We all know that Mullins doesn't run much in New York, so the deterrent impact with him is minimal. However, might the penalty set the bar for what NYRA may do with other "serial cheaters" if they get caught doing something naughty at a NYRA track. If it doesn't, then I agree that this is just a "window-dressing" penalty.

With ineffective state regulators, the only way that racing is going to clean up the sport is by having tracks assert their private property rights with respect to cheating trainers, just as they are very willing to do with jockeys. The recent decision at Charles Town seems to support their ability to do so without the need for regulatory approval.

At least the NY tracks will not have to put up with Mullins shenanigans, as in cheating .

Karen Murphy, Mullins's attorney, said that the trainer did not plan to take any legal action contesting the order, though she characterized the penalty as "grossly irresponsible, wasteful, and unnecessary" while criticizing NYRA for spending money on pursuing the penalty.

"If anyone should sue, it should be the betting public, because they are being deprived of seeing the best horses in California start in a failing racing jurisdiction," Murphy said.

That was from the DRF article up now. http://www.drf.com/news/article/108546.html

Best horses in California? Failing racing jurisdiction? I can watch the best horses in California race in a failing racing jurisdiction Wednesday thru Sunday on Calracing.com!

I don't think Karen Murphy has ever seen a trainer deserving of punishment. She's certainly no advocate for the betting public.

Is it possible the fact that the horse in question never actually ran in a race is the reason it is not a violation of state racing rules? A technicality, of course, but it is difficult in law to penalize someone for intending to break the rules but not actually doing so. If a guy intended to rob the bank messenger, but got pulled over for running a red light and missed his chance, he only gets a ticket for the red light.

Not the same thing. . . at all. . . He's being punished for taking the substance into the barn and administering it to the horse, not running or attempting to run a drugged-up horse.

I suppose it depends on what your definition of "drug" is. According to the rules of racing in New York:

(c) Drug. Any substance or its metabolites which does not exist naturally in the untreated horse and which can have a pharmacological effect on a horse.

The ingredients of Air Power would fit the bill.

In addition, you would have to presume that what Mullins admittedly administered was in fact Air Power. Did they test the horse?

I thought (correct if wrong) that they did go ahead and test the horse, and it came back clean. The violation was violation of the detention barn rules - bringing in the syringe and administering something in the barn.

What would air powers pharmacological effect be, if that was actually the substance used since no one seems to know?

Ever drank a beer?

In light of the detention barn rule that he violated, is this question really relevant?

It isnt relevant in the terms of the violation, just trying to define what a "drug" is.

Yes but dont see the correlation

Good thing it wasn't a 8-month penalty -- because after he wins the Kentucky Derby and Preakness by 10 lengths, would he be prevented from going for the Triple Crown????????