O'Neil Refuses to Put Horses in Detention

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

Poor comparison and not accurate, but that's neither here nor there. Regardless, that's not the way the current system works -- anywhere, I think. I am sure there is some infraction or crime so to speak that would not allow a hearing or an appeal, but even major positive tests have the appeal process.

Personally, I think there should be more integrity in the process. Positive test, appeal -- then there must be an appeal, hearing, whatever, within a certain period of time. That way there is no "banking" of days or deferral of any type. Besides uniform medication rules, there needs to be an overhaul of the process, penalties, etc.

Eric

Poor comparison and not accurate? How so? Before the jury found OJ Simpson not guilty, where was he? He was in jail. Why was he is jail before his trial? Because that is the way the law works.

Doug O'Neil will get a hearing. Nobody wants to deny him a hearing. But in the meantime, he needs to run out of the detention barn. That is the way it works in California and that is why people are furious about this. People are furious that Hollywood Park won't enforce the rule. As Ateam said, the main reason Hollywood won't enforce the rule is because Doug O'Neil has a ton of horses and if his horses don't run then there will be smaller fields. He runs 3-4 horses every day on average.

[Danzig]

except for the occasional murder suspect or flight risk, most are out of jail while awaiting trial. so unless o'neill is killing horses, i can see why they aren't punishing him while everything moves along-slowly.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

except for the occasional murder suspect or flight risk, most are out of jail while awaiting trial. so unless o'neill is killing horses, i can see why they aren't punishing him while everything moves along-slowly.

If there is no danger to the public, then a person can usually get out of jail while they await trial if they post bail.

In the case of trainers milkshaking, there is danger to the public. It's a different kind of danger. It's obviously not life and death. But the rationale is the same. The public needs to be protected. There are millions of dollars being wagered on these races.

Anyway, the point was that even out in the real world people are often times in jail while they await their trial.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Poor comparison and not accurate? How so? Before the jury found OJ Simpson not guilty, where was he? He was in jail. Why was he is jail before his trial? Because that is the way the law works.

Doug O'Neil will get a hearing. Nobody wants to deny him a hearing. But in the meantime, he needs to run out of the detention barn. That is the way it works in California and that is why people are furious about this. People are furious that Hollywood Park won't enforce the rule. As Ateam said, the main Hollywood won't enforce the rule is because Doug O'Neil has a ton of horses and if his horses don't run then there will be smaller fields. He runs 3-4 horses every day.

Rupert,
You picked a capital crime... murder. That's pretty much the only alleged offense that is not bailable. O'Neill is probably less of a flight risk than O.J. was.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Rupert,
You picked a capital crime... murder. That's pretty much the only alleged offense that is not bailable. O'Neill is probably less of a flight risk than O.J. was.

Even in less serious cases, there are plenty of people that don't have the money to post bail. These people have to sit in jail while they await their trial.

Running his horses out of the detention barn while a trainer awaits his hearing is not quite as bad as being stuck in jail while a person awaits their trial.

[Rupert Pupkin]

By the way, every time this has happened in the past, the rule(being forced to the detention barn) has always been enforced.

[Danzig]

i am surprised that it is taking so long to get the case resolved, this isn't a recent milkshaking case-purse money was redistributed some time ago. but if they generally let a trainer do business as usual while appealing, i don't see how they can make o'neill follow a stricter set of rules, even if he is a repeat offender.
they need to quit with the slaps on the wrist, and the bs involved with rules violations. it's not fair to the bettor as you said rupe, but i don't know what they can do, other than hurry up and hear his appeal.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i am surprised that it is taking so long to get the case resolved, this isn't a recent milkshaking case-purse money was redistributed some time ago. but if they generally let a trainer do business as usual while appealing, i don't see how they can make o'neill follow a stricter set of rules, even if he is a repeat offender.
they need to quit with the slaps on the wrist, and the bs involved with rules violations. it's not fair to the bettor as you said rupe, but i don't know what they can do, other than hurry up and hear his appeal.

This was a recent case. It was a race run on January 17th this year. I don't know exactly when they got the results of the blood test, but lets assume that they got the results sometime in February, possibly even March after they re-tested. He was suppose to begin his 60 days in the detentin barn in late April. That's relatively quick justice.

Are you sure that they redistribute purse money for bicarbonates? I should know the answer to that but I don't.

Danzig, they are not trying to give O'Neil stricter rules. They are trying to give him the same rules as they give evryone else. That is why this is so surprising. It is surprising that they are not enforcing a rule that has always been enforced in the past.

[Strategic Mission]

Horse racing is a joke. The inmates run the asylum. The sport basically lives on thanks to people who will gamble regardless.

[Cannon Shell]

The trouble would seem to be if he is forced to run out of the detention barn before his hearing, isnt he serving his penalty unfairly if the hearing winds up overturning the ruling? I understand that the chances are that the ruling will be upheld but shouldn't the guy get his due process? If he is found guilty after that then he can serve the penalty, no? The rule sucks and the tracks should not be forced to do the CHRB's job because there is most certainly a conflict of interest.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This was a recent case. It was a race run on January 17th this year. I don't know exactly when they got the results of the blood test, but lets assume that they got the results sometime in February, possibly even March after they re-tested. He was suppose to begin his 60 days in the detentin barn in late April. That's relatively quick justice.

Are you sure that they redistribute purse money for bicarbonates? I should know the answer to that but I don't.

Danzig, they are not trying to give O'Neil stricter rules. They are trying to give him the same rules as they give evryone else. That is why this is so surprising. It is surprising that they are not enforcing a rule that has always been enforced in the past.

when i read the article earlier ( didn't read the link above, had already seen the story elsewhere ) wherever i read it, it said the money had been re-doled.
and i thought also they were giving him the same rules-so generally when a trainer is appealing, does he run from the det. barn while waiting? if so, like cannon said, what happens if the appeal (for some godawful reason) comes down in the trainers' favor?

i wonder tho...once all this bs is said and done, and i have no idea how often this happens, wouldn't it turn out cheaper to just have better surveillance in the regular barns?

I think the comparison is also valid for other sports.
You test positive for substances, you sit. Trial might
come later.


Silly to say the comparison is a bad one, Rupert's
comparison is perfectly valid.