Really? What part of, "I think people trying to come back to the track after being ruled off for five years, no matter the reason, should undergo drug testing" is too hard for you to understand?

I didn't think anything could top Iwantfreepp's reasoning for taking JV off Animal Kingdom, and yet, how could I forsee this gem lurking just a mere 24 hours later?

Yeah, thinking that anybody ruled off for 5 years should have to undergo drug testing as part of their probation requirements is a really strange and bizarre idea in today's world. So bizarre that you can't even comprehend such a thing ;)

The activity today in this thread has convinced me that terrorists are justified in beheading certain people.

What about drug testing Calvin Borel? I thought he must have been on drugs when he went berserk after last year's BC Dirt Marathon.

:tro:

Please enlighten us to the correlation between cheating with a buzzer and drug use all knowing one. I don't think that anyone is buying your assumption that he had to be using a buzzer because he was desperate for a paycheck. Where that turns into a further assumption that he is using illegal drugs is even more bizzare logic.

Why don't you re-read all the posts I've made - including the one where I said anyone coming back off 5 years of being ruled off should have it as part of their probation to being permitted back on the track - then let me know which words you can't understand.

I have understood everything you have posted. Your continued insistance to the contrary accompanied with insults does not change the facts. The problem is that as is the case with virtually everything else you post on this board, your suggestion was plain stupid. For this reason, those of us with true common sense have questioned the wisdom of your premise.

The fact that the guy illegally used a buzzer in no way suggests that he is ingesting illegal narcotics. Those of us with a modicum of intelligence believe that there should be a factual basis to demand a drug test before a jock moves to be reinstated for a suspension unrelated to drugs. You appear to be the only one who fails to comprehend this. Keep up the great work!

You have a terrible life, having to read other people's opinions that you do not share. Poor, poor you.

Yeah, I'm pretty strongly anti-drug, in the horses and the backstretch. You disagree. I could give a damn.

there is no legitimate reason for drug testing the jock. what probable cause exists?

I said I'd make it part of everybody's probation, who was ruled off for five years and wanted back on. No probable cause needed. Just part of the routine to get permitted back at the track for all long-term suspensions. What is a downside?

Don't jockeys get tested already?

i guess i just don't see a connection. if you're ruled off because of drugs, by all means test for it as a requirement for ree-instatement.
otherwise, i see no correlation. the sport needs to do more testing alright...but not of jocks. someone would have to be squeaky clean throughout their suspension if they got caught pulling this type of stunt and hoped to be able to ride again.

There is this pesky document called the Constitution of the United States of America. It requires that government cannot conduct searches and seize evidence on less than probable cause. For this reason, probable casue is needed.

Your ludicrous attempt to again shift the issue and infer that I somehow not anti-drug has absolutely no basis in fact.

Chuck, my understanding is that the tests of jocks is random. If that is the case, the tests are permitted since they are random and not targeting a specific individual, much like checkpoints on roads.

Small technicality to your argument, tracks are not "the government".

If everybody has the same penalty, as I was describing, it's fair under your (obtuse) point. As proven by the multitude of private companies who already require drug testing on a regular basis.

Please at least admit that you see the disconnect you are fostering, that a 5-year suspension for using a buzzer and a drug test to get back into racing are not directly-related.

It's not like Chapa was a starving journeyman. He was actually moderately successful. It just takes a little research to see that he made a decent living. His drug problem would have to be pretty severe in order to use a buzzer for income. We're talking about a $15,000/month habit. Dude wouldn't be able to stand doing that much yay.

What we're dealing with here is an uninformed blowhard know-it-all pontificating per usual. Just insult the monster.

Just my 2 cent Summary and not piling on. Seems like Riot didn't read the article and just focused on the word Buzz. Instead of admiting the mistake and laughing it off she refused to admit she made a mistake and kept defending her original statement which is way out of context with the article. Dude, when you make a mistake own it otherwise it hurts your thread-cred on your other arguments.

well, see that's the thing. i don't think private companies should be able to test without probable cause either. as a condition of hiring, or if one was to institute a workmens comp claim-that's justifiable. random drug tests, such as where i work, would serve no purpose. it's a right to privacy issue. or illegal search/seizure. the problem is that many have become lackadaisical about their rights and don't feel free to speak up.

"Thread-cred"? Only with the repetitive blowhards on this list who can't stand to have their opinions disagreed with.

I read the article. If you would bother to read my first comment, it was that I wish that drug testing covered reinstatements like this.

Dude, you think it's silly, I could give a crap. You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

I never said they were directly related. The rocket scientists here made that leap all by themselves.

