Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
Eric,
I'm not naive enough to think that the two suggestions that I raised above will solve the entire problem. As you suggest, advanced testing and the like will have to be part of the solution. However, unless there are harsh consequences to a trainer that gets a positive (and the current system and its lenient penalties are comical), this sort of behavior will continue to go on.
As for the owners' part of this, I recognize that there will always be a segment of the population that subscribes to the "if I ain't cheating, I ain't winning" theory. An owner's choice of trainer(s), however, speaks volumes about whether they want to see the game cleaned up - or whether, by hiring the trainers that employ questionable tactics, they are condoning and ratifying that behavior. If the "honest" owners out there took horses from these guys (and I do believe that 90% of the people on the backstretch are hard-working, honest individuals), then the game might start to "self-police" itself.
Perhaps the real problem - and I say this as an attorney - is that we're more concerned with protecting the due process rights of the cheaters, than with the honest horsepeople (owners and trainers alike) that these people have driven out of the sport.
|
parsixfarsm, I agree with you and I think you bring up some very good points. However, first as an owner, and second being that of the problem itself, I am not of the belief that "if I ain't cheating, I ain't winning" -- and I don't think that is the issue per se with many. I am sure there are some. However, I do think you brought up some excellent points. Harsher penalties are without question part of the solution. But that is seperate and distinct from the owners element.
An owners choice of trainers
may -- and I stress "
may" -- speak volumes about many things. However, of how much a person wants to clean up the game? No, I respectfully disagree with that. Who is going to sit in judgement of who? Do we now dismiss everything Barry Irwin has to say becase of his choice of trainers? Sure, it would be easy to say "yes" and in this case I am sure many would hope for that, LOL. Or do we completely dismiss everything I have to say for that matter? Other owners? You? In my opinion you cannot enforce rules on others, and draw a defintive conclusion about their position on this issue -- not based upon your "story" or interpretation vis a vis their trainer selection.
That is far too myopic in my mind. In addition, I think it far too judgemental as it speaks to others being held to standards that might only be established or clear to a small select group -- case in point, like this BB. My choice of having Scott Lake as one of my trainers -- does that say volumes about me?
If the majority of this BB thinks it does, then I need to re-examine and question whether or not this is a BB community I want to be part of. There is an entire discussion in and around this issue. I have been beaten by Scott Lake, and the other so called "drug" trainers far more than I have beaten them, and far more than the # of races won by them for me.
I think far too many people are forgetting and dismissing the
facts here as it relates to Lake. Scott Lake has been found guilty of clenbuterol positives. I don't trivialize it and I don't minimize the crime. He was found guilty and now he pays the price -- period! However, all I keep reading on BB's is that "I know he is doing something else" or "my friend had horses with him and said" or "he has to be using something because" -- and more along these lines. The armchair, wannabe trainers and experts are very heavy and strong in the "I know" department, but they appear to be very light or empty in the "facts" department. Is there not a disconnect there?
Because a great # of people -- who's opinion may not even be a qualified one -- say they know better; that doesn't make it so. It doesn't make it true. I am not looking to protect due process, although you do bring up an excellent point here. I appreciate and respect that. However, I am looking for "integrity" in the process, whatever it may be. I don't think you should be able to hand out lifetime bans, 10 year suspensions, $100,000 fines, etc. all because someone "must be doing something".
That is why I say let's "treat" and "deal" with the problem head on. Harsher penalties, tougher testing, more modern testing and facilities, more money, more security, split samples -- how about frozen samples! People are being found guilty and not guilty by the way of rape and murder today -- all because DNA testing did not exist so many years ago. Frozen samples -- so as testing develops, so does possibility and probability of catching and enforcing. I am sure there are going to be problems here but that's with any solution.
Thank you again for the great post.
Eric