Derby Trail Forums
Page 7 of 8 « First < 56 7 8 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   McLaughlin with 3 positives; Gets 30 day ban.. (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32919)

Handicappy 11-26-2009 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept
The lack of furor is because McLaughlin is perceived as likable, innocuous and, most utterly mystifying, somehow above reproach. That was my point originally. There's a shocking double standard about who gets vilified when these incidents come up. The well-packaged, most blatant edge-takers somehow skate in the public eye while the Oil Can Harrys are heaped on in an orgy of outrage.
Steve,
Are you saying that Kiaran is one of those "well-packaged, most blatant edge-takers"? We are talking about a very small amount that may, at that amount, have a negliable effect on performance. Plus, as long as we have a sport governed by multiple entities with varying rules and regulations I think a mistake or misjudgement is bound to happen. There are many states that can run on that substance at that level without any problem. Why doesn't everybody just take a breath and wait on the split sample. It is too bad that the tests have yet to be confirmed and Ray came out with this.

Kasept 12-01-2009 01:19 PM
FYI... McLaughlin starts a 30 day suspension today..

MISTERGEE 12-01-2009 03:02 PM
by giving him 30 days who is going to be scared off of cheating by that?

Handicappy 12-01-2009 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MISTERGEE
by giving him 30 days who is going to be scared off of cheating by that?
You are very right about that. It is down-right silly.

Bigsmc 12-01-2009 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MISTERGEE
by giving him 30 days who is going to be scared off of cheating by that?
A nice little vacation before Gulfstream cranks up.

If I could get 30 days and slide right back into my job after those 30 days, I'd start injecting myself.

Sightseek 12-01-2009 04:40 PM
Look, new policies. :D

Kentucky adopts new test rules
By Matt Hegarty
LEXINGTON, Ky. - The Kentucky Racing Commission adopted new regulations Tuesday that will drop a requirement to test all race winners for illegal drugs in favor of a new policy that focuses on horses whose performances are suspicious.

Under the new regulations, all winners will be sent to the test barn for the collection of blood and urine samples, along with at least one other horse in the race selected by the three stewards. However, if the winner is among the race's favorites and performed according to its recent past performances, its post-race sample will only be tested 50 percent of the time, while the samples from the horse or horses selected by the stewards will always be tested.

Stewards are supposed to select the horses based on several criteria, including aberrant wagering patterns, performances that are significantly better or worse than a horse's odds or past performances would indicate, or intelligence from racetrack security, according to Dr. Mary Scollay, the commission's equine medical director.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/109277.html

Sightseek 12-01-2009 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sightseek
Look, new policies. :D

Kentucky adopts new test rules
By Matt Hegarty
LEXINGTON, Ky. - The Kentucky Racing Commission adopted new regulations Tuesday that will drop a requirement to test all race winners for illegal drugs in favor of a new policy that focuses on horses whose performances are suspicious.

Under the new regulations, all winners will be sent to the test barn for the collection of blood and urine samples, along with at least one other horse in the race selected by the three stewards. However, if the winner is among the race's favorites and performed according to its recent past performances, its post-race sample will only be tested 50 percent of the time, while the samples from the horse or horses selected by the stewards will always be tested.

Stewards are supposed to select the horses based on several criteria, including aberrant wagering patterns, performances that are significantly better or worse than a horse's odds or past performances would indicate, or intelligence from racetrack security, according to Dr. Mary Scollay, the commission's equine medical director.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/109277.html
from this article:

"If you have a horse that has won the last five starts, went off at 2-5, and distanced the field by 20, is that horse of interest in terms of medication issues?" Scollay said after the meeting. "The form is consistent, so there's probably another horse in the race that is, say, 100-1 who finished second, and that horse is of much more interest from a testing standpoint."

So basically if you medicate them from the get-go and they stay the same you're safe?

Rupert Pupkin 12-02-2009 03:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddymo
In my world its pretty simple, if the ruling body isnt specifically testing for a dangerous substance then clearly it can not be illegal. There are laws on the books that are valid, those are the ones enforced, you know tested for etc. You elect to avoid medication which you know will be beneficial to your stock because you have concerns that in 2037 there might be enforcement of a ridiculous law without teeth? More power to you if you can make folks money and earn a living being concerned about 2037 testing in 2010 congrats.