I said that trying to come back after five year suspensions - which are essentially equal to, "nice to know ya, have fun finding a new vocation in your different life" - should be a strict probation.

And yeah, I would include drug testing every 3 months as part of it. For everyone who wants a license reinstated: trainers, exercise, jocks, all of them.

They run the felony search again when one reapplies, but I see nothing wrong with making sure that someone who has done something so heinous that they were banned from the sport for 5 years is crystal clean on all accounts if they try to return to it.

Yes, that is apparently a really, really amazingly complex-stupid-weird-crazy idea to some of you. Gasp.

We can get as technical as you want, you are way out of your league. Let's start with the basics, tracks are not the government (though some like NYRA are public corporations or entities), but derive their right to run parimutual races through licensing from the State. Drug testing those under a government license invokes the Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal searches and seizures as well as due process of law.

You may see nothing wrong with it, but the law does. You are clearly the most obstinate person on this board. You are right but everyone else, including the rule of law, is wrong. :rolleyes:

Geeshus cripes. Stop attributing your imaginary crap to me. I haven't talked much about the legality, or not, of drug testing, let alone aggressively tried to defend any legal position on it.

So your trying to attribute "obstinante" to me, pretending I'm insisting upon a legal point, is absurd and ridiculous.

You might notice that nearly all tracks are quite free to set their own rules, within the providence of their individual state laws. Tracks tend to be little fifedoms. As private companies can require drug tests of employees, tracks have and can and do currently require drug tests of some licensees under particular circumstances. I doubt that adding that penalty in to certain suspensions, and incorporating it within government rules, would be taken down. Perhaps it would be challenged, and would be removed. That may well be - I've never said otherwise (in spite of your imagination and accusation that makes it seem so). But so far suspensions, probations with required drug testing has stood up at multiple tracks for individuals.

Would it be the tracks or the state regulatory bodies requiring the testing? The reason I'm asking is that earlier you wrote, "And yeah, I would include drug testing every 3 months as part of it. For everyone who wants a license reinstated . . . ." Licenses are generally issued by the regulatory bodies.

Personally I'd like to see him burn a koran to make sure he didn't visit any terrorist training camps during those 5 years. You know since he liked mechanical devices :zz:

Strange ask. Gee, why would you ask that? I'm sure you know the tracks help determine, with the governor (who they owe), who is appointed to the state racing boards, which via input from the track owners determines regulatory action by request via the state legislature in most cases.

Dr Riot.. enough said the more you post the less crediblity you have,, Have a heart..Even the worthless Rollotomasi and his blithering nonsense is startering to appear well placed. We wouldnt want that!!!!

5 years is a very long time, but this is torture. :wf

Really? Do explain how this is wrong: The governor appoints his buddies to the racing commission, the track & horse owners try to control and influence the commission, the commission passes on to the legislature what laws or changes they want passed (which then enters the realm of legislative favors).

waterboarding

More control! More prisons! More disciprin! Respect my authorituh! Have some decorum! Slither into a judgmental, hypocritical social circle! Gossip about other people!

Certainly you are capable of discerning the difference between what a track, typically privately owned, and an arm of the state can do.

I don't know how things are done in Kentucky, but in Louisiana, the racing commissioners more often than not have no racing experience and are often given the positions by the Governor as a show of gratitude for political favors or campaign contributions. The commissioners are pretty much in their own administrative world without much interference from the legislature.

So I ask you again, in your quest to ferret the druggies out of the buzzer users and jockeys hiding in the fog, would it be the tracks or the state regulatory bodies requiring the testing?

Yeah, that's what I already said, isn't it?

Certainly, contained within your sarcasm and lack of any real point other than trying to snark at me, you are capable of understanding how current penalties within horse racing are written in each state, and that any additional penalties would simply be added via the normal process? Whatever that may be for an individual state?

And that you sound ridiculous?

Yes, I stick to my opinion that people wanting to come back to the track after five year suspensions - jock, trainer, exercise rider, groom - should have drug testing a part of their probation.

And if any states were to chose to do so, they would implement it exactly as they currently implement and outline the penalties they already have established.

That's apparently very hard for DaTruth to understand.

Good try on ducking and dodging the issue, but your drug testing idea remains patently absurd. Moreover, your ignorance is so astounding that I wonder if your state grandfathered in as licensed vets any person who could tell the difference between a cat and dog 66% of the time. Now run along to the politics section. I'm sure there is a new thread there that you have yet to comment on.

Insecure, defensive guys on the internet are a dime a dozen, but you've managed to make yourself stand out :D