Biancone agrees to a softer ban

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

That's pretty pathetic and telling why the game is where it is.

I have hammered this point to anyone who would listen but people still want to blame the authorities. There is a limit to what commissions and authorities can do when the owners are willing to turn a blind eye towards a guy getting caught with a class 1 drug in the barn, ordered by his defacto private vet. Not to single out Finley but he is a member of many governing boards including the Breeders Cup board and his attitude is typical of many on these boards, in effect the people who run the game. That Tom Ludt voted against the settlement was funny seeing as his trainer is Steve Assmussen. At least Dell Hancock has been consistent.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Are you stating that the owners are demanding that trainers use this drug? More specifically, or you stating that Biancone's owners are demanding that he use this drug?

He's stating that the owners say possession is acceptable, even if use was never proven. So I can get caught with 10 kilos of coke, but as long as I'm not using it, that's OK?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

He's stating that the owners say possession is acceptable, even if use was never proven. So I can get caught with 10 kilos of coke, but as long as I'm not using it, that's OK?

You are back!

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are back!

I probably shouldn't post on this topic after drinking about 2 bottles of French wine on the flight back and zero sleep.

This is horseplop.com, right?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I probably shouldn't post on this topic after drinking about 2 bottles of French wine on the flight back and zero sleep.

This is horseplop.com, right?

Oui

[Bobby Fischer]

C'est la vie...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Are you stating that the owners are demanding that trainers use this drug? More specifically, or you stating that Biancone's owners are demanding that he use this drug?

No, I dont see where you are getting that but the owners dont seem to mind when they do use it. It is like when baseball players used to police the game on the field. Preen or strut after a HR and you paid the price...so guess what? Guys didn't do it...at least more than once. Same thing here. If owners would require a trainer to live up to some form of standard concerning illegal drugs then trainers would be a lot more cautious and would not be as brazen as some of these guys are. They know that the owners will run back to them so they 'push the envelope' and then cry foul when they get caught.

[Danzig]

http://bc.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=41417

transferred his horses.


wonder if the refrigerator went along as well...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I should have typed that I place the responsibility first on the trainers, and then secondly on the owners, who, like you typed, don't mind it when trainers use drugs like this.

Shouldn't the trainer say to the owner, "I'm not using (fill-in-the-blank) on your horses?" In other words, shouldn't the horse's primary caretaker set the standard, or say, "I'm not going to cheat?"

I dont follow the logic. The standard should be set by the owners because they are the ones who ultimately pay the bills and call the shots. The horses are their property. What goes into them is their business and if they choose to look the other way or accept illegal substances being used then they are as responsibile.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont follow the logic. The standard should be set by the owners because they are the ones who ultimately pay the bills and call the shots. The horses are their property. What goes into them is their business and if they choose to look the other way or accept illegal substances being used then they are as responsibile.

Chuck, it's not that simple and all of us who are in the business know that. I agree there must be accountability -- across the board. I agree there must be checks and balances. However, don't think for a second that anyone -- trainer or owner -- gulity or innocent -- would lay down. Personally, I'll discuss and debate the issue with you over a few beers anytime. I know we agree with, probably, 95% of the issues. I say debate in a friendly, constructive way.

However, if you think that a racing commission would shy away from litigating with a trainer, what about an owner -- pick a name -- who has 50 head or so, a major metropolitan law firm on retainer, and an amount of resources that only they could decide to throw at something like this.

Let's try and hold MSG or Dolan responsible for the NY Knicks roster, or Steinbrenner for that matter. Of course it's different, but look at the applicable parallel. Look at what they tried to do in Delware and before the agreement got out of the blocks, it was amended and revised -- because it wasn't going to fly an inch of the ground.

I am all for owner accountability -- 100% so. I am all for "not looking the other way" so to speak. However, you are not going to hold an owner liable for day to day operations when they delegate same to an independent contractor. If the owner knows, is involved, etc. -- then 100% they are in as much as anyone else. But if not, well, that same dog won't hunt. The court of public opinion -- here or anywhere else -- can be judge and jury. It's an interesting discussion, but that's about all it is.

BTW, give me a shout over the weekend if get a chance -- totally unrelated topic (I mean unrelated to this of course, LOL).

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, it's not that simple and all of us who are in the business know that. I agree there must be accountability -- across the board. I agree there must be checks and balances. However, don't think for a second that anyone -- trainer or owner -- gulity or innocent -- would lay down. Personally, I'll discuss and debate the issue with you over a few beers anytime. I know we agree with, probably, 95% of the issues. I say debate in a friendly, constructive way.

However, if you think that a racing commission would shy away from litigating with a trainer, what about an owner -- pick a name -- who has 50 head or so, a major metropolitan law firm on retainer, and an amount of resources that only they could decide to throw at something like this.

