On a related note, personally, I can certainly understand why Andy wouldn't want to give his opinions -- or knowledge -- on the subject, here, in this type of open forum. Yes, I too, very much miss his contributions, but this is a different topic and a monster of a different nature and breed.
Be that as it may, some people will always be unhappy with the way something like this was handled. However, I don't think this is about interviews, comments, articles, etc. Nobody here knows the real story, and by that I mean the evidence, data, etc. that NYRA reacted to. I do think this is very different than the Baeza situation, completely different. The actions taken in each situation were based upon completely different things as well.
Yes, innocent until proven guilty. However, this is not based upon legal proceedings, and actions in courts of law -- not of course until a certain point in the process. I would think the trainer in question has recourse and could easily file a motion and receive a stay pending "his day in court" so to speak. Unless he doesn't have recourse, vis a vis the stall agreement. I haven't read it and I don't apply for stalls.
I view this as very simple -- if the person denied stalls feels they've been wronged or victimized, and they've done nothing wrong, and there is no way that NYRA has any proof to the contrary -- great, take a trip to your attorney and look at your options for recourse. Is that fair? It cuts both ways, but that is the system we have. Does it cost money? Sure does.
As far as what access to betting information NYRA has, I don't know. However, I think NYRA taking the bull by the horns and stating their position from the outset probably puts them on the offensive. For those of you who are on the backstretch everyday, a few times a week, etc. -- you know the rumors are like horse sh1t -- it's everywhere! People have been talking about this incident well before it hit the DRF and the rumors have already gone through several mutations. This decision was made well before the so called announcement. It wasn't ad hoc or off the cuff. That doesn't make it right or valid, but a racing commission, body, authority has certain rights and capabilities -- when you sign a stall agreement. I don't remember everyone getting ready to rally behind Michael Gill, although that too is a completely different issue.
I don't know what evidence they have, but some might think that NYRA is looking at this very closely and with a sharp eye of scrutiny. Others might think they would pull the trigger haphazzardly and without valid cause. Whether they have enough, I guess we'll soon see.
Eric
|