Second O'Neill horse tests positive

[slotdirt]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[slotdirt]

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

[Cannon Shell]

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]

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

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.

they should have far harsher penalties, with loss of licenses after a certain amount of infractions. the shame is that you have trainers, such as biancone or asmussen, that serve lengthy suspensions, and come right back and pretty much pick up where they left off-or even add more business because of their violations. i guess the 'what, you think i'm stupid' defense really must work. it might help if a many-times over offender had to pay a ton of money to re-license. hell, look how hard pval had it getting back to riding, and he was only drugging himself! he has to submit to regular testing (and rightfully so), why shouldn't a repeat offending trainer? tracks don't need the trainers, they need the owners and bettors. what good does it do the sport to play pattycake with cheating trainers?

[Danzig]

just read this, on doug o'neill....and btw, he does indeed use the 'am i stupid' defense.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep...imers-20100909

one excerpt:

...Arthur going on to name the top five trainers in the game, not one of them cited for such a violation the last five years.

"Compare that to the present situation," Arthur says, knowing O'Neill has been cited four times in the last three years.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

they should have far harsher penalties, with loss of licenses after a certain amount of infractions. the shame is that you have trainers, such as biancone or asmussen, that serve lengthy suspensions, and come right back and pretty much pick up where they left off-or even add more business because of their violations. i guess the 'what, you think i'm stupid' defense really must work. it might help if a many-times over offender had to pay a ton of money to re-license. hell, look how hard pval had it getting back to riding, and he was only drugging himself! he has to submit to regular testing (and rightfully so), why shouldn't a repeat offending trainer? tracks don't need the trainers, they need the owners and bettors. what good does it do the sport to play pattycake with cheating trainers?

Field size. He has a lot of horses. That's why he gets away without much punishment. What happened to the field sizes when his barn didn't run horses at the end of the HWD meet?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

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.

Define "the sport".

Then think of how ineffective the current rules/system is.

Then think about why that is so hard to change, not only from a logistical standpoint of herding 40+ states to do the same thing but the legal challenges that any rules/law need to withstand.

Penalizing the horse/owner accomplishes a lot of what you are looking to do and is possible to do.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Define "the sport".

Then think of how ineffective the current rules/system is.

Then think about why that is so hard to change, not only from a logistical standpoint of herding 40+ states to do the same thing but the legal challenges that any rules/law need to withstand.

Penalizing the horse/owner accomplishes a lot of what you are looking to do and is possible to do.

I agree that's a huge hurdle for the sport to get across. Obviously if racing could have some sort of uniformed rules governed by an independent body, things might actually get done.

But I think punishing owners in a sport where most of them are losing money already is the wrong way to go about it and would eventully lead to the sport being in more dire staits then it's in already.

Chuck, what would you like to see the owners do? and what sort of penalties would you like to impose on them?

[MaTH716]

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.

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]

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?

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

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?

Maybe I'm naive, but I want to believe that the majority of trainers are playing by the rules.
But as crazy as it sounds, it's something that I really don't give much thought to. It's out of my control, so I just play the races accordingly. It's just another handicapping angle that you have to factor in.

[slotdirt]

Oh, believe you, me, it doesn't effect how I play a race in slightest. It just seems to me that every major trainer out there has had some sort of reprimand in their careers, even guys like Mott. I was literally trying to think of some very high profile trainers who've never been fined and/or suspended for some sort of infraction of this sort.

[reese]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

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?

Mott...McGaughey..Tagg...

[SCUDSBROTHER]

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.

[richard]

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

The owners do suffer consequences in that the purse money must be returned on a positive test .