O'Neil Refuses to Put Horses in Detention

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Rupert,
You picked a capital crime... murder. That's pretty much the only alleged offense that is not bailable. O'Neill is probably less of a flight risk than O.J. was.

Even in less serious cases, there are plenty of people that don't have the money to post bail. These people have to sit in jail while they await their trial.

Running his horses out of the detention barn while a trainer awaits his hearing is not quite as bad as being stuck in jail while a person awaits their trial.

[Rupert Pupkin]

By the way, every time this has happened in the past, the rule(being forced to the detention barn) has always been enforced.

[Danzig]

i am surprised that it is taking so long to get the case resolved, this isn't a recent milkshaking case-purse money was redistributed some time ago. but if they generally let a trainer do business as usual while appealing, i don't see how they can make o'neill follow a stricter set of rules, even if he is a repeat offender.
they need to quit with the slaps on the wrist, and the bs involved with rules violations. it's not fair to the bettor as you said rupe, but i don't know what they can do, other than hurry up and hear his appeal.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i am surprised that it is taking so long to get the case resolved, this isn't a recent milkshaking case-purse money was redistributed some time ago. but if they generally let a trainer do business as usual while appealing, i don't see how they can make o'neill follow a stricter set of rules, even if he is a repeat offender.
they need to quit with the slaps on the wrist, and the bs involved with rules violations. it's not fair to the bettor as you said rupe, but i don't know what they can do, other than hurry up and hear his appeal.

This was a recent case. It was a race run on January 17th this year. I don't know exactly when they got the results of the blood test, but lets assume that they got the results sometime in February, possibly even March after they re-tested. He was suppose to begin his 60 days in the detentin barn in late April. That's relatively quick justice.

Are you sure that they redistribute purse money for bicarbonates? I should know the answer to that but I don't.

Danzig, they are not trying to give O'Neil stricter rules. They are trying to give him the same rules as they give evryone else. That is why this is so surprising. It is surprising that they are not enforcing a rule that has always been enforced in the past.

[Strategic Mission]

Horse racing is a joke. The inmates run the asylum. The sport basically lives on thanks to people who will gamble regardless.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Strategic Mission

Horse racing is a joke. The inmates run the asylum. The sport basically lives on thanks to people who will gamble regardless.

Yeah and the NFL is a model sport

[Cannon Shell]

The trouble would seem to be if he is forced to run out of the detention barn before his hearing, isnt he serving his penalty unfairly if the hearing winds up overturning the ruling? I understand that the chances are that the ruling will be upheld but shouldn't the guy get his due process? If he is found guilty after that then he can serve the penalty, no? The rule sucks and the tracks should not be forced to do the CHRB's job because there is most certainly a conflict of interest.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The trouble would seem to be if he is forced to run out of the detention barn before his hearing, isnt he serving his penalty unfairly if the hearing winds up overturning the ruling? I understand that the chances are that the ruling will be upheld but shouldn't the guy get his due process? If he is found guilty after that then he can serve the penalty, no? The rule sucks and the tracks should not be forced to do the CHRB's job because there is most certainly a conflict of interest.

I think the main penalty will be a large fine. The fine will not be levied until after the hearing.

As I said earlier, it is not uncommon in other situations for a similar process to be in place. In other fields, if a person is accused of some type of miscounduct, they will often times be put on administrative leave while they are waiting for an investigation to be completed. That is pretty common.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This was a recent case. It was a race run on January 17th this year. I don't know exactly when they got the results of the blood test, but lets assume that they got the results sometime in February, possibly even March after they re-tested. He was suppose to begin his 60 days in the detentin barn in late April. That's relatively quick justice.

Are you sure that they redistribute purse money for bicarbonates? I should know the answer to that but I don't.

Danzig, they are not trying to give O'Neil stricter rules. They are trying to give him the same rules as they give evryone else. That is why this is so surprising. It is surprising that they are not enforcing a rule that has always been enforced in the past.

when i read the article earlier ( didn't read the link above, had already seen the story elsewhere ) wherever i read it, it said the money had been re-doled.
and i thought also they were giving him the same rules-so generally when a trainer is appealing, does he run from the det. barn while waiting? if so, like cannon said, what happens if the appeal (for some godawful reason) comes down in the trainers' favor?

i wonder tho...once all this bs is said and done, and i have no idea how often this happens, wouldn't it turn out cheaper to just have better surveillance in the regular barns?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i wonder tho...once all this bs is said and done, and i have no idea how often this happens, wouldn't it turn out cheaper to just have better surveillance in the regular barns?