Let's try and hold MSG or Dolan responsible for the NY Knicks roster, or Steinbrenner for that matter. Of course it's different, but look at the applicable parallel. Look at what they tried to do in Delware and before the agreement got out of the blocks, it was amended and revised -- because it wasn't going to fly an inch of the ground.

I am all for owner accountability -- 100% so. I am all for "not looking the other way" so to speak. However, you are not going to hold an owner liable for day to day operations when they delegate same to an independent contractor. If the owner knows, is involved, etc. -- then 100% they are in as much as anyone else. But if not, well, that same dog won't hunt. The court of public opinion -- here or anywhere else -- can be judge and jury. It's an interesting discussion, but that's about all it is.

BTW, give me a shout over the weekend if get a chance -- totally unrelated topic (I mean unrelated to this of course, LOL).


Eric

Eric
I certainly hold Dolan responsible for the mess that is the NY Knicks. He, like Stienbrenner and TB owners, ultimately call the shots. If Dolan hires an idiot and allows that idiot to continue to destroy the team then HE is responsible, not the idiot. The action of Dolan in hiring and retaining the idiot directly caused the issue. By not getting rid of the idiot when he clearly is not qualified to do his job , Dolan becomes responsible. By the same token if owners allow trainers to repeatedly break rules, especially in a serious manner, yet continue to employ those trainers with no reprecussion, they are responsible. When the illegal actions of a trainer do not lead to any decrease in business then why would you expect any change in behavior? If your dog craps in the house and you continue to make excuses for him, will he stop? Frightengly enough it is that simple. If you as the owner draw the line, trainers will either toe the line or lose the owner. When guys who are part of the 'ruling class' of the sport hire guys with a checkered past and then rush to his defense when he gets caught redhanded, it makes the sport a joke. If we were a major sport and had more intense media coverage, guys like Finley and Lizza especially would be getting lit up. That they just continue with the business as usual routine is a really bad sign.

I am not suggesting that the commissions hold the owners directly responsible. That is a fight that would be too difficult to accomplish. In fact I believe that it is not the job of the commissions to tell owners what to do. But what I am saying is that if the racing indusrty really wants to fix things then they can do it, pretty simply. If 100 of Terry Finleys investors suddenly walked out if Biancone remained associated with them do ya think he'd still be training for them? If a trainer knew they were going to lose horses, a signifigant number, do you think that they would be more careful? Less willing to push the envelope?

Look for the lead investigator in the Biancone case to "retire" by spring of 2008.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Eric
I certainly hold Dolan responsible for the mess that is the NY Knicks. He, like Stienbrenner and TB owners, ultimately call the shots. If Dolan hires an idiot and allows that idiot to continue to destroy the team then HE is responsible, not the idiot. The action of Dolan in hiring and retaining the idiot directly caused the issue. By not getting rid of the idiot when he clearly is not qualified to do his job , Dolan becomes responsible. By the same token if owners allow trainers to repeatedly break rules, especially in a serious manner, yet continue to employ those trainers with no reprecussion, they are responsible. When the illegal actions of a trainer do not lead to any decrease in business then why would you expect any change in behavior? If your dog craps in the house and you continue to make excuses for him, will he stop? Frightengly enough it is that simple. If you as the owner draw the line, trainers will either toe the line or lose the owner. When guys who are part of the 'ruling class' of the sport hire guys with a checkered past and then rush to his defense when he gets caught redhanded, it makes the sport a joke. If we were a major sport and had more intense media coverage, guys like Finley and Lizza especially would be getting lit up. That they just continue with the business as usual routine is a really bad sign.

I am not suggesting that the commissions hold the owners directly responsible. That is a fight that would be too difficult to accomplish. In fact I believe that it is not the job of the commissions to tell owners what to do. But what I am saying is that if the racing indusrty really wants to fix things then they can do it, pretty simply. If 100 of Terry Finleys investors suddenly walked out if Biancone remained associated with them do ya think he'd still be training for them? If a trainer knew they were going to lose horses, a signifigant number, do you think that they would be more careful? Less willing to push the envelope?

Chuck, I think we will end up disagreeing, and of course that's OK. It's a good thing. Perhaps I am talking about practicality and not a court of public opinion or something similar so to speak.

I am also not talking about stupidity. Hiring and retaining an employee was not my point at all. I was more talking about liability. You are not going to hold George Steinbrenner legally liable and responsible -- and penalize and punish him -- because one of his players takes and gets caught using steroids. UNLESS, he knew about it and turned a deaf ear, or helped, aided, and so on. UNLESS he is found to be a party to the crime, or made the drugs available, and so on. UNLESS he was negligent, and so on . . . and so on and so on. I am certainly not going to argue the parallel because none exists.

