McLaughlin with 3 positives; Gets 30 day ban..

[phystech]

Originally Posted by ELA

So, you have the label of "cheater" -- Dutrow being mentioned here. You want to call him a cheater, OK. Who is next?
Eric

I love the "guilt by relation" play by some.

Because Rick has been accused of cheating, then Tony and Chip must do the same.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by phystech

I love the "guilt by relation" play by some.

Because Rick has been accused of cheating, then Tony and Chip must do the same.

Surely like the various assistants under Lukas who set out on their own and somehow find positives at their fingertips.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by phystech

I love the "guilt by relation" play by some.

Because Rick has been accused of cheating, then Tony and Chip must do the same.

Uh I cant say much more but .......



Of course there are the Barrera brothers as an example. They were completely seperate juicers.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Uh I cant say much more but .......


Of course there are the Barrera brothers as an example. They were completely seperate juicers.

I wasn't referring to either of Rick's brothers when I made my "who is next" statement. However, in my mind Chuck, it's not that easy. As a matter of fact, it could easily happen to one of the "good guys" -- like you.

In my experience, where there's smoke there's fire, almost always has collateral damage so to speak. Stricter rules, universal and uniform medication rules and governance, yes, I am absolutely all for that. But I think we need to be very careful when emotions, what we "just know, etc., supersedes what we are really trying to obtain.

Sure, the present system doesn't work. But not every system will be better than what we have.

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

I wasn't referring to either of Rick's brothers when I made my "who is next" statement. However, in my mind Chuck, it's not that easy. As a matter of fact, it could easily happen to one of the "good guys" -- like you.

In my experience, where there's smoke there's fire, almost always has collateral damage so to speak. Stricter rules, universal and uniform medication rules and governance, yes, I am absolutely all for that. But I think we need to be very careful when emotions, what we "just know, etc., supersedes what we are really trying to obtain.

Sure, the present system doesn't work. But not every system will be better than what we have.

Eric

Actually Eric it cant happen to me. While I am certainly eligible to get a positive test as is anyone who runs a horse under the current system but the pattern of abuse of some is damning. The danger is the Freddy mo message that the guys are good horseman who feel the need to keep up. That is simply not acceptable. Zero tolerence is not the answer because the system is flawed but in cases like this latest positive that headlines this thread, it is far fetched to believe this wasn't a cut and dried case of cheating.

Obviously there is a lot left unsaid and much of the truth never reaches the public but the fact is that there are very few guys with "suspicious" reputations that aren't well deserved.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Actually Eric it cant happen to me. While I am certainly eligible to get a positive test as is anyone who runs a horse under the current system but the pattern of abuse of some is damning. The danger is the Freddy mo message that the guys are good horseman who feel the need to keep up. That is simply not acceptable. Zero tolerence is not the answer because the system is flawed but in cases like this latest positive that headlines this thread, it is far fetched to believe this wasn't a cut and dried case of cheating.

Obviously there is a lot left unsaid and much of the truth never reaches the public but the fact is that there are very few guys with "suspicious" reputations that aren't well deserved.

Sorry about that Chuck -- not really what I meant. I was not inferring to a positive you might get vs. a pattern of abuse. On that, I agree with you.

What I meant was more that the "where there's smoke, there's fire" thing can happen to you as it has others. You could pick up a new owner who knows how to play the game and lets you spot horses aggressively. Compoung that with claiming a few from a few 3% trainers who have given up on a horse or missed something huge, now you move those up. Now you get another owner, and another. Things get rolling. Buy one for the owner and win a stake or two. Do well at a few high profile meets. All of a sudden people are talking about Chuck Simon who may never have had a positive test ever before -- and now they are saying where there's smoke there's fire.

Regardless, and again I agree, I do think there are very few guys who have "suspicious" reputations that are not deserved. Well deserved? Sure there are some which certainly are well deserved, and there are a few that I think are not, but I do agree.

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Sorry about that Chuck -- not really what I meant. I was not inferring to a positive you might get vs. a pattern of abuse. On that, I agree with you.

What I meant was more that the "where there's smoke, there's fire" thing can happen to you as it has others. You could pick up a new owner who knows how to play the game and lets you spot horses aggressively. Compoung that with claiming a few from a few 3% trainers who have given up on a horse or missed something huge, now you move those up. Now you get another owner, and another. Things get rolling. Buy one for the owner and win a stake or two. Do well at a few high profile meets. All of a sudden people are talking about Chuck Simon who may never have had a positive test ever before -- and now they are saying where there's smoke there's fire.

Regardless, and again I agree, I do think there are very few guys who have "suspicious" reputations that are not deserved. Well deserved? Sure there are some which certainly are well deserved, and there are a few that I think are not, but I do agree.

