Barry Irwin Speaks Out

Pot. Kettle.

[ELA]

Not that it matters, and it's certainly not the case here, however, if you give your horses to a "high profile" or "high percentage" trainer, who has a perfectly clean record, no positives, overages, etc. -- there will always be a group of people who scrutinize, critisize, and some who "just know" that they are "doing something" or along those lines.

Eric

Eric you constantly do this. You don't get questioned about your ultra positive/naive view of racing one tenth of what you give to the doubters. It's ponderous.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Eric you constantly do this. You don't get questioned about your ultra positive/naive view of racing one tenth of what you give to the doubters. It's ponderous.

I have no idea what you are even taling about. Regardless, take it anyway you like it. IMO it is not ultra positive, nor naive in light of the reality. It doesn't have to be your reality, but that doesn't make it so and the same goes for me. Also, as far as the doubters, who are you talking about?

Eric

[blackthroatedwind]

Apparently sane and logical now passes for naive.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Apparently sane and logical now passes for naive.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I bet you don't play well in the sandbox.

The word disingenuous comes to mind. Are you just being contrarian for the fun of it?

There are very few in this business who can be absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing. And quite frankly criticism of people who are suspect of what's going on in this industry is not helping the game correct itself.

Originally Posted by ELA

I have no idea what you are even taling about. Regardless, take it anyway you like it. IMO it is not ultra positive, nor naive in light of the reality. It doesn't have to be your reality, but that doesn't make it so and the same goes for me. Also, as far as the doubters, who are you talking about?

Eric

...

Not that it matters, and it's certainly not the case here, however, if you give your horses to a "high profile" or "high percentage" trainer, who has a perfectly clean record, no positives, overages, etc. -- there will always be a group of people who scrutinize, critisize, and some who "just know" that they are "doing something" or along those lines.

Eric

The doubters are the disgruntled fans you were referring to.

I just don't understand why a thread about an owner hating on other owners has to include a captain obvious moment to remind everyone "well...well some of the fans are bad too!"

Are they as bad as the trainers who break the rules repeatedly?

Which is more important in the grand scheme of things...getting the bad apples out of the training profession or getting the disgruntled fans out?

I'd really like to know your and any other owner or trainers opinion.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I wouldn't think twice about employing a trainer - like a Scott Lake - who is certified pond scum - if it was strongly in the best interest of my horses future form.

However, I could never pretend that a guy like Lake isn't anything but bad for the game.

For Irwin to give another owner a lecture about which trainers not to employ because they seek advantages - it would be like Sumitas starting a thread giving Merasmag's a lecture about how crappy her posts are.

[Indian Charlie]

Pond scum?

That's expensive stuff man. Check out this pond scum for $220 a pound!

http://www.e3live.com/all_products/e...dfa1e1dc536ad7

I would hardly associate a trainer like Lake with this stuff!

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

...



The doubters are the disgruntled fans you were referring to.

I just don't understand why a thread about an owner hating on other owners has to include a captain obvious moment to remind everyone "well...well some of the fans are bad too!"

Are they as bad as the trainers who break the rules repeatedly?

Which is more important in the grand scheme of things...getting the bad apples out of the training profession or getting the disgruntled fans out?

I'd really like to know your and any other owner or trainers opinion.

First, it's not disgruntled fans I am referring to -- it's much more than that. I'm a disgruntled fan, but I am still a fan. Always will be. I am a disgruntled owner, but I will always stay in the game because I have a passion for it. I've seen and fought for many changes and improvements in this great sport. However, some of what I've seen is counterproductive. You solve your alleged problem today and then you find out your problem wasn't exactly what you thought it was. It's not about "some fans are bad too" -- not at all. I was and am a fan as well, before I was in the business. Always will be. However, all fans complain, ask questions, have answers, etc. -- differently.

Second, wherever you got the idea I am looking to get bad fans out of the business, and that takes precedent over getting rid of bad apples, very simply put, you couldn't be more wrong. If that's what you get from my commentary than one, you are taking commentary out of context (and content), and two, you're entitled to think that's my motive, but you are wrong.

Your observation that this was about owners hating other owners -- that's where I see a problem, and as I've said you'll never satisfy everyone. I'll read and listen to what Barry Irwin has to say, and I'll read the comments that he's a hypocrite. However, how does that problem get solved? He should only give his horses to the moral majority or mass accepted trainer. Hey, I am all for him giving horses to Chuck Simon, and I am sure plenty of people here would love that. But does that solve our problem? Yes, for one owner it might appear to. Obvious? Sure. But obvious doesn't seem to get much credibility.

Eric

Originally Posted by ELA

First, it's not disgruntled fans I am referring to -- it's much more than that. I'm a disgruntled fan, but I am still a fan. Always will be. I am a disgruntled owner, but I will always stay in the game because I have a passion for it. I've seen and fought for many changes and improvements in this great sport. However, some of what I've seen is counterproductive. You solve your alleged problem today and then you find out your problem wasn't exactly what you thought it was. It's not about "some fans are bad too" -- not at all. I was and am a fan as well, before I was in the business. Always will be. However, all fans complain, ask questions, have answers, etc. -- differently

I didn't ask for it to be solved immediately.

Yes I know all fans are not the same too.

Originally Posted by ELA

Second, wherever you got the idea I am looking to get bad fans out of the business, and that takes precedent over getting rid of bad apples, very simply put, you couldn't be more wrong. If that's what you get from my commentary than one, you are taking commentary out of context (and content), and two, you're entitled to think that's my motive, but you are wrong.

