O'Neil Refuses to Put Horses in Detention
 

Once again, Doug O'Neil had a horse test in excess of the permitted levels of bicarbonates. That's a real shock. LOL. The rules stipulate that he will have to have his horses run out of the detentiona barn. He said that he doesn't want to run out of the detention barn. So Hollywood Park said, "Ok, if you don't want to then you don't have to."

I have never heard of such a thing. I didn't know that you don't have to receive a punishment if you don't want to. Punishments are no longer mandatory. Unbelievable.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/95463.html

No he doesn't have the right to decline punishment -- he has the right to a hearing. The process laid out forgot about that one I guess.

Eric

He can have all the hearings that he wants, but in the meantime he should be running out of the detention barn.

In the real world, if you get arrested for something, you are held in jail even before your hearing. Yes, you get a trial but if you do not post bail then you sit in jail while you are awaiting your trial. In some cases, where the public is at risk, there is no bail.

My guess is that Hollywood feels like they need O'Neill more than O'Neill needs them (I don't think that's the case, considering how terribly his horses run elsewhere).

Poor comparison and not accurate, but that's neither here nor there. Regardless, that's not the way the current system works -- anywhere, I think. I am sure there is some infraction or crime so to speak that would not allow a hearing or an appeal, but even major positive tests have the appeal process.

Personally, I think there should be more integrity in the process. Positive test, appeal -- then there must be an appeal, hearing, whatever, within a certain period of time. That way there is no "banking" of days or deferral of any type. Besides uniform medication rules, there needs to be an overhaul of the process, penalties, etc.

Eric

You know, I always thought that had something to do with it. However, many officials, trainers, owners, etc. tell me that it really doesn't. How many horses do you think the race office loses? The answer is probably none or close to none.

I am sure there is more to the political aspect of this, but I'd be curious as to how it plays out.

Eric

Poor comparison and not accurate? How so? Before the jury found OJ Simpson not guilty, where was he? He was in jail. Why was he is jail before his trial? Because that is the way the law works.

Doug O'Neil will get a hearing. Nobody wants to deny him a hearing. But in the meantime, he needs to run out of the detention barn. That is the way it works in California and that is why people are furious about this. People are furious that Hollywood Park won't enforce the rule. As Ateam said, the main reason Hollywood won't enforce the rule is because Doug O'Neil has a ton of horses and if his horses don't run then there will be smaller fields. He runs 3-4 horses every day on average.

I don't understand why people don't think abrupt changes in form could be caused by this. O'neil, Sadler, Mitchell, Mullins, Canani, and Cerin have all been caught doing it.

except for the occasional murder suspect or flight risk, most are out of jail while awaiting trial. so unless o'neill is killing horses, i can see why they aren't punishing him while everything moves along-slowly.

Rupert,
You picked a capital crime... murder. That's pretty much the only alleged offense that is not bailable. O'Neill is probably less of a flight risk than O.J. was.

If there is no danger to the public, then a person can usually get out of jail while they await trial if they post bail.

In the case of trainers milkshaking, there is danger to the public. It's a different kind of danger. It's obviously not life and death. But the rationale is the same. The public needs to be protected. There are millions of dollars being wagered on these races.

Anyway, the point was that even out in the real world people are often times in jail while they await their trial.

Even in less serious cases, there are plenty of people that don't have the money to post bail. These people have to sit in jail while they await their trial.

Running his horses out of the detention barn while a trainer awaits his hearing is not quite as bad as being stuck in jail while a person awaits their trial.

By the way, every time this has happened in the past, the rule(being forced to the detention barn) has always been enforced.

i am surprised that it is taking so long to get the case resolved, this isn't a recent milkshaking case-purse money was redistributed some time ago. but if they generally let a trainer do business as usual while appealing, i don't see how they can make o'neill follow a stricter set of rules, even if he is a repeat offender.
they need to quit with the slaps on the wrist, and the bs involved with rules violations. it's not fair to the bettor as you said rupe, but i don't know what they can do, other than hurry up and hear his appeal.

I think the comparison is also valid for other sports.
You test positive for substances, you sit. Trial might
come later.


Silly to say the comparison is a bad one, Rupert's
comparison is perfectly valid.

This was a recent case. It was a race run on January 17th this year. I don't know exactly when they got the results of the blood test, but lets assume that they got the results sometime in February, possibly even March after they re-tested. He was suppose to begin his 60 days in the detentin barn in late April. That's relatively quick justice.

Are you sure that they redistribute purse money for bicarbonates? I should know the answer to that but I don't.

