddenly dropping) and why have no relevance.

And again, the paper notes that a certain horse was previously trained by a certain trainer, but no mention is made that the prior trainer is under suspension for drug positives. "Oh, but we don't want to hang our dirty laundry in public."

Well, something or somebody is going to have to be hung in public if you want to deal with this issue.


On a completley different note: A certain publisher took the NYRA to task last week, with righteous indignation, for being too slow changing regulations that obviously needed to be changed. And he was absolutely right to do so, for certainly a situation where a bettor, because of a late coupling scratch, has his bet transferred to the post time favorite, despite the entry half he favored still being in the race, is intolerable.

On the other hand, do you think it's possible that the Racing Form will have a graphic in place by the end of the Saratoga meet which indicates whether the five and a half furlong turf races are being run on the Mellon or Inner Turf?
It seems like it might have some relevancy to the bettor.

And don't get me started on how a Starter Allowance race determined by a Maiden price is fundamentally different creature than a Starter Allowance for a price earned in open company, and should be so differenciated in the Form. Let's say with a notation something like Alw 40,000Ms. Don't get me started on that because that's the type of oblivious neglect, rampant through all of racing, that really get me pissed. Get's me reaching for my own performance sustaining meds.













Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2006 12:36PM by Thehoarsehorseplayer.