Over the next 12 months Getting Down will conduct a total of three Fraud Contests. Each contest will run for a period of four months. Getting Down will award $500, a FRAUD CONTEST WINNER T-shirt, and an "original" coffee MUG to the entry in each contest that receives the greatest number of votes from e-mail viewers. A colorful jockey wearing a cat-burglar mask - mounted on a thoroughbred in full stride - is depicted on the side of each mug. Second place will receive $200; third place is worth $100; fourth place garners $50. Both coffee mugs and T-shirts will also be awarded down to fourth.
The rules are simple. If several entries are received from different contestants that allude to the same Gambling Proposition (GP), only the first entry received will be posted. You don't have to be a member of Getting Down to enter or vote, and only one vote per e-mail address is allowable. When voting, your name and a valid telephone number must be included. Contestants are limited to no more than three separate entries per contest. Any and all entries must reflect "incidents" that occurred within the time frame of the contest entered. For the first contest, e-mail submissions will be restricted only to those Gambling Tracks (GTs) covered by Getting Down. Whether or not any fraud has actually occurred shall be decided by e-mail respondents.
At some point in the near future, we hope to be offering quality winter and summer jackets, at which time all winners of the Getting Down FRAUD CONTEST - both past and future - will receive their choice of the jackets offered. We hope to eventually send two winners a year to Las Vegas.
The first Fraud Contest begins on 9/1/00 and officially ends on 12/30/00. To best serve your readers, please include the name of the GT and the date, and develop, as best as possible, all relevant information that supports your conclusions. In order to protect privacy, the names and addresses of e-mail authors will not be displayed - unless otherwise requested. A nickname is just fine, a long with the name of the city and state in which you live.
Getting Down reserves the right to edit all material for the purpose of enhancing journalistic value. All submissions to the FRAUD CONTEST will immediately become the property of Getting Down.
Find submissions to the Fraud Contest posted below. Allow 5-8 days for mounting.
_______________
GAMBLING FANS
THE REST IS UP TO YOU
____________________________________
The FRAUD CONTEST has been suspended. Getting Down had hoped the contest would generate greater participation than has been shown. If this event is to be reinstated, gambling fans must step from the shadows. The decision is yours.
In order to provide new visitors to the site with a complete history, all entries, original comments, and results have been posted, beginning with the first Fraud Contest, followed by the second Fraud Contest, concluding with the third Fraud Contest.
The initial contest ran from 9/1/00 to 12/30/00 (four months) and only generated one - count 'em - "usable" entry. Art swung the bat for a lot of folks.
We apologize for the three-day delay in posting the results of the third Fraud Contest. Our host apparently had a brief encounter with a worm infestation.
(Find below the first FRAUD CONTEST - with one "usable" entry.)
FROM ART IN CLEVELAND, OHIO:
11/5/00___There's no doubt that a lot of cheating is going on at tracks across the country. Just the other day I read where the FBI busted some trainers and jockeys in Pennsylvania. You don't have to be very experienced to see that a significant number of horses are merely being galloped around the track. And how about the steady supply of manufactured form reversals - a sizable sum of which are drug induced? To use the term "shoddy and arrogant" hardly addresses the extent and nature of the problem. It's nothing but cheap fraud!
Getting Down has created a lot of controversy among horse players in my area. Based on my ability to perceive such matters, I would have to say that your site has a lot more support than even you might imagine. For example, your text on "concussion in the front legs" is right on the button. I spoke with two different veterinarians who were quick to confirm Getting Down's accuracy on the matter. It's actually considered common knowledge. The real sleeper was the manner in which you suggested to arrive at a breakpoint, using only the finish times for older horses to determine realistic RFM numbers. This simple concept has profoundly improved my game. If I ever have an occasion to meet the individuals responsible for Getting Down, dinner's on me. Why you would pass something like this along to the general public is a real puzzler.
You mentioned that each person can submit up to three entries in the Fraud Contest. I actually came across a number of what I consider to be fraudulent situations, but I chose these two because I have been an avid student of grass racing for many years. In fact, you might say I'm one of the few old faces, a retired electrical engineer, who hasn't given up on the game completely.
Since first reading Getting Down, I've been using my amateur photography skills to "sneak" pictures of the front legs and shoulders of a lot of horses that have either started their careers on the grass or have been switched to the grass following any number of lackluster outings on the dirt. My next step was to compare these photos with similar photos of the legs and shoulders of horses who had been doing well on both the dirt and the grass.
No surprise here. It's just like you pointed out in Switches and Myths: All of the horses photographed that had been represented as being unable to run well on the dirt had legs and shoulders that were just as good as those horses that were having no problems on the dirt. As a matter of fact, after showing the pictures around to some pretty sharp people, I learned that thoroughbreds generally have better bone and joint conformation than most breeds.
Some trainers and jockeys, the guys you refer to as the run-slow-run-fast gang, repeatedly use the dirt/grass myth to manufacture big odds and then steal money at the betting window. It's as simple as armed robbery. But it's actually unarmed robbery. Manufactured myths produce manufactured odds, if I may use one of your formulas, which result in the transfer of money from one group to another.
