|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
11-13-2007, 01:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
I'm just amazed. I really am surprised to read horseplayers defending cheating that is routinely stealing, yes stealing, money from our pockets.
The naivite around here is really surprising. 
|
|
#2
11-13-2007, 01:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#3
11-13-2007, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Byk is as loyal and as good a friend as someone can have. That's admirable.
|
|
#4
11-13-2007, 01:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I guess in hindsight I don't have much ammo here. I am not educated enough to open my mouth on this. I just get the feeling that there is an alternate motive by others here(obviously not you) sometimes and feel the need to step up and defend. I call it the Oracle Syndrome
|
|
#5
11-13-2007, 01:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think a lot of us are just fed up with the rampant cheating in the game and have pretty much developed our own zero tolerance approach. Perhaps it isn't completely fair, but many people may feel that even if a trainer wasn't specifically cheating with a specific horse, if he was caught doing it in one situation, there is more than a reasonable chance he has done it in others.
Is this totally fair to the party involved? Probably not. However, it's a lot less unfair than trainers taking illegal edges to win races and effectively cheat the betting public out of their money. To me, this is the most important issue.
|
|
#6
11-13-2007, 01:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#7
11-13-2007, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
11-13-2007, 01:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Would an owner defend his guilty trainer so strongly if he owned the horse that came up positive ?
Many here criticized those owners that so strongly defended Patrick Biancone, and more recently criticized Maggi Moss. Is this not the same situation. Blackthroatedwind is clearly correct. If you aren't totally against anyone cheating, you condone it. What are the odds that someone is caught the first time they do something?
|
|
#9
11-13-2007, 01:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
If put in the same situation, would you cheat? If the answer is no then why would you defend this?
Either A) Sciacca's barn knowingly did this B) The investigator set them up C) The investigator doesn't know how to identify horses and made a mistake Feel free to tell me if there is another option Out of those three options which seems more likely?
|
|
#10
11-13-2007, 01:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
as for which is most likely, i have no way of knowing, as i don't know much about the trainer in question. was the horse in question tested? was it proven that a horse about to race had been milkshaked?
|
|
#12
11-13-2007, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
thing is, an accusation isn't proof. if a horse who ran the day before was getting treated, that's not cheating. if they were milkshaking a horse about to race, obviously it is. if the latter is the case, then i think it's a shame that it took four years to have timer served. i'm totally against cheating. if they feel the case was proven, then sciacca should rightfully serve the time.
|
|
#13
11-13-2007, 05:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I hear people say, "That horse must have been drugged" for an unexpected performance. To even barely support that argument, there has to be a reality check - there has to actually be a drug or concoction that could have been given to result in that performance. Do I think there are trainers that amazingly and regularly move up horses, not due to hay, oats and training? Of course I do. I'm not ignorant.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#14
11-13-2007, 01:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
what would this have to do with the current discussion? being able to name banned substances and who tests for what doesn't change the FACT that Gary was found guilty of milkshaking....whether he did it or not should not even be up for discussion.....if the trainer in question was Durtrow who here would defend him? the naivitee that andy refers to implys that some posters here, including perhaps the host of the board are blindly assuming that because the guy says he didn't do it (since he is friend of the "team")then he didn't....obviously those investigating this issue felt otherwise...hence the guilty finding. I happen to like Gary personally...but I still think he did it.
__________________
 Seek respect, not attention.
|
|
#15
11-13-2007, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#16
11-13-2007, 03:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Are there even enough benefits to be gained from milkshaking to even risk being caught? Seems pretty stupid to me.
|
|
#17
11-13-2007, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Don't forget, when this incident took place very few people were being caught for milkshaking, as testing only began in the last two years.
|
|
#19
11-13-2007, 06:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
|
|
#20
11-13-2007, 06:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Obviously many here seem to have an agenda against Dee Tee Stable using Gary Sciacca as a trainer.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
