|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
10-27-2006, 11:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
I own horses. I know mistakes happen. But let's be honest here, positives can be avoided. And if it cost the trainer more, than more attention would be paid to the medications given to horses. The real issue here in my mind is exactly stated at the top of the thread. Any horse who wins and tests positive stole money from the patrons/bettors.
This game is struggling enough to need slots in most states to keep it running. This is not the heyday of horseracing. The sport needs to do everything in its power to not alienate the fans. I think most of us take the ups and downs and grey areas of racing as the way it works. But the occasional patron/bettor may never bet again if a horse who beat him is positive. He/she would say it is fixed. There is enough shady things that go on a a track (fixes, incorrectly reported workouts, running horses into shape, etc...) to not tackle one that can be easily monitored and avoided. If you are a trainer who is so sloppy as to not care about a huge fine, then pay it. Otherwise, pay more attention to the medications given to your horses or be out of the game. There is no shortage of owners or aspiring trainers. 
|
|
#2
10-27-2006, 12:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
If the racing fan were serious about cleaning up the game then surely the first place to start would be complaining to race management to get the grounds security to actually do some work and boot out the degenerates who come to the track and bet $1 exacta boxes with their welfare check and get on their soapbox about what's wrong with the game when their $6 will pay doesn't come through. Quote:
It's difficult to impose these strict fines and suspensions when the testing isn't fullproof and EPO testing isn't in the equation.
|
|
#3
10-27-2006, 01:26 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by paisjpq : 10-27-2006 at 06:09 PM.
|
|
#4
10-27-2006, 01:44 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that these types of people are the backbone of the sport shows the hypocrisy of those who cry for stiffer punishments for positive tests. They can't afford to be at the track but they're pretty much allowed to act like fools as long as they spend money. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by paisjpq : 10-27-2006 at 06:09 PM.
|
|
#5
10-27-2006, 02:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
PP-
Here's the thing. Without patrons, there is no horseracing for the average joe owner to get squeezed out of. So, either get the so-called non-performance enhancing substances off the list or monitor all drug administration closer. I actually think the percentage of out right cheating trainers is very low. I think the percentage who put careful administration of drugs high on their list of things to do is also very low. In any event, the game needs to be cleaned up a bit and the current penalties give trainers almost no reason to do it themselves. -TF Last edited by paisjpq : 10-27-2006 at 06:08 PM.
|
|
#6
10-27-2006, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What I find interesting is that the harness business has made a lot more progress than the thoroughbred business. Look at what NJ did with the recent people they caught. Monster fines, 10 year suspensions, potential lifetime suspensions -- and this is not the first time they've done it. They did it years ago as well. Have they totally cleaned up the game? No of course not.
However, on the other side of the coin, I do think there is a bit of the "martyr" element here. It's not all the time but it's there some of the time. People who often cannot compete look to blame others instead of themselves. Now I am not saying that is a major part of it, but I will say this -- I am not going to name names (so don't bother asking), however, I have a trainer in NY who has trained several horses for us over the course of the past 5 years or so. The vet bills with this trainer are minimal compared to other trainers we've used. They are minimal compared to friends of mine who have horses with other trainers. . Now this is a high-percentage trainer who shoots really well. Very strong. But -- he races his horses where they can win. He is very aggressive when placing his horses. He gives his horses the time needed and doesn't push the envelope in racing or over-racing them. And when a horse can't cut it or isn't competitive, he tells us so and tells us it's time to move on. There are trainers in this business who produce results and don't rely on the vet to be the major contributory factor in producing those results. Eric
|
|
#7
10-28-2006, 02:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's pretty obvious that some trainers are "stretching the rules" as far as they possibly can.
I can buy the fact that one trainer might have a great streak, or even has a knack for claiming horses, like Frankel used to back in the day, and be 30% or so first off the claim. I cannot buy the fact that there are 2-3 of these 30-50% first off claiming trainers at almost every racetrack today. To me, that statistic by itself is the most obvious in finding who the most likely "rule stretchers" are. Now some people will say they are just better trainers, read the condition books better, and train for more aggressive owners who aren't afraid to lose their horses via a lower claiming price. That is believable to me and I can buy it to a point. Where my suspicion starts to arise again is when I see many of the old school trainers struggle today. These are the trainers who for a VERY long time were successful and seemed to have an idea of how to train consistent winners. Now they can barely hit the board, even though they still get quality stock. Why is this happening?? Are these trainers getting old, maybe. Did they forget how to train, I doubt it. Are they less likely to "stretch the rules" and/or put their owners and the owners property in compromising positions, IMO, absolutely.
|
|
#8
10-27-2006, 02:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.facebook.com/cajungator26
|
Hybrid Mode