My two Fraud entries involve horses that were used at Belmont Park on 10/13/00.
Fraud number one occurred in the second race, a mile grass affair for 2-year-old MAIDEN SPECIAL WEIGHT fillies. The central actors were Scott Schwartz, who trained and owned a filly named That Belongs To Me, and jockey M. J. Luzzi. The filly was sent from the gate at odds of 35/1, stayed well within striking distance before Luzzi launched a huge move at the head of the stretch that carried That Belongs To Me to an easy lead of some 2-3 lengths before being overtaken by one other horse - the favorite: Young Man's Fancy - a short distance from the finish line. She paid over $22 just to place. This was not a case where the general public failed to interpret honest information. The filly had clearly been misrepresented. I took all kinds of photos of her legs and shoulders and there is nothing wrong with them. Frankly, That Belongs To Me has excellent bone conformation from her shoulders to her hooves, the kind that would allow her to run equally well on dirt or grass. There was no way you could bet the horse. Unless you knew something. Brandishing only 4 career starts ranging in distance from five furlongs to eight furlongs, the filly had been trailed by double-digit lengths in every instance.
Fraud number two occurred also at a mile on the grass but for 3-year-old MAIDEN SPECIAL WEIGHT fillies. I direct your attention to the sixth race and to a horse named Impeachable Affair. In an attempt to create uncertainty with respect to how the filly was being handled, trainers Bob Dunham and Bernard Dunham gave the impression they switched turns at the controls to excuse away a phony performance at Meadowlands before shipping back to Belmont for the score. Stiffing a horse at a lower grade track and then shipping it back to a higher grade track is an old scam that rarely seems to fail. This particular situation represents some of the worst fraud that I have seen in years. Johnny Campo used the same scam only a few months back. But let's take a more thorough look at matters: Impeachable Affair had a total of 6 career starts. She began her career at six furlongs - utterly void of any early or late speed - on the dirt running some 18 lengths back of the winner who finished out in 1:11 3/5. Not bad for a mule. Almost a month later, with the same jockey aboard (Bridgmohan), the filly was sent forward in a major effort, at big odds, but came up short by some 8 lengths at 1 1/8 miles on the grass, showing good speed near the pace much of the time - at least until such time as the jockey saw he didn't have a chance to win. The next outing was at a mile on the grass against competition much too stiff. As further evidence to convince bettors that the filly had no ability, for her next appearance she showed up at Monmouth Park, where jockey C. C. Lopez rallied for a grand, if not quite convincing, performance - showing no speed at any point in the outing, placing the horse 15 lengths back of the winner. Then back to Belmont at a 1 1/16 on the grass - and a new jockey (R. I. Rohas). Impeachable Affair suddenly felt much better at 95/1 but came up short once again by some 3 lengths. Though fraudulent, this was an excellent effort considering the filly was able to hit the the 3/4 call in 1:13 2/5 on a heavy track that was some 13 lengths slow, and then hang on for a big 3rd. Not a bad trifecta. The connections still made plenty of money. But the charade continued. She was then whisked away for a dismal performance at The Meadowlands, only to be returned to Belmont. This time they get the job done. I had a $100 to win and $50 to place on Impeachable Affair. The clumsy way in which the horse had been set up was so disgustingly fraudulent that I was actually afraid they wouldn't cash the tickets I held. The conformation in the filly's front legs and shoulders was excellent. And I have the pictures to prove it.
As nearly as I can tell, no arrests were made in response to either of these so-called races that, in my opinion, amounted to nothing more than common fraud. Thanks again for the breakpoint angle.
____________________
FRAUD CONTEST PRODUCES FIRST WINNER
1/2/2001____ Congratulations to Art in Cleveland. This was not a hotly contested event, as those of you know who were staying up on matters. But nevertheless a win of some importance. Art will also be awarded second-place money. We received some 400 votes for the first contest, with "fraud number two" easily clenching most of the support for first place. Though the number of Fraud Contest submissions was disappointing, Art's willingness to "stand up to the beast" has not gone unnoticed. The thorough and comprehensive manner displayed in selecting and relating his two entries may well set a standard. A number of other entries could not be used due to the use of totally fabricated representations, to include bogus names of horses. These submissions were obviously designed to disrupt the site. We received numerous e-mail from gambling fans who felt they had been defrauded, or had witnessed fraudulent conduct, but were unwilling to step forward for fear of being dragged into court.
If anyone is in doubt as to whose side Getting Down is on, perhaps it's time for a midstream statement: Getting Down is not the enemy. The so-called horse racing industry is the enemy. If you have any doubts, simply check your wallet. Or maybe you might ask yourself the following question: Since I've been gambling on trainer/jockey activity, am I ahead financially, or have I been getting my ass kicked?
Getting Down is on your side. While one warrior is indeed worth a thousand sheep, Getting Down is quick to realize the importance of at least "putting on the armor," showing up on the not-to-distant ridge in sufficient numbers to put the king and his men to flight.
