The detention barn has proven a hardship to horseman, an unnecessary expense, has been bad for NYRA’s business, and has been an ineffective deterrent in relation to what was expected. That is the consensus opinion of a dozen New York-based horsemen we spoke with this week, an opinion that is also shared here.
Before communicating some of their thoughts--we spoke with a half dozen trainers in Saratoga this week whose horses in 2009 alone earned $38,949,766 and several more downstate by telephone. Before sharing those observations, some historical background.
Following an investigation initiated by the indictment of two mid-management executives and four mutuel clerks in December 2003, the New York Racing Association was ordered to pay a $3-million fine after pleading guilty to felony charges of money laundering and racketeering.
Further, it had to allow the U.S. Attorney to appoint an Independent Monitor to oversee its operations under the terms of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement and was required to restructure its senior management and six departments within the company. During this time period, then NYRA President Kenny Noe Jr. retired to his South Florida home.
Neil Getnick was appointed Independent Monitor and rather than concentrate on money laundering and racketeering charges, he focused instead on backstretch issues. Resultantly, security was tightened to absurd levels, that overkill including the detention barn concept. After the DPA period ended, Getnick’s law firm was hired by the NYRA for five years at $1.5 million per year.
All this occurred at a time when the NYRA franchise was about to expire and, with Getnick‘s oversight, it embarked on an integrity campaign that included the use of a detention barn.
This enhancement of image, along with agreeing to end its longstanding ownership claims to its three racetrack properties, resulted in NYRA having its franchise extended for 25 years, from September 12, 2008 forward. It also received $110 million to operate from the state until the installation of VLTs, originally expected to be on line by 2009.
The detention barn is operated by NYRA security and Getnick personnel and has been, on balance, a failure. Milkshaking, one of the major reasons it was instituted, is no longer done by tubing but by the injection of alkalizing agents at concentrated levels to achieve the desired effect.
Publicly, the detention barn to date has stopped two trainers in three years; one is a bad actor currently in jail; the other, with a record of medication abuses, stupidly entered the off-limits area and administered what he called a cough medication to one of his entrants via a dosing syringe. Subsequently, he was banned from racing at NYRA tracks for six months.
NYRA has continued to trade on the integrity issue via the detention barn scenario and has continued to pay the Getnick firm exorbitant fees for its contributions in helping NYRA retain and extend its franchise. With one exception, every horsemen we spoke with believes that the playing field still isn’t level, as some trainers continue to win at abnormally high rates.
In order to receive honest feedback from horsemen, free of recrimination and without fear of damage to their livelihood and those of backstretch workers, we allowed trainers to speak with HorseRaceInsider off the record.
“You don’t need a detention barn to detect milkshaking,” said one trainer. “At Keeneland they have a simple pre-race test they take about 40 minutes before a race.”
“It’s 50-50 whether it does any good at all and 50-50 that a horse will leave his race there. And let’s not forget that NYRA got us into this in the first place,” said another trainer before driving off.
“For stakes horses shipping in, they first go to a receiving barn then the detention barn,” said another. “You have to move twice. It’s easy o understand why a lot of trainers don’t want to ship their good horses here. Today you can race for good money almost anywhere.”
“I feel bad for the owners,” said yet another. “I have to pass along the costs to them after absorbing some of it myself. And I’m not sure it’s much of a deterrent. If you want to cheat, you can always find a way.”
Only one trainer we spoke with thinks it works. “It costs me about $100 per horse in added expense and I started 400 horses last year. But I feel a little better knowing that [the detention barn] is there.”
“When it first began two years ago, I was a hundred percent for it,” said one world class horseman. “But now I wouldn’t support it because it’s been ineffective. it’s not fair to bettors because a lot of horses don’t handle the move well.
“I asked a gambler I know ‘how many big bettors do you know who believe that some very successful trainers have an edge? All of them,’ he said.”
