Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Eric
I certainly hold Dolan responsible for the mess that is the NY Knicks. He, like Stienbrenner and TB owners, ultimately call the shots. If Dolan hires an idiot and allows that idiot to continue to destroy the team then HE is responsible, not the idiot. The action of Dolan in hiring and retaining the idiot directly caused the issue. By not getting rid of the idiot when he clearly is not qualified to do his job , Dolan becomes responsible. By the same token if owners allow trainers to repeatedly break rules, especially in a serious manner, yet continue to employ those trainers with no reprecussion, they are responsible. When the illegal actions of a trainer do not lead to any decrease in business then why would you expect any change in behavior? If your dog craps in the house and you continue to make excuses for him, will he stop? Frightengly enough it is that simple. If you as the owner draw the line, trainers will either toe the line or lose the owner. When guys who are part of the 'ruling class' of the sport hire guys with a checkered past and then rush to his defense when he gets caught redhanded, it makes the sport a joke. If we were a major sport and had more intense media coverage, guys like Finley and Lizza especially would be getting lit up. That they just continue with the business as usual routine is a really bad sign.
I am not suggesting that the commissions hold the owners directly responsible. That is a fight that would be too difficult to accomplish. In fact I believe that it is not the job of the commissions to tell owners what to do. But what I am saying is that if the racing indusrty really wants to fix things then they can do it, pretty simply. If 100 of Terry Finleys investors suddenly walked out if Biancone remained associated with them do ya think he'd still be training for them? If a trainer knew they were going to lose horses, a signifigant number, do you think that they would be more careful? Less willing to push the envelope?
|
Chuck, I think we will end up disagreeing, and of course that's OK. It's a good thing. Perhaps I am talking about practicality and not a court of public opinion or something similar so to speak.
I am also not talking about stupidity. Hiring and retaining an employee was not my point at all. I was more talking about liability. You are not going to hold George Steinbrenner legally liable and responsible -- and penalize and punish him -- because one of his players takes and gets caught using steroids. UNLESS, he knew about it and turned a deaf ear, or helped, aided, and so on. UNLESS he is found to be a party to the crime, or made the drugs available, and so on. UNLESS he was negligent, and so on . . . and so on and so on. I am certainly not going to argue the parallel because none exists.
I thought my example was applicable, but with analogies there is always a great deal of interpretation. I was merely trying to show what I thought was a direct comparison. Do the laws and legislation exist in our sport and business? If they do not exist, then all that is left is what? Self governing or self policing?
Like I said Chuck, I agree, owners must be held responsible. However, it must be done in not only the proper way, but in a prudent and legal way as well. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- in isolation, I am not pulling horses from a guy who gets a clenbuterol positive. Not one, not two and not three. Now, a hard core, designer, exotic, etc. drug -- that's a completely different issue of course. In this specific case, I move my horses -- period. But I am not pulling horses because of what "everybody knows" so to speak and of course that's not the case here.
Anyway, we agree on the destination. We may just disagree on the journey to get there.
Catch up later.
Eric