So let me get this right.. People use certain meds that the State Authorities have deemed illegal yet they did as such under the broad spectrum of "Anything Unnaturally Occuring", they failed to set guideline on use and allowable amounts(how could they they have no clue what it is they are talking about) and deemed ANY existence in ANY quanitity offensible eventhough guidelines haven't been established. I guess they figure they can set the guidelines after they figure out what indeed they are looking for. So you figure these people are cheaters because they are using meds that the state hasn't given any friggin structure on at all.. So you figure you will self police yourself and you will determine in Chucky's world what is Aspirin vs. Heroin. More importantly, your definitions as such will be the guidelines for whom you call smug cheaters and whom you call squeaky clean. Anything else you would like to share with us? How about an 11th commandment? Thou shall live by Chuck's self righteous self serving views.. . Again always root for you and your success just because I think your completely insane doesnt mean I dont wish you and yours the very best of success and luck.
So are you saying that Biancone should not have gotten into trouble for using snake venom since they don't normally test for that?

The drugs you mentioned like gastrogard and adequan are totally legal. I don't think anyone would call a trainer a cheater for using legal drugs such as those.

I don't think Chuck is saying anything controversial. He is saying that using illegal drugs is cheating. He is saying that using legal drugs is not cheating. I think anyone would agree with that.

Let's take a doping drug like CERA. Using that drug is totally illegal. They don't test for it as of right now but it is still totally illegal. If a trainer got caught using CERA, he would be in huge trouble. Are you saying that you persoanlly don't consider CERA to be illegal since they don't test for it? If you have any question as to it's legality, you can call any racing board, stewards' office, or racing office and ask the question. I can assure you that they will tell you that the drug is totally illegal. It's not a grey area. It's black and white. It is 100% illegal to use that drug or similar drugs. The fact that they don't test for it as of right now does not change the fact that the drug is 100% illegal. If a trainer is caught with it in his barn, he would be in huge trouble.

Handicappy 12-02-2009 10:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept
FYI... McLaughlin starts a 30 day suspension today..
Did you really eliminate or pull my last post on this thread regarding the apparent conflict between your praise of some of these very same trainers on your radio show for "a job well done" and your statements here?

GBBob 12-02-2009 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handicappy
Did you really eliminate or pull my last post on this thread regarding the apparent conflict between your praise of some of these very same trainers on your radio show for "a job well done" and your statements here?
I think your post got swept up in a bigger mess that he got rid of

Handicappy 12-02-2009 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBBob
I think your post got swept up in a bigger mess that he got rid of
Thanks for letting me know. I didn't check in later to see what happened. There is a good article at
http://horseracing.bloginky.com/
regarding the suspension and McLaughlins response.

Kasept 12-02-2009 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Handicappy
Did you really eliminate or pull my last post on this thread regarding the apparent conflict between your praise of some of these very same trainers on your radio show for "a job well done" and your statements here?
Remarkable... Do you think your posts are the only ones that appear on this entire forum? There were some nasty exchanges from overnight that served no purpose and that I'm sure the parties involved wouldn't want left up... And upon further review, I then decided to clear the slate entirely from yesterday.

And there's no conflict with how I handle interviews. I expect that trainers are operating on the up and up until shown otherwise...

Bigsmc 12-02-2009 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept
Remarkable... Do you think your posts are the only ones that appear on this entire forum? There were some nasty exchanges from overnight that served no purpose and that I'm sure the parties involved wouldn't want left up... And upon further review, I then decided to clear the slate entirely from yesterday.

And there's no conflict with how I handle interviews. I expect that trainers are operating on the up and up until shown otherwise...
I always miss out on the fun.....

Coach Pants 12-02-2009 10:48 AM
Can you pm me those deleted posts? Thanks.

GBBob 12-02-2009 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsmc
I always miss out on the fun.....
It was second tier stuff..move along sir

freddymo 12-02-2009 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept
Remarkable... Do you think your posts are the only ones that appear on this entire forum? There were some nasty exchanges from overnight that served no purpose and that I'm sure the parties involved wouldn't want left up... And upon further review, I then decided to clear the slate entirely from yesterday.

And there's no conflict with how I handle interviews. I expect that trainers are operating on the up and up until shown otherwise...

I only say things which are positive.

Handicappy 12-02-2009 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept
Remarkable... Do you think your posts are the only ones that appear on this entire forum? There were some nasty exchanges from overnight that served no purpose and that I'm sure the parties involved wouldn't want left up... And upon further review, I then decided to clear the slate entirely from yesterday.

And there's no conflict with how I handle interviews. I expect that trainers are operating on the up and up until shown otherwise...
No I don't think my posts were the only ones that appear here. I think I made it clear that I didn't know of any other exchanges last evening. I think my question regarding its removal is quite understandable. What is remarkable is how quick you are to jump to whatever idea serves you at that moment.

I have no demi-gods. I am just questioning your judgemental views in light of your very gracious interviewing style where you heep praise on Kiaran and some of the people you have mentioned on this thread. To make some of the statements you have on this thread and then turn around and praise them for work that you denigrate here IS a conflict.