“When I run out of town and I’m running on horse on Lasix, I have to be there four hours in advance. Here it’s a lot longer. If you’re shipping in and running in the first race, you have to leave at about two o’clock in the morning.
“And they’re strict about it. You have to be in the detention barn for six hours. If you’re just one minute late,” holding up his index finger, “it’s a $500 fine.”
The detention barn then is a structure that says about NYRA: “See, we’re good citizens and we’re doing all we can.” The only ones who believe that are non-savvy politicians who almost ran New York racing completely into the ground with their draconian rules, institutionalized indifference and lack of vision.
Here’s one crude idea that would save the association [and taxpayers] millions every year, act as a more effective deterrent, wouldn’t punish horsemen logistically or economically and help insure that horses will perform without undue compromise to their established form.
How about the installation of small web-cams in each corner of every barn and in other strategic areas of the shedrow and have security personnel observe a bank of TV monitors a la the casino eye-in-the-sky model?
Then, when an egregious form reversal is observed empirically--even after the fact-- there would be video of the culprit doing the deed. If video cams are good enough for banks, large convenience stores, and the like, it should be good enough for the barn area.
With the money the NYRA will save by not paying the firm Getnick and Getnick for questionable services that are inefficient at best, they might be able to save some of their own employees from the unemployment lines. They might even save enough to allow the air conditioning to be turned back on in those brick structures that house backstretch workers on the Oklahoma training track.
11 Jun 2010 at 02:50 am | #
Mr. Pricci,
I have been an adversary of the Detention Barn System since it became apparent the detrimental effect it has on the horse, the race outcome, and
in turn the punter. I will not rehash my arguments in favor of the elimination, but as they do in England’s Parliament respond to your column with a loud, HEAR! HEAR!
The political prehistory of the Detention Barn System is wrapped in many shades of gray, and clouded in the mists of greed.
The incident you refer to garnered many headlines when six people were indited, but no one was ever convicted. NYRA paid a fine of Three Million Dollars under a Deferred Prosecution Clause, NYRA did not plead guilty. NYRA faced potential legal costs many times the amount of the fine it paid. NYRA also faced losing the franchise during the investigation and court defense, this would have happened prior to any findings of guilt. At that time the MGM Deal was still on the table for NYRA. There was no choice for NYRA, it was forced to protect itself and pay the fine offered. That in itself tells one how strong a case was really there. If NYRA was truly guilty, if the evidence existed, no administrative out would have been offered.
The enemies of NYRA were many. Aside they had Frank Stronach trying to take over New York Racing, Donald Trump doing all he could to protect his Atlantic City investments, a major publisher excuse me, a real estate interest salivating over the physical real estate of Aqueduct, and I could go on and on. But you know the picture as well or not better then I.
The prosecuting (persecution) of NYRA was led by the then Federal Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. We all are well aware of his sterling reputation of integrity, honesty, ethics, and we all know he would never use the legal system for political or personal gain of himself or others.
I probably tend to disagree with NYRA more then I agree. But I recognize throughout the years, in all the forms and shapes, it has been the only protective wall for the horseman, the horse, and horse racing. Battered, cracked, it still stands, and though not perfect by far, it is far better then any of those who have tried their best to eliminate and replace it.
Now to complete the circle, you are so right, eliminate the detention barn.
11 Jun 2010 at 04:44 am | #
Most bettors saw the detention barn as a waste of time and money. The Getnick
law firm was basically stealing money from NYRA. What exactly was their purpose ?
NYRA was not at fault with a lot of these changes that resulted in a waste of money and time. They were just trying to protect themselves. NYRA is basically a powerless organization run by corrupt state politicians. So,if you were NYRA,your only interest would be to protect your organization and jobs.
If racing is to prosper and I still think that is possible,there must be some new management tools instituted.Perhaps,if there was a central agency with one person given the power to make decisions and oversee racing that might help. Cut all the red tape.One capable person could make decisions in minutes that now must go through so many panels it can make you dizzy.
