NASCAR now finds itself in the middle of a major cheating scandal, right on the eve of the Daytona 500.  I can’t help but observe (and admire) the fact that NASCAR has brought much of this on itself.  What were they thinking going after these top shelf racing teams right before the first race of the season - the Daytona 500!?  They had every opportunity to start cracking down on the rampant cheating at a less important race.  Surely they knew that some of the older salts would confess that this has been going on for year.  Why wave their dirty laundry when everyone is looking?  Heck, why crack down at all?  From the sounds of it, it has been going on for a long time.  It didn’t appear to be hurting anyone.  Right?

I hope leaders in the horseracing industry are taking notes.  There are some lessons here.  Here are my observations…

• I’m not enough of a NASCAR fan to know if docking Michael Waltrip 100 points is damaging enough to affect his chances for the championship, but I think it is.  If so, that is a step in the right direction.  It would stand in stark contrast to horseracing, which just awarded Todd Pletcher an Eclipse award while serving a suspension.
• Fining the crew chief $100,000 and suspending him indefinitely is very different from the slap on the wrist that horseracing offers its offenders.  Trainers caught cheating may serve a suspension, but the fines are inconsequential and the trainer’s assistants just carry on with the principal trainer in the background.  Word has it that the crew chief will be fired.  He won’t do this again for the same team.
• Toyota is clearly embarassed and angry over this situation.  They have served notice that another offense and they will revoke their sponsorship.  I’d be more impressed if they didn’t wait for another violation, but this isn’t bad.  I’ve never seen an owner take that kind of stance with a trainer who gets a suspension.  Toyota has said that Waltrip’s team has violated four areas of Toyota’s code of ethics.  I know a little bit about Toyota.  I think they actually have a code. 
• Most impressive, is NASCAR themselves.  Talk about making a statement.  If you are looking for a parallel - this is like thoroughbred racing suspending Todd Pletcher, Bob Baffert, and Nick Zito the day before the Derby.  NASCAR has made a statement.  Almost nothing they can do now can possibly be a shock to a racing team.  This is much more than a warning shot. 

I know wagering on NASCAR does take place, but it is not such an integral part of the sport as wagering is to horse racing.  So why does NASCAR get it when horseracing appears to be paralyzed by the cheating problem?  Why does NASCAR appear to have the sense of urgency over this issue that horse racing is struggling to get the nerve to display?  Sure all sports should be clean, but horseracing has a higher calling to protect those of us swimming in the parimutual pool.  We all would like to believe the playing field is as even as possible.

Nice job NASCAR.  NTRA, please take note.

Â

Bloodhorse contributor Steve Haskins suggests that Street Sense’s effort in the BC Juvenile may have been “too good” to gage his true ability.  Huh?  Without making specific reference to “the curse” it appears that it is on Steve’s mind.  It looks to me like he is looking for a reason to dismiss Street Sense but until he races again he would look like a fool for doing so.  I mean - it has to be worth something to win the toughest 2yo race in the world by 10 lengths going away… Even if the race in question is the jumping off point for the curse.

Even if Street Sense wins both of his remaining Derby preps (Hutcheson and Blue Grass), there will be a very healthy number of people talking about the curse. 

I certainly hope so anyway.  It will help me get a better price on such a cursed horse in the Derby.

Steve and I agree on one thing - that it would be foolish to get locked in on a horse based on his 2yo season.  As he points out (Bloodhorse Jan 20, No.3) this time last year the Derby winner had not yet raced on dirt and the eventual Preakness winner was still a maiden.

So here’s the point - the BC Juvenile winner definitely should be considered the favorite until he gives a reason to be removed.  He should be that much stronger of a favorite if his running style in winning the BC Juvenile is right for the Derby (which it was).  But don’t fall in love with Street Sense and miss a horse who either did not run in the Juvenile or is just recently coming to form.  There could be one lurking out there who is the best of the best waiting to be discovered.

Can you be validictorian of your graduating class if you are caught copying off another student’s test? 

Heck no!  At least not most schools.

Can you enter the Baseball Hall of Fame if you are caught betting on baseball?

Heck no!  Ask Pete Rose.  (At least not yet anyhow)

Can you win the Boston Marathon if you take the subway?

Heck no!  That would be cheating!

But you can earn an Eclipse Award while serving a meds-related suspension. 

