Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Eric
This forces owners to be accountable in their choice of trainers. I can think of no other way to do this. I was originally against the rule which is a RMTC 'suggestion'. However after it was explained to me by a official who helped design the way it was set up I came to see the other side of the story. If you as an owner dont turn up the heat on your trainer to be more careful and stop pushing the limits, then you pay the consequences. As I have heard so many times, "we pay the bills". Well if you pay the bills then it is your responsibility to make sure your trainers either stop having so many 'mistakes' or find another trainer.
New owners coming into the game must understand that if they choose to go to a trainer who has a shaky reputation to go along with his gaudy win percentage then they will be held accountable.
|
Chuck, I get it. I really do. I just question the means to reach this supposed goal. I am all for accountability and being responsible, however, I just don't know if this is going to be enforcable and get the job done. I think this may open the door to other issues. Does clenbuterol count? If a horse of mine comes up positive with one trainer and for that and other reasons I decide to move my horses, how can I hold my trainer -- the new one -- accountable? I warn him? I threaten him. Being that I play the game aggressively, what prevents another "barn" from contaminating feed in my horse. You may think I am reaching here, and perhaps I am.
I am not a practicing attorney, however, I tend to look at these issues with much more of a big picture in mind. The owner can get suspended and fined on a quicker schedule than the trainer? That does not make sense to me. I don't want to get into names, but you have many high profile owners who will not want to even consider flirting with such liability -- and because of that you want them to pick what? A safer trainer? A lower % trainer.
How many horses are stepping onto the track and racing on hay and water? And Chuck, if we are going to have this discussion over a couple of beers when we get up to the Spa, let's not talk about hypotheticals and what the image is, or what distant fans may think. Let's talk about what people who are in the game know.
I agree a rule like this, similar, is needed -- but this to me, as a first swing, is too vague and ambiguous. I say thing because I already spoke with several people who claimed they were familiar with the new rule.
Like I said, I am just questioning the means here. I don't think it will force owners to be more responsible. It may force them to find ways to play more games as well.
Anyway, we will soon see.
Eric