Danzig, they are not trying to give O'Neil stricter rules. They are trying to give him the same rules as they give evryone else. That is why this is so surprising. It is surprising that they are not enforcing a rule that has always been enforced in the past.

Horse racing is a joke. The inmates run the asylum. The sport basically lives on thanks to people who will gamble regardless.

The trouble would seem to be if he is forced to run out of the detention barn before his hearing, isnt he serving his penalty unfairly if the hearing winds up overturning the ruling? I understand that the chances are that the ruling will be upheld but shouldn't the guy get his due process? If he is found guilty after that then he can serve the penalty, no? The rule sucks and the tracks should not be forced to do the CHRB's job because there is most certainly a conflict of interest.

Yeah and the NFL is a model sport

I think the main penalty will be a large fine. The fine will not be levied until after the hearing.

As I said earlier, it is not uncommon in other situations for a similar process to be in place. In other fields, if a person is accused of some type of miscounduct, they will often times be put on administrative leave while they are waiting for an investigation to be completed. That is pretty common.

when i read the article earlier ( didn't read the link above, had already seen the story elsewhere ) wherever i read it, it said the money had been re-doled.
and i thought also they were giving him the same rules-so generally when a trainer is appealing, does he run from the det. barn while waiting? if so, like cannon said, what happens if the appeal (for some godawful reason) comes down in the trainers' favor?

i wonder tho...once all this bs is said and done, and i have no idea how often this happens, wouldn't it turn out cheaper to just have better surveillance in the regular barns?

"The $16,200 purse earned by Chicks Rule was redistributed earlier this year. At the time, O'Neill feared that Chicks Rule had been the victim of tampering."

yeah, i bet she was a victim of tampering...:cool:

Actually, the first year they started penalizing trainers for excessive levels of bicarbonate out in CA, in one instance 24 hr security was placed at the trainer's regular barn as opposed to making him run out of a designated detention. This was at Del Mar and the trainer was Mike Mitchell. It might have been his 2nd offense at the time. I don't recall the circumstances exactly, but for whatever reason this is what was done.

I don't see why HP wouldn't do the same to appease everyone, because as it stands, on the surface, its absolutely ridiculous.

Yes, since they put these rules in place about 1 1/2 years ago or so, if you test over the limit you have to run out of the detention barn. If you are going to appeal, you would still have to run out of the detention barn while you wait for the appeal.

If you won the appeal, then you wouldn't have to pay the fine or incur any of the other penalties. You would still have had to run out of the detention barn though.

This is the first time that a track out here has not forced enforced this rule. They are afraind that O'Neil will refuse to run his horses and they are also afraid that he will take them to court. They should call O'Neil's bluff. What's he going to do? I highly doubt that he's going to ship all his horses somewhere else. In addition, does anyone really think that a judge would overturn this if it goes to court? It's not as if they are telling him that he can't run. They're just saying that since he keeps testing over the limits, his horses need to be under surveillance for 60 days. What judge would have a problem with that?

That might be the way they did it the first time, but that's not what they've been doing for the last 1 1/2 years or so. The new rule clearly states that you have to run out of the detention barn.

Actually, about a month back, it was reported that O'Neill was likely to send a sizeable string to Delaware when that meet starts. Was he laying the groundwork for this line-in-the-sand move or will he follow through?

Nonetheless, what I was getting at was that placing security at his regular barn is better than doing nothing, no?

He did send a small string back east. I think he sent about 8 horses back there. It is possible that one of the reasons he did it was to show them that he can start sending horses other places if needs be. If he was trying to intimidate them, I think it worked.

I still think that it is extremely unlikely that he is going to send all or most of his horses somewhere else. He has somewhere between 150-200 horses out here. As much as he hates the detention barn, it would still be much easier for him to stay here than to ship all his horses somewhere else. It's over $8,000 per horse round-trip to go back east. It's not worth $8,000 per horse to ship back east for 60 days.

Yes, it would certainly be better than nothing. But I don't see why he should get preferential treatment.

The interesting sub-story is that when announcing the shift eastward, O'Neill hinted that perhaps he's not as pro-synthetic as he seems ("This is a little experiment with horses that maybe we want to try on the dirt," he said. "Don't get me wrong. I love synthetic tracks, but I want to have the option."). If both he and Bob Baffert were to basically abandon CA racing, would it be a shot over the bough that would have the CHRB second-guessing the synthetic mandate? Is this part of the reason why both the track and the CHRB are willing to be buffaloed by him?

well, if every other trainer ran out of the det. barn while appealing, then he should as well. o'neill needs them just as bad as they need him tho, right? how long will his owners be willing to pay a day rate if their stock stays inside??

I agree.

Jug O'needle