11 Jun 2010 at 06:45 am | #
JRP,
Here is a quiz for you and your readers.
Detention barns have been used in Standardbred racing for years. They are considered a vital part of pre-race security, and honest horsemen have accepted them without much complaint. Why is there a difference in how they are perceived in Thoroughbred racing?
Choose one of the following for the answer.
1) There is a significant difference between the breeds and how they approach a race.
2) T-bred horsemen aren’t used to detention barns, would rather not have to deal with them, and figure if they complain enough now they can get rid of them.
3) T-bred horsemen have the upper hand because no track other than the NYRA venues have installed one.
4) There are a significant number of T-bred horsemen who have taken an edge and want to go back to the ‘good old days.’
5) None of the above
6) All of the above
7) A reason which is not listed here, which is…
11 Jun 2010 at 07:49 am | #
Sorry, Nick. #1 is the only one that makes sense in this context. One man’s opinion. I’m not as paranoid about trainers as some of my colleagues. The argument against the detention barn--the horse/public come first--is that it’s expensive, bad for the bottom line, and inadequate. Let’s keep the ponies and lose the dogs, shall we?
Aaron, Ultimately, Getnick’s purpose was to obfuscate some of the issues and ultimately help secure a franchise extension.
Kevin, obviously you’re well versed on this subject. But as far as NYRA not pleading guilty, consult a DRF story from December, 2003 that also appeared on MSNBC.com.
I’m satisfied with the facts as represented here. NYRA may have enemies but they also have powerful allies.
Thanks all!
JP
11 Jun 2010 at 11:50 am | #
HRI does and excellent job of educating and bringing to light situations that effect the horseplayer and his wagers. How many of you would have bet on Big Brown in ‘08 or Ice Box this year if you KNEW that they were not exactly “enjoying” their over six hour confinement in that hell hole. And these are just two of thousands that have become so upset over the years that they were not able to perform for you to the best of their abilities.
NYRA and the SWRB hide behind the word INTEGRITY and use it as a sound bite or punch line to curry favor with elected officials when truth be told it is those organizations that cry out for detoxification.
This article has nailed the facts and they are indisputable! Sadly the policy will continue to the detriment of horse players and most importantly the horses themselves.
11 Jun 2010 at 12:16 pm | #
Mr. Pricci: You are dead wrong about Getnick & Getnick; they were appointed by the court as monitors, and they immediately realized a golden apportunity: write a glowing report on NYRA’s complience and we will be guaranteed a future within NYRA. That they did, and they are now enjoying the monthly payments to them.
As to the detention barns, I simply do not have enough information to offer an opinion. I wish that you had gone beyond the top trainers and asked the trainers of the everyday entrants what their opinions were.
As to NYRA itself. They are in the position they are in now because of the ignorance of the Good Ole Boys’ Club, aka Board of Trustees, aka as the Board of Directors; imagine, twenty-eight or so trustees/directors to supervise a franchise as complex as running a lemonade stand on a street corner. Most of the trustees/directors from 1996 to 2008 didn’t even know what N.Y.R.A. stood for when picking up their brochure when gathering for a meeting; and most needed a map or a GPS to find the racetrack.
The trustees/directors were asleep for over a decade, thus NYRA’s predicament today. But, the trustees/directors knew enough to get their seats and reserved tables for dining during the Saratoga meet.
And, remember, that NYRA’s management continued to keep the stake purses intack knowing that takeout from handle and income from signal fees was declining (where were the trustees/directors?) their hope being that slot revenue would bail them out soon. When income was not supporting the six-figure purse, they reached out and plucked money from the Horsemens’ purse account, eventually being brought to task.
Unfortunately, the ‘Good Ole Boys’ Club’ lives on.
11 Jun 2010 at 05:30 pm | #
Nick,
Let’s consider reason #7. Harness racing does not subject all the horses entered to the detention barn. Stakes races have their entrants in detention barns and a race or two at random is selected after the entries are drawn. If you decide to scratch out of a race that has been designated for the detention barn you have to go into it the next time even if the race hasn’t been selected.
