Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Monarchos1
Well that's good to know. I trust you'll check out those good stories and brochures thoroughly.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with Suffolk's stated policy, track management has been exposed as hypocrital media whores in this instance. If the policy wasn't realistic, why did they implement it? To get some publicity, perhaps? And why did they announce the reinstatement of these trainers when they knew no one who be paying attention due to the focus on Derby preps and right before the meet starts. The track's hard line stance and subsequent laughable penalities of an apologetic letter and $1,000 donation are an insult to anyone who cares about animal welfare.
|
It was obviously not a well thought out policy and as you say positive PR motivated. But keeping these three trainers banned under a bad rule in no way helps animal welfare. They didnt have to announce the reinstatements at all but they did. What would be the proper punishment for someone found to be improperly accused? People who truly care about animal welfare should send the track an email stating that they should spend some money on the issue and set up an adoption program or at the very least a humane euthanasia program instead of a lame zero tolerence policy that can't be properly enforced or monitored.