Biancone: 1 year suspension

[Honu]

Originally Posted by saratogabrit

I find it ironic that he's been banned just at the time of year of some of his greatest wins. 1983 and 84 Arc wins and 1st past the post in 85 but placed 2nd.

I hope that all of his current staff are certainly deemed unsuitable to have his licence.

Surely one way to stamp this out would be a ban and a bar on all current employees and fairly recent past employees holding the licence

In Kentucky the horses cannot be tranfered to any Asst. or family member period , the owners will have to find new trainers. Ca. has something like this in the works also but I dont think its in stone yet .

[MisterB]

wow

[whodey17]

The vet got 5 years. I know the 1 year is standard, but I think the committee could move away from the standard penalty. What is the point in the 1 year suspension. I say give the person who violates the rul with a 5 year ban. We are the only country who puts up this crap in our sport.

[geeker2]

So how does it work..he can serve it when he wants? so he gets to run in the BC? what a joke....

[Riot]

Originally Posted by geeker2

So how does it work..he can serve it when he wants? so he gets to run in the BC? what a joke....

No. Steve posted the links so you can read them.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. Steve posted the links so you can read them.

Don't be fooled...as soon as he appeals the decision..he will be golden till well after the BC.....

[Unstable]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Don't be fooled...as soon as he appeals the decision..he will be golden till well after the BC.....

According to the article in the DRF, "An appeal will likely delay the onset of the decision until at least after the Breeders' Cup on Oct. 26 and Oct. 27 at Monmouth Park. If the suspension is upheld, Biancone will not be able to "financially benefit" from his stable while suspended, under new state regulations passed earlier this year in Kentucky." I'll have to read the other articles and the decision, but this makes me wonder whether he gets to collect any BC winnings if the suspension is upheld.

I don't think he should have been able to serve all his suspensions concurrently. He also received another 1-year suspension and a 90-day suspension. Even though his suspensions arise from the same restricted conduct, I think that should he should have been ordered to serve all his suspensions consecutively.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Don't be fooled...as soon as he appeals the decision..he will be golden till well after the BC.....

So ??? I'm sure Kee got it done as fast as they could. He's entitled to appeal. What matters to me is if he's at next year's BC.

I don't understand why folks are so appalled "he only got a year". Didn't anyone read, during the past month, what the various penalties "could" be for finding cobra venom in a tackroom? I'm glad he got the max under the rules.

I just hope other tracks honor it once it's done. I hope other tracks don't give him stalls.

And I'm glad Qasicobra finished out of the money today - otherwise I'd have to be convinced there isn't any justice at all, even from the karma gods.

[Riot]

The vet got 5 years. I know the 1 year is standard, but I think the committee could move away from the standard penalty.

Well, they've adopted legal rules and penalties and outlined them so people know what will happen if they violate those rules. They can't violate their own rules, and arbitrarily disregard them.

I want to see what other racing jurisdictions honor the KY penalty. I hope they all do. And I want to see what CA will do regarding his previous violation, given with the caveat he not get in trouble again.

And there is no reason that any track can't refuse to give him stalls.

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by whodey17

The vet got 5 years. I know the 1 year is standard, but I think the committee could move away from the standard penalty. What is the point in the 1 year suspension. I say give the person who violates the rul with a 5 year ban. We are the only country who puts up this crap in our sport.

The vet supposedly has more complete and specific knowledge of the effects of using these medications, given his education and training. Moreover, his profession is supposed to have the goal of maintaining health in the animals, not giving them 'quick fixes' so they can run. The vet takes an oath like a doctor and should be a first line of defense against crooked trainers wanting an edge. I would guess that is the reason they came down hard on the vet (who can go work on show horses or cows, if he wants to now. He won't be totally out of business, like Biancone will be.)

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

The vet supposedly has more complete and specific knowledge of the effects of using these medications, given his education and training. Moreover, his profession is supposed to have the goal of maintaining health in the animals, not giving them 'quick fixes' so they can run. The vet takes an oath like a doctor and should be a first line of defense against crooked trainers wanting an edge. I would guess that is the reason they came down hard on the vet (who can go work on show horses or cows, if he wants to now. He won't be totally out of business, like Biancone will be.)

They both deserve to be totally out of business.

[parsixfarms]

Did the comments attributed to Alan Foreman in yesterday's story in DRF strike anyone else the wrong way? Here's a guy who is retained (and very well-paid) counsel to many of the horseman's organizations around the country - and he's out there defending a guy like Biancone with "the dog ate my homework"/"I thought it was flaxseed oil"-type excuses and suggesting that a mere fine was in order in this case. His comments are an insult to those that believe drugs are a serious problem in the sport. I don't begrudge anyone making a living, but it seems to me that, given the vast number of honest horseman that Mr. Foreman represents, Biancone was not a client that he needed to take on.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Did the comments attributed to Alan Foreman in yesterday's story in DRF strike anyone else the wrong way? Here's a guy who is retained (and very well-paid) counsel to many of the horseman's organizations around the country - and he's out there defending a guy like Biancone with "the dog ate my homework"/"I thought it was flaxseed oil"-type excuses and suggesting that a mere fine was in order in this case. His comments are an insult to those that believe drugs are a serious problem in the sport. I don't begrudge anyone making a living, but it seems to me that, given the vast number of honest horseman that Mr. Foreman represents, Biancone was not a client that he needed to take on.

A lawyer will say anything to get his client off...but I find his anti-KHRA stance ironic in many ways...

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Did the comments attributed to Alan Foreman in yesterday's story in DRF strike anyone else the wrong way? Here's a guy who is retained (and very well-paid) counsel to many of the horseman's organizations around the country - and he's out there defending a guy like Biancone with "the dog ate my homework"/"I thought it was flaxseed oil"-type excuses and suggesting that a mere fine was in order in this case. His comments are an insult to those that believe drugs are a serious problem in the sport. I don't begrudge anyone making a living, but it seems to me that, given the vast number of honest horseman that Mr. Foreman represents, Biancone was not a client that he needed to take on.

I found Foreman's comments interesting, but not surprising at all. An attorney is an advocate, and the advocacy comes from who is paying his/her bill.

This case has far reaching ramifications, not only vis a vis the crime and suspension, but also in the enforcement of a new set of rules as it pertains to the financial aspects. That will be extremely interesting and we've seen a few instances similar to this. A trainer gets suspended and based upon the terms and conditions of the suspension, there is nothing that speaks to communicating with owners, collecting monies from training, etc. On the other hand, we've seen a trainer get suspended who received an additional suspension because he communicated with owners (I don't know if the financial aspects had anything to do with this case).

However, be that as it may, the blame -- whether it be in this case or otherwise -- is not clearly defined or quantifiable. Personally, I feel that if you don't have proof -- clear and concrete -- then you can blame nobody other than those who broke the law; and in this case it's the trainer and the vet.

Eric