I don't know why the final resolution took one year. As I said, I believe there was an appeal, or an appeal that was dropped, and there might have been significant delays in split sample testing, more specifics and details, etc.
Regardless, no, I don't think suspensions should be able to be "pushed off" until a more convenient time. Was that done here? I don't know. The same thing happened with Pletcher though -- actually more extreme. Pletcher's positive test didn't become public knowledge until about a year after the infraction, and he didn't serve the suspension until after that. However, again, no, I don't think it should be pushed off. But I do not think due process and integrity in the process should be thrown out either. I also don't like the fact that there seems to be an ability to somewhat "stall" for time, more time, or whatever is convenient.
That being said, yes, serious changes are needed. However, I am not so sure that this situation and how it played out is reflective of a disregard for regulations in our industry. He didn't "get snatched up for things" (emphasis noted vis a vis plural) -- he got an additional positive (singular) -- and he should pay. I've always said that. You are getting into a very dangerous area when you look to eliminate or shortcut process, due process or whatever the framework is. Streamline it, eliminate the ability to stall, but split samples, due diligence, and a person's "day in court" is something that should not be disregarded.
I still go back to my original question. I want to get a handle on where people's heads are at on various situations. In this case -- the two CA positives, which I believe were his first two (I am not certain of that), what should the penalty be?
It think absent of contamination, or other factors -- I think a sliding scale with sentencing guidelines should be used. For example, first offense, $2500 to $5000 (guideline) and 30 days (guideline to be 15 to 45). Second offense, say $5000 to $7500 with 30 days (guideline to be 15 to 45). And so on. But if there is potential contamination, valid mistake(s) on the part of a vet, documentation, records, etc. -- should there be room? There has to be. Remember Contessa's 7 positives (I think it was 7) in a period of 2 or 3 days, due to a feed supplement issue (in this case, there was potentially/partial culpability on the part of the feed company). There has to be some sort of non-absolute.
Eric
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Bid
Eric
Do you think a guy should be serving a suspension a year after the infraction? Why dont these guys get served immediately? Why wait around for split samples and all the ridiculous things we do when guys cheat? Listen, when they cheat they are essentially changing the outcome of races WE bet on. They should be dealt with swiftly, and seriously in all cases, regardless of what class drug they've been caught with. The fact that hes continued to get snatched up for things since the CA suspension shows his disregard for the regulation in this industry. Serious changes need to be made
|