Pletcher BC positive; Hearing pending

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and people wonder why some cheat-look at the constant harping on pletcher right now. maybe he wasn't clean, and is now-if so, good for him. or maybe he was clean all along, but had better stock. or maybe he sold his soul, and then changed his mind. who knows?
but i think it's bizarre that he gets tons of grief, with what-two positives now, one for an antiboiotic, the other for a level now legal? meanwhile, the man with 13 X's more the positives is said to be the eclipse fave, and no one says a thing.

He's held to his own standard because he's the poster boy for racing. If he walked through a crowd at Saratoga 90% of racing fans would know who he is. Gary Sherlock has won just as many G1's this year as Todd but no one would know who he is. It'd be like a revelation that Tiger Woods uses steroids or illegal golf balls.

You know that Assman is universally reviled on this board and pretty much everywhere else.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by philcski

He's held to his own standard because he's the poster boy for racing. If he walked through a crowd at Saratoga 90% of racing fans would know who he is. Gary Sherlock has won just as many G1's this year as Todd but no one would know who he is. It'd be like a revelation that Tiger Woods uses steroids or illegal golf balls.

You know that Assman is universally reviled on this board and pretty much everywhere else.

Good analogy, if Tiger Woods didn't win a major all year but won a bunch of lesser tournaments, people would ask the same thing what is wrong with the guy?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by CSC

Good analogy, if Tiger Woods didn't win a major all year but won a bunch of lesser tournaments, people would ask the same thing what is wrong with the guy?

Yeah, but would they automatically attribute it to, "Well, he musta stopped taking the steroids that were giving him his power and distance" ??

Woods isn't John Daley.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, but would they automatically attribute it to, "Well, he musta stopped taking the steroids that were giving him his power and distance" ??