Actually, the first year they started penalizing trainers for excessive levels of bicarbonate out in CA, in one instance 24 hr security was placed at the trainer's regular barn as opposed to making him run out of a designated detention. This was at Del Mar and the trainer was Mike Mitchell. It might have been his 2nd offense at the time. I don't recall the circumstances exactly, but for whatever reason this is what was done.

I don't see why HP wouldn't do the same to appease everyone, because as it stands, on the surface, its absolutely ridiculous.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Actually, the first year they started penalizing trainers for excessive levels of bicarbonate out in CA, in one instance 24 hr security was placed at the trainer's regular barn as opposed to making him run out of a designated detention. This was at Del Mar and the trainer was Mike Mitchell. It might have been his 2nd offense at the time. I don't recall the circumstances exactly, but for whatever reason this is what was done.

I don't see why HP wouldn't do the same to appease everyone, because as it stands, on the surface, its absolutely ridiculous.

That might be the way they did it the first time, but that's not what they've been doing for the last 1 1/2 years or so. The new rule clearly states that you have to run out of the detention barn.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

when i read the article earlier ( didn't read the link above, had already seen the story elsewhere ) wherever i read it, it said the money had been re-doled.
and i thought also they were giving him the same rules-so generally when a trainer is appealing, does he run from the det. barn while waiting? if so, like cannon said, what happens if the appeal (for some godawful reason) comes down in the trainers' favor?

i wonder tho...once all this bs is said and done, and i have no idea how often this happens, wouldn't it turn out cheaper to just have better surveillance in the regular barns?

Yes, since they put these rules in place about 1 1/2 years ago or so, if you test over the limit you have to run out of the detention barn. If you are going to appeal, you would still have to run out of the detention barn while you wait for the appeal.

If you won the appeal, then you wouldn't have to pay the fine or incur any of the other penalties. You would still have had to run out of the detention barn though.

This is the first time that a track out here has not forced enforced this rule. They are afraind that O'Neil will refuse to run his horses and they are also afraid that he will take them to court. They should call O'Neil's bluff. What's he going to do? I highly doubt that he's going to ship all his horses somewhere else. In addition, does anyone really think that a judge would overturn this if it goes to court? It's not as if they are telling him that he can't run. They're just saying that since he keeps testing over the limits, his horses need to be under surveillance for 60 days. What judge would have a problem with that?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This is the first time that a track out here has not forced enforced this rule. They are afraind that O'Neil will refuse to run his horses and they are also afraid that he will take them to court. They should call O'Neil's bluff. What's he going to do? I highly doubt that he's going to ship all his horses somewhere else.

Actually, about a month back, it was reported that O'Neill was likely to send a sizeable string to Delaware when that meet starts. Was he laying the groundwork for this line-in-the-sand move or will he follow through?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, since they put these rules in place about 1 1/2 years ago or so, if you test over the limit you have to run out of the detention barn. If you are going to appeal, you would still have to run out of the detention barn while you wait for the appeal.

If you won the appeal, then you wouldn't have to pay the fine or incur any of the other penalties. You would still have had to run out of the detention barn though.

This is the first time that a track out here has not forced enforced this rule. They are afraind that O'Neil will refuse to run his horses and they are also afraid that he will take them to court. They should call O'Neil's bluff. What's he going to do? I highly doubt that he's going to ship all his horses somewhere else. In addition, does anyone really think that a judge would overturn this if it goes to court? It's not as if they are telling him that he can't run. They're just saying that since he keeps testing over the limits, his horses need to be under surveillance for 60 days. What judge would have a problem with that?

well, if every other trainer ran out of the det. barn while appealing, then he should as well. o'neill needs them just as bad as they need him tho, right? how long will his owners be willing to pay a day rate if their stock stays inside??

I think the comparison is also valid for other sports.
You test positive for substances, you sit. Trial might
come later.


Silly to say the comparison is a bad one, Rupert's
comparison is perfectly valid.