The Importance of Being Earnest
 

My question deals with integrity.

I'm curious as to what you all think...

... NOT about the Eclipse Awards, not about Zenyatta, Blame and Goldikova, not about Life at Ten... only this.

However, the question remains: should individuals be excluded from consideration for the year-end honors if any of their activities in the past 12 months reflect poorly upon the sport -- in spite of otherwise award-worthy accomplishments for the season?

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...ory?id=6015947

Thoughts?

I don't know the answer, but maybe we need another caption contest.

ummm, how would Pletcher know to scratch Life at 10?
or is it because he entered the loser?

We should just award every category to team Zenyatta and get it over with

Would Velasquez ever get another mount for the connections if he refuses to ride a horse that a trainer sent out in the Breeder's Cup??!!

As far as we know, the horse was and is structurely sound and fit - just wasn't feeling it that day - whatever it was... reation to meds, feed alergy, etc....

that said, the the horse passed the vet check - TWO vet checks actually - in the paddock and at the gate - so the jock took the gate under direction of the trainer,and promptly eased the horse when he knew she was feeling stressed. He did precisely what any jockey would do, and probably does at least once or twice every racing day in this country.

His biggest crime was that happened on one of the biggest days in NA racing, and there happened to be a microphone in his face on his way to the gate.

If you want to vilify Pletcher, that's another argument entirely, but at the end of the day, the stewards and the on track vet make the call to scratch a horse if they feel it shouldn't run - not the jock.

The jock has the right to refuse a mount, not the responsibility to make that call.

Yes.

Honestly who cares? The majority of the of people who watch this sport are nothing more than gamblers. That's all it comes down to. I think they honestly couldn't give a damn about anything execpt when is the post time for the next race going off somewhere.

I do and I don't meaning I don't really care about the awards but since they're given out why should this kind of thing happen?

Historically, the majority has decided not to make an issue of ongoing or recent violations or incidents. In 2004, Pletcher received a 45-day suspension and $3,000 fine when the prohibited substance mepivacaine was found in one of his starters in August at Saratoga Race Course. He also received his first Eclipse. In 2008 when voters named Asmussen Outstanding Trainer, he was under investigation for a positive of the anesthetic lidocaine in one of his runners at Lone Star Park. He continued to make headlines in 2009 while fighting a six-month suspension and $1,500 fine for that situation (legal battles for which, according to attorney Karen Murphy, are "still pending" at this date), yet he took home his second straight award at the season's end.

OKay next time anyone sees some pics of race goers with cows on their heads or hats that look like they were made out of giant pieces of fruit and concrete and tanks and such we'll do it again! :p

I don't know G. I consider myself a loyal fan of the game. But honestly, I really just couldn't give a damn. I couldn't care if they were eligible or not. If you really want to hurt these people, then you would enforce real penalties with real fines. Not letting them participate in what is really only a big popularity contest is nothing more than a farce. Also it would be nothing more than a gigantic insult for the people who play the game by the book. Basically these awards for the majority of fans are a non-event.

I can't agree with this. If anyone wants a certain amount of integrity in this game, it is, whom you call "gambler". Those I know who invest their time, handicapping acumen and money in the endeavor to make a profit in Racing are no more "gamblers" than those who delve into the stock market and neither of these people want to be cheated.

And this I do agree with.

I think it's a very grey area. Obviously we all want to believe that we are betting on what is a level playing field. But honestly do you think that is the truth?
Has there ever been a time where you saw a horse that you really didn't like based on his PP's, but felt you must include just because of the trainer? It's sad to say, but I really believe that bettors (and I know I have done it on many occasions) include the "this guy has the juice thinking" into their handicapping. Unfortunately it's something that has to be done. What consolation is it to the bettors if a trainer gets a positive weeks after the guilty horse knocked you or someone else out of their pick 4?
The bottom line is, there are only two options players have. Either find another type of gambling or just go with the flow and handicap accordingly.

My disagreement with you, Math, was when you insinuated "gamblers...... don't care" about the integrity of the game & only care about the next posttime. I think we (and I'm including you) want to see a certain degree of honesty and , more importantly much harsher penalties for repeat drug abusers. It's a sad state of affairs when we have to abandon any handicapping principles & include the "juice" trainer in our picks. I, personally try to avoid betting races in which certain "supertrainers" have an entry; and definitely avoid betting tracks where these same type of trainer tend to congregate.

