If you've been waiting patiently for hard-hitting comments or questions in response to any of the run-slow-run-fast gang's shoddy Form Reversals, don't waste your time.  Or maybe you're one of those gambling fans who wrote a legitimately critical letter to the editor of the Raging Rag, to have it published in the reader-response section, and are still waiting for a reply.  Don't waste your time.  It was thrown in the garbage the day it was received.

Whereas there exists no shortage of trainers willing to provide an interview for public consumption, finding an individual who isn't tied to the Unwritten Code of Integrity would ordinarily present an insurmountable task.  But Getting Down "delivers the mail" - thanks to some good connections.  The trainer in this interview has been conditioning horses for over 25 years.  He has seen the good times and the bad, and based on some of his Form Reversals, he's probably as good as it gets in terms of playing the gambling game of so-called (SC) horse racing.  He agreed with great reluctance, to be sure, agreeing only after Getting Down promised not to reveal his name, the name of the horse under discussion, or where the activity occurred - for obvious reasons.

The name of the horse was changed to Tuterbeet, and the Gambling Track (GT) to Sucker Downs.  It could be not far from where you live.  The jockeys' names were changed to American Flag (AF), We Don’t Cheat (WDC), and Cross My Heart (CMH).

Aug17-96 5SD   1 1/8     :453      1:121   1:472     28    78    74    63    12         AF3       112            40000 

July 27-96 3SD   1 1/16   :464      1:113   1:431     6      42    56    89   1117     WDC7   119             30000

July 10-96 7SD   1 1/8     :472      1:124   1:473     45     85     43   57    821         CMH2    108     AW20000

June 28-96 9SD  l 1/16    :464      1:113   1:424    17     32    34   76    913       CMH5   112      AW18000

June 14-96 7SD   6f         :223       :452     1:123    4      68    46   810   58             WDC1   119             35000

May 26-96 5SD    6f        :223       :45      1:114      9     47    55   57     89          AF4       117             45000

____________________

GD:   Two years was a long time to be away
from the the big oval.  What actually happened
to Tuterbeet, and how was it that you came to
be the trainer?

TRAINER:   He bowed (a right front flexor
tendon) and the vet said it might take at least
a year to get better.  The guy (original owner)
retired him (Tuterbeet) and gave him to his
wife.  A client of mine bought the horse from
her about a year or so later and gelded him.

GD:   A pretty high percentage of horses that
bow are unable to return to competition.  What
kind of a future did you see for Tuterbeet?

TRAINER:   I checked out the leg real close.
He felt pretty good (meaning the tendon had
hardened).  We figured maybe we could get a
couple of  big runs out of  him before he broke
down again.

GD:   Were you involved in ownership?

TRAINER:   Not on paper, if that's what you
mean.

GD:   Could you be a little more specific?

TRAINER:   That's  just the way it is.  People
in this business make deals on horses all the
time.  Over the years I've had a any number
of people offer me a share in horses because
they got behind in training bills.  And sometimes
I've taken them up on it.  I've even had to sell
a couple the horses to get some of the money
that was owed to me.  You just can't go off
registering a horse every time something
like that happens.

__________
3

GD:   But don't  they have rules regarding this
matter?

TRAINER:   They have lots of rules.  To the
average person, they look pretty impressive
and all, pretty good reading.

GD:   What exactly are you saying?

TRAINER:   You know, having a good image
for horse racing.  That comes first.  It's always
been that way.

GD:   Getting along with Tuterbeet, how long
was the horse in training before its comeback
on May 26?

TRAINER:   Almost three months.  He was
working real good.

GD:    Yet the workouts displayed were quite
mediocre.

TRAINER:   Horses are most always clocked
when they're broken out of the gate and run any
distance.  Other than that they put down the
times when we tell them (the clocker) we want
to be clocked.  It's that simple.

GD:   Could you give readers a little more insight
on your point?

TRAINER:   Horses are conditioned to go both
short and long all the time.  When we work them
over the track sometimes we go fast for a while,
and slow for a while.  It's the only way to get
them in shape.

GD:  The public seems to overlook this simple
fact.

TRAINER:   Yeah.  They have a lot of crazy
notions about conditioning.

__________
4

GD:   Are you suggesting that workouts posted in
some of the commercial gambling publications
have very little to do with getting a horse in shape?

TRAINER:   Some of the guys like to run them
into shape.  But a lot of  trainers already have
them in shape by then.  Some kind of a plan.
Workouts are there to give the public an idea
of  what a horse can do (how fast it can run).

GD:   Or what it appears to be unable to do.

TRAINER:   I'm beginning to think you'd make
a pretty good trainer.

