Report: Dutrow Facing Drug Positive

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

If you want owners to act with moral conscience, than you must have integrity in the other aspects of the game.

Why? It's like saying that because there may be crooked lawyers in Washington, then I have the right to steal from my clients here in Albany? I fail to see the connection. Either you have a moral conscience, or you don't.

[freddymo]

I agree with Eric on this one.. How is an owner to know a trainer is currently cheating.. If I give a horse to trainer am I there to see what the trainer is doing? And why is it that a trainer can't change there training or cheating ways? In all walks of life people are given multiple chances to correct the mistakes that they have been made accountable for..

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I agree with Eric on this one.. How is an owner to know a trainer is currently cheating.. If I give a horse to trainer am I there to see what the trainer is doing? And why is it that a trainer can't change there training or cheating ways? In all walks of life people are given multiple chances to correct the mistakes that they have been made accountable for..

I'll agree that you can't always know what your trainer is doing. And people should be given a chance to learn from thir mistakes, but how many chances to they get, and "I don't mean one of those major-league baseball Steve Howe kind of last chances."

According to ARC records, Dutrow has now been fined/suspended four times in the past year alone (two Bute overages in FL, suspension in NJ stemming from the Wild Desert affair, and now the most recent incident in FL). It doesn't look like he's changed his ways. Yet, has a single major owner of his taken a horse from him because of this? If not, they condone/tolerate the behavior, plain and simple.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I'll agree that you can't always know what your trainer is doing. And people should be given a chance to learn from thir mistakes, but how many chances to they get, and "I don't mean one of those major-league baseball Steve Howe kind of last chances."

According to ARC records, Dutrow has now been fined/suspended four times in the past year alone (two Bute overages in FL, suspension in NJ stemming from the Wild Desert affair, and now the most recent incident in FL). It doesn't look like he's changed his ways. Yet, has a single major owner of his taken a horse from him because of this? If not, they condone/tolerate the behavior, plain and simple.

If the industry allows the trainers to practice there trade then the industry is ok that they served the proper penalty and should be allowed to earn a living again.. what is worse Florida, NY or KY allowing Dutrow to continue to train or owners giving him horses? If he couldn't train in the state the owners can't give him horses right?

Look I wouldn't let Dutrow train my horse but I really think I would let Biancone.. I maybe crazy but I think Biancone is worth the risk

[Handicappy]

Originally Posted by freddymo

If the industry allows the trainers to practice there trade then the industry is ok that they served the proper penalty and should be allowed to earn a living again.. what is worse Florida, NY or KY allowing Dutrow to continue to train or owners giving him horses? If he couldn't train in the state the owners can't give him horses right?

Look I wouldn't let Dutrow train my horse but I really think I would let Biancone.. I maybe crazy but I think Biancone is worth the risk

Are you serious? Biancone has been banned from two countries. Plus do you know what Cobra Venum does? It deadens the nerve endings that allow a horse to experience pain. In other words, a horse won't be able to take the necessary precautions once they feel pain. He is far more of a problem than Dutrow. Far worse. And he cann't even take responsiblity. He lets the Vet take the hit.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Handicappy

Are you serious? Biancone has been banned from two countries. Plus do you know what Cobra Venum does? It deadens the nerve endings that allow a horse to experience pain. In other words, a horse won't be able to take the necessary precautions once they feel pain. He is far more of a problem than Dutrow. Far worse. And he cann't even take responsiblity. He lets the Vet take the hit.

I am not defending what he did..Just suggesting that I would let him train my horse if I had stock that was worthy of his talent. I wouldn't allow him to juice my horse! I would just tell him no juice.. People make mistakes and come to tink of it I think nerve blocks are given to horses in non threaten locations all the time to prevent them from experiencing discomfort in a non strategic area.. Let's say a horse broke his tail what is the harm in deadening the nerves and running him?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I am not defending what he did..Just suggesting that I would let him train my horse if I had stock that was worthy of his talent. I wouldn't allow him to juice my horse! I would just tell him no juice.. People make mistakes and come to tink of it I think nerve blocks are given to horses in non threaten locations all the time to prevent them from experiencing discomfort in a non strategic area.. Let's say a horse broke his tail what is the harm in deadening the nerves and running him?

You think owners are always in on that decision?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

If the industry allows the trainers to practice there trade then the industry is ok that they served the proper penalty and should be allowed to earn a living again.. what is worse Florida, NY or KY allowing Dutrow to continue to train or owners giving him horses? If he couldn't train in the state the owners can't give him horses right?

Look I wouldn't let Dutrow train my horse but I really think I would let Biancone.. I maybe crazy but I think Biancone is worth the risk

The difference is that you are mixing the "right" to train versus the owners "choice" to have him train. One is a legal issue, the other an issue of ethics. The "industry" which often means the state racing commission has to follow the letter of the law. An owner has free choice.