There is no shortage of run-slow-run-fast activity; plenty of shoddy, arrogant Form Reversals. Perhaps even more disturbing, the inhumane treatment of horses is actually on the rise. The only shortage is the number of people willing to "let their voices be heard." A new Fraud Contest is now under way. It will last for 4 months, terminating on 4/30/01.
( Find below the second FRAUD CONTEST, consisting of five "usable" entries.)
FROM JIM IN SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA:
2/17/01____ The "run-slow-run-fast gang" has been very active lately at Santa Anita. A lot of horses that don't figure have been getting their pictures taken, at the same time delivering up some pretty big pick-six pools. But track management still doesn't get the message: the days when big pick-six pools produced large crowds are gone forever. As a matter of fact, the days of even getting decent crowds out to Hollywood Park or Santa Anita under any circumstances are gone forever. Nowadays track attendance is down by 75/80 percent. And it wasn't too many years ago when weekend crowds of 60,000 and weekday crowds of 20,000 were common place. When you consider there are some 15 million people living within a 50-mile radius of downtown Los Angeles, offering a tremendous market for ready-made gamblers, that such large numbers of players could be chased away can only be viewed as a major disaster.
I'm one of those regular players - along with a couple of my friends - that was chased away. My friends and I figured if track management put more importance on having "manufactured longshots" at the track than having my friends and I at the track, we'd find something else to do, at the same time save a lot of money. Apparently a lot of other people felt the same way. My friends have quit completely, while I still get out to Santa Anita maybe a couple times a year. But I most always check the results in the Los Angeles Times.
My Fraud Contest entry occurred in the 4th Gambling Proposition at Santa Anita Park on 2/11/01. A field of 12 Maiden Special Weight runners were entered at 6 1/2 furlongs on the grass. The field was extremely weak, which seems to be a common problem at this track, and more closely resembled $15,000 maiden claimers by any legitimate standards. Craig Lewis, a low profile trainer whose reputation for getting over on the public at a price is well documented, sent Macabe, a bay three-year-old colt, from the 11th gate position at odds in excess of 50-1. Jockey DR Flores was in the irons. Macabe paid $119 to win. The colt had only 4 other lifetime outings, in three of which DR Flores was along for the ride.
Three of the 4 uninspiring across-the-track moves came at Del Mar in 2000: the first outing (8/5/00), an "all-out effort" at 5 1/2 furlongs, Macabe placed 4th by 4 1/2 lengths at 10-1 odds, jockey DR Flores up; the second outing (8/26/00) came some 3 weeks later at 7 furlongs, running 6th by 18 lengths at odds of 4-1, jockey GK Gomez aboard; the 3rd outing occurred on 9/11/00 with a return to 5 1/2 furlongs, at 6-1 odds, switching back to DR Flores, placing 6th by 12 lengths. Interestingly, beginning with Macabe's first 2000 outing, in which an "all-out effort" was in evidence, the colt's Byer ratings progressively worsened in the next two outings.
The colt was then laid off for a little over 4 months, returning to action at Santa Anita - at 5 1/2 furlongs once again, and at the same Maiden Special Weight level - on 1/20/01. Macabe performed so badly that no sensible jockey would even consider riding the poor horse again. The 5-furlong time for the race was :56.4 over a track surface that was playing 5-6 lengths fast. Macabe was trailing 10 lengths at this point, finishing out 8 lengths back from the winner. A very slow horse indeed. No kidding. Even the Byer rating suggested that the colt was a joke. The comment in the Racing Form (Raging Rag) stated that Macabe was "squeezed at the start; bled."
Why, Macabe had such little ability and physical preparation that - out of pure frustration, or so trainer Craig Lewis and jockey DR Flores would have us believe - the colt shows up 3 weeks later (2/11/01) in a grass event, and at a LONGER DISTANCE. Was this an act of confidence in a horse that had never displayed sufficient ability to justify the move, or a horse that had been deliberately manipulated? The evidence speaks volumes. According to past performance representations, the colt was an immediate "toss out."
Trainer Craig Lewis had 4 months to condition Macabe for 6 1/2 furlongs on the dirt or the grass. There is no way this horse could have performed so poorly on 1/20/01 and then win going a longer distance on 2/11/01. We know that vets supply a lot of the illegal drugs that are used in the industry. Getting the right vet to say a horse bled is not a problem. It's done all of the time. Why else is almost every horse nowadays getting lassix...when less than 4 percent actually bleed. As far as being "squeezed off," any fledgling jockey can produce this effect simply by breaking a horse a little slow, allowing other horses to "close up the front" in the early going along the backstretch.
There is absolutely no doubt that, in my opinion, Macabe was "set up" to pop at 6 1/2 furlongs - and at a big price.
I imagine a lot of people in the racing industry consider Getting Down a BIG ENEMY, but I think your Web site has done more to bring about a change for the better than any individual or group around. It's long over due.
Through the rumor mill I am told Getting Down will soon have a book available that goes into great detail about fraud and corruption in the racing industry. I can't wait.
