How about this suspension

[parsixfarms]

It would be nice if the folks running the Eclipse Awards enacted some rule that a trainer - and all horses trained by him - are ineligible for year-end honors if he served a suspension in a given year. Sort of like the rule that the NFL put in place after Shawn Merriman was selected for the Pro Bowl in the same year that he served a four game suspension (for steroids, if I recall correctly).

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

It would be nice if the folks running the Eclipse Awards enacted some rule that a trainer - and all horses trained by him - are ineligible for year-end honors if he served a suspension in a given year. Sort of like the rule that the NFL put in place after Shawn Merriman was selected for the Pro Bowl in the same year that he served a four game suspension (for steroids, if I recall correctly).

Yes, there should be something like this. I don't think you could declare ALL horses ineligible, but that would be an interesting suit.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

Yes, there should be something like this. I don't think you could declare ALL horses ineligible, but that would be an interesting suit.

Eric

Since a private entity gives out the awards, I don't think there would be any legal issue at all, so long as those rules were spelled out before the year began. To those who think Eclipse Awards for their horses are important, they'd be on notice that, if they play with fire, they might get burned.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Since a private entity gives out the awards, I don't think there would be any legal issue at all, so long as those rules were spelled out before the year began. To those who think Eclipse Awards for their horses are important, they'd be on notice that, if they play with fire, they might get burned.

Good point. You could have an issue, regardless of a private entity. I am sure their bylaws, rules, etc. could be revised -- but I think you might find an owner, a big owner, who would challange it. Maybe not.

This NJ case is interesting. One question I had was with regard to disclosure. New rule, new policy, etc. -- where does NJ disclose this to the owner? The trainer signs a stall application, but the owner only signs a license application. I should have read it last week when I was at Monmouth. The condition book also spells out a variety of rules as well.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

This NJ case is interesting. One question I had was with regard to disclosure. New rule, new policy, etc. -- where does NJ disclose this to the owner? The trainer signs a stall application, but the owner only signs a license application. I should have read it last week when I was at Monmouth. The condition book also spells out a variety of rules as well.

If it's a new rule, then there would probably have to be some sort of public hearing/comment period. Isn't that why NJ's "steroid rules" were just put on hold, when the horsemen challenged the failure to abide by Open Meetings laws? If it's just a stronger penalty, then I would think the administrative agency probably has discretion to set any reasonable penalty (of course, that can be in the eye of the beholder).

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

If it's a new rule, then there would probably have to be some sort of public hearing/comment period. Isn't that why NJ's "steroid rules" were just put on hold, when the horsemen challenged the failure to abide by Open Meetings laws? If it's just a stronger penalty, then I would think the administrative agency probably has discretion to set any reasonable penalty (of course, that can be in the eye of the beholder).

I am really not sure how it played out. There was a great deal of conflicting information. Yes, the horsemen challanged (the process and the unilateral implementation for the the most part, I think). OTOH, you have this standardbred case and out of competition testing long since enacted.

Personally, I was never worried anyway. I knew what they were going to be doing at Monmouth, but I just didn't know the penalties. What worries me is sabotage, contamination, mistakes, etc. That always concern me. They more concern the people who abide by the rules. I think there has to be much more in the way of clarification. If you are going to hold someone accountable -- let them know exactly what for and how high the price is.

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sp...lA&oref=slogin


The freakin EPO tests dont seem to work anyway

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

Good point. You could have an issue, regardless of a private entity. I am sure their bylaws, rules, etc. could be revised -- but I think you might find an owner, a big owner, who would challange it. Maybe not.

Talk about a public relations nightmare. Can you imagine the backlash if such a rule were adopted and some big owner challenged it after the fact?