I thought my example was applicable, but with analogies there is always a great deal of interpretation. I was merely trying to show what I thought was a direct comparison. Do the laws and legislation exist in our sport and business? If they do not exist, then all that is left is what? Self governing or self policing?

Like I said Chuck, I agree, owners must be held responsible. However, it must be done in not only the proper way, but in a prudent and legal way as well. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- in isolation, I am not pulling horses from a guy who gets a clenbuterol positive. Not one, not two and not three. Now, a hard core, designer, exotic, etc. drug -- that's a completely different issue of course. In this specific case, I move my horses -- period. But I am not pulling horses because of what "everybody knows" so to speak and of course that's not the case here.

Anyway, we agree on the destination. We may just disagree on the journey to get there.

Catch up later.

Eric

[Danzig]

owners in other sports are held accountable, so why not in horse racing? how many times has mark cuban paid a fine now? why should horse racing be different?

if the racing bodies gave real punishment, and i think the biancone one year suspension is a step in the right direction, than that would help to achieve a cleaner sport. there should be a limit however to how many times a trainer can get in trouble before he is banned for good. lifetime bans exist in other sports, horse racing needs to do the same thing. it's for the good of the industry--the sport won't suffer if certain trainers are gone, but it will certainly suffer if they remain, and the cheating continues.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, I think we will end up disagreeing, and of course that's OK. It's a good thing. Perhaps I am talking about practicality and not a court of public opinion or something similar so to speak.

I am also not talking about stupidity. Hiring and retaining an employee was not my point at all. I was more talking about liability. You are not going to hold George Steinbrenner legally liable and responsible -- and penalize and punish him -- because one of his players takes and gets caught using steroids. UNLESS, he knew about it and turned a deaf ear, or helped, aided, and so on. UNLESS he is found to be a party to the crime, or made the drugs available, and so on. UNLESS he was negligent, and so on . . . and so on and so on. I am certainly not going to argue the parallel because none exists.

I thought my example was applicable, but with analogies there is always a great deal of interpretation. I was merely trying to show what I thought was a direct comparison. Do the laws and legislation exist in our sport and business? If they do not exist, then all that is left is what? Self governing or self policing?

Like I said Chuck, I agree, owners must be held responsible. However, it must be done in not only the proper way, but in a prudent and legal way as well. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- in isolation, I am not pulling horses from a guy who gets a clenbuterol positive. Not one, not two and not three. Now, a hard core, designer, exotic, etc. drug -- that's a completely different issue of course. In this specific case, I move my horses -- period. But I am not pulling horses because of what "everybody knows" so to speak and of course that's not the case here.

Anyway, we agree on the destination. We may just disagree on the journey to get there.

Catch up later.

Eric

Eric I agree about the legal liability. Legal should be a moot point. But when guys make statements like Lizza did......do you really expect the people who bet on the sport to take all these "clean up the sport efforts" seriously? At some point the owners have to take the responsibility and make the call. I mean hell, racing was alive and well in this country before Pat Biancone showed up. We should be self regulating, not relying on racing commissions and legal gray areas. If a guy get caught redhanded, string him up. If a guy gets a clembuterol positive, different story...

[Danzig]

but the owners are a problem in that they ignore what's in front of them, and keep their horses with a repeat offender trainer. how many times now has biancone been in trouble? banned in hong kong, out a year now here--yet terry finley says no sweat, i'll keep sending him horses. that is a problem, and it's a problem all over, with owners who either don't know, or don't care, or choose to ignore a problem right in front of them--because they care more about that winners circle photo then they do about the horse they're in there with! ego over the safety of horse and rider.
curlin, taken from a trainer who got him noticed, and given to the care of an almost two dozen offense trainer. why?! and given to him by two owners who supposedly want everything in this sport to be aboveboard--an oxymoron in action.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I understand that owners are culpable, of course, but when you typed, "still think that the owners are not the problem in this game," it looked like you were placing the emphasis on them, as opposed to the trainers.

By my thinkng, I wouldn't use cobra venom on a Thoroughbred and if an owner demanded that I use it, I'd walk away from the owner, that's all. And if I couldn't compete without using drugs other than what is permitted, then I'd find another profession.

I guess my logic is skewed, but I think about it from the people closest to caring for the horse, and work outward.

I am placing the emphasis on the owners because in the end THEY call the shots, not the trainers. I highly doubt any owner directly instructs a trainer to use an illegal substance. However when they continue to employ them after repeated violations aren't they in effect saying that that behavior is ok? Of course the trainers are to blame directly but the attitude of owners like the 2 quoted in the story are the reason that this will continue. The owners have the power in this business, not the trainers.