Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I'll agree that you can't always know what your trainer is doing. And people should be given a chance to learn from thir mistakes, but how many chances to they get, and "I don't mean one of those major-league baseball Steve Howe kind of last chances."

According to ARC records, Dutrow has now been fined/suspended four times in the past year alone (two Bute overages in FL, suspension in NJ stemming from the Wild Desert affair, and now the most recent incident in FL). It doesn't look like he's changed his ways. Yet, has a single major owner of his taken a horse from him because of this? If not, they condone/tolerate the behavior, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by freddymo

I agree with Eric on this one.. How is an owner to know a trainer is currently cheating.. If I give a horse to trainer am I there to see what the trainer is doing? And why is it that a trainer can't change there training or cheating ways? In all walks of life people are given multiple chances to correct the mistakes that they have been made accountable for..

Originally Posted by ELA

Listen, I am not playing patron saint, naive little boy, etc. on this. People who know me know that I've had horses with Scott Lake and they call me a hypocrite, an immoral person, someone who doesn't care, and guess what -- even worse! LOL. So be it.

I've never once defended Scott Lake. He's had multiple positives. He has taken his days, paid his fines, and that's that. Do not ask for an industry where someone gets a lifetime ban because of multiple clenbuterol positives (or some other legal drug). You will not have an industry.

Remember the ol' story -- they came for the Jews and I didn't say anything. They came for the Catholics and I didn't say anything. They came for the Protestants and I didn't say anything . . . then they came for me, and there was no one left to say anything.

Eric

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Is Scott Lake a Jew, Catholic, Protestent, or Muslim??

Originally Posted by freddymo

If the industry allows the trainers to practice there trade then the industry is ok that they served the proper penalty and should be allowed to earn a living again.. what is worse Florida, NY or KY allowing Dutrow to continue to train or owners giving him horses? If he couldn't train in the state the owners can't give him horses right?

Look I wouldn't let Dutrow train my horse but I really think I would let Biancone.. I maybe crazy but I think Biancone is worth the risk

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Would someone please give Chuck some f'n horses so he has less time to post on this site.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Absolutely not true. If people werent so concerned that they would not have the "edge" they would leave. The perception that these guys have an advantage is why owners ignore these kinds of issues. It isnt like there arent trainers out there that arent successful that dont have issues like dutrow and Assmussen. Regulation is a not going to do anything if the people who pay the bills (owners and bettors) either dont care about changing things. If you keep betting than you are sending the signal that you dont care about it. If owners dont change trainers with terrible records of violations, they are showing they dont care how they win. It is on them.

Originally Posted by Handicappy

Are you serious? Biancone has been banned from two countries. Plus do you know what Cobra Venum does? It deadens the nerve endings that allow a horse to experience pain. In other words, a horse won't be able to take the necessary precautions once they feel pain. He is far more of a problem than Dutrow. Far worse. And he cann't even take responsiblity. He lets the Vet take the hit.

Originally Posted by freddymo

I am not defending what he did..Just suggesting that I would let him train my horse if I had stock that was worthy of his talent. I wouldn't allow him to juice my horse! I would just tell him no juice.. People make mistakes and come to tink of it I think nerve blocks are given to horses in non threaten locations all the time to prevent them from experiencing discomfort in a non strategic area.. Let's say a horse broke his tail what is the harm in deadening the nerves and running him?

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Steve Krebs posted at least twice as often and his win percentage was twice as high - once he stopped posting on boards relentlessly from 6AM to midnight his training career actually seemed to take a hit.

Originally Posted by GBBob

You think owners are always in on that decision?

Originally Posted by ELA

Of course not. Another reason why it appears that the owner's only choice is to use a trainer who the moral majority accepts.

Where do you draw the line?

Eric

Originally Posted by ELA

I've never once defended Scott Lake. He's had multiple positives. He has taken his days, paid his fines, and that's that. Do not ask for an industry where someone gets a lifetime ban because of multiple clenbuterol positives (or some other legal drug). You will not have an industry.

Originally Posted by GBBob

I understand his logic (I think) , but I'm surprised that Freddy goes from saying that Biancone is a good horseman to that he would give him horses, if he could. These types of decisions are made in sports all the time and that's why some teams won't deal with the Pacmans, Bonds etc and others will. Guilt by association sucks, but that's the risk you run by going with Dutrow, Biancone, etc

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

This is just not true. If I recall correctly from the numbers that were recently provided by the Racing Commissioners to Congress, only about 10% of all licensed trainers have had a drug positive called against them. There are plenty of men and women who can take care of the horses for those who don't know how to abide by the rules.

Originally Posted by ELA

In my opinion you are collapsing the shield and the sword. A drug positive does not make a person a cheater in my mind. It is not absolute. I was not inferring the industry would disappear.

As far your last sentence, I don't understand what you are saying.

Eric

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Are you in favor of extending the absolute lability rules to owners?

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Are you in favor of extending the absolute lability rules to owners?

Originally Posted by ELA

In my opinion you are collapsing the shield and the sword. A drug positive does not make a person a cheater in my mind. It is not absolute. I was not inferring the industry would disappear.

As far your last sentence, I don't understand what you are saying.