What is the risk of having Patrick train for you to you? Other than possible lung cancer if you hang around him there is none?

[ELA]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I agree with Eric on this one.. How is an owner to know a trainer is currently cheating.. If I give a horse to trainer am I there to see what the trainer is doing? And why is it that a trainer can't change there training or cheating ways? In all walks of life people are given multiple chances to correct the mistakes that they have been made accountable for..

Listen, I am not playing patron saint, naive little boy, etc. on this. People who know me know that I've had horses with Scott Lake and they call me a hypocrite, an immoral person, someone who doesn't care, and guess what -- even worse! LOL. So be it.

I've never once defended Scott Lake. He's had multiple positives. He has taken his days, paid his fines, and that's that. Do not ask for an industry where someone gets a lifetime ban because of multiple clenbuterol positives (or some other legal drug). You will not have an industry.

Remember the ol' story -- they came for the Jews and I didn't say anything. They came for the Catholics and I didn't say anything. They came for the Protestants and I didn't say anything . . . then they came for me, and there was no one left to say anything.

Eric

[Scav]

Oh this conversation just hit another level with the religion addition.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by ELA

Listen, I am not playing patron saint, naive little boy, etc. on this. People who know me know that I've had horses with Scott Lake and they call me a hypocrite, an immoral person, someone who doesn't care, and guess what -- even worse! LOL. So be it.

I've never once defended Scott Lake. He's had multiple positives. He has taken his days, paid his fines, and that's that. Do not ask for an industry where someone gets a lifetime ban because of multiple clenbuterol positives (or some other legal drug). You will not have an industry.

Remember the ol' story -- they came for the Jews and I didn't say anything. They came for the Catholics and I didn't say anything. They came for the Protestants and I didn't say anything . . . then they came for me, and there was no one left to say anything.

Eric

Scott Lake is a tough one to defend Eric perhaps a small bit more of discretion could be utilized

[horseofcourse]

Is Scott Lake a Jew, Catholic, Protestent, or Muslim??

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Is Scott Lake a Jew, Catholic, Protestent, or Muslim??

An atheist.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

So, now the trainers of the 1st AND 2nd place finishers in the Kentucky Derby have Clen overages announced in the last week?

This is obviously all the work of PETA. Hard to believe that modest guys like Dutrow and Jones who were just so successful 10 years ago have ever taken any edge.

[ELA]

It's not about defending. It's simple -- there's a rule. The rule was broken and that's that. Period.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

I've never once defended Scott Lake. He's had multiple positives. He has taken his days, paid his fines, and that's that. Do not ask for an industry where someone gets a lifetime ban because of multiple clenbuterol positives (or some other legal drug). You will not have an industry.

This is just not true. If I recall correctly from the numbers that were recently provided by the Racing Commissioners to Congress, only about 10% of all licensed trainers have had a drug positive called against them. There are plenty of men and women who can take care of the horses for those who don't know how to abide by the rules.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

This is just not true. If I recall correctly from the numbers that were recently provided by the Racing Commissioners to Congress, only about 10% of all licensed trainers have had a drug positive called against them. There are plenty of men and women who can take care of the horses for those who don't know how to abide by the rules.

In my opinion you are collapsing the shield and the sword. A drug positive does not make a person a cheater in my mind. It is not absolute. I was not inferring the industry would disappear.

As far your last sentence, I don't understand what you are saying.

Eric

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by ELA

In my opinion you are collapsing the shield and the sword. A drug positive does not make a person a cheater in my mind. It is not absolute. I was not inferring the industry would disappear.

As far your last sentence, I don't understand what you are saying.

Eric

Are you in favor of extending the absolute lability rules to owners?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Are you in favor of extending the absolute lability rules to owners?

I saw your thoughts on that a few days ago. At some point in the process, it may be worth considering, but how can you punish an owner whose trainer may go against their instructions and drug anyway? Look, if Cannon got busted for something severe, I would 1) be shocked as hell, but 2) accept zero blame for the incident. Now, if I choose to stay with said trainer and there is another severe offense, then that may be a different story

[ELA]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Are you in favor of extending the absolute lability rules to owners?

Enforcable ones? Yes, absolutely. I have said that numerous times. Delaware tried to do this but added a stipulation (or more) that was not practical nor enforcable -- downright not fair.

The trainer resposibility rule operates within the confines and parameters of an industry. You cannot ask me as owner or expect me to control who my suspended trainer does business with -- Delaware tried to do this. You cannot expect me as an owner to control who my suspended trainer talks to on the phone. That's on the trainer -- NOT ME! You can only expect and control what the trainer does -- or penalize him/her for what they did and weren't supposed to.

Expect something realistic of me and pass it. Make it feasible, practical and most of all address the other parts of this problem. Don't neglect the rest of the problem and just blame it on the owners.

If you think this problem is exclusively the fault of the owners, then you are sadly mistaken or ignorant.

Eric