GD:   Running horses into shape confuses the
public.  This problem is all too often underscored
with sudden Form Reversals.  Isn't there a rule
that would stop this kind of activity, a rule
designed to require trainers to be reasonably
competitive?

TRAINER:   I think there's some mention made
about it somewhere.  Some of the trainers out there
don't even  know how to train a horse.

GD:   Yet many of them don't seem to have any
problems when it comes to sudden Form Reversals.
They show no sign of improvement - and then
suddenly spring to life.  Physical conditioning, as
most everyone knows, always produces readily
identifiable stages of athletic improvement.

TRAINER:   Look, you've been around racing
long enough to know how the game is played.
Besides, sometimes horses just feel better.

GD:   In terms of verification and responsibility,
don't you think that gambling publications owe a
little bit more to the public than to print certain
figures as being representative of true racing
form merely every time horses are ridden
between two prearranged points?

__________
5

TRAINER:   Well, they call it racing form.  They
have no way of really knowing what's going on a
lot of the time.  But I can't believe that some of
them aren't betting with both hands.  They take
what we do with the horses and then print it up
and sell it to the public.

GD:   Are you saying, in essence, that gambling
fans are frequently victimized by some of of this
so-called racing information?

TRAINER:   This industry is a big business.   A lot of
people can pretty much take what they want, others
have to take what they can get.  You've got to look
out for yourself.

GD:   Did you like Tuterbeet on May 26?          

TRAINER:   Sure, I liked him.  All trainers have
to show confidence in their horses.  It keeps the owners
happy.            

GD:   I think you know what I mean.       

TRAINER:   If you're asking me if I put any money
on him, the answer  is no.  He wasn't ready. 

GD:   Are you saying, then, that Tuterbeet had no
chance to win?

TRAINER:   I didn't say that.  He probably could
have run pretty good.

GD:   Then why wasn't he ridden to win?

TRAINER:  You keep putting words in my mouth.
It was his first time out in two years.  I wanted to
see how he came out of the race.

GD:   Would it be fair to say that you entered
a horse in an event in which you had no interest
in trying to win?

__________
6

TRAINER:   Look, you're acting like it's some
kind of a big deal.  For Christ's sake, it's done
all of the time.  Let's get that part of the  record
straight right now.

GD:   Do you think so-called racing officials are
aware of the extent of this problem?

TRAINER:   Sure they are.  But there's nothing
they can do about  it - except try to pretend it
doesn't exist, or try to cover it up.  There's no way
they can stop riders from laying horses off (less
than full effort).

GD:   But what about those instances when
horses suddenly run many lengths faster?

TRAINER:   Then it's too late.  It's not nice to
rock the boat by them (officials) and say anything.
They want the public to think that everything is
just fine.  Besides, I ain't telling you nothing you
don't already  know...and a lot of other people.
Trainers and riders have tons of excuses for
when things happen - no matter what.  The game
(horse racing)  just works that way.

GD:   Getting back to Tuterbeet, the two events
immediately prior to the big Form Reversal on
17 August are particularly troublesome.  Had I been
present, and had the authority to make an arrest,
you probably would have gone to jail following the
big score.  Is this just one more example of a game
that "just works that way," to quote you, or a simple
case of fraud, or a game so poorly designed and
managed that fraud is impossible to control, a
natural outgrowth?

TRAINER:  Whoa!  Just take it easy.  Fraud is
real dirty word in this business.  It makes a lot of
people get very excited.  You may have to prove
it in a court of law.

GD:  It's perfectly understandable why the word
fraud creates so much stress and excitement in
today's game.  As far as proving something in a
court of law, that's a familiar song behind which the
so-called racing industry has been hiding for years.
How many people were at the track the day when
the jockey and Tuterbeet popped?  

__________ 
7

TRAINER:   Around three thousand.

GD:   If just one person were to witness a bank
robbery, it's considered powerful evidence.  In the
SC racing industry, literally thousands of witnesses,
also known as gambling fans, may be observing
matters at any given time.  On more than one occasion
large numbers of people have been observed angrily
exiting a Gambling Track after having been run over with
a shoddy Form Reversal.  The probability that this many
people would suddenly lose their ability to intelligently
evaluate matters is rather remote.  Is it your position
that this many witnesses mean nothing?

TRAINER:   I understand what you're saying, but in
Tuterbeet's case we'd been having a lot of trouble
with him.  My stable help will vouch for that.

GD:   And since stable personnel are not at all
concerned about losing their jobs, or of what the
stigma of having a big mouth might mean for future
employment, they always tell the truth.

TRAINER:   You got that right.

GD:  I think I'm starting to get the hang of this.
With respect to the first five outings in 1996,
did any so-called racing officials, or any people who
make their living peddling a lot of this racing-form
garbage, approach you and ask if you had been trying
to win, actually racing - show any concern at all?

