Second O'Neill horse tests positive - Page 2

#21 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.

Scav · #22 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 · #23 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 · #24 09-09-2010, 10:36 AM

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

I don't.

slotdirt · #25 09-09-2010, 10:52 AM

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

slotdirt · #26 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 · #27 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 · #28 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 · #29 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 · #30 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?

slotdirt · #31 09-09-2010, 12:11 PM

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

richard · #32 09-09-2010, 12:27 PM

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

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

MaTH716 · #33 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 · #34 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 · #35 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.

MaTH716 · #36 09-09-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

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 · #37 09-09-2010, 02:49 PM

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.

MaTH716 · #38 09-09-2010, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, but when you think of the amount of horses that some of these guys have and with them being spread out around the country isn't it possible to believe that sometimes accidents/mixups happen? Now, I'm not talking about cobra venom in a cabinet somewhere, but just general human error.

Like I said, maybe I'm just naive and don't want to believe the problem is a rampant as some people think. Or maybe, it's that deep down I have accepted it as being part of the game and at this point I really don't give it much of a second thought. Because even though it does affect me, there is nothing I can do about it.

Cannon Shell · #39 09-09-2010, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

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

Riot · #40 09-09-2010, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Yeah, but when you think of the amount of horses that some of these guys have and with them being spread out around the country isn't it possible to believe that sometimes accidents/mixups happen?

Sure. And I think the majority of everyday drug positives are just that.

But in this particular case we are talking repeated violations of TCO2 levels that are set high enough so that there is no way, naturally, for 99.7% of the horses in the population to obtain that level.