_________________
FROM JUDD IN MIAMI:
3/14/01___I don't know what you guys at Getting Down have been smoking. The run-slow-run-fast gang in Louisiana is no match for the run-slow-fun-fast gang in Florida. Gulfstream Park is the true champion, world famous for cheating. Just ask anybody who has spent much time playing the horses. Sure, they may run a fair number of crowd-pleasing short prices but their big numbers ( payoffs) are off the wall (cold turkey). There is no way you can figure them. Traditional handicapping means nothing. Gimmick gambling - namely trifectas, superfectas, and overlapping triples - have played right into the hands of jockeys and trainers and their buddies. And a lot of the people who play today are attracted to the game by this gimmick gambling. I've been an active player at Gulfstream park for some 10 years and have never met another gambler who has been lucky enough to cash one of the bigger trifectas. I don't even know any person who knows any regular player who has cashed one. In truth, I rarely catch even a small trifecta.
I've seen a lot of fraudulent stuff at tracks over the years, a lot of which has been at Gulfstream Park. The scam I saw at Gulf on March, 11, 2001, was utterly outrageous, so unsophisticated that it wouldn't fool a 4-year-old kid. I thought the police were going to charge out onto the track at any moment and arrest the trainer and the jockey. Then it dawned on me that the track police were there to protect the track from the bettors - not protect the bettors from the track. That was when I decided to enter the scam in Getting Down's FRAUD CONTEST.
It happened in a 7-furlong Maiden Special Weight for 3-year-old colts. The distance was 7 furlongs - the 11th and final event of the day. A horse named Built Up that was listed (by SWEEP) at 30-1 in the Racing Form got off at 99-1 and blasted the field, beating another horse, Bat Runner, who had beaten Built Up a couple of weeks earlier by some 15 lengths when going 6 furlongs. But this time, of course, instead of being 15 lengths back at the 6-furlong mark, Built Up was only 2 1/2 lengths back of Bat Runner. Built Up flashed what has to be considered a remarkable form reversal, cruising to an easy victory. Talk about arrogant fraud!
If you think I'm kidding, just look up the charts on the Gulfstream Park Web site. If Built Up's phony past-performace representations aren't enough to convince you, just take a look at the payoffs.
I waited until the following Wednesday before contacting Getting Down, thinking the Racing Form might demand an investigation. Nothing happened. I'm beginning to think the whole industry is rotten. How can they let this situation pass without making a challenge?
__________________
FROM ROSE IN NAPLES, FLORIDA:
3/19/01___I first wish to thank Getting Down for a $53 horse I had at Gulfstream Park. No, I'm not a member. A $1,000 membership fee is a bit much for my blood. Are you trying to scare customers away from your site or are you appealing only to high rollers? You are extremely tight about giving out any information. I suspect you don't like your stuff floating around. But apparently it's out there to be had. How do I know this? Because recently I came across some of the material you circulate to members only.
You listed a number of false running lines. One that caught my attention is listed as fraud number B14, where a horse is placed - usually 2-6 lengths - back from the winner in one or more races, to make it look like the jockey and horse were really trying, and then stepping the horse up against tougher company to get big odds. You guys have some real powerful stiff patterns, but this one is real potent, particularly if you can reinforce it with a horse that is bred well enough to get the job done. And better yet if you can look back over the horse's history and see a speed rating strong enough, if repeated, that would allow it to prevail.
I have no way of knowing if Getting Down gave out Shine Again, the four-year-old colt that won the fifth race at Gulfstream Park on 3/10/01, but I can't believe you didn't. The horse fit perfectly the conditions of scam number B14.
In presenting my FRAUD CONTEST entry, I will cover only Shine Again's last four races, beginning with 11/16/00 at Aqueduct when he popped at 7-1 odds over six furlongs and produced a 95-Byer rating.
The next race was also six furlongs (Aqueduct) on 12/6/00, finishing 3 lengths back of the winner at less than even money while setting most of the internal fractions. Byer gave the effort an 81, but the track was approximately 9 lengths slow that day and was listed as a 22 variant. Using a 15-breakpoint as an even track, I added 9 lengths to the track speed rating, which was 82, to get a speed rating of 91. This was a major performance, in my opinion, no doubt leading the stable to believe it had a strong runner.
On 1/12/01Shine Again showed up at Gulfstream Park going six furlongs, bet down to 3-1, and finished eight lengths off the pace, with a 75-Byer rating. Another lackluster effort was produced at the same distance two weeks later. In this final event before the big form reversal, the public bet the colt down to 3-1 for the second time. Shine Again finished third by five lengths, posting a 77-Byer number. It looked like the colt had hit the skids. It also looked like the jockey had been trying to win in each of the last two races.
Fast forward to 3/10/01 and the handsome colt is now entered in a $100,000 race that is overflowing with graded winners and horses that have superior Byer ratings. Poor Shine Again. The trainer must be crazy. Crazy like a fox. Shine Again went wire to wire. Quite a form reversal.
Either drugs were used, which would not be hard to believe, or Shine Again was used to execute a B14 fraud. I'm convinced it was the latter.