TRAINER:   Huh-uh.

GD:   Were there any questions asked, any interest
shown by these same people regarding the big
Form Reversal on August 17?

TRAINER:   Huh-uh.  They got two choices...these
so-called racing officials, as you call them.  Either
plead ignorance, or look the other way.  As far as
jobs go, you see, they got a job.  Besides, most of
them couldn't tell if a jockey was trying or not.

__________
8

GD:   Certainly some of them have to be doing
more than you're suggesting.

TRAINER:   That's what I mean.  Every now and
then they might fine some of the workout boys for
causing a ruckus in the locker room, or set a rider
down for a few days, or fine a trainer for some
little something that don't mean much.  Stuff like
that.  You know, try to make it look like they're
really doing their jobs.

GD:   But they are occasionally involved in more
serious offenses.

TRAINER:   After some outside source...like a
federal agency or somebody like that pushes the
button first, or some of the rich (horse) owners
put up a big stink about getting their better stock
beaten by cheaper horses.  Even then they (officials)
don't do anything more than they have to.

GD:   I assume you're referring to drugs?

TRAINER:   It's all part of it.  They want to keep the
lid on it - at the same time keeping the public happy.

GD:   I had intended on saving the drug issue until
later, but since you brought the matter to light,
could you comment on the extent of the problem?

TRAINER:   It's pretty bad, a lot worse than people
are being told.

GD:   Most people are under the impression drugs
can be detected.

TRAINER:   They got all kinds.  Lots of stuff they
(labs) can't even  find.  Causes big problems for
everyone.  Scares the public away.  And that's all
I'm gonna say about it.

GD:   Beginning with Tuterbeet's first outing in '96,
could you tell me what you were thinking, what
was going on?

__________
9

TRAINER:   Sure.  Since because of the bad leg, we
knew there was little chance of him getting claimed.
I told the rider he wasn't ready to win yet, to take it
easy on the leg.

GD:   And what about on June 14, also at 6 furlongs?

TRAINER:   He needed more experience; didn't want
to hurt him.

GD:   And how about on June 28, an allowance event
at 1 1/16?

TRAINER:   We felt the horse was maybe going to
be pretty much okay; didn't want him to be claimed.

GD:   But you could have tried harder.

TRAINER:  We had a lot of money in him by then.
On top of him not being quite ready, it was his first try
around two turns.  We were still worried about the leg.

GD:   Are you saying Tuterbeet had no chance?

TRAINER:   I didn't say that.  He was a good
horse.

GD:   Chance it and destroy the odds if you didn't
win, right?

TRAINER:   If you want to get technical, the rider
said the horse was real sluggish after the
three-quarter pole.

GD:   And I suppose the same was true on July
10, some 12 days later?

TRAINER:   Yeah...yeah, that's right.  But I felt
we did pretty good.  This horse loved a distance.
He came out of the race real good.

__________
10

GD:   Taking into consideration your comments
concerning Tuterbeet's two allowance events,
how can you justify the poor performance after
dropping the horse into a  $30,000 claimer?  If
you were simply looking for a spot to win, that
was it.

TRAINER:   He'd shown so little (in the previous
outings) that by then  we felt pretty safe (no chance
of getting claimed).  He  needed one more race.

GD:   Then you weren't trying to win?

TRAINER:   The rider said he was jostled coming
out of the gate and that he (Tuterbeet) never got
into his stride; felt real sluggish.

GD:   I see...  The public liked the horse, pounding him
down to 6-1 odds,  the fourth shortest price.

TRAINER:   We figured that.

GD:   They apparently reasoned the horse would
do much better due to the fact it was running for
a smaller purse.

TRAINER:   Uh-huh.

GD:   And since Tuterbeet and the jockey seemingly
ran so poorly against $30,000 claimers, the public
probably  thought the horse was lacking in ability, and/or
there  were physical problems involved, right?

TRAINER:   Look, I can't help what they think.

GD:  But if horse racing is being conducted
honestly, wouldn't that have been a fair assumption?

TRAINER:   Yeah.  You might say that.

__________
11

GD:   On August 17, when Tuterbeet and the
jockey won going away by three  lengths, some
20 lengths faster than on July 10, and at the same
distance, the odds were 28-1 - quite large.  The
public avoided the horse, conveniently assuming
that if it couldn't perform very well going 1 1/16
against $30,000 claimers, it didn't have a chance
going a 1 1/8 against $40,000 company.

TRAINER:   They're pretty predictable, huh?

GD:   Unfortunately for them, yes.  Did you have
any money on him?

TRAINER:   You can't blame a man for betting
on his own horse.

