|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
09-12-2019, 07:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The issue is the coverup. Let’s assume the overage is contaminated feed. Why was everything handled in the dark? Why did it take an article from Drape, who I don’t think many would defend, 15 months later for people to find out? When a regulatory board operates that way it should concern everyone. What else is being handled like that we don’t know about? 
|
|
#2
09-12-2019, 08:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
One other thing. In 1994, five trainers had horses test positive at the same time. I didn’t be need to be Columbo to deduce that was most likely contaminated feed.
How is it possible that just one horse, ironically a horse with a lot to gain, would be contaminated? Bad luck I guess.
|
|
#3
09-12-2019, 08:32 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
“I 100 percent stand by my recommendation to dismiss these cases,” Arthur said, referring to what he said were multiple findings of scopolamine in horses that were tested around the same time as the 2018 Santa Anita Derby.
__________________
All ambitions are lawful except those which climb upward on the miseries or credulities of mankind. ~ Joseph Conrad A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right. ~ Thomas Paine Don't let anyone tell you that your dreams can't come true. They are only afraid that theirs won't and yours will. ~ Robert Evans The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. ~ George Orwell, 1984.
|
|
#4
09-12-2019, 08:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Were all of the others 4 times the legal limit? Oh that’s right, we don’t know because Arthur, et al covered it all up.
|
Hybrid Mode
