O'Neil Refuses to Put Horses in Detention

[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?