In closing I might add that Gulfstream Park and Calder are easy places to get your butt kicked. It's hard to know who's coming. A good friend of mine never fails to remind me of how relieved she is to find the hub caps still on her car after a day of play.
___________________
FROM RANDY IN KANSAS CITY:
4/6/01___MAJOR FRAUD OCCURS AT OAKLAWN PARK. FEDERAL AUTHORITIES EXPECTED TO MAKE ARRESTS SOON. These are the headlines my dad and I expected to see in the newspaper after spending the day at Oaklawn Park. They may call it horse racing in Arkansas, but back home we have another name for it. How these trainers and jockeys can get away with the type of patently false conduct we witnessed on March 31 says a lot. Any legitimate law enforcement agency would have a field day.
My Fraud Contest entry happened in the eleventh race, a 1 1/16 dirt event for $15,000 maiden claimers. There were 12 horses involved. The horse that won, Risky Occupation, paid a whopping $120 and had the lowest Byer figure in the whole field.
The three-year-old colt broke alertly and easily assumed the lead in the stretch and basically coasted across the finish line. And he was never more than a length off the pace at any time. What made it look so bad was that in order to do this the horse and jockey (same jockey was used twice) had to do an "about face" form reversal. Risky Occupation had been out only two times before, having been trailed badly at a mile on March 17, and was trailed badly at six furlongs on March 3.
The act of misrepresenting a horse's athletic ability in order to defraud people is not exactly rocket science. And it certainly doesn't take rocket science to figure out when you've been cheated....especially after the fact. I suppose conduct of this nature slips right by most people who were born and raised in the city.
I guess having grown up on a farm that always had plenty of riding horses around does provide a certain edge.
__________________
FROM HANK IN PHILADELPHIA:
4/25/01___Just got back from a 3-week trip to Vegas. I managed to pay for all of my expenses and still made over $1,800 profit. All things being considered, I'll take it. The game of playing the horses has become a game of trying to figure out what trainers and jockeys are doing with the horses. Big odds seem to be the primary motivation in much of this activity. Stable gambling has corrupted everything. A real savvy player can usually spot horses that have been jerked around in order to build odds. Drugs are another matter. It's next to impossible to figure when a horse has been juiced - until it's too late. Drugs completely frustrate even the best players.
The average player doesn't have a chance anymore. Even good players don't have a chance. I see it all the time at the track and in Vegas. The savvy player, if he can get his greed under control, and practice a little patience, can still take down between $50 and $100 a day. The big problem for most people is that they think they fall into the savvy ranks when they are only good or average. And then there's the new faces. The current game is no place for a beginner. By the time a beginner learned how to play the game, chances are he would be on skid row. It takes many years of study and practice to become savvy, assuming a person has the time and the interest - and the intelligence - to master matters.
I'm really not into any of this Fraud Contest entry stuff. But in the case of Getting Down I'm going to make an exception. Being a horse lover, I can appreciate what you're trying to do for the horses. Secondly, I imagine there is some risk in what you're attempting to do.
April 14, 2001: The third race at Keeneland, a six-furlong dirt event for non-winners of two other than Maiden or claiming. Filly number 2, Blue Diamond Run, popped and wired the field and paid $74. I can't remember if this filly was the biggest price in the six-horse field. I think she was. The trainer had a run-slow-run-fast pattern that was punctuated with two layoffs: On 6/29/00 the jockey and Blue Diamond Run showed early speed at 6 1/2 furlongs before trailing badly, then returned 3 months later (10/1/00) to pop at 16-1. The filly and jockey trailed badly again on 11/2/00 at six furlongs and again, at the same distance, on 12/3/00. The next layoff, as I have shown, resulted in a dramatic form reversal on April 14. Aside from being the best-bred filly in the race, she had a great pattern. I was rewarded well.
The gambling window is what's happening in today's game. If you don't have time to learn how the game is played, either take the time - or head to the local bank where your money will be held safe.
___________________
VOTING ON THE FRAUD CONTEST HAS BEEN EXTENDED, THOUGH ADDITIONAL ENTRIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. VOTING WILL CLOSE ON 5/15/01. WINNERS WILL BE ANNOUNCED ON 5/17/01.
PLEASE READ THE RULES CAREFULLY BEFORE VOTING.
_____________________
CONTESTANTS IN FRAUD CONTEST FLEX MUSCLE AS SHORT FIELD TURNS FOR HOME
5/17/01___Kudos to those individuals who stepped forward. Good job. Before the winners are announced, however, a brief explanation regarding the 17-day delay: Getting Down began experiencing certain site/e-mail irregularities within the last 45 days. While the order of finish in the Fraud Contest did not change from its original closing date, the extra time was needed to conduct a thorough investigation. The results are currently not available to the public but may be released at a later date. We apologize for the delay.
Ladies and gentlemen, and without further ado, out of a total of 760 legitimate votes received, Randy garnered 258; Judd pulled 196; Rose surprised with 172; Jim pulled in 111; and Hank rallied from the outside with 23. Congratulations to everyone.
