Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Actually Eric it cant happen to me. While I am certainly eligible to get a positive test as is anyone who runs a horse under the current system but the pattern of abuse of some is damning. The danger is the Freddy mo message that the guys are good horseman who feel the need to keep up. That is simply not acceptable. Zero tolerence is not the answer because the system is flawed but in cases like this latest positive that headlines this thread, it is far fetched to believe this wasn't a cut and dried case of cheating.
Obviously there is a lot left unsaid and much of the truth never reaches the public but the fact is that there are very few guys with "suspicious" reputations that aren't well deserved.
|
Sorry about that Chuck -- not really what I meant. I was not inferring to a positive you might get vs. a pattern of abuse. On that, I agree with you.
What I meant was more that the "where there's smoke, there's fire" thing can happen to you as it has others. You could pick up a new owner who knows how to play the game and lets you spot horses aggressively. Compoung that with claiming a few from a few 3% trainers who have given up on a horse or missed something huge, now you move those up. Now you get another owner, and another. Things get rolling. Buy one for the owner and win a stake or two. Do well at a few high profile meets. All of a sudden people are talking about Chuck Simon who may never have had a positive test ever before -- and now they are saying where there's smoke there's fire.
Regardless, and again I agree, I do think there are very few guys who have "suspicious" reputations that are not deserved. Well deserved? Sure there are some which certainly are well deserved, and there are a few that I think are not, but I do agree.
Eric