And finally, your comment that you expect trainers are operating on the up and up appears to presume an open-mindedness that is not refective on many of your comments here on this subject. McLaughlin is not a villain. I doubt he is even a cheater. To pile on him and lump him in with others that you have had on your show is unfortunate. A mistake was made and he is handling it with the class that he is known for. Class that many might do well to learn from. I know, another "remarkable" post here. But I assure you, my last one on this subject.

freddymo 12-02-2009 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
"[u]ntil shown otherwise" indicates reading or seeing a published account of a positive result, an account that is known to the general public, of which you are a part. Until that point, you "expect that trainers are operating on the up and up."

That belies something that you posted here previously (perhaps during a Marty Wolfson thread): "I know which trainers are" taking advantages or edges. (I don't recall whether you used advantage or edge, so I will not quote it.) This implies that you are privy to information that is not provided to the general public (i.e., a published account of a positive test), or to information that is not revealed through testing but is incriminating by word of mouth around the backstretch that indicates to you that a trainer is taking "an edge" or an "advantage."

What I quoted in the first paragraph is incongruous to what I posted in the second paragraph.

This post has about as much chance of being left standing as Tiger has of banging Elin tonight

Kasept 12-02-2009 01:31 PM
For Cardus and Handicappy..

Sorry my approach to this particular topic doesn't meet with your respective approvals. I respect virtually everyone that trains horses for a living and actively promote their work and the entire industry rather tirelessly. Everyone's respective ox seem to get gored at one time or another when this odious topic arises. I'll leave it at that.

Kasept 12-02-2009 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cardus
This has nothing to do with "approvals." That is a lame response that attempts to deflect.

You talked out of both sides of your mouth on this issue.

I was fair and accurate on this one. That is indisputable.
I'm not deflecting anything. I frequently find it unnecessary to elaborate inappropriately on these medication topics. I'm sorry if you don't like how I handle it at times. I'm in a difficult position when it comes to discussing it.

Bigsmc 12-02-2009 02:36 PM
Cardus insisting on getting the last word (like my 8yr old) in 5...4...3...2...1

Kasept 12-02-2009 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigsmc
Cardus insisting on getting the last word (like my 8yr old) in 5...4...3...2...1
Cardus has serious opinions about the game and I understand his point well. I approach reporting on racing and dealing with its' principals hopefully. Hopeful that everyone is trying to play the game fairly. Am I aware that some are likely taking every edge they can? Yes. But unless and until they overstep said edge, are caught and face consequences, why would it be expected that I approach them any way other than that they're playing on the square?

And there are times when I get annoyed about certain aspects and lash out. I usually regret doing that and retract. How else should I be expected to approach things? Should I be asking guys, "Did Beetlebomb get needled on the way over, or did you let him run on his own courage?" I'll stop doing this before believing that everyone is cheating and have to approach it that way.

freddymo 12-02-2009 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept
I'm not deflecting anything. I frequently find it unnecessary to elaborate inappropriately on these medication topics. I'm sorry if you don't like how I handle it at times. I'm in a difficult position when it comes to discussing it.
Who has Satash Sanan been speaking with on Tuesdays? It seems on Tuesday's between 5 and 6pm you are appauled (as you should be) with the abuse of performance enhancing meds?

Let's just pick winners from now on, that's safe and doesnt put anyone in a tough spot..

Kasept 12-02-2009 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddymo
Who has Satash Sanan been speaking with on Tuesdays? It seems on Tuesday's between 5 and 6pm you are appauled (as you should be) with the abuse of performance enhancing meds?

Let's just pick winners from now on, that's safe and doesnt put anyone in a tough spot..
Gosh Fred... Everything is so much clearer and easier to see from that ivory tower, isn't it? LOL..

freddymo 12-02-2009 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept
Gosh Fred... Everything is so much clearer and easier to see from that ivory tower, isn't it? LOL..
My tower is the same color as yours.. and my pants go on the same way too.

As Cannon Shell tells us all and I whole heartly believe him "he cant get a positive"

We all want change, Right that is what you and Satish have been working together on ..we all want more guys like Chuck to succeed and be rewarded for there ethics well then we might need to offend a few cheaters in the process even the nice ones.. BTW awesome trainers would still be awesome with or without meds IF the playing field was level. You have done an AMAZING job with Sanaan so why throw it down the drain?

parsixfarms 12-02-2009 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept
Cardus has serious opinions about the game and I understand his point well. I approach reporting on racing and dealing with its' principals hopefully. Hopeful that everyone is trying to play the game fairly. Am I aware that some are likely taking every edge they can? Yes. But unless and until they overstep said edge, are caught and face consequences, why would it be expected that I approach them any way other than that they're playing on the square?

