I'm not stressed at all.

If they're not testing for it.....?, then they're not testing for it!! No one is going to spill the beans are they?

So one of the questions to consider, are our respective systems/selections, methods etc then are just, will all be a better playing field without the performance enhancers ?

Hear we are we crunching numbers, bang heads, give up, come back, try and try, do as much as we can to "get it right", lose some, win some, only to find out we done all things right accordingly, and all along some impersol is using these things to throw the game out to the far east.

This is one of the reasons i have moved away from form based study to more mathematical selections, not because of drugs in racing but more that training habits and such has changed from 20 years ago, bigger stables with private training facilities, advances in fitness training plus a whole heap i don't even know about, it's just natural progression,

__________________
One Drive

"If the corporates are treating you poorly , just go elsewhere."
"If they need you , they will soon find out."
"If you need them , you will soon find out." --moeee
_______________________________________________

Thats a bit why say what you will about greyhounds, but I feel like sometimes the little man (or woman) on the back of a horse can have too much impact on how a horse performs as well. Also being bigger animals that need everything to go right for them in terms of running position, pace, injuries, jockey, track conditions (the list goes on), I sometimes wonder why I don't put more effort into finding a way to being profitable on the hounds.

It's a bit easier but not as easy as one might think. For the last few years I've been betting strictly on the dogs, with an occasional foray into the gallops.

Mind you, for the lack of jockey shenanigans, you have to put up with the stupidity of some dogs. Mishaps galore.

I do some turnover in all 3 codes.

Each one has its problems and each one can be manipulated by the humans involved. Scandals have been a part of each racing code for decades and will continue to be part of them.

My hope is that they only factor in a small percentage of the races or that my systems have some how taken into account those issues.

Wayne Hawkes said it best, "I have no sympathy for these trainers, they are always sorry after they are caught. Trainers these days don't make any money from training fees, it's the 10 percent prizemoney where we make our profit. These trainers involved in these tactics are taking money out of the pockets of the hard working trainers who play by the rules" (not verbatim).

Vortech, sorry I cannot mention the name of the trainer involved, but it puts me and this site at risk of a lawsuit. It may take weeks, months, or a year, but this trainer will be caught and it's bigger than the Cobalt enquiries. This trainer has had a lot of success, all I can say.

__________________
RaceCensus - powerful system testing software.
Now with over 409,000 Metropolitan, Provincial and Country races!
http://www.propun.com.au/horse_raci...ng_systems.html
*RaceCensus now updated to 31/10/2024
Video overview of RaceCensus here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W821YP_b0Pg

Yes I've picked only one part of your post to make my point.....isolated mathematical selections will always include form, as they're intrinsically connected. You simply cannot take form out of the equation.

Why not? training habits change, mathematics remain the same.

__________________
One Drive

"If the corporates are treating you poorly , just go elsewhere."
"If they need you , they will soon find out."
"If you need them , you will soon find out." --moeee
_______________________________________________

Many punters on here can make money just looking at the prices of the horses without having a clue on the form analysis.