I’m sure there are relevant, mitigating, elements of the story that I’m overlooking.  However, after commenting on this situation in a previous blog, no one is offering those elements.  No one has rushed to Mr. Pletcher’s defense.  Surprisingly, most piled on in agreement with me.  At the time, my suggestion was that with two of the nation’s top trainers serving meds related suspensions, the cheating must be fairly pervasive.  I still believe that to be case.

I bet if I was an industry insider I would know a dozen different reasons why my view of the situation is dangerously oversimplified. 

I’m so glad I’m not an industry insider.  

California Horse Racing Board has recommended a zero tolerance approach to the use of clenbuterol and other anabolic steroids, an act that would significantly trim the number of horses shipping in from other states.  That is a bold and shocking approach and I hope it goes forward.  Even more shocking is the number of horses currently being treated with the drug.  The CHRB is also looking to extend penalties beyond trainers, to also go after owners and veterinarians.  My hat is off to the CHRB.  It is time to take a stand.  Maybe the CHRB understands their role in this gig.

Eclipse awards voters apparently do not. 

We, the racing ran base, deserve a clean sport.  We should expect to be able to read the racing form in order to match wits with other members of the parimutual pool and draw our conclusions from the racing history of the competitors.  Not from the med history of the horse or the suspension history of the trainer.  I don’t want to look at those other factors. 

If Todd Pletcher truly did make an honest mistake, treated a horse too close to a race date and a post-race test tripped a flag, well that would be a crying shame.  But when meds infractions are pervasive in the industry you simply can’t give Eclipse Award to a trainer serving a meds suspension.   At least that is my oversimplified opinion.

Trainer Scott Lake was the nation’s leading trainer with 528 wins in 2006.

Scott Lake is also serving a 30-day suspension by order of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board.  Scott Lake is already serving a 30-day suspension in Delaware. 

Scott Lake is a cheater.

I’m sorry - I don’t know another word for it.  How many freakin states does he have to be suspended in before someone suggests that maybe a LOT of his 528 wins were ill-gotten and the training title becomes off limits?

Hall of Fame trainer Todd Pletcher is the nation’s earnings leader.  He is serving a suspension through January 31st for similar violations (illegal drugs found in his horses).  He’s a cheater too. 

Steve Assmussen is serving a six month suspension in Louisiana.  Steve was the nation’s leading trainer in wins for 2004 and 2005. 

Steve…. Cheater….

I admit I was slow to allow myself to accept it, but I’m over that now.  Here’s what I make of all this - EVERYONE IS CHEATING. 

The problem has obviously gotten so pervasive that if you don’t cheat, you can’t stay competitive.  These trainers are the industry’s best.  If they have to cheat to win, imagine how serious the problem must be.

Cheaters should not be eligible for Eclipse Awards, Trainer of the year awards, or other accolades.  Those awards should be for people who won their races fairly.  Not for cheaters.  If the horse racing industry honor cheaters, where are our new horse racing enthusiasts going to come from?  Who wants to play in a game where only those on the inside can make any money? 

These guys should have an elevated sense of responsibility to look out for the long term health of the sport.  They are letting us all down.

In the December 23rd edition of the Bloodhorse, Editor-in-Chief Ray Paulick offers some new year’s wishes for the industry he makes his living off of.  One of them is for racetrack owners to have the courage to take a stand against trainers with multiple medications violations.  Meanwhile, his publication fails to paint these cheaters in the light that they belong.  The Bloodhorse does articles on these trainers on a weekly basis like there is nothing going on.  Ray could show a little more courage too. 

As someone who makes his living off the horse racing industry, Ray Paulick should be scared to death about what this pervasive cheating says about the health of the industry.  He should be using his position to campaign for aggressive, sweeping, and immediate changes to the way these rules are administered.  The existing process is not getting it done. 

If 2006 is any yardstick, Major League Baseball took their substance abuse problem a lot more seriously than horse racing is so far. 

And Rene Douglas is banned from Calder Race Course, apparently for involvement in a race fixing scam at Great Lakes Downs….

Where will the new generation of racing fans come from?  Suckers?

I was keeping up with my reading in the Bloodhorse tonight and I saw a letter to the editor about one of my favorite horses, Gorella, and her chances in the Eclipse Award voting.  The letter was in the December 9th issue and the letter was titled “Wrong Place.”

The author suggested that the owner of Gorella cost himself an Eclipse Award by running Gorella against the boys in the BC Mile instead of head to head with Ouija Board in the Filly and Mare Turf. 

