Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
I understand what you are saying. But when a guy like Jackson is calling for medication reform while at the same time his main trainer is a guy who is coming off of a 6 month suspension (there is a reason that this was a 6 month suspension) it is hard for me to take anything he says as anything but lip service. And I understand what the hell is going on. How do you explain that to Congress who seemingly "forgot" to ask Mr Jackson about his association with SA. I have nothing against either party but it hard to explain his "do as I say, not as i do " attitude. There is a reason that Barry Bonds is not playing this year and it has a whole lot less to do with his ability than it does with the black cloud that he lives under. And he never failed one test. Imagine if while he was playing there the owner of the Giants makes a big public proclamation about how we need to rid the sport of cheaters and drug users? The guy would be roasted across the country as a grade 1 hypocrite. Maybe I am naive as Freddy said but I would like to see a big owner (other than IEAH) make a statement with their actions. Not the lip service that we currently get. It is America, you can choose your trainers however you please. But for us to get right, owners have to take more responsibility for the actions of their trainer. You want to talk about the rest of the industry but I dont see how anyone else can make a statement without reprecussions. Hell you will be lauded as internet champions forever.
|
Chuck, yes, I agree with you. However, where does the line get drawn on the difference between Jackson and me? He's using Steve Asmussen and I am using Scott Lake. OK, maybe he has dozens with Steve and I have one with Scott. Does that make me any less of a hypocrite? His horse is Curlin, and mine is a beaten 5 at Pimlico or Penn National. I just don't know.
So, I don't give horses to Scott Lake. I give them to this other trainer I referenced. The guy shoots 25% meet after meet. Wins races. Steps up horses. Wins at 35% off the claim. And so on. Now do people critisize my because I am using a "super trainer" who "they just know is cheating" and who just hasn't got caught yet? How many people to I have to satisfy? Where does it end.
Regardless, I agree about Jackson. Let's remember that Jackson, originally, was calling for transparency. That was his motivation and agenda. It wasn't until various people in the industry realized that: a) he had a voice that would be heard and, b) that he would get the appropriate forum; and then they started to him to further the agenda of medication reform.
Listen, there are people who will give Dutrow, Lake, Asmussen, and others, horses. I have always said that if Scott Lake gets a positive for some designer, exotic, secret, whatever you want to call it drug -- in reality it shouldn't happen just once if that was the key or secret to his success. Now it's known, there should or could be a test. The walls should come crumbling down. His barn(s) should fall apart. However, I have always said that if a trainer of mine comes up positive for one of these ILLEGAL, designer, exotic, etc. drugs -- I will pull horses from him/her. However, again, and I will always ask -- is that the absolute I have to live by and run my business. If the industry wants to rid itself of Trainer X -- and someone sabotages a horse, feed, or something. Do I still live in the world of absolute.
More importantly, would you want me to if you were my trainer, I had horses with you, and you were Trainer X. Hypohtetical? Yes. Could it be reality? Yes, unfortunately it can be.
Eric
