probably the same saboteur who hit jones. :rolleyes:

As reported in one of the Paulick Reports, the BC currently only has sanctions against trainers whose horses test positive for anabolic steroids -- no other substances -- per Pam Blatz-Murff, Sr. VP of Racing for the BC.

So, Pletcher's eligibility to participate in next year's BC should not be affected, assuming of course, that he has a horse that qualifies. ;)

good point.

and i almost gagged when i read the assman might get the eclipse.

Dont make assumptions about who is and isnt "juicing". You would be surprised by some of the names that never appear in the papers and seemingly get a pass....

I am going to start cheating next year...look for a better % in 09

I wish:wf

maybe 8th grade

Hey when i was working for jerkens i was right around 210.

And I dont mean to sound harsh but it is really hard to tell who is "cheating" by positives. Most of the real "cheating" is done with substances that dont have tests or the authorities dont know exist. Some guys are pretty brazen and those arent hard to assume. However there are others that would make your head would spin that have done some really shady things.

The current Pletcher positive is a case of murky rules and poor judgement. I have no idea why they would use PP that close since everyone knows (vets) that it lingers and everyone (especially vets and trainers) is supposed to know that the BC horses are "super" tested for hundreds of substances instead of the typical 10 -20.

!!!!

private message me and let me know when. pick out a horse who will be a big price for the first time you do it but scratch him till he finds just the right weak field with a bad favorite or two and we will make big :$: :$:

:D
:tro:

We are going to use the good stuff so weak fields wont be a factor.

but how good? good enough stuff to make Big Booster win the breeders cup sprint?

Let me know when you do. ;) :$:

BTW Who is that horse that I am thinking of that you trained on turf which Jon Court rode that won that stake at Churchill Downs? I can't remember (her?) name, red silks I believe...

Agreed he still has clients, it's the one's he has lost that are abit more confusing. I think there is a reason here beneign as it may be, but not being an insider I guess we will never know just why.

Here's my take on this from a race watching perspective.

In the glory days, Pletcher horses would win, even though, in most cases, they were getting the worst trips, as WIDE Johnny V was up (and giving them his patented, wide, no cover, premature trips). You'd typically see JV beating on these horses on the turn and they'd still have enough to draw in the stretch.
Not happening any longer; these horses are not winning with JV up and, interestingly, in some cases, they'll win with another jock and a better trip.

I have no other evidence but something certainly stinks. Horses typically win when they get favorable trips. Horses winning when they don't get the best trip (or even when they get the worst trip) are a cause for a red flag. The dude was a juicer. No doubt about it. They took his drugs away and he's firing blanks (relative to past years). Having been around in the Oscar and Ferraiola , etc. eras, I'd like to think that I can spot juicers.

The only turf stake i won at CD was the Cardinal and Court was aleady in CA. He did ride Silent Emotion who may have won one of those overnight stakes.

Yeah...and I'm 6'7":)

good enough to make the Green Monkey break his maiden

SILENT EMOTION @ Kentucky Downs ?
not a graded Stake

or an allowance @ Churchill with The Knight Sky?

I dont remember

I agree with this. Would also add that even though the scheduled withdrawal time is 15 days, as you alluded to, it sometimes takes much longer and so administering it even 45 days out could be taking a risk.




For the most part, I agree with this. But with this stuff, you can test on Friday and come up clear and test again on Saturday and find it.