I could have sworn that Gorella had actually won races against males, but the author suggests otherwise and I’ll concede the point.  The author used this piece of information to suggest that Gorella was in over her head in the mile and the F&M Turf was a much easier race for her to win.   And that win would have locked up the Eclipse Award for Gorella.

It is conjecture to say that Gorella would have won the F&M Turf.  But I have a problem with the suggestion that it was a bad call to put her in the Mile.

The fact of the matter is that Gorella had a terrible trip in the 2005 BC Mile.  I know because I had money on her and I watched her try to find room repeatedly in the stretch while full of run.  It was so frustrating watching her so full of energy but totally bottled up.  She was the best horse that day, but as I have said many times, being the best horse is not enough.  It takes being the best horse and getting the right trip.

I was one of many who were very excited to see Gorella take another shot at the Mile.  The field in the 2006 BC Mile was actually a little softer top to bottom, so she certainly belonged in the race.

She was installed as the morning line favorite for the 2006 BC Mile and went off the second choice.  There is absolutely no reason to believe that Gorella would not have just a good of a chance in the Mile as in the F&M Turf. 

I have a lot of respect for Martin Schwartz’ decision to put Gorella in the Mile.  Not just because it was a race she was definitely capable of winning, but because beating the boys would have been a nice statement about Gorella’s talent.  It was one of the few things she didn’t have in her resume. 

I have a soft spot for owners and trainers who swing for the fences.  It is these types that continue to race quality horses into their four year old seasons when the easy thing to do is to retire their lightly raced colts as three year olds.  These types of owners and trainers look for the best competition they can find for their horses.  It gives us on the enthusiast side something to cheer for, and it gives us unique handicapping opportunities like seeing Gorella take on the boys. 

It is also conjecture to say that the decision cost Gorella the Eclipse Award.  Ouija Board is a tremendously talented horse, but she raced just once in NA between BC races.  I hope Gorella gets a good look from the writers and her strong resume stacks up against Ouija Board. 

But win or lose, my hat is off to Mr. Schwartz for going for it in the Mile.Â

The National Boxing Association got another black eye this past weekend as fans and people trying to be fans across America (and points further) were witness to another ugly brawl, this one between the Knicks and the Nuggets. 

The penalty phase of the sport began and ended today and the league’s leading scorer was handed the stiffest penalty of all.  Carmello Anthony was suspended 15 games for a sucker punch thrown at a Knick as the initial confrontation was trying to die down.  Anthony’s punch reignited the melee.  And for that reason he deserved the harshest penalty.

The person who got off too lightly was Knicks coach Isaiah Thomas, who lowered himself to thug level by making provocative remarks to or about Carmello Anthony, taunting him about not going in the lane.  His players followed their coach’s example and thuggery prevailed. 

Thomas later tried to justify his actions and comments by saying something to the extent that visiting coach George Karl fueled a hostile situation by leaving his starters in too long into the fourth quarter, despite a 20 point lead. 

I don’t think I’m the only one who has a problem with that logic. 

I think this is a professional sport.  Coaches and players are supposed to act in such a fashion that it brings credit to the players, the franchise, and the sport itself. 

Commissioner David Stern did a nice job by hitting the key players hard with significant suspensions.  But he really missed the point by leaving Isaiah Thomas unpunished.  Thomas should have been suspended for as many games as Anthony.  And the Knicks should follow suit by dismissing him permanently.  I will be very disappointed if Thomas remains the head coach for even one more game.  Even if the commissioner didn’t take action, the franchise should.  He is not good for the team and not good for the sport. 

The last time we saw something like this was in college basketball when John Cheney ordered a hard foul on a member of the opposing team.  The opposing player ended up with a fractured arm.  Cheney was suspended for the rest of the season and he subsequently retired.  I think for 99% of his career, John Cheney was a good guy.  But at some point he just lost it.  He had the class to know he should step down for his failure in judgment, and for setting a bad example for his players.

My favorite sport, horse racing, is also famous for underpenalizing its worst offenders.  Doping, drugging and milkshaking is still too possible.  All these forms of cheating need to be removed. Any trainer with an offense should be banned for a year and any two-time offenders need to be banned from racing lifetime.  The horse should also be kept from competing for a significant period of time.