Getting Down wishes to publicly acknowledge Hank for stepping forward even though he had little chance of placing, due largely to being a late entry. A savvy player with class.
Gambling fans who wish to participate in the Fraud Contest need not submit page upon page of text. This makes for a lot of work on this end. If you don't have the time to include all of the information in detail, don't worry - Getting Down will take care of the rest. Do the best you can, in any event, as all efforts are greatly appreciated. And don't be afraid to add a little humor. Some of the seemingly unimportant comments are sometimes the most interesting to your readers.
A new Fraud Contest is now under way - and will culminate on 9/15/01. Winners will be announced on 9/17/01.
(Find below the third FRAUD CONTEST - four "usable" entries.)
FROM DELL IN PORTLAND, OREGON:
6/21/01___Can you believe the cheap shit they're pulling at Churchill Downs? The run-slow-run-fast gang at this track specializes in major cold turkey. They show no improvement in running lines, no sign of improvement in workouts, just big form reversals at huge prices. It's amazing they get anybody out there for business. Based on their own handle, the track takes in up to 4-6 times more money from out-of-state gamblers than from in-state gamblers. Maybe the people from Kentucky are trying to tell the rest of us something. Maybe its time we started paying attention.
It does no good to write letters to the so-called Racing Form. It's a waste of time to complain to anyone in the industry. They figure if you're stupid enough to play, you shouldn't complain when your wallet is lightened. That's the bottom line. So the next step was the Fraud Contest.
On 6/15/01 I bet the daily double in the first and second gambling propositions at Churchill Downs. The first scam had eight horses and was a $13,500 claimer for fillies and mares at one mile. Click On Sleet suddenly felt a lot better and popped at 45-1 ($92). The horse that looked like garbage in the form broke along the rail and made it look easy. Was anybody arrested? No! Was an investigation conducted? No!
I wasn't the only unhappy person. Some of the other players present were also cheated out of their money and were plenty mad.
If the first scam wasn't enough, the run-slow-run-fast gang popped a horse that paid $89 in the second gambling proposition, a $23,000 maiden claimer at 5-1/2 furlongs, 12 entries in the field. It's the same old story: based on the solid, accurate, knowledgeable information supplied by the so-called Racing Form, Seattle Lake didn't have a chance - merely the workings of honest men and women who have no interest in pulling off a big hit at the gambling window, who wouldn't dare think of going for anything but purse money.
So much for Churchill Downs. Much later for your run-slow-run-fast scams. You'll never see another dollar of mine.
____________________
FROM REX IN NEW YORK:
6/29/01___ Belmont Park - 6/23/01 - gambling fraud number 4: WHAT A JOKE! Am I stupid? Do I look like a fool? Why do I have to go to the track to have my intelligence insulted when I can achieve the same goal by staying home and watching television for five minutes? And it doesn't cost a dime. DUH!
Before you conclude that I'm some kind of a dummy, please consider the amount of money I've banked in the last 3 years. I can't give you an exact figure because I used a good sum of it to buy lots of nice things, but the amount is substantial, relatively speaking. Things like fishing poles, hiking and camping equipment, a small fishing boat and all kinds of clothing for my wife and kids, mechanic tools, and a solid down payment on an automobile for my wife. The rest of it went to a college fund for my oldest daughter. All of this was achieved by not going to the track. Simply by not losing my money - I become an automatic winner.
Sure, as a one-time regular player I had the usual good days, along with those days when I broke even, but the number of days when I lost, along with all of the time I spent at the track, amounted to a double negative: loss of money I had already earned on my regular job, and loss of valuable time that I could have been using in a more productive manner. Add to this the anxiety and uncertainty knowledgeable players face when attempting to make sense out of what the run-slow-run-fast gang is doing, and the probability of coming out on top didn't exactly inspire confidence. Like most players who hit the wall , I wasn't taking any of that "easy money" home from the track; instead, I was taking my regular-job money to the track - and leaving much of it there.
And another thing: What the hell has happened to the New Yorker of old? It used to be that cheap fraud was often greeted by angry players setting fires in the track's trash barrels. I guess this element has gone soft, or gone south for the better climate. New Yorkers may be renowned in some circles for their sophistication, though awfully gritty at times, but the folks in Illinois have won this contest hands down: The suspicious fire that destroyed Arlington Park some years back speaks volumes.
What in the world, then, was I doing at Belmont Park on 6/23/01? I'm glad you asked. My psychoanalyst suggested possible brain damage. My attorney said he could build a case for temporary insanity. My dentist said all future work would have to be on a cash basis. And my broker, God love him, insisted that he had a hot new proposition that required an upfront fee of $10.000.
So there I was, at Belmont, moments away from the 4th gambling event, a mile-1/16 on the grass for Maiden Special Weight colts/geldings. Of the ten horses in the field, I thought Lion In The Course, given his previous performance on May 28 at a mile-1/16, was worth a $10 bet. In order not to bore the readers, I will simply tell you that a horse named Jeeves , after finishing tenth by 34 lengths in its last outing, popped at odds of no less than 53-1 when switched from the dirt to the grass. The horse paid $108. Jeeves had only two career starts, the first time being beaten by a mere 33 lengths.
