Danzig,

This is your boss..get back to work. I'm watching you!

Did you just not read that horses are 'hosed' sometimes to help with colic or worms or shipping.

From what I gather, Sciacca fought that the horse that was being 'shaked' was not the horse that was RUNNING.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Surely if the horses was being legitimately treated then it would be easy to prove right?

I have no idea, I am learning all this now, but for someone to fight this for FOUR YEARS, and to have many holes in the story according to someone that is CLOSE to the situation, someone I trust, I'll go with that instead of what the media has to say.

I'm just amazed. I really am surprised to read horseplayers defending cheating that is routinely stealing, yes stealing, money from our pockets.

The naivite around here is really surprising.

That apparently is the controversy ... was the horse seen being tubed by the undercover agent the horse that was racing that day, or was it another horse (the horse that raced the previous day) and the agent mixed up what stall/horse he saw tubed.

BTW, the horse in question (the horse racing that day) was not allowed to race that day.

I don't disagree with you, but I am trusting in what Byk has to say about it in an earlier post how the story changed multiple times, this and that.

Byk is good friends with Gary.

Byk is as loyal and as good a friend as someone can have.

That's admirable.

I know this.

I guess in hindsight I don't have much ammo here. I am not educated enough to open my mouth on this.

I just get the feeling that there is an alternate motive by others here(obviously not you) sometimes and feel the need to step up and defend. I call it the Oracle Syndrome

I would like to see any of the horseplayers around here readily name the top three or four drugs or concoctions trainers can use to cheat, and then say what effect those drugs would have on horses racing with that illegal help, and then tell me what jurisdictions do not or cannot test for those drugs.

I think a lot of us are just fed up with the rampant cheating in the game and have pretty much developed our own zero tolerance approach. Perhaps it isn't completely fair, but many people may feel that even if a trainer wasn't specifically cheating with a specific horse, if he was caught doing it in one situation, there is more than a reasonable chance he has done it in others.

Is this totally fair to the party involved? Probably not. However, it's a lot less unfair than trainers taking illegal edges to win races and effectively cheat the betting public out of their money. To me, this is the most important issue.

fought for 4 years and lost..

and had the suspensions increased as well...

Honestly now, if this was some other trainer with no connection to this board would you be defending him or would you be with me in being just a little bit suspiciuos

Why is it incumbant upon us to know what kinds of things people do to cheat us out of our money?

what would this have to do with the current discussion?

being able to name banned substances and who tests for what doesn't change the FACT that Gary was found guilty of milkshaking....whether he did it or not should not even be up for discussion.....if the trainer in question was Durtrow who here would defend him?

the naivitee that andy refers to implys that some posters here, including perhaps the host of the board are blindly assuming that because the guy says he didn't do it (since he is friend of the "team")then he didn't....obviously those investigating this issue felt otherwise...hence the guilty finding. I happen to like Gary personally...but I still think he did it.

Would an owner defend his guilty trainer so strongly if he owned the horse that came up positive ?

Many here criticized those owners that so strongly defended Patrick Biancone, and more recently criticized Maggi Moss. Is this not the same situation. Blackthroatedwind is clearly correct. If you aren't totally against anyone cheating, you condone it.

What are the odds that someone is caught the first time they do something?

If put in the same situation, would you cheat? If the answer is no then why would you defend this?

Either

A) Sciacca's barn knowingly did this

B) The investigator set them up

C) The investigator doesn't know how to identify horses and made a mistake

Feel free to tell me if there is another option

Out of those three options which seems more likely?

trainers with repeat offenses get defended every day. far as i know, this is the first time sciacca has served time. biancone had three suspensions so far this year that i know of.

thing is, an accusation isn't proof. if a horse who ran the day before was getting treated, that's not cheating. if they were milkshaking a horse about to race, obviously it is. if the latter is the case, then i think it's a shame that it took four years to have timer served.

i'm totally against cheating. if they feel the case was proven, then sciacca should rightfully serve the time.

i would NOT cheat. ever. where would the joy in winning come from?

as for which is most likely, i have no way of knowing, as i don't know much about the trainer in question.

was the horse in question tested? was it proven that a horse about to race had been milkshaked?

you have got to be kidding me...