One thing that could be tried without much effort is to go to the harness system but trainers that have had drug positives would have to race out of it.
12 Jun 2010 at 01:13 am | #
Dick,
There is little doubt the harness methodology would be a better alternative. The deterrent would still be there.
The notion of whether a detention barn is, or is not, a good idea in Thoroughbred racing is certainly debatable. However, there is one fact which is not: a barn which was widely considered to be the baddest actor on the East Coast rarely sends horses to New York anymore.
The trainer went from 25-30 percent winners everywhere to below 10 percent in NY and 25-30 percent everywhere else. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
12 Jun 2010 at 01:41 am | #
JRP,
I agree the horses should come first, that’s a no-brainer. The question is how to balance it with what’s best for the game.
I also agree with you that blaming medication for the success of some trainers has been exaggerated. There are those who take the edge and those who are just better at what they do.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt part of the trainers’ complaint is fueled by whine rather than substance. I can always give you an excuse why a handicapping opinion didn’t win, and trainers will always find excuses why their horses don’t run well.
Being a dumb farm boy, your comment “let’s lose the dogs” went right over my head. Explain please.
12 Jun 2010 at 02:41 am | #
Nick, you can’t have a dog and pony show without those puppies. No trainer I spoke with in person or on the phone was whining. Frustrated, yes. Shippers would always have to arrive early. Strategically placed web cams can do the job and provide a record after the fact..
Wendell,, As the piece stated, Getnick & Getnick was appointed then retained. That’s the troubling part. The trainers I spoke with onthe phone from downstate where none of the “big eight” you like to refer to.
Mousse, clearly you get it.
Thanks all
JP
12 Jun 2010 at 03:03 am | #
Nick-
If the detention barn caused one trainer’s win % to drop,how come no other trainer was affected ? Also, I believe if you check the percentages,the trainer you are referring to did not win 25 to 30 on a regular basis in NY.Coincidence,that only one trainer was affected by the detention barn.It makes no sense. If the detention barn is working,how come a new trainer,who has never trained before can come in and win at a 40% rate. I guess he took a masters course in training and learned his lessons well.
12 Jun 2010 at 03:34 am | #
Aaron,
I did check the percentages, using Daily Racing Form’s Formulator program which allows a five year window, separated by tracks and racing circuits. The figures I cited were taken one year after the security barn was begun.
No one has ever said a detention barn is the complete solution. It should be part of a comprehensive plan to remove the improper edge, as much as possible. As JRP has pointed out, video surveillance could be a better alternative to putting every horse in the barn.
Why did one barn falter while others didn’t? There are many potential reasons. It could be using milkshakes versus other nostrums, it could be some of the barns many think are cheating aren’t, it could be a whole host of reasons.
I think you answered your own question on the new 40 percent trainer. Connect the dots.
The perception bettors have about cheating and supertrainers is one of the key issues racing has to solve. Let’s start by handing out real punishment to trainers AND owners for significant positives, move to getting control of who administers medication and when, and mix in video security with harness-style detention barns as Dick Powell described.
With all due respect to the trainers and their frustration, there will always be trainers who can adapt to the environment presented. Horsemen already rule the roost in NY and at most other racetracks, with bettor issues given short shrift.
There may not always be bettors willing to accept the contract as it is now offered, or as presented by the cry to do away with the security barn. What’s the latter? Let’s reclaim the occasional horse which loses their race in barn and give away the deterrent of the barn.
Make no mistake, despite some of what you have read here, detention barns have been a deterrent. Just ask any veteran harness bettor, trainer, or owner. Without detention barns, harness racing as we know it, might have ceased to exist, deserted by bettors.
