Reddam and Ramsey... what's your take?

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Kimmeastar

The defendant's "Doped Up" Big Picture with painkillers and anti swelling medication........Hmmmmm,sounds like any leading U.S. horse trainer in this day and age.SO why is the horse supposed to test clean for a sale yet not when it goes to the track?What if this would have been a claim?Would there be a lawsuit then?Pending the outcome of this case,I forsee this to be opening a big can of worms!!

Originally Posted by gamblin4ever

True

I don't like discussing specific situations when there is an absense of facts, as much of it is nothing more than speculation. However, based upon what was reported -- actually, it could be very different if this were a claim.

First, the article states that "painkillers and anti-swelling medication in order for the colt to pass a veterinarian's examination needed to complete the sale" and a blood test showed the presence of "Flunixin and Phenylbutazone". (Note, the article does not state when the blood test was done). Now, of course there is a great deal we don't know about this, and more importantly, nobody knows if the allegations are true -- however, at a certain point, level, timeframe, etc., these specific drugs would trigger a positive test (in a race). Thus, one could give a horse these drugs at certain levels and timeframes in order to train a horse and be submitted to a vet exam, physical inspection, etc.

However, those very same levels would trigger a positive test if the horse was treated for a race. Thus, if this were a claim, and the horse came up positive, the claim would be voided (at the request of claimaint).

Second, I agree 100% that this could open a very large -- and far reaching -- can of worms. Who knows if the buyer did their due diligence, or if the seller did whatever the lawsuit claims they did. I don't know and I think who did what will probably never come out.

Eric