Wayne Catalano-Frank Calebrese

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

I am sure there were, and will continue to be. So, here's a simple question -- what should be done? Yes, we all know the discussion, but you are not going to throw someone out of the business and deprive them of their livelihood because "you just know" or because "it is not possible" and so on. Throw someone out for proof, evidence and facts.

Eric

In the old days the stewards would 'lean' on them a little.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

In the old days the stewards would 'lean' on them a little.

And you know what Chuck -- I am all for that. Zero tolerence, level playing field, uniform medication policy and rules . . . all for it. Pass it and we are all set. Until then, let's not make this the Salem witch trials regardless of what "we know".

Lean and keep leaning. I hope it makes the game exactly what it should and could be.

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

And you know what Chuck -- I am all for that. Zero tolerence, level playing field, uniform medication policy and rules . . . all for it. Pass it and we are all set. Until then, let's not make this the Salem witch trials regardless of what "we know".

Lean and keep leaning. I hope it makes the game exactly what it should and could be.

Eric

They dont anymore. Everybody lawyers up and the stews cant be bothered. Back in the day they would simply call the guy in, tell him he is winning too much and either slow down or hit the road.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

They dont anymore. Everybody lawyers up and the stews cant be bothered. Back in the day they would simply call the guy in, tell him he is winning too much and either slow down or hit the road.

Back in the ol' days, yeah, I know. Today, yes, different issue. I also think the racing comissions have less power today. More and more it seems like a lot of bark and little bite.

I do however like some of what I see in the harness industry though. I understand it's different, however, some of the measures are working and making progress.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

In the old days the stewards would 'lean' on them a little.

They could put the barn under surveillance. They do that out here in California in rare instances. The problem is that it is very expensive. In addition, they don't have any real incentive to nail a top trainer. It is actually very bad "PR" when a top trainer gets caught cheating.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

They could put the barn under surveillance. They do that out here in California in rare instances. The problem is that it is very expensive. In addition, they don't have any real incentive to nail a top trainer. It is actually very bad "PR" when a top trainer gets caught cheating.

Is it bad publicty/PR when, let's say Scott Lake or Cole Norman gets caught? Or Todd Pletcher?

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

Is it bad publicty/PR when, let's say Scott Lake or Cole Norman gets caught? Or Todd Pletcher?

Eric

Yes, it is very bad publicity but that's not going to stop them from nailing a guy if he has a positive test.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, it is very bad publicity but that's not going to stop them from nailing a guy if he has a positive test.

I agree. I just think we are still seeing a double standard so to speak.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

I heard something interesting several years ago. I can't confirm for a fact that this is true, but I would have no reason not to believe it. I heard that when the racing board finds a way to detect some new illegal drug, they will post a warning telling everyone that they are now able to detect this drug. In other words, they don't want people to cheat. They will try to stop people from cheating, but they would rather warn people and get them to stop, as oppose to sending out no warning and catching a bunch of people.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I heard something interesting several years ago. I can't confirm for a fact that this is true, but I would have no reason not to believe it. I heard that when the racing board finds a way to detect some new illegal drug, they will post a warning telling everyone that they are now able to detect this drug. In other words, they don't want people to cheat. They will try to stop people from cheating, but they would rather warn people and get them to stop, as oppose to sending out no warning and catching a bunch of people.

I don't know that this is the case in every case, but it certainly is true in some cases. The Meadowlands in NJ announced in advance when the "black box" was going into effect -- it was on all the condition sheets/books, BB's, etc. I think the same might have been true to EPO, but I don't remember. I would think the motivation is to avoid 50 positive tests -- which really speaks to what % of people are not hay and water.

Wasn't this the case recently (in the last few years) in NY as well?

Eric

[Scav]

I'll say this, if they win the 6th or 8th today, I am on everyone else's bandwagon, I would be surprised if Dreaming of Liz cracked half the field, and the other one might suck up for 4th......

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

They could put the barn under surveillance. They do that out here in California in rare instances. The problem is that it is very expensive. In addition, they don't have any real incentive to nail a top trainer. It is actually very bad "PR" when a top trainer gets caught cheating.

They do it in Kentucky as well.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

They could put the barn under surveillance. They do that out here in California in rare instances. The problem is that it is very expensive. In addition, they don't have any real incentive to nail a top trainer. It is actually very bad "PR" when a top trainer gets caught cheating.

Surveillance only works when they know what they are surveilling for. Otherwise it is just a nuisance.