12 Jun 2010 at 04:03 am | #
Nick,
Thanks for your well thought out response. It is my belief that in harness racing,the detention barn was used for Stake Races only,but I could be wrong. Mpre to the point, in racing,penalizing the trainers is probably the way to go. I certainly agree with installing cameras. If in all the years of the detention barn,one trainer is all that can be cited,NYRA sure has paid a big price to get rid of a trainer. It would be easier just not to give stall space to a trainer as other venues have done.
I agree that some trainers probably aren’t cheating,but when a new trainer comes in with no experience and wins at 40%,you would probably have to admit,he is beating the detention barn. I agree with you severe penalities for owner,trainer, and vet are the way to go.Also,why is the vet not listed in the program,having the vet listed could shed some light on the problem.
12 Jun 2010 at 06:39 am | #
Mr. Pricci, I can hold back so here goes;
Rudy Rodriguez-
During the course of his Jockey career he was sought out by the top trainers and racing stables for his expertise with horses. Unfortunately for him, this demand for his talents only extended to the morning training hours, and rarely carried over to the starting gate on race day.
He is and was well known for his ability to guide a high class two year old beyond the maiden win to the upper levels; to lay out a training regimen for any level horse that would give it an advantage in making it to the winners circle; and to be able to diagnose a problem unseen by others and find the solution to resolve that problem.
He was paid well above the morning training pay rates for his services, but he received no public recognition for his talent and his work. In other words, he was used, and somewhat abused by those who accepted the credit for his work.
I can only imagine he turned to training because of the frustration of his race day jockey career. The New York Trainers are ruing the days that they denied him the mounts he so well deserved. Had they given him the chances he earned, they would not have to go up against his horses now.
He makes other trainers look bad. So you can be certain the unfounded rumors have or will float about him. Unless there is factual proof of misdeeds on his part, I say do not give aid to the jealous, the less talented, in putting a cloud over this man’s sterling reputation for horsemanship. A reputation that existed as a semi secret on the back stretch of the New York Tracks for more then a decade.
He only took out a training license in February 2010. He has shown a remarkable win percentage with the horses he claims. No magic potions, it only makes sense. He was on the horses backs, or along side them on another horse in the mornings, so he knew which horses to claim. He will continue to be a success, I don’t think he will maintain his current percentage, but he will always be a factor to contend with. I look forward to the day that some wise owner turns over a couple of good two year old’s to this man. Of course there are some trainers who fear that same thought.
Last statements:
There are many one horse owners and trainers who root for Rudy. The same services he was paid for by the larger outfits, he dispensed freely to those he felt needed and deserved help. In turn, a large percentage of the horses he won with during his jockey career were for these same smaller stables.
He continues to work out his own horses each morning on the training track. He is a horseman trainer who will be contending for many years to come.
13 Jun 2010 at 03:56 am | #
Why don’t u trade phone numbers. It would be easier than posting information on something none of you know about. Pull yourself away from the buffet lines guys and rest ur egos. BRUTAL
13 Jun 2010 at 07:25 am | #
I agree with Pricci..The DB is a failure. Period!
Too many horses have gotten injured there.. New surroundings, different help etc. I had a friend who had the 2nd choice in a 2yo stake last year (from Chicago) heard the bell of the starting gate, reared up and tore her leg up.
They can use more advanced methods to test, ala 1 hr. pre-race blood samples. 2 trainers I know have advocated that as a simpler more ‘closer to race’ technique.Analysis can be made prior to reaching the paddock.
As far as Rudy R goes, Kevin may be correct that he’s a good ‘horseman’. But better than Alan Jerkens, John Kimmel, Bill Mott? Or even better than the Dutrow boys. Now THAT is something.
14 Jun 2010 at 01:05 am | #
Kevin, I’m well aware of Rudy’s talents as a horseman when he was Dutrow’s #1 and thought he was as good a journeyman as others at his level in the New York room.
But when someone on the Oklahoma backstretch asked me this question last week, I had no answer: “When did Rudy Rodriguez become Charlie Whittingham?”