Eric

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I never said that a drug positive makes a person a "cheater." Just like the fact that, given the current limits of testing, the fact that a person has never had a positive does not mean that he or she isn't cheating. (See Marion Jones in another sport.)

However, when one has multiple, repeated offenses for the same thing (you use clenbuterol as an example), I think there is a real problem. Sometimes these clenbuterol positives are innocent, but I've had a trainer of mine tell me that most of them are not so innocent, especially those that occurred when testing for clenbuterol was first started. The "guilty parties," in an effort to push the envelope, were trying to determine withdrawal times and doses they could get away with. Given the lack of serious penalties, they were willing to "take a positive" to learn how they could take an advantage down the road.

As for the last sentence of my thread, there are about 13,000 trainers (90% of the total) with clean records. If we were to run out of the game every trainer that had a positive (I'm not advocating this), there would be more than enough horsemen to take care of the horses currently trained by the other 10%.

Originally Posted by ELA

I just don't think there is a simple answer. The solution is multi-faceted and must be borne, paid for, enforced upon, etc. ALL parties -- vets, owners, trainers, grooms, and perhaps others as well.

Originally Posted by tiggerv

How dangerous is that level of medication to the horse?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I have no idea. I have no idea what the allowable levels are and they dont want us to know. Not that it would make a difference if i knew. The recomended dosage is 5 cc's twice a day with a 72 to 96 hour withdrawl. We usually will stop 48 hours before that simply to avoid a bad test since clembuterol seems to generate more bad tests than any other med.Does that put us at a disadvantage? I doubt it considering how far out from a race you are at the legal withdrawl time. I suppose if you were to give 1 cc a few hours before the race the levels would come in sky high and that would hardy be dangerous to the horse. Most of the levels that horses test positive for are microscopic.

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, while I agree with you, as I've said -- this is not just an "owner" problem. You cannot expect one aspect of the industry -- a billion dollar industry -- to self police and govern itself to certain standards, when the remainder of the industry does not and will not have to. This is no different than merely cutting off one of Hydra's heads.

If you want owners to act with moral conscience, than you must have integrity in the other aspects of the game.

In addition, I use trainers who win races and they range from not one positive test in a 25-30 year career (in one case), to trainers who have had a clenbuterol positive (10 years ago I think), and others. And you know what? Those guys take the heat too. That doesn't give you immunity.

I have a trainer who IMO is a top trainer, an excellent horseman. Almost 30 years on the backstretch and he's never had a positive test. Not one. A friend of mine claims a horse for 20k and the horse goes nowhere after a couple of starts. The trainer won't drop him to where he can win, the excuses start. Third start off the claim he finishes 5th to a horse from my trainer's barn (not my horse). My friend's trainer looks at the form and says "oh yeah, it's a _(trainer's name)_ horse, well you can't beat him, we know what he's doing" -- on and on about my trainer. Not one positive and people "just know" he's doing something.

Why is it not about questions like -- How about picking a trainer who wins races? How about cut the BS, check your ego at the door, and drop your horse to where he can be competitive? Yes, I know it cuts both ways, but who are we blaming here and who are we looking at to solve the problem? It's not just "the owners".

People who are in this business, who spend time on the backstretch, in the race office, etc. -- they know that everyone is doing something. Don't ask owners to do something that other participants in the industry are not willing to do themselves.

Eric

Originally Posted by phystech

Clenbuterol goes in the feed tub, right?

Is it possible then that feed tubs got mixed up?

Is it possible someone did up the feed and then someone else did it up again?

With 100 horses in the barn, mix ups occur.

Even if it was a mix up, Rick should pay the price..... no excuses.

Originally Posted by freddymo

If the industry allows the trainers to practice there trade then the industry is ok that they served the proper penalty and should be allowed to earn a living again.. what is worse Florida, NY or KY allowing Dutrow to continue to train or owners giving him horses? If he couldn't train in the state the owners can't give him horses right?

Look I wouldn't let Dutrow train my horse but I really think I would let Biancone.. I maybe crazy but I think Biancone is worth the risk

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Let me ask you this. If they weren't with Dutrow, would they have won the Dubai Sprint, the Breeders Cup Mile(turf,) and the Kentucky Derby? I think they've had a substantial edge using this cheater. The best sprinter in the country, the best turf miler in the country, and the best three year old in the country, but they aren't getting an edge? Chuck is on a different planet(CONTRARIANO CUE) sometimes.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I have one of those mobile internet things now. I am on my way to Taco Bell for my pre race meal before I saddle the worst horse i ever trained in the 2nd. And she actually may have a shot. Talk about bad races. The 2nd at CD today may be the worst race ever put on by a major racing association.

Originally Posted by freddymo

The real penalty will be when IEAH leave him because of the negative publicity they are most certainly going to receive

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I have no idea. I have no idea what the allowable levels are and they dont want us to know. Not that it would make a difference if i knew. The recomended dosage is 5 cc's twice a day with a 72 to 96 hour withdrawl. We usually will stop 48 hours before that simply to avoid a bad test since clembuterol seems to generate more bad tests than any other med.Does that put us at a disadvantage? I doubt it considering how far out from a race you are at the legal withdrawl time. I suppose if you were to give 1 cc a few hours before the race the levels would come in sky high and that would hardy be dangerous to the horse. Most of the levels that horses test positive for are microscopic.