CDI suspends Saffie Joseph indefinitely

[freddymo]

I am no lover of Saffie; I think he is a cheat that said it's becoming ridiculous. How the heck do you Saffie someone without disclosing exactly why? Just because isn't OK. I get it; the guy is a total cheat over vets his horses and pushes the envelope, so aren't you supposed to catch him first or have proof BEFORE you Saffie him?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I am no lover of Saffie; I think he is a cheat that said it's becoming ridiculous. How the heck do you Saffie someone without disclosing exactly why? Just because isn't OK. I get it; the guy is a total cheat over vets his horses and pushes the envelope, so aren't you supposed to catch him first or have proof BEFORE you Saffie him?

I agree on the surface suspending him for what happened this week is silly. But they must have something. Have to. I’m not going to give any attention to Twitter rumors but it doesn’t sound good.

[moses]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I am no lover of Saffie; I think he is a cheat that said it's becoming ridiculous. How the heck do you Saffie someone without disclosing exactly why? Just because isn't OK. I get it; the guy is a total cheat over vets his horses and pushes the envelope, so aren't you supposed to catch him first or have proof BEFORE you Saffie him?

There is a concept in tort law called “res ipsa loquitur.” It translates to “the thing speaks for itself.” It covers the inference of negligence in the absence of direct proof. It seems like a good concept to apply here.

Otherwise healthy horses generally don’t just die. Sure, it can happen. Or you find out there is an underlying, undiagnosed health issue that contributed to death. But generally, it doesn’t happen.

In short, I think it is appropriate to indefinitely suspend a trainer under the circumstances until more information can be obtained to figure out what’s going on. A guy like Saffie shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt. (Also, I just wanted to drop a Latin phrase to sound smart.)

[freddymo]

It's tough to defend someone who you don't want to defend. If they have some smoking gun, I hope they ban him forever. CD had better get that information out Sunday after the race. I get not releasing it before the race to protect the money flowing into CD's bottom line this weekend, but it had better come out Sunday or Monday latest.

I just heard Saffie on Nick Luck's podcast; he seemed pretty convincing, whatever that is worth

Due Process still matters to me, even for those I do not want to defend.

[moses]

Originally Posted by freddymo

It's tough to defend someone who you don't want to defend. If they have some smoking gun, I hope they ban him forever. CD had better get that information out Sunday after the race. I get not releasing it before the race to protect the money flowing into CD's bottom line this weekend, but it had better come out Sunday or Monday latest.

I just heard Saffie on Nick Luck's podcast; he seemed pretty convincing, whatever that is worth
Due Process still matters to me, even for those I do not want to defend.

I agree. He should get an opportunity to hear the evidence against him, respond to it, and present his case, but that doesn’t mean he has to be allowed to run horses at CDI tracks in the meantime. Depending on the circumstances, our criminal justice system allows people to sit in jail while they await trial.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by moses

I agree. He should get an opportunity to hear the evidence against him, respond to it, and present his case, but that doesn’t mean he has to be allowed to run horses at CDI tracks in the meantime. Depending on the circumstances, our criminal justice system allows people to sit in jail while they await trial.

Respectfully isn't it supposed to be the other way around? They should be required to present the evidence to support their decision. I think you are innocent until you arent

Good luck playing today

[moses]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Respectfully isn't it supposed to be the other way around? They should be required to present the evidence to support their decision. I think you are innocent until you arent

Good luck playing today

Good luck to you as well.

My biggest issue with what Churchill did is that they are imposing this penalty on Saffie but I’m sure ignore other mysterious circumstances. It’s simply arbitrary decision making at the whim of the powers that be.

[ne to socal]

Originally Posted by moses

Good luck to you as well.

My biggest issue with what Churchill did is that they are imposing this penalty on Saffie but I’m sure ignore other mysterious circumstances. It’s simply arbitrary decision making at the whim of the powers that be.

The fact that it comes on the heels of other horse deaths on that turf course gives it the whiff of being a distraction.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Respectfully isn't it supposed to be the other way around? They should be required to present the evidence to support their decision. I think you are innocent until you arent

Good luck playing today

Suspended pending investigation happens in business all the time. CDI couldn't possibly be expected to gather all the evidence and present it in the time frame they had. You seem to be suggesting they let him run and take the chance that his horses die during the Derby. Am I reading that wrong? It would be the final nail in the coffin.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by jms62

Suspended pending investigation happens in business all the time. CDI couldn't possibly be expected to gather all the evidence and present it in the time frame they had. You seem to be suggesting they let him run and take the chance that his horses die during the Derby. Am I reading that wrong? It would be the final nail in the coffin.

Reading it wrong. The horses were withdrawn already without exception so no horses were dying on the track so the suspension is about what potentially defaming a guy? What was the goal of the suspension since his horses aren't running? As Privman reported on Steve's show, CD hadn't even updated the Vet list in a week, especially the TAP horses don't you find it a bit ironic that team transparency and team above it all elect to be tough guys and strict when they think it works for them? Again I am no lover of the Saffinator and when they have evidence, I get throwing the book at him, but IMO, this is not good business practice and BAD for everyone.

[theguarantee]

Originally Posted by moses

A guy like Saffie shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt. (Also, I just wanted to drop a Latin phrase to sound smart.)

Worked on me. Also, while I tend to be on the freddymo side of things and think the deterioration of due process in this country is a real issue, in this instance I completely agree with your sentiments Moses...for what little that is worth.