|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
07-09-2008, 05:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
He runs too many horses for them to suspend him when it matters.
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ySSg4QG8g 
|
|
#2
07-09-2008, 05:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#3
07-09-2008, 05:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Anywhere, he runs a lot of horses
These suspensions should be applicable in all jurisdictions. If you are suspended in KY, you should be suspended in NY, and CA. Its crazy that guys like Gassmussen can be suspended for half a year in LA, and TX, and running a zillion horses somewhere else. Zero accountability
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ySSg4QG8g
|
|
#4
07-09-2008, 07:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
07-09-2008, 09:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I mean the entire barn should be suspended. Should have to disban. Nobody takes this game serious because of these kinds of cheaters and suspensions. With all the BS that happens daily in this industry its no wonder horseracing is in such a pathetic state. Autrey is now going to sit a week because he tested positive a year ago? Its just ridiculous. They did go easy on him, he should have been suspended for the remainder of the meet in CA, THAT YEAR
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ySSg4QG8g
|
|
#6
07-09-2008, 09:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
The drug is a Class 2 drug and used in humans to treat high blood pressure -- high potential to effect/improve performance.
This suspension had to do with the two positive tests from CA -- that's it. Thus, he has been suspended by the CHRB. Autrey is no longer racing horses in CA. So, them "going easy" on him is nonsense. The positives were from last year, July (Del Mar), if my memory serves me correct. I believe there was an appeal, split sample, hearing and all. I also believe there were some issues here, but I don't know the details -- which has nothing to do with the bottom line . . . two positive tests. Period. Thus, the end result was that he got 30 days and 23 of them were stayed contingent upon him not having any further violations for one year (from today, not last year, thus, July 2009). His horses at Lone Star will be raced by his assitant, Kevin (I don't remember his last name). As a side note -- there is another positive test that Autrey just dealt with. He will have to take another 15 days for a positive earlier this year (at OP I think). I think that one was Class 4 (some muscle relaxant). As far as I know, these are the 3 positive tests he's had. So, the issue is -- were these to light? Should he not have been able to stay the 23? Or, more on point -- for these 3 positives, should he get a year? Two? Five? Eric
|
|
#7
07-09-2008, 09:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Eric
Do you think a guy should be serving a suspension a year after the infraction? Why dont these guys get served immediately? Why wait around for split samples and all the ridiculous things we do when guys cheat? Listen, when they cheat they are essentially changing the outcome of races WE bet on. They should be dealt with swiftly, and seriously in all cases, regardless of what class drug they've been caught with. The fact that hes continued to get snatched up for things since the CA suspension shows his disregard for the regulation in this industry. Serious changes need to be made
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ySSg4QG8g
|
|
#8
07-09-2008, 10:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't know why the final resolution took one year. As I said, I believe there was an appeal, or an appeal that was dropped, and there might have been significant delays in split sample testing, more specifics and details, etc.
Regardless, no, I don't think suspensions should be able to be "pushed off" until a more convenient time. Was that done here? I don't know. The same thing happened with Pletcher though -- actually more extreme. Pletcher's positive test didn't become public knowledge until about a year after the infraction, and he didn't serve the suspension until after that. However, again, no, I don't think it should be pushed off. But I do not think due process and integrity in the process should be thrown out either. I also don't like the fact that there seems to be an ability to somewhat "stall" for time, more time, or whatever is convenient. That being said, yes, serious changes are needed. However, I am not so sure that this situation and how it played out is reflective of a disregard for regulations in our industry. He didn't "get snatched up for things" (emphasis noted vis a vis plural) -- he got an additional positive (singular) -- and he should pay. I've always said that. You are getting into a very dangerous area when you look to eliminate or shortcut process, due process or whatever the framework is. Streamline it, eliminate the ability to stall, but split samples, due diligence, and a person's "day in court" is something that should not be disregarded. I still go back to my original question. I want to get a handle on where people's heads are at on various situations. In this case -- the two CA positives, which I believe were his first two (I am not certain of that), what should the penalty be? It think absent of contamination, or other factors -- I think a sliding scale with sentencing guidelines should be used. For example, first offense, $2500 to $5000 (guideline) and 30 days (guideline to be 15 to 45). Second offense, say $5000 to $7500 with 30 days (guideline to be 15 to 45). And so on. But if there is potential contamination, valid mistake(s) on the part of a vet, documentation, records, etc. -- should there be room? There has to be. Remember Contessa's 7 positives (I think it was 7) in a period of 2 or 3 days, due to a feed supplement issue (in this case, there was potentially/partial culpability on the part of the feed company). There has to be some sort of non-absolute. Eric Quote:
Last edited by ELA : 07-10-2008 at 12:16 PM.
|
|
#9
07-09-2008, 10:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Eric
|
|
#10
07-09-2008, 11:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You have to get a grip about this and understand that there are laws that commissions need to adhere to and that will be the case if there is a federal commission as well. Just as everything else in society, if you hire a lawyer and fight it, it will take some time. Personally I think that his CA suspension was a joke. It was a class 2 drug and was something that I think it is very hard to prove that there is an approved therapuetic value to it. Guanabenz have been around for years and they have had a test for years. This sentence was very light but they arent saying why. But trainers have the same rights as every other American, including the criminals. That is not going to change. Though I think that foreign born trainers who are suspended should be deported or executed (whatever costs the taxpayers less)
|
Hybrid Mode
