Trainers Vazquez/ Garcia banished from Maryland

[jnunan4759]

Also the MJC is just the track. It sounds like an official organization but it's just a company. They can bounce anybody they want and you see it happen, like Jane Cibelli at Tampa last year.

Lake doesn't have many horses anymore. I read an article a few months ago which said he had about 20.

[Arletta]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

How does Scott Lake escape "banishment"?

Originally Posted by Arletta

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...nt.cfm?id=1906

Scott Lake appeals and granted a stay.

Lake said he appealed his suspension because he believes it is excessive.

“My thought is that the penalty is unfair; one guy has a positive and gets 30 days, and that is reduced to 15, and I get 60,” Lake said.

http://www.drf.com/news/lakes-suspen...ubled-120-days

[jnunan4759]

New update from Dunleavy.

http://www.drf.com/news/lakes-suspen...ubled-120-days

I was confused when they first said the two suspensions would be served concurrently. Another thing that confused me was that the suspension was to start in April. That's two months from now. Now, he's appealed and they say "possibly" they will hear that appeal in March. Then I guess the suspension would start in May or later ?

The more I hear, the more confused I am. This drug was supposedly give to make horses eat. Why so many not eating ? Plus, does anybody have any concern of who bought this drug, where did it come from and who gave it to the horse and where ? I guess not.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by jnunan4759

New update from Dunleavy.

http://www.drf.com/news/lakes-suspen...ubled-120-days

I was confused when they first said the two suspensions would be served concurrently. Another thing that confused me was that the suspension was to start in April. That's two months from now. Now, he's appealed and they say "possibly" they will hear that appeal in March. Then I guess the suspension would start in May or later ?

The more I hear, the more confused I am. This drug was supposedly give to make horses eat. Why so many not eating ? Plus, does anybody have any concern of who bought this drug, where did it come from and who gave it to the horse and where ? I guess not.

Winstrol (and Equipoise) are the most popular steroids out there among the ones that were used as a matter of course in racing for 40+ years. Where it comes from, etc., is no secret or any special clandestine activity.

Everyone is free to use it out of competition. It will still be helpful getting a horse back from time off, but since steroids were pushed out, needs to be clear in the system (30-45 days I think) before they commence racing.

Steroids get testosterone-devoid geldings and picky-eating fillys/mares into the feed tub. Maybe everyone should go back to the old appetite stimulant they used years ago... arsenic.

[jnunan4759]

I remember days when all the fillies got Equipoise. I was always told it made them more "coltish". Frankly, I got bills for years and never had any meds on them. Just the day-rate. Any vet call-in was usually for a problem or injury and they billed me directly. The only thing the trainer added was the farrier. Even the dentist used to bill me directly.

Who knows ? Horses I raced could have been on anything because I would never know. No owner would. Unless it came back positive.

Another question. What recourse does the owner of those DQ's horses have ? I don't think any. That process could take a month or months. They immediately go to your Bookkeeper's account for the purse seizure and if you don't have enough they block you from the entry box until it is paid.

I don't know whether I've ever seen an owner sue a trainer for purse seizure due to a positive. Why, I don't know.

Is a tangled mess.

[Big Peps]

Originally Posted by jnunan4759

I remember days when all the fillies got Equipoise. I was always told it made them more "coltish". Frankly, I got bills for years and never had any meds on them. Just the day-rate. Any vet call-in was usually for a problem or injury and they billed me directly. The only thing the trainer added was the farrier. Even the dentist used to bill me directly.

Who knows ? Horses I raced could have been on anything because I would never know. No owner would. Unless it came back positive.

Another question. What recourse does the owner of those DQ's horses have ? I don't think any. That process could take a month or months. They immediately go to your Bookkeeper's account for the purse seizure and if you don't have enough they block you from the entry box until it is paid.

I don't know whether I've ever seen an owner sue a trainer for purse seizure due to a positive. Why, I don't know.

Is a tangled mess.

Yes and litigation is always the answer!

[jnunan4759]

In a case like this it may be your only recourse. If I hire a trainer and he wins a race for me, we're all happy. Then I get my purse grabbed and I'm looked at as a doper. I'm going to be angry and am harmed.

Some owners are in on all of this. I never was. I told every trainer I ever hired that I never wanted a positive for anything. I never have had one. What they gave my horses I'll never know. There is no way to know. Nobody can know.

That's why a relationship between an owner and trainer is based on trust. Trust is huge in the racing business. I have an asset in your care and Trust you to do the right things with it. That's what it all is about.

Asmussen is a good example. He was exonerated. But aspersions were cast and he lost owners. He probably lost millions.

[Big Peps]

Originally Posted by jnunan4759

In a case like this it may be your only recourse. If I hire a trainer and he wins a race for me, we're all happy. Then I get my purse grabbed and I'm looked at as a doper. I'm going to be angry and am harmed.

Some owners are in on all of this. I never was. I told every trainer I ever hired that I never wanted a positive for anything. I never have had one. What they gave my horses I'll never know. There is no way to know. Nobody can know.

That's why a relationship between an owner and trainer is based on trust. Trust is huge in the racing business. I have an asset in your care and Trust you to do the right things with it. That's what it all is about.

Asmussen is a good example. He was exonerated. But aspersions were cast and he lost owners. He probably lost millions.

I think a standard contact between owner and trainer would be a start, which I have never seen or heard of. Maybe that would be good for some, then again that might prevent owners from changing trainers like underwear as well. At the end of the day, positives can happen to trainers who aren't trying to cheat as well. I just thing some of this stuff gets sensationalized as well. I don't think many fans or media really care who the owners are for the most part unless it's grade 1 type races, so perception really isn't that big a deal. As an owner, who knows what's going on for the most part, day in and day out. Like you said trust is a huge deal but not every positive needs to be treated like Lyle alzado was running around the barns in the morning injecting everything in sight