Yes, I know it was hardly the horse’s fault, but if you want to get a trainer’s attention, this is one way.  Because owners will not want to do business with trainers who get their horses suspended.  It is just too easy for the big name trainer to get suspended and then just continue on in the background while his assistants take over on paper for the duration of the suspension.  Bench the horse for six months and we will start to see owners becoming part of the solution. 

 The sport of horseracing needs to be ten feet above the law because the indication of improper activity can be as damaging as the act itself. 

This just in - Terrell Owens fined $35,000 for spitting in the face of an opponent.  Are you kidding me?  I’m embarassed for the NFL.  The guy is poison.  I can’t believe the NFL chose to mock its own attempt at justice by slapping Owens so lightly on the wrist for such blatently classless behavior.

After Street Sense won the Breeders’ Cup juvenile by ten lengths yesterday, the talking heads on ESPN got to talking about why there has never been a winner of the Juvenile (for 2 year olds) that went on to win the Derby (for 3 year olds). 

One of the heads (can’t remember who) said it was because the BC Juvenile is more of a race for early bloomers and by next next year some of the horses that were not early bloomers will have caught up and the Derby was a totally different race as a result.

That suggestion is so wrong it makes me want to scream.  And people put in a position to educate the public on horse racing should do a better job.

The age of BC Juvenile is comparable to a high school athlete.  And just one year, in horse’s years, would make competitors in the Derby approximately equivalent to a college athlete.  Older horses, as in the Breeders’ Cup Classic would be professional athletes, to continue the analogy.  So if the talking head’s explaination were accurate, it would say that a stars in high school are able to stand out amongst their peers but they become fairly rank and file by the time they get to college. 

But we know this is not true.  Even if you change the age groups around to a baseball analogy and say it is like little league, pony league and college level, it still doesn’t make sense.  Ringers that emerge while very young not only can continue to shine at the next level, but they usually still shine at the next level. 

If true, the ESPN announcer’s theory would say that LeBron James would be rank and file in college and the pros.  It would say that Michelle Wie will be a fairly ordinary golfer once she gives some other golfers time to catch up (a year in horse terms).

The ESPN head’s explaination is just plain silly.

All he would have to do to come up with a better explaination is to simply looks at recent facts.  Horses running well in the BC Juvenile have a great history of running well in the Derby.  Point Given runs a hard charging second in the Juvenile, fifth in the Derby and then sweeps the rest of his three year old Grade I races.  Afleet Alex runs second in the Juvenile, third in the Derby and then sweeps the rest of his three year old season. 

These results indicate that, in fact, it is not an entirely different game by the time the Derby comes around.  It is to some extent the same peer group, with some of the same stars.

So why does the curse exist?

It doesn’t exist.  Like so many things in horse racing, people often assign irrational explainations to their observations. This is how superstition is born.  To the casual observer, if a horse wins the Juvenile, he should go on and win the Derby, right?  Why not, huh? 

The fact of the matter is that the best horse does not always win each race.  It is the best horse plus the best ride that wins the race.  The BC Juvenile and the Kentucky Derby draw huge fields of talented horses.  Even if they ran the two races on consecutive weekends you should not expect the same horse to win both races.  The fact that six months pass between the two races does allow some additional development, but it also allows for injury and other random events that can take one horse off the Derby trail and put another on.

There is every reason for horses that run well in their two year old season to run well in their three year old season.  But there is no reason to expect that the Juvenile winner should win the Derby also.  It will happen eventually, just as stars align.  But in the mean time we should not spend a lot of time building silly theories on why it hasn’t happened yet.  It just hasn’t happened yet and that is all there is to observe.

Just finished putting in another four days worth of results from Keeneland.  As of today I have nine total days worth of results from Keeneland and five from Belmont.  Once I get some time I’ll add some more from Belmont or some other track to have a bigger sample size.  However, those nine days encompass 45 races so it is not an insignificant sample.

WIth the latest results in from Keeneland, it looks like this, summarized:

               Races     Wins   Beat Ordinal
Nonpoly      45         12          17
Poly            84         11          29                                          

With this new data, it is even more compelling that speed is not hampered by the polytrack surface.  E-ponies top speed score is actually outrunning his ordinal position more often on Polytrack than over the Belmont surface.  Winners still lag, but there is certainly insufficient data to state (as Mr Beyer did) that the Polytrack surface shows any favoritism towards early or late speed. 

I’m not saying that the Polytrack surface actually works completely opposite to what Mr. Beyer suggests (that it favors speed).  I’m just saying that there is no conclusion to be made at all.  It would be purely conjecture to say anything about it at all.  The data says there is no case for it, which is what I suspected all along. Â

Here’s my update on the polytrack surface at Keeneland. 

