Actually, I can only recall one person on message boards referring to him as Ricky.

Makes me wonder.

i will refer to him as Mr Dutrow in the future so as to not cause any confusion

will that be sufficent?

I'm a vet, I don't cheat, I'll defend trainers I know, and your implication that if I defend a trainer it means I'm a cheat is moronic bullshiat.

There you have it, Wolfson is a juicer.

BR's girl was blinkers off! That shows Wolfson to be an astute horseman, more so than this Pletcher fella' that used to train her

Well there's Anthony or Sydney also, that might cause some confusion.

Mr R Dutrow work ?

This discussion has reached the point of ridiculousness.

You learn to read. I do not blindly defend all trainers, never have, and I never defend the scum in my profession that cheat.

Don't mind at all having friends that know me and are willing to defend me from ignorant personal attack. Internet list bullies are just that. As you know.

You don't like my opinion on matters concerning horse racing? Too bad.

I know pharmacology, drugs (legal and otherwise), physiology and anatomy of the horse, and I talk to fellow vets working tracks around the country.

It's not that big a secret what some few idiots are currently trying to use on horses, or what the "hot new thing" in cheating is.

To see some gamblers - pardon me, horseplayers - jump blindly and willing on the, "Everybody is cheating with magic undetectable expensive designer moveup drugs that make a horse improve by 15 lengths and win the Triple Crown!" bandwagon is sad, uneducated, and a misdirected waste of good bile away from those that do cheat.

The public can imagine whatever magical fantasy drug effects they want or dream they are seeing, but in reality one also has to actually be able to build such a drug to pull that fantasy off - without whacking out or killing the horse (or a current drug's side effects have to be both desireable and attainable).

Railing away with with broad accusations against whatever trainers are the current popular whipping boys, forgetting that what they are being accused of has to also at least be remotely technically possible - not for me, and I sure as hell don't apologize for not jumping on that bandwagon.

I'm talking of the general way I hear most horseplayers talk about trainers and cheating - this trainer has alot of drug overages and is on the bad list, that trainer has alot but the public never mentions him, the next trainer has nothing but is widely thought of as being an unquestioned and absolute cheat.

Here's another question that will probably cause a huge dustup: can anybody's speed figures accurately identify drug using trainers, when the figures are educated assessments of performance, not really stand-alone and merely reported data points?

Forget the figures. Watch races. As I often say on this topic, it's not necessarily that they win, it's how they win. Some of the horses referenced from this past weekend almost won in a common gallop.

it has?

but like beyer said, there needs to be some real teeth involved in whatever 'punishment' is handed out to these trainers when they get caught with a positive.
hell, many trainers call a suspension a much needed vacation. that's a hell of a mindset.
but hey....a small fine, a slap on the wrist, get nominated for an eclipse...or even win one-like i heard on the show, what reason is there not to cheat? it's so easy, and rewarding. it's obscene.

Cigar was a great ambassador of the sport
 

Ditto

The point on top of your head has been made

Yeah, he moved him up by switching him from the turf to the dirt.

Cigar sucked on the turf for Mott.... and ran a huge dirt race for Hassinger before he moved him to the turf and never let him see the dirt again.

Why is it Mott's fault that Hassinger moved Cigar off of the turf after his explosive 96 Beyer MSW win in start #2 - earning almost the same Beyer that 3yo Champion Prarie Bayou did in the Preakness that same weekend.