Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
Did the comments attributed to Alan Foreman in yesterday's story in DRF strike anyone else the wrong way? Here's a guy who is retained (and very well-paid) counsel to many of the horseman's organizations around the country - and he's out there defending a guy like Biancone with "the dog ate my homework"/"I thought it was flaxseed oil"-type excuses and suggesting that a mere fine was in order in this case. His comments are an insult to those that believe drugs are a serious problem in the sport. I don't begrudge anyone making a living, but it seems to me that, given the vast number of honest horseman that Mr. Foreman represents, Biancone was not a client that he needed to take on.
|
I found Foreman's comments interesting, but not surprising at all. An attorney is an advocate, and the advocacy comes from who is paying his/her bill.
This case has far reaching ramifications, not only vis a vis the crime and suspension, but also in the enforcement of a new set of rules as it pertains to the financial aspects. That will be extremely interesting and we've seen a few instances similar to this. A trainer gets suspended and based upon the terms and conditions of the suspension, there is nothing that speaks to communicating with owners, collecting monies from training, etc. On the other hand, we've seen a trainer get suspended who received an additional suspension because he communicated with owners (I don't know if the financial aspects had anything to do with this case).
However, be that as it may, the blame -- whether it be in this case or otherwise -- is not clearly defined or quantifiable. Personally, I feel that if you don't have proof -- clear and concrete -- then you can blame nobody other than those who broke the law; and in this case it's the trainer and the vet.
Eric