I'll admit that it was a poorly worded post as I was refering to the post season awards which the thread was started about.

Of course I want the game to be fair. But once again, where's the integrity for the bettor when a horse tests positive a week after you ripped up your tickets? Sure the purse money goes to the right person, but do you honestly care about that? If you had a bet on Life at Ten in the BC, would it make you feel better if someone gets suspended? Me personally, no. The boat has sailed and the damage has been done already. My tickets are dead and I moved on to the next race. Does that mean I don't care about the integrity of the sport? I don't think so, I just consider it one of the pitfalls of the game that I have no control over.
Unfortunately while I could 1000% wrong I really believe that many other people that play the sport think the same way.

Mathy that was very well put...


Were you under the influence of alcohol?




if so carry on








if not









have a drink!









Thud or Duht

:tro::tro:

Awards mean nothing to me. I won't care who is named trainer, jockey, horse whatever of the year one bit.

But

I agree that people that have been found guilty of something should be ineligible for an award.

THis was a great post and yeah you're absolutely right.

Mathie I don't sit here thinking about this stuff too much. I don't play every single day but I do enough to focus on that, on playing, and not trying to come up with all the things that are wrong with the sport and need to be changed, etc.

There's one line here that I keep coming back to...

You said you consider it one of the pitfalls of the game that you have no control over.

We all talk about changes... drugs and suspensions and what a joke it is and fixing the allegedly dying sport.

Maybe this is why nothing really changes (?).

Maybe it's too big of a monster and no one knows where or how to start and there are politics involved...

I'm not accusing you of being apathetic... I'm accusing no one and everyone. I'm accusing the people who do have some amount of power and who send out emails and compose their thoughts and then go back to doing nothing about any of it.

Does anything actually ever get done? Are there ever real changes?

This is a silly popularity contest as you said but if the whole thing needs to be overhauled then this does as well.

Maybe it all needs to start with a small thing (like this?).

We've all written and or read posts and pieces about the idea of a governing body with a spokesperson who is well respected (cough cough The Mig)...

If it ever were to happen (not holding my breath) how about a timeframe with changes in no particular order but with an end date, and something like this as the beginning... to show they mean business.

They ARE just awards but the thing is the people who are up for them want them. You'll not see any Brando-esque speech come Monday night.

Starting small.

One final thought / question (not just for you... for you in general)...

When Michael Gill won did it make you sick at all?

I'm with Sightseek and Wingnut. There should be exclusions.

Sorry G, I didn't mean to hijack the thread and take it away from your original topic. I just tried to answer honestly and it just seems like it changed the direction of your thread. But it is kind of interesting the more I think about it and I am curious if other people think like me (I'll admit it's definitely a little warped) reguarding some of the issues.

I'm probably the wrong person to ask, as far as what changes need to be made and how to implement them. I'm basically a weekend warrior (probably even less than that) that enjoys handicapping, watching and wagering. I never expect to get rich playing and on the same extent I'll never go broke chasing a horse or sequance. I just don't concern myself (because I consider them parts/pitfalls of the game) with issues that I have no control of or care about (i.e. Takeout, Drugs etc....). Maybe I'm sticking my head in the sand, but while I understand there are some real issues that need to be looked at, who am I to be the one to worry about it? I don't have many opportunites to play, so when I get some free time I want to play period. I'll admit that it's a very poor attitude, but I really think it's shared by the majority of people who wager on the sport. The sport needs to clean up, govern and regulate itself because the majority of players just want to gamble and nothing else.

Like I said, I think the only people who care about these awards are the owners/breeders and the jocks to a lesser extent. Obviously it could be a big deal for a trainer. But say an offense came up and a trainer was given the choice of penalty. He could forfiet his opportunity to participate in the post season awards or he would be ineligible to enter a horse in the Kentucky Derby, which way do you think he/she would go? There's no decision to be made. So basically what I'm saying is that small is usually a joke of little or no impact. Just like when a trainer gets days and the horses are entered in the name of the assistant trainer. Yeah another great penalty.

Finally why should I care if Michael Gill won? Aren't the people who voted from inside the industry? I honestly didn't give it a second look.