Mark A. Is that the best you have to offer? Contributions to the dialogue are always welcome.
Thanks all.
JRP
14 Jun 2010 at 03:58 am | #
Mr. Pricci,
I sometimes can suffer from “Verbal Over Kill” on
a response to a potential situation that I see as an unjustified smear on another. So to speak, when I smell smoke, I use a water hose, because I do not want to see the flames. My comments on Rudy Rodriguez fit that reaction.
I don’t take one step back from what I wrote, I believe in every word, and I wrote in the spirit of what I know to be truthful.
Rudy’s current amazing stats will not last. His current success is do to the following:
He knew which horses to claim. Fair or not, he had an insider’s advantage when he hit the claiming trail.
He was also started off with some talented lower
level horses by owners who felt their horses were
overlooked in stables that had larger clients, with higher level horses.
In addition, there are a few horses he has been managing on farm rest/training/recuperation that are now going to him since he has taken out a trainer license.
He is on the back of his horses in training, so he knows exactly how to instruct the race jockey.
He has all top jockeys riding for him. He is well liked and respected by them. He generously guided them in riding those upper level horses that he rode only in the mornings, and they too wish him only good things.
Overall, it is Rudy Rodriguez’s horsemanship that has enabled him to do the above mentioned, and to start off running as he has. His talent always will keep him in the picture, but the advantage
he started off with will not last. His stats will average out.
Although he was always known as Dutrow’s #1, he was not the only top trainer to make use of Rudy over the past years. I am just happy to see a good man start off successful, and I can only wish him well. In addition he is very fan friendly, and he is good for racing overall.
One can be rest assured, since he came out
to a running head start at Aqueduct, he has been on NYRA’s and NYSRWB radar. He is closely watched. The shame of that is, the scrutinizing of his stable is based more on jealous whispers, insinuations, of others, and not on any factual proofs, or his stats. The good thing is, you can not find misdeeds where there are none.
There I go again, overly verbal ranting and preaching, “mea cupa”.
15 Jun 2010 at 01:38 am | #
Do not construe this comment to be a critcism of Rudy Rodriguez. It is not. It is a simple statement of fact, nothing more.
Since March 31, 2010, eight horses have been transferred to Rudy and subsequently raced. These were not claims, just transfers by the owner.
All eight won their first start for Rudy. As in eight consecutive wins off the trainer switch. It would be nine, except Theartofcompromise was beaten a head on February 19.
I’m not familiar with all the owners of some of these eight horses. However, among them are Michael Dubb, Jimmy Riccio, Sandy Goldfarb, Vincent Scuderi, and Gabrielle Stable—all of whom are well-known in New York racing. I doubt their horses were “overlooked in stables that had larger clients.”
Anyone who cares can confirm these numbers by using DRF’s Formulator program, click up Rudy’s trainer record, then enter the option for ‘First After Trainer Switch.’
15 Jun 2010 at 04:00 am | #
Nick,
You’re correct.
Almost all of Rodriguez’s horses are from owners connected with Anthony/Rick Dutrow. No doubt these owners knew and respected Rudy and decided to give him a leg up to get started as a trainer. Which is fine and he’s certainly taken advantage of the opportunity.
Kevin Burke’s tale is somewhat embellished, IMO.
Rodriguez, thus far has proven to be a very good trainer. To state he became a trainer to get even with other trainers who didn’t ride him on their horses is ridiculous. He might have been a great excerise rider, but he wasn’t a good jockey.
15 Jun 2010 at 04:44 am | #
Mr. Kling,
Facts are never a criticism, but my interpretation of the facts provided would be that they are a compliment to Rudy Rodriguez’s abilities, and an astute early judgment by savvy owners.
My reference to Rudy’s start was just that, his initial start in February when he had at most six to eight horses in his barn. On March 31, 2010 his record stood at 8-2-2-1; 25% Win / 62% In the Money.