And there are times when I get annoyed about certain aspects and lash out. I usually regret doing that and retract. How else should I be expected to approach things? Should I be asking guys, "Did Beetlebomb get needled on the way over, or did you let him run on his own courage?" I'll stop doing this before believing that everyone is cheating and have to approach it that way.
Isn't the problem on this issue: what happens after a guy has been exposed? Is your show going to be Merv Griffin, or is it a journalistic endeavor? As to the exposed trainer, I don't think you can be both.

Cannon Shell 12-02-2009 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddymo
My tower is the same color as yours.. and my pants go on the same way too.

As Cannon Shell tells us all and I whole heartly believe him "he cant get a positive"

We all want change, Right that is what you and Satish have been working together on ..we all want more guys like Chuck to succeed and be rewarded for there ethics well then we might need to offend a few cheaters in the process even the nice ones.. BTW awesome trainers would still be awesome with or without meds IF the playing field was level. You have done an AMAZING job with Sanaan so why throw it down the drain?

While I am certainly eligible to get a positive test as is anyone who runs a horse under the current system but the pattern of abuse of some is damning

was the actual comment in post #69, not I "cant get a positive test" FWIW. Eric was speaking of getting a 'reputation' as a cheater. I said it cant happen to me because I wont be getting a regular series of positives.

randallscott35 12-02-2009 05:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
While I am certainly eligible to get a positive test as is anyone who runs a horse under the current system but the pattern of abuse of some is damning

was the actual comment in post #69, not I "cant get a positive test" FWIW. Eric was speaking of getting a 'reputation' as a cheater. I said it cant happen to me because I wont be getting a regular series of positives.
Chuck I have a cobra I can loan you.

Cannon Shell 12-02-2009 05:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallscott35
Chuck I have a cobra I can loan you.
Send it to Freddy

freddymo 12-02-2009 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
While I am certainly eligible to get a positive test as is anyone who runs a horse under the current system but the pattern of abuse of some is damning

was the actual comment in post #69, not I "cant get a positive test" FWIW. Eric was speaking of getting a 'reputation' as a cheater. I said it cant happen to me because I wont be getting a regular series of positives.
Come on Chuck a gelding cant get a mare pregnant..If you dont cheat and you completely understand the rules and you train exclusively for owners that know as such in advance you dont get positives.. Like you have said and I am para phrasing there is a big difference between adaquan and cheater meds..

Cannon Shell 12-02-2009 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddymo
Come on Chuck a gelding cant get a mare pregnant..If you dont cheat and you completely understand the rules and you train exclusively for owners that know as such in advance you dont get positives.. Like you have said and I am para phrasing there is a big difference between adaquan and cheater meds..
Sabotage!!! Like Larry Jones and Jim Squires!

:wf :wf :wf

freddymo 12-02-2009 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Send it to Freddy

My filly certainly could use a hit or two in her right front foot.. Is Cobra Venom dangerous if you a vet uses it discreetly?LOl

Cannon Shell 12-02-2009 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddymo
I myfilly certainly could use a hit or two in her right front foot.. Is Cobra Venom dangerous if you a vet uses it discreetly?LOl
Getting the venom out of the cobra is the really dangerous part

Antitrust32 12-02-2009 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by freddymo
Come on Chuck a gelding cant get a mare pregnant..If you dont cheat and you completely understand the rules and you train exclusively for owners that know as such in advance you dont get positives.. Like you have said and I am para phrasing there is a big difference between adaquan and cheater meds..

each horse is different and each state is different. I feel someone could get an "accidental" positive when they are following a state guideline for withdrawl times.. but the horse in question has a slower metabolism.. I think a positive could come up that way even if everyone followed the rules.

Can that happen or am I crazy? (well dont answer the last part)

I dont know how often that happens though and I imagine its the first "excuse" used for all positives. LOL

freddymo 12-02-2009 06:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Sabotage!!! Like Larry Jones and Jim Squires!

:wf :wf :wf

friggin Scav's....................AGAIN lol

Danzig 12-02-2009 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
each horse is different and each state is different. I feel someone could get an "accidental" positive when they are following a state guideline for withdrawl times.. but the horse in question has a slower metabolism.. I think a positive could come up that way even if everyone followed the rules.

I dont know how often that happens though and I imagine its the first "excuse" used for all positives. LOL
followed quickly by the 'do you think i'm stupid' line.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 PM.
Page 7 of 8 « First < 56 7 8 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.