Second O'Neill horse tests positive

slotdirt · #1 09-09-2010, 08:40 AM

You know, I know the comments on those Paulick articles can be shrill, but someone mentioned that a trainer with a positive during the calendar year of a Breeders Cup shouldn't be allowed to run at the Breeders Cup doesn't sound like an altogether horrid idea.

Thunder Gulch · #2 09-09-2010, 09:32 AM

What's it going to take to stop this guy?

#3 09-09-2010, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

What's it going to take to stop this guy?

A massive earthquake that has a disdain for fat guys with horrible fashion sense.

GPK · #4 09-09-2010, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

A massive earthquake that has a disdain for fat guys with horrible fashion sense.

Wouldn't that eliminate Chuck too?

#5 09-09-2010, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPK

Wouldn't that eliminate Chuck too?

Chuck wouldn't be caught dead in that liberal cesspool.

Cannon Shell · #6 09-09-2010, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Chuck wouldn't be caught dead in that liberal cesspool.

Scav · #7 09-09-2010, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

You know, I know the comments on those Paulick articles can be shrill, but someone mentioned that a trainer with a positive during the calendar year of a Breeders Cup shouldn't be allowed to run at the Breeders Cup doesn't sound like an altogether horrid idea.

I agree

MaTH716 · #8 09-09-2010, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

You know, I know the comments on those Paulick articles can be shrill, but someone mentioned that a trainer with a positive during the calendar year of a Breeders Cup shouldn't be allowed to run at the Breeders Cup doesn't sound like an altogether horrid idea.

Yeah good idea, but realistically would any horses just be transfered to an assistant trainers name?

philcski · #9 09-09-2010, 10:36 AM

Anybody ever wonder why Lava Man ran so poorly outside of California?

I don't.

slotdirt · #10 09-09-2010, 10:52 AM

I would like to apologize for constructing the worst sentence ever in my previous post.

slotdirt · #11 09-09-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Yeah good idea, but realistically would any horses just be transfered to an assistant trainers name?

Not if you ban the horse entirely, no?

MaTH716 · #12 09-09-2010, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Not if you ban the horse entirely, no?

Do you think that's fair to the owners, who might not necessarily know what's going on inside the barn?
Granted you would think that it would hurt some trainers, who might lose some buisness from owners not wanting to roll the dice. But I really think that it's more of a punishment for an owner/investors of the sport who spend a lot of money on a stable only to be banned from one of the biggest race days of the year.

MaTH716 · #13 09-09-2010, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerS

Think owner needs to suffer consequences.

Maybe they will think twice about who they hire.

If they want to go the win at all costs approach then they are taking a risk

Maybe they will stop buying horses and investing in the game as well. I'm not saying all of them are innocent when it comes to these issues. But it's very tough to punish the people who make the sport go round.

slotdirt · #14 09-09-2010, 11:52 AM

It's a tough question. Are you really penalizing owners if they hire a schyster as their trainer? When you hire a guy like O'Neill or Dutrow, don't you kind of know what you're getting yourself into as an owner?

MaTH716 · #15 09-09-2010, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

It's a tough question. Are you really penalizing owners if they hire a schyster as their trainer? When you hire a guy like O'Neill or Dutrow, don't you kind of know what you're getting yourself into as an owner?

Fair question, but you would think that owners know what kind of trainer they were hiring. Also it seems that any time a trainer starts running good, people start whispering (usually unfairly) about the possible juice.

How do you feel about a guy like Pletcher?

Cannon Shell · #16 09-09-2010, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Maybe they will stop buying horses and investing in the game as well. I'm not saying all of them are innocent when it comes to these issues. But it's very tough to punish the people who make the sport go round.

If they continue to condone repeat offenders by sending thier business to them than we probably would be better off without them. I see your point and can certainly agree that we don't need to be chasing new investors off but the manner in which repeat offenders are operating has a lot of current owners thinking of scaling back or getting out.

And seriously the BC threat only effects a small number of participants in the game. There needs to be a deterrent for the entire sport, not just the big leagues.

MaTH716 · #17 09-09-2010, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If they continue to condone repeat offenders by sending thier business to them than we probably would be better off without them. I see your point and can certainly agree that we don't need to be chasing new investors off but the manner in which repeat offenders are operating has a lot of current owners thinking of scaling back or getting out.

And seriously the BC threat only effects a small number of participants in the game. There needs to be a deterrent for the entire sport, not just the big leagues.

But isn't the sport condoning them first as trainers, by not barring and banning them from tracks for serious offenses? If the sport did the right thing as far as cheaters go, then owners would be forced to move their horses to other barns. But as long as these guys are in buisness, they will attract horses with their gaudy stats and big races under their belts.

MaTH716 · #18 09-09-2010, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Tough one. Obviously, the Wait a While case was a high profile one, but how many other obvious infractions has he had?

Not sure, but obviously he's one of the first names that comes up when the whispers begin. I just brought him up in reference to you calling the two other guys schysters.
I'm really not a big Dutrow fan and as far as O'Neill goes, I just don't follow the circuit close enough to have an opinion. Regurdless, I'm in no position to accuse or spread rumors of anybody cheating. I do believe that if I did own a horse, I would have no issue with it being in the Pletcher barn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerS

Not to diminish the owners, or the challenges they face, but lets not forget we are the ones who make the sport go round. Any and all of us who make a bet. We fund the sport.

They kind of go hand in hand. But it already seems like the betting intrests of the sport gets the short end of the stick on a consistent basis and the majority of them continue to come back. Not sure that would happen if it was the owners who were consistently getting penalized especially for things that they might not even know about. I think that they would just take their ball and go home.

slotdirt · #19 09-09-2010, 01:58 PM

Yeah, I agree that if I were an owner, I'd love to have a horse in the Pletcher barn. The problem is that aside from like Mandella and one or two others, who is really clean out there anymore in terms of zero drug infractions? Anybody? Sheppard maybe?

SCUDSBROTHER · #20 09-09-2010, 02:20 PM

See, it's a bit different out here. One of the reasons they play paddy cake with them (out here) is the lack of horses. O'neil knows that. His brother knows that. This eats away at the power of the authorities out here.