Using advanced math, I quickly combined the two integers and came up with the number 67. Assuming the length of a horse is approximately six feet, I then multiplied "6 x 67" and came up with 402 feet, which amounts to one full length of a football field, plus just over 1/3 the full length of a second football field. Now I'm no football fan, but this does seem like a very long distance.
The dirt-to-grass scam has always been a favorite among thieves - and we can thank Getting Down for completely exposing this type of fraud.
I guess I'm finished with make-believe horse racing for another three years. Such incredibly unsophisticated fraud only belongs in one place - the Fraud Contest.
Getting Down only walked through a very large hole in the veneer. The only surprise is that it took so long for someone to step forward.
____________________
FROM LEE IN CHICAGO:
7/17/01___What is difference between robbing liquor store with gun, using drugs to alter horse's performance in order to steal money from gambling public, or misrepresenting horse's ability in order to build odds and steal money from gambling public? First case would be armed robbery - remainder would be unarmed robbery. In all instances everyone usually gets picture taken: liquor store thief gets picture taken at local jail, other thieves get picture taken in winner's circle. Stealing by any definition is still stealing.
In old country this type of gambling game not allowed because too easy for criminals to take over, too easy to cheat players - a good place for corrupt jockeys and players to lose heads.
As struggling programmer who is trying to get new company started, I don't have much spare time to gamble on jockeys and horses, and do not pretend to be expert on such matters.
So when does even a fool know he's been cheated? Aside from looking in mirror once home, when results fail to figure before gambling event takes place, probably because proposition lacking accurate information. Greed, gullibility and enthusiasm no substitute for accurate knowledge.
On 6/12/01 I gambled at Arlington Park. The 5th was mile-1/16 on grass. Horse named Gender Motors, longest shot in field of 7 horses, suddenly wakes up and wins, paying $36.80 for every two dollars. Exotic pay-outs were much too small, considering other horses bet extremely low.
A good deal of my education was devoted to logic and probability. I felt like complete fool standing there after gambling proposition was completed.
My cousin suggested I send letter to Getting Down's Fraud Contest. Only in America.
____________________
FROM MIKE IN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA:
7/24/01___ BUSTING THE SUCKERS AT DEL MAR! The vigorous performance on 7/21/01 - the first weekend of the Del Mar meet - by the run-slow-run-fast gang proved a shock for the many patrons who have trouble understanding how the game is played. Driven by the lure of easy money that is frequently tax free, Jockeys and trainers can do just about anything they want, at any time, no matter how illogical the form reversal, and have it referred to as horse racing by the advertising department and the Racing Form.
The big payoffs that rolled across the finish line on BUST THE SUCKER DAY seemed endless: the 3rd gambling event revealed a $35.80 boomer (Salty Helen); the 5th produced a $26.80 surprise (Bonotto); a $33.60 horse scored easily in the 7th (Nikawa); a $32.80 payoff left fans scratching their heads in the 8th (Janet) ; and a $23.60 horse flattened the field in the 9th (Masakado Kid), behind which ran a 37-1 (Music Daze), followed by a 15-1 (Runaway Kidd).
Some of the form reversals were actually legitimate. A couple merely had the appearance of being legitimate.
Beginning with the 3rd gambling event, at first glance everything looks on the level, just one more instance of the public overlooking a trainer who did a good job - a legitimate longshot. But let's take a closer look. Out of a field of eight horses, seven of them had been to the post anywhere from six to twenty-seven times, all at distances ranging from six furlongs to even longer. The exception here would be Salty Helen, having been to the post only twice at Turf Paradise, in both instances winning at the short distance of three furlongs during the months of April and May in 2000. Four of the above horses displayed drills (workouts) at six furlongs, not one of which was Salty Helen.
Why did the trainer of Salty Helen choose to display a series of lackluster four- and five-furlong drills and then place the filly in a six-furlong gambling event? Why wasn't there at least one six-furlong drill? In terms of effort and distance, we know that the type of workouts required to produce the type of fractions Salty Helen displayed on 7/21/01 had to occur. Was this information somehow lost in the shuffle, or was it deliberately concealed in order to build odds? The trainer knew exactly what he was doing. Even a modest six-furlong public drill would tip the public off and drive the odds down. Best to let the public think that since the filly had never gone beyond three furlongs a year earlier, the ability of the horse to run any longer was still very suspect. Is this merely an act of cleverness on behalf of the trainer, or is this common fraud? If you are one of the numerous players who got busted on this horse, the answer is obvious; if you are a member of the so-called horse racing industry, this was a good training job. Jockeys and trainers are supposed to be racing for purse money only, and not be in the business of manufacturing odds. The trainer was looking for a price; the horse was set up perfectly.
