McLaughlin with 3 positives; Gets 30 day ban..

[philcski]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Not according to Cannon Shell, his theory is Darley will double shift him..lol

I have no clue nor do I care very much. I suspect Mclaughlin will be fine. Mostly because he is a wonderful horseman with terrific skills. The assertion that the very best trainers in the industry are simply medical wonders is so friggin self righteous that you have to laugh hard.

You think I don't understand these guys push hard, please any moron knows they are vetting the F out of their stock. So apparently this is what it takes to get horses to race well. WE have 50k races in this country a year. Close 60% of the tracks and make shopping malls out of them and you will see the decline of the cheaters and the emergence of the full field and high quality properly bred animal.. Do you realize how many horrendously bred animals are bred because Penn Nat lets pigs race for 25k? A complete pig races for 25k and the best of allowance race horses go for 45k.

Disagree... less races, more competition, MORE cheating...

unless things go the way of Hong Kong, where positives REALLY cost money and business, then this crap will continue.

As for McLaughlin... the lack of furor is probably because we are all tired of it. We all knew he was doing something, probably not major, it was just a matter of when not if when he got caught.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by philcski

As for McLaughlin... the lack of furor is probably because we are all tired of it. We all knew he was doing something, probably not major, it was just a matter of when not if when he got caught.

The lack of furor is because McLaughlin is perceived as likable, innocuous and, most utterly mystifying, somehow above reproach. That was my point originally. There's a shocking double standard about who gets vilified when these incidents come up. The well-packaged, most blatant edge-takers somehow skate in the public eye while the Oil Can Harrys are heaped on in an orgy of outrage.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Kasept

The lack of furor is because McLaughlin is perceived as likable, innocuous and, most utterly mystifying, somehow above reproach. That was my point originally. There's a shocking double standard about who gets vilified when these incidents come up. The well-packaged, most blatant edge-takers somehow skate in the public eye while the Oil Can Harrys are heaped on in an orgy of outrage.

it's similar to politcs steve , the media pick and choose who they want to bury ,it's the american way ....how on earth anyone with a straight face can say that obama was anymore qualified to be president than any of the challengers from both sides is a complete farce .....he was the media's messiah, over at nbc they actually believe he can walk on water

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Kasept

The lack of furor is because McLaughlin is perceived as likable, innocuous and, most utterly mystifying, somehow above reproach. That was my point originally. There's a shocking double standard about who gets vilified when these incidents come up. The well-packaged, most blatant edge-takers somehow skate in the public eye while the Oil Can Harrys are heaped on in an orgy of outrage.

This too, for sure. Some, like Vaders or Beatties (pick one) are universally reviled, others like Asmussen, Dutrow, and Pletcher are polarized, and a select few are placed above like McLaughlin and Frankel despite their errors in judgement.

Makes the select few who DON'T cheat, like Mandella and Shirreffs, look even better.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by philcski

This too, for sure. Some, like Vaders or Beatties (pick one) are universally reviled, others like Asmussen, Dutrow, and Pletcher are polarized, and a select few are placed above like McLaughlin and Frankel despite their errors in judgement.

Makes the select few who DON'T cheat, like Mandella and Shirreffs, look even better.

I agree, but I also don't think you can simply "lump" all of these people into the same category of "cheater" so to speak. This discussion can turn into a discussion of semantics in the blink of an eye.

Eric

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by Kasept

The lack of furor is because McLaughlin is perceived as likable, innocuous and, most utterly mystifying, somehow above reproach. That was my point originally. There's a shocking double standard about who gets vilified when these incidents come up. The well-packaged, most blatant edge-takers somehow skate in the public eye while the Oil Can Harrys are heaped on in an orgy of outrage.

Steve,
Are you saying that Kiaran is one of those "well-packaged, most blatant edge-takers"? We are talking about a very small amount that may, at that amount, have a negliable effect on performance. Plus, as long as we have a sport governed by multiple entities with varying rules and regulations I think a mistake or misjudgement is bound to happen. There are many states that can run on that substance at that level without any problem. Why doesn't everybody just take a breath and wait on the split sample. It is too bad that the tests have yet to be confirmed and Ray came out with this.

[Kasept]

FYI... McLaughlin starts a 30 day suspension today..

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by Kasept

FYI... McLaughlin starts a 30 day suspension today..

Did you really eliminate or pull my last post on this thread regarding the apparent conflict between your praise of some of these very same trainers on your radio show for "a job well done" and your statements here?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

Did you really eliminate or pull my last post on this thread regarding the apparent conflict between your praise of some of these very same trainers on your radio show for "a job well done" and your statements here?

I think your post got swept up in a bigger mess that he got rid of

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I think your post got swept up in a bigger mess that he got rid of

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't check in later to see what happened. There is a good article at
http://horseracing.bloginky.com/
regarding the suspension and McLaughlins response.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

Did you really eliminate or pull my last post on this thread regarding the apparent conflict between your praise of some of these very same trainers on your radio show for "a job well done" and your statements here?

Remarkable... Do you think your posts are the only ones that appear on this entire forum? There were some nasty exchanges from overnight that served no purpose and that I'm sure the parties involved wouldn't want left up... And upon further review, I then decided to clear the slate entirely from yesterday.

And there's no conflict with how I handle interviews. I expect that trainers are operating on the up and up until shown otherwise...