 I recorded results for the last five days at Keeneland and Belmont.  I measured how many times my top speed score (as determined by e-ponies.com) won a race and how many times my top speed score outran his ordinal position.  Outrunning the ordinal means that if my top speed score was the fourth choice in the morning line, he would have to have run better than fourth to outrun his ordinal position. 

Here is the data in tabled format:

                 Races       Wins      Outran Ordinal
Nonpoly      45             12           17
Poly            47              4            16

This data would indicate that maybe Mr. Beyer was correct.  But to be sure, I ran a simple hypothesis test on the data.  Here are the results:

Test and Confidence Interval for Two Proportions

Sample      X      N  Sample p
1          12     45  0.266667
2           4     47  0.085106

Estimate for p(1) - p(2):  0.181560
95% CI for p(1) - p(2):  (0.0297125, 0.333408)
Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0):  Z = 2.34  P-Value = 0.019

These results indicate clearly that the number of winners from my top speed score is lower at Keeneland over the test period. 

But if Mr. Beyer’s suggestion is valid, speed horses should be handicapped from running well, as well as from winning.  So I performed the same test on the data which compared my top speed score outrunning his ordinal position.  Here are the results:

Test and Confidence Interval for Two Proportions

Sample      X      N  Sample p
1          17     45  0.377778
2          16     47  0.340426

Estimate for p(1) - p(2):  0.0373522
95% CI for p(1) - p(2):  (-0.158654, 0.233358)
Test for p(1) - p(2) = 0 (vs not = 0):  Z = 0.37  P-Value = 0.709

These results are also very clear.  They indicate that horses are not any more or less likely to outrun their ordinal position over the polytrack surface as they are over the Belmont surface.  In other words, there is no difference.

So that is the statistical conclusion.  What are the practical conclusions of this quick study?

Don’t make snap judgments about the racing surface.  While the first test shows that winners from my top speed score are lower at Keeneland compared to Belmont, there could be a variety of factors as to why the horse did not win.  The top speed horse may still have run very well.  The second test is much more indicative of the impact on speed overall.  And it definitely says that the tracks are not necessarily and different in how it favors speed.  So don’t go changing your handicapping style over a Polytrack surface. 

I will run similar tests on any polytrack surface in use.  Once we have about 300 data points for each surface the results will become very reliable.

I read with interest Andy Beyer’s article on the new polytrack surface at Keeneland.  You can too by following the following thread:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801725.html

 Any measure that purports to ensure the safety of the horses starts on a good foot with me.  These animals epitomize beauty and grace.  The collateral benefits to the sport of horse racing that come from protecting the horses’ safety are significant. 

For one it should allow horses to race more.  They can come back off shorter layoffs and go back to the barn with less discomfort.  They can’t tell us it feels better or thank us, but I’m sure they would if they could. 

For another, it will extend racing careers.  It is so frustrating seeing the world’s best three year olds retired after a successful season.  As much as I hate to see it, I really can’t be too critical of a decision to retire a Derby or Travers or BC Classic winner.  The risk of injury is so high, and I’ve never owned an animal that was worth 20 million dollars, so I really can’t pretend as if I know whether or not I would let my 20 million dollar horse race into his four year old season.  But I do know that my decision to continue to race him would be easier if the threat of injury were significantly lower.

I’m not ready to agree that the Polytrack surface significantly reduces injuries to thoroughbreds but the data is very encouraging so far.  I’m optimistic.

Mr. Beyer suggests that the new Polytrack surface has changed the game.   He suggests that the new surface hurts the chances of the speed horses.  Using passive observation from the first nine days of racing at Keeneland, Mr. Beyer suggest that the jury is out and the track is completely different from a handicapping perspective. 

For a numbers guy, Andy could have graced us with some data to go with his observations.  Because I’m not buying it.  At least not without seeing some statistical proof. 

I’m not holding my breath for Andy to provide it so I will do my own.  All I need is a set of data to benchmark the results at Keeneland against.  The statistical test I will use is a simple two-proportion hypothesis test.  One data set will be from Belmont Park.  The other data set will be from Keeneland.  The null hypothesis will be that the proportion of speed favoring horses winning at Belmont is the same as the proportion of speed favoring horses winning at Keeneland. 

Check back in a week.