The handsome price in the 5th was delivered by Bonotto, trained by Kim Lloyd. Considered by many players to be a charter member in the run-slow-run-fast gang, Lloyd is one trainer you should definitely research if you wish to better understand how the game is played. Prior to BUST THE SUCKER DAY at old Del Mar, Bonotto was last seen in a mile-1/8 grass Handicap at Hollywood park on 1/7/01. Even though breaking from the 10th pole position, Bonotto had plenty of speed to easily gain a good position, as the early fractions were painfully slow. But the jockey decided to keep Bonotto to the outside for no apparent reason, basically doing little more than galloping the horse around the track. The results were then quickly entered in the Daily Racing Form as a "honest to goodness" racing effort. To the casual player who makes the mistake of accepting this publication as the final word in racing, it appeared as if Bonotto may have developed a physical problem, particularly in view of the GLARING FACT that the horse had no workouts since the Hollywood move. And as every student of the Daily Racing Form knows, a horse with no workout within a week to ten days following a dull effort usually indicates a sore or injured runner. Kim Lloyd knows all of these things. There is no doubt in my mind that this horse was set to pop at Del Mar. The bad effort at Hollywood Park and the lack of workouts, predictably, produced a nice price.
Much to the surprise of all but the astute, Nikawa , conditioned by Bruce Headley, smoked a pretty good field in the 7th and paid $33.60. No misrepresentation here whatsoever. Nikawa's third-place finish on 6/17/01 by a mere 3 lengths at 12-1 odds signaled that a major turnaround was in the making by a horse that had previously displayed good talent before experiencing an injury. For those of you who haven't figured it out, Headley is one of the top trainers on this circuit; capable, honest, knows where a horse belongs, sends them every time.
The large price ($32.80) paid by the four-year-old filly Janet, winner of the Ramona Handicap, and conditioned by Darrell Vienna, was also not the result of false running lines. Whether or not drugs were used, only the trainer knows for sure. We do know Vienna is one trainer who is not shy when it comes to playing the game of so-called horse racing. And there's no shortage of evidence. If you don't have time to investigate the trainer's history, simply take note of first two runs made by Janet last year at Del Mar for a small sampling: back 17 lengths on July 30; completely reversing form one month later. Lots of money exchanged hands on this one. Were it not for Vienna's compulsion to pop horses at big prices, the inclination here would be to accept Janet's upset victory as legitimate. I would not hesitate to demand a complete and full series of blood/urine/saliva tests by one or more independent labs before passing judgment. Your call.
The 9th represents a real family affair involving a total of nine run-slow-run-fast trainers. Any time this many of the "good old boys" are involved in a gambling event the likelihood of a form reversal occurring is imminent. We can narrow down the actual participants by determining which horses should have run fast, but didn't, and which horses should have run slow, but didn't. Masakado crossed the finish line first and paid $23.60, sent forward by a trainer possessing a shocking win percentage of 27%. If the win percentage doesn't cause a few wrinkles in your brow, the backyard breeding "nick" (the qualitative result of a specific sire and dam when mated) of Masakado should. Granted, the time of the event was rather slow. That Masakado was able to post such fractions and go on to win insults our intelligence. This horse is so badly bred that the mating of an ordinary mule and Donald Duck would likely produce a better individual. I fully suspect that a comprehensive blood/urine/saliva test - using the very latest drug-testing equipment - would have been most interesting.
The performances turned in by Runaway Kidd (37-1) and Music Daze (15-1) were not due to misrepresentation. These two horses were perfectly legitimate contenders, overlooked by the gambling fans. Knowing how to read and understand past-performance representations, fraudulent or otherwise, seems to be a real problem for today's players.
I was at Del Mar on BUST THE SUCKER DAY and stood near the the head of the stretch as the field turned for home. I also watched the replay.
The problem with the 9th was not with the legitimate longshots. Runaway Kidd and Music Daze definitely figured. The real problem is in Masakado's huge run, and the fact that several contenders failed to participate in the outcome.
After grave consideration, plus a couple cups of coffee, I hereby submit Salty Helen and Bonotto as official entries in the Fraud contest.
NOTE: Following numerous contacts, Mike has agreed to be a regular contributor to Getting Down.
____________________
SHORT FIELD GOES TO POST ONCE AGAIN
9/17/01___The number of legitimate votes received for Fraud Contest number three attained a new high (814); however, "usable" submissions actually decreased. This in spite of the fact that the run-slow-run-fast gang has been running wild in the last four months.
Getting Down has logged numerous Gambling Propositions where arrests should have been made.
For those of you who have contacted Getting Down with complaints but who are fearful of posting them in the Fraud Contest, afraid to step forward, you have two alternatives: either learn how to "catch a thief and win big," or simply quit playing.
You're not going to beat these guys using traditional handicapping. You can always "check your wallet" for confirmation of this simple reality.
The results are as follows: Rex, a legitimate criminal investigator from New York, blasted this field with 423; Dell's report on Arlington Park fraud generated 190 ; Mike's piece on "Busting The Suckers at Del Mar" only picked up 166 votes; Lee's account of fraud at Arlington Park came through with 35.
NOTE: Future fraud complaints will be posted in "Down and Dirty." If you would like to see the Fraud Contest reactivated, drop us a line .
_____________________