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Remarkable... Do you think your posts are the only ones that appear on this entire forum? There were some nasty exchanges from overnight that served no purpose and that I'm sure the parties involved wouldn't want left up... And upon further review, I then decided to clear the slate entirely from yesterday.

And there's no conflict with how I handle interviews. I expect that trainers are operating on the up and up until shown otherwise...

I always miss out on the fun.....

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Remarkable... Do you think your posts are the only ones that appear on this entire forum? There were some nasty exchanges from overnight that served no purpose and that I'm sure the parties involved wouldn't want left up... And upon further review, I then decided to clear the slate entirely from yesterday.

And there's no conflict with how I handle interviews. I expect that trainers are operating on the up and up until shown otherwise...

I only say things which are positive.

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Remarkable... Do you think your posts are the only ones that appear on this entire forum? There were some nasty exchanges from overnight that served no purpose and that I'm sure the parties involved wouldn't want left up... And upon further review, I then decided to clear the slate entirely from yesterday.

And there's no conflict with how I handle interviews. I expect that trainers are operating on the up and up until shown otherwise...

No I don't think my posts were the only ones that appear here. I think I made it clear that I didn't know of any other exchanges last evening. I think my question regarding its removal is quite understandable. What is remarkable is how quick you are to jump to whatever idea serves you at that moment.

I have no demi-gods. I am just questioning your judgemental views in light of your very gracious interviewing style where you heep praise on Kiaran and some of the people you have mentioned on this thread. To make some of the statements you have on this thread and then turn around and praise them for work that you denigrate here IS a conflict.

And finally, your comment that you expect trainers are operating on the up and up appears to presume an open-mindedness that is not refective on many of your comments here on this subject. McLaughlin is not a villain. I doubt he is even a cheater. To pile on him and lump him in with others that you have had on your show is unfortunate. A mistake was made and he is handling it with the class that he is known for. Class that many might do well to learn from. I know, another "remarkable" post here. But I assure you, my last one on this subject.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cardus

"[u]ntil shown otherwise" indicates reading or seeing a published account of a positive result, an account that is known to the general public, of which you are a part. Until that point, you "expect that trainers are operating on the up and up."

That belies something that you posted here previously (perhaps during a Marty Wolfson thread): "I know which trainers are" taking advantages or edges. (I don't recall whether you used advantage or edge, so I will not quote it.) This implies that you are privy to information that is not provided to the general public (i.e., a published account of a positive test), or to information that is not revealed through testing but is incriminating by word of mouth around the backstretch that indicates to you that a trainer is taking "an edge" or an "advantage."

What I quoted in the first paragraph is incongruous to what I posted in the second paragraph.

This post has about as much chance of being left standing as Tiger has of banging Elin tonight

[MISTERGEE]

by giving him 30 days who is going to be scared off of cheating by that?

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by MISTERGEE

by giving him 30 days who is going to be scared off of cheating by that?

You are very right about that. It is down-right silly.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by MISTERGEE

by giving him 30 days who is going to be scared off of cheating by that?

A nice little vacation before Gulfstream cranks up.

If I could get 30 days and slide right back into my job after those 30 days, I'd start injecting myself.

[Sightseek]

Look, new policies.

Kentucky adopts new test rules
By Matt Hegarty
LEXINGTON, Ky. - The Kentucky Racing Commission adopted new regulations Tuesday that will drop a requirement to test all race winners for illegal drugs in favor of a new policy that focuses on horses whose performances are suspicious.

Under the new regulations, all winners will be sent to the test barn for the collection of blood and urine samples, along with at least one other horse in the race selected by the three stewards. However, if the winner is among the race's favorites and performed according to its recent past performances, its post-race sample will only be tested 50 percent of the time, while the samples from the horse or horses selected by the stewards will always be tested.

Stewards are supposed to select the horses based on several criteria, including aberrant wagering patterns, performances that are significantly better or worse than a horse's odds or past performances would indicate, or intelligence from racetrack security, according to Dr. Mary Scollay, the commission's equine medical director.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/109277.html

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Look, new policies.

Kentucky adopts new test rules
By Matt Hegarty
LEXINGTON, Ky. - The Kentucky Racing Commission adopted new regulations Tuesday that will drop a requirement to test all race winners for illegal drugs in favor of a new policy that focuses on horses whose performances are suspicious.

Under the new regulations, all winners will be sent to the test barn for the collection of blood and urine samples, along with at least one other horse in the race selected by the three stewards. However, if the winner is among the race's favorites and performed according to its recent past performances, its post-race sample will only be tested 50 percent of the time, while the samples from the horse or horses selected by the stewards will always be tested.

Stewards are supposed to select the horses based on several criteria, including aberrant wagering patterns, performances that are significantly better or worse than a horse's odds or past performances would indicate, or intelligence from racetrack security, according to Dr. Mary Scollay, the commission's equine medical director.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/109277.html

from this article:

"If you have a horse that has won the last five starts, went off at 2-5, and distanced the field by 20, is that horse of interest in terms of medication issues?" Scollay said after the meeting. "The form is consistent, so there's probably another horse in the race that is, say, 100-1 who finished second, and that horse is of much more interest from a testing standpoint."

So basically if you medicate them from the get-go and they stay the same you're safe?