Quote:
Originally Posted by DaTruth
Certainly you are capable of discerning the difference between what a track, typically privately owned, and an arm of the state can do.
I don't know how things are done in Kentucky, but in Louisiana, the racing commissioners more often than not have no racing experience and are often given the positions by the Governor as a show of gratitude for political favors or campaign contributions. The commissioners are pretty much in their own administrative world without much interference from the legislature.
|
Yeah, that's what I already said, isn't it?
Quote:
So I ask you again, in your quest to ferret the druggies out of the buzzer users and jockeys hiding in the fog, would it be the tracks or the state regulatory bodies requiring the testing?
|
Certainly, contained within your sarcasm and lack of any real point other than trying to snark at me, you are capable of understanding how current penalties within horse racing are written in each state, and that any additional penalties would simply be added via the normal process? Whatever that may be for an individual state?
And that you sound ridiculous?
Yes, I stick to my opinion that people wanting to come back to the track after five year suspensions - jock, trainer, exercise rider, groom - should have drug testing a part of their probation.
And if any states were to chose to do so, they would implement it exactly as they currently implement and outline the penalties they already have established.
That's apparently very hard for DaTruth to understand.