 GD:   Everything, including the bad leg, the
saddle didn't slip, the horse liked the running
surface, the horse didn't feel sluggish, both
jockey and horse felt good, not to mention the
odds,  were perfect that day.

TRAINER:   Yeah.  No problem at all.  The horse
was ready.

GD:   Just when Tuterbeet appeared to have no
chance at all, bingo.  What do you think the public
thought, the reasons behind the sudden Form
Reversal?

TRAINER:   Since we waited three weeks before
he won, they probably figured he (Tuterbeet) had
time to improve.  Look at it this way, we could have
put him about anywhere and got a price.  Even if
we had dropped him (from the July 27 event) one
level to $25,000 and won, they (the public) would
have thought that another drop was all he needed.
And let's just say we had raised him and won at a
mile in $40,000 company, they would have thought
a shorter distance made the difference.  They (the
public) got all kinds of excuses.

__________
12

GD:   But aren't we talking about a game with a
lot of built-in excuses because of the way horses
are allowed to be shopped around, much of the
time without any Legitimate Verification as to
the integrity of the performance representations?

TRAINER:   I had nothing to do with making
the rules.

GD:   What percentage of trainers and jockeys 
gamble?

TRAINER:    Pretty much everybody.  That's been
my experience.  Some like to pretend that they don't.
But then, at some point, word gets around that they've
been putting money down through a buddy or something.

GD:   In recent years, we have seen a great profusion
of gambling gimmicks introduced in order to promote
the game, to present an environment where large sums
of money can be made for a two-dollar gamble.  Has
this helped or hurt?

TRAINER:   Depends on who you talk to.  It's been
great for people (insiders) who work with horses.
These are real tough plays for the public.  Too many
horses that don't figure showing up.  In the beginning,
gimmicks attracted a lot of new customers.  But people
started getting smart.  There's no doubt that the game
has been hurt.  You just can't pretend that the public
is stupid all of the time.  I know it works in politics,
but it doesn't work at the track.

GD:  I wonder if you might share your thoughts
on the tremendous effort by the industry to sell itself
to a younger audience, no doubt thinking young
people to be much less sophisticated than your average
Joe.

__________
13

TRAINER:   Business people always try to sell there
stuff like that.  This is America.  But the people who
are maybe capable of changing things in the industry
are just plain stupid.  They just don't get it.  They treat
the fans like they're total idiots.  They charge the hell
out of them at every turn.  The horses are bouncing off
the walls all over the place.  First they run slow, then
they run fast, then they run slow.  Some trainers who
for years were lucky to get one or two winners for an
entire meet, are now breezing along with 30/40 percent
winners.  Everybody's (trainers, jockeys, owners) now
taking what they can get...leaving it up to the publicity
department to smooth things over.

GD:   So how does the industry turn itself around,
get some of the Old Faces back, pack the stands once
again?

TRAINER:   I hate to keep making such a big stink
about this, but this crazy notion that racing fans are
stupid has got to stop.  They (SC industry leaders)
should be doing everything possible for the fans.
They should make every attempt to openly investigate
anything that looks suspicious, make trainers and
jockeys totally accountable, conduct clinics for the
public, provide a lot more information about the horses.
Cheap advertising alone ain't gonna cut it anymore.

GD:  The only thing that's keeping the game afloat
right now is television gambling - driven by New
Faces.

TRAINER:   It's good for now.   But there's only so
many people out there that are players.  And it's just
a matter of time before they're run off.   And when
that happens, the trainers, the jockeys, the owners,
and all their buddies and relatives will then have to
start betting against each other.

(At this point the trainer tapped his wristwatch
with one finger, indicating to conclude matters.)

GD:   Before the interview is concluded, would you
take a few moments to address the disturbing use
of painkilling substances in order to allow injured
horses to compete?

__________
14

TRAINER:   Horses are tools that people use to make
money.  It's that simple.  They like to talk about integrity,
but integrity is no match for money in a two-horse race.
I think I've said enough.

The trainer, who also taped the interview, bid farewell and parted discretely.  He paused at the door and looked back over his shoulder.  I could tell from his expression that he suddenly harbored concern over the wisdom to grant the interview.  After a moment of reflection, however, he shrugged it off and left the office.

Our differences aside, I found this guy quite likable, a real veteran.  What happened to Tuterbeet? The horse broke down again and had to be destroyed.  

Tuterbeet's across-the-track moves represent a rather common Pattern Play: several PUMPS (up and down) in purse structure (SC class), a couple of major FADES, all of which produced NEGATIVES, thus odds, and a soft spot against opponents which - though appearing superior - were actually inferior.   It's easy to understand why the mere thought of Legitimate Verification is so aggressively resisted by the game's purveyors.