Eric

I understand where you are coming from. There will never be absolute certainty. But many of the people we refer to are guilty, are known within the industry as being guilty yet they hide behind the standard excuses. And the real shame is that many of them walk around with a smuggness because they are using what isnt being tested for and they know it. The really sad thing is that the vast majority of the trainers do play by the rules.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I understand where you are coming from. There will never be absolute certainty. But many of the people we refer to are guilty, are known within the industry as being guilty yet they hide behind the standard excuses. And the real shame is that many of them walk around with a smuggness because they are using what isnt being tested for and they know it. The really sad thing is that the vast majority of the trainers do play by the rules.

Why wouldnt you use a drug that improves your horses performance and is LEGAL, if it doesn't endanger the welfare of the animal?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Uh I cant say much more but .......



Of course there are the Barrera brothers as an example. They were completely seperate juicers.

Everybody is always off base if their opinion is different then yours.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Everybody is always off base if their opinion is different then yours.

Perhaps because my opinion is reality based using facts and the truth? I would certainly be in the position to "know" a whole lot more than most, no? Perhaps because I actually know these people, the people that work and have worked for them? Maybe because i have interactions with medications and vets every day? Maybe because I have still have contacts from my days on the other side of the table? Perhaps I might know what I am talking about because I have lived this game everyday for years in just about every capacity? Ever think that I may have to bite my tongue on occasion because I know things in confidence?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Perhaps because my opinion is reality based using facts and the truth? I would certainly be in the position to "know" a whole lot more than most, no? Perhaps because I actually know these people, the people that work and have worked for them? Maybe because i have interactions with medications and vets every day? Maybe because I have still have contacts from my days on the other side of the table? Perhaps I might know what I am talking about because I have lived this game everyday for years in just about every capacity? Ever think that I may have to bite my tongue on occasion because I know things in confidence?

I never said you didn't know anything just not everything. If you can suggest that Dutrow isn't an outstanding trainer then you certainly don't know much about him or his capabilities. Lot's of people work in the industry. lots of us have all have the same type contacts as yourself. While we all KNOW you work in the industry it doesn't mean you are the industry.

Good luck racing in the wild wild west (Philly Park). I will be rooting for you always do why wouldnt I? Bring your A vet because when slot dollars are on the table lots of people are trying to gain every edge to get them. That doesn't necessarily mean they are cheating just means they are making there horses as fast as possible within the rules.
You are entitled to your opinion unfortunately because you work in the industry doesnt mean it is always correct. Nor does it mean you shouldnt be open to others.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I never said you didn't know anything just not everything. If you can suggest that Dutrow isn't an outstanding trainer then you certainly don't know much about him or his capabilities. Lot's of people work in the industry. lots of us have all have the same type contacts as yourself. While we all KNOW you work in the industry it doesn't mean you are the industry.

Good luck racing in the wild wild west (Philly Park). I will be rooting for you always do why wouldnt I? Bring your A vet because when slot dollars are on the table lots of people are trying to gain every edge to get them. That doesn't necessarily mean they are cheating just means they are making there horses as fast as possible within the rules.
You are entitled to your opinion unfortunately because you work in the industry doesnt mean it is always correct. Nor does it mean you shouldnt be open to others.

With all due respect Freddy what exactly do you know about who or what i may know? you think Philly Park is the wild west? I am a vet of the yonkers/Roosevelt wars. That was the wild west. These guys are just cheaters.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

With all due respect Freddy what exactly do you know about who or what i may know? you think Philly Park is the wild west? I am a vet of the yonkers/Roosevelt wars. That was the wild west. These guys are just cheaters.

Ding ding ding. Most of the good stuff originated in harness racing.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

With all due respect Freddy what exactly do you know about who or what i may know? you think Philly Park is the wild west? I am a vet of the yonkers/Roosevelt wars. That was the wild west. These guys are just cheaters.

So I didnt see MR AAA or know what was going on in harness racing.. I spent twice as much time as you at harness tracks and the back stretchs I lived harness racing from the time I was 10 for 15 years I did nothing but hang out with the biggest FN crooks in the business. I was betting for Rene Poulin when I was 18 years old, .. You really do think it's all about you its amazing.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Uh I cant say much more but .......



Of course there are the Barrera brothers as an example. They were completely seperate juicers.

Has Tony Dutrow ever had a positive? Been fined/suspended ?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

Has Tony Dutrow ever had a positive? Been fined/suspended ?

Dont know.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dont know.

Then you probably shouldn't imply it. Would kind of be like me implying that you cheat. Nothing to base it on.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by stonegossard

Then you probably shouldn't imply it. Would kind of be like me implying that you cheat. Nothing to base it on.

You asked me about the past, not the upcoming future.

[stonegossard]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You asked me about the past, not the upcoming future.

So you are saying he is gonna get nailed for a positive. I didn't know you could predict the future.


Impressive.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

That is a BS tactic.

Tactic? Read between the lines a little.