Well if you would like to go into greater detail I'd be glad to read it.

Originally Posted by ELA

Your observation that this was about owners hating other owners -- that's where I see a problem, and as I've said you'll never satisfy everyone. I'll read and listen to what Barry Irwin has to say, and I'll read the comments that he's a hypocrite. However, how does that problem get solved? He should only give his horses to the moral majority or mass accepted trainer. Hey, I am all for him giving horses to Chuck Simon, and I am sure plenty of people here would love that. But does that solve our problem? Yes, for one owner it might appear to. Obvious? Sure. But obvious doesn't seem to get much credibility.

Eric

I don't see any of these horses going to Chuck Simon. The majority of horses are going to a select few and there are some in that group who are getting bad press.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

...



The doubters are the disgruntled fans you were referring to.

I just don't understand why a thread about an owner hating on other owners has to include a captain obvious moment to remind everyone "well...well some of the fans are bad too!"

Are they as bad as the trainers who break the rules repeatedly?

Which is more important in the grand scheme of things...getting the bad apples out of the training profession or getting the disgruntled fans out?

I'd really like to know your and any other owner or trainers opinion.

And, I agree with much of the commentary about pots and kettles. What I find more troubling is how successfully defense is put forward and accepted. Pletcher's positive was OK to many, but Asmussen's was not -- because his was a billion times more than Pletcher's or the legal limit. OK, I'll buy that. But like I've always said, it's not black and white and for those who think it is they are very mistaken.

No, I don't think there is credibility in Barry's arguement. Of course he does. And while I think something must be done about various aspects of Rick Dutrow, throwing him out of the business for clenbuterol positives is not one that I am in support of. Because after Dutrow, it's then one of the good guys who plays the game the right way, still succeeds, and someone else wants them gone.

Go to zero tolerence, take away ALL bute, clenbuterol, legal drugs, etc. -- and I think you will see the "real" cheaters have an even bigger edge.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

And, I agree with much of the commentary about pots and kettles. What I find more troubling is how successfully defense is put forward and accepted. Pletcher's positive was OK to many, but Asmussen's was not -- because his was a billion times more than Pletcher's or the legal limit. OK, I'll buy that. But like I've always said, it's not black and white and for those who think it is they are very mistaken.

No, I don't think there is credibility in Barry's arguement. Of course he does. And while I think something must be done about various aspects of Rick Dutrow, throwing him out of the business for clenbuterol positives is not one that I am in support of. Because after Dutrow, it's then one of the good guys who plays the game the right way, still succeeds, and someone else wants them gone.

Go to zero tolerence, take away ALL bute, clenbuterol, legal drugs, etc. -- and I think you will see the "real" cheaters have an even bigger edge.

Eric

Pletcher's positive was OK to whom? Those like Barry Irwin who want to rationalize their continued support for him, and those in the media who have long characterized him as a "golden boy." I'm not aware of many others who bought his contamination defense. In fact, there recently was a discussion on this board in which participants were laughing about how ridiculous Pletcher's explanation was - that basically the laws of physics ceased to exist in his barn, and that's how Tales of Glory tested positive for mepivicaine.

Not everything is black and white, but neither is everything gray, and that's where we seem to have problems here. For example, it appears that it is "black and white" to all that we need to cleanse the "bad apples" from the sport. But while Coach Pants and DrugS state that it is "obvious" that Scott Lake falls into the category of "bad apple" (I agree with them), you disagree, for other "obvious" reasons.

Finally, I don't think many are advocating that we take away all legal drugs. But the way you present the choice, we should just accept the status quo.

Originally Posted by ELA

And, I agree with much of the commentary about pots and kettles. What I find more troubling is how successfully defense is put forward and accepted. Pletcher's positive was OK to many, but Asmussen's was not -- because his was a billion times more than Pletcher's or the legal limit. OK, I'll buy that. But like I've always said, it's not black and white and for those who think it is they are very mistaken.

There are differences but some of these guys are repeat offenders in numerous states. There needs to be a central racing authority that has universal rules for offenses. If it takes 5 years it is worth the effort to keep the federal government from getting their incompetent hands on it.

Originally Posted by ELA

No, I don't think there is credibility in Barry's arguement. Of course he does. And while I think something must be done about various aspects of Rick Dutrow, throwing him out of the business for clenbuterol positives is not one that I am in support of. Because after Dutrow, it's then one of the good guys who plays the game the right way, still succeeds, and someone else wants them gone.

He would be long gone already with a national racing authority.

Originally Posted by ELA

Go to zero tolerence, take away ALL bute, clenbuterol, legal drugs, etc. -- and I think you will see the "real" cheaters have an even bigger edge.

Eric

I'm not sure about taking away all drugs. Just not running under some. No EPO.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by ELA

Not that it matters, and it's certainly not the case here, however, if you give your horses to a "high profile" or "high percentage" trainer, who has a perfectly clean record, no positives, overages, etc. -- there will always be a group of people who scrutinize, critisize, and some who "just know" that they are "doing something" or along those lines.

Eric

And then there are others that like to bury their heads so far into the ground.

Gosh, I guess if someone says they didn't do something they obviously did, they must be innocent!

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

And then there are others that like to bury their heads so far into the ground.

Gosh, I guess if someone says they didn't do something they obviously did, they must be innocent!

Now that's naive, LOL. If you draw that conclusion from my comments than best of luck in your interpretation.

Eric