That out of the box initial start could do nothing else but draw attention from owners. As of March 31,2010 he then had an even dozen horses in his barn. I have no idea what his current stable roster numbers are, a good guess would say that the roster is larger at this date.
One bit of confusion on my part, you state that since March 31 he is eight for eight on trainer switch, then give a Feb 19th horse that ran second. I can sometimes be lost when something is right in front of me but I fail to get the connection. The Feb 19th horse was his first or second start as a trainer, all his horses at that time were trainer switches, followed up with horses he commenced to claim, further augmenting his stable roster.
In closing, your doubts about owners reasoning
for switching to Rudy, and my differing belief in some of their reasoning for switching to Rudy is just that, differing beliefs. Viewpoints that differ do not disparage each other, and should not be used as a reasoning or insinuation in an attempt discredit. It is horse racing, and in this great sport, in this great country, we are both allowed to believe differently. May it always be so.
15 Jun 2010 at 05:17 am | #
Mr. Austin Childress,
Sir, you put meaning in my words, in my writing that are not true, and used terms and words that were not written by me.
I stated “I can only imagine he turned to training out of frustration with his jockey career”.
“My comment on NY Trainers ruing the days that he was not given the mounts” is the most current common joke in the Belmont Clubhouse and on the backstretch when Rudy’s name is mentioned.
No where and in no way do I state anything about his inspiration was to “Getting Even”.
In your opinion, my “tale” might be embellished. You have that right to believe so. A belief needs no facts to substantiate.
But you sir misinterpreted, if not outright lied in your comment to support your belief. That is not just my opinion, but fact.
15 Jun 2010 at 07:31 am | #
Mr Burke,
That’s my opinion. Your condescending long winded posting was embellished. Why would a trainer regret giving Rodriguez mounts?? He rode for years and wasn’t considered a good rider. If he was, he would have been put on live horses.
He is proving to be a good trainer. And not because he’s won with a high percentage of off the claim/new aquisitions. But because many of those horses have maintained their form. Not an easy thing to do with cheaper horses.
Wish him good luck.
16 Jun 2010 at 04:24 am | #
I don’t care what the circumstances are behind Rudy Rodriguez - none of his actions pass the smell test. Look at the current numbers being put up by Nick Canani at Arlington: 37-20-10-1. 54% winners, over 81% 1st or 2nd. Who in their right mind thinks nothing illegally is happening here? Good horsemanship - my A@#.
Take the 4th race at Belmont last Sunday. Including multi race wagers, there was over $655,000 bet that involved to this race. The race winner was trained by Rudy Rodriguez. Once the “Sheets” and “Beyer” guys have evaluated a race, all winning trainers should have to be accessable to questioning from these types (forget DRF getting involved in something like this - they refuse to get near crazy trainer performances). Bettors should have an explaination to what happened or changed.
OK, so maybe the NY detention barn doesn’t work. Maybe a video solution is the answer, I don’t know. But I do know this - I have a lot of time and gambling resources, but I’ll be dammed if I’m going to get serious about playing this game when situations like these exist everywhere. And this is not an isolated opinion. With handle numbers dropping at a rate of 10% per year, many former players must feel the same way. Racing better figure out real soon how to eliminate the cheats, otherwise it won’t matter.
16 Jun 2010 at 04:37 am | #
As someone who is actually on the backstretch, I will point out these visual and witnessed items:
1. Watch Rudy’s horses gallop out....
2. Watch Rudy’s horses cool out....
3. Talk to someone who has seen Rudy’s horses in the detention barn…
Interesting...what’s he using from Mr. D.
16 Jun 2010 at 04:41 am | #
I’ll tell ya who they should investigate. John Pricci, that’s who!!
How the hell does this guy keep picking winners??
Turf, dirt, slop.....everything but synthetics. Synthetics to JP are what kryptonite was to Superman.
Man’s gotta be on the inside, knows what horses are juiced. How else could he pick winners at a rate like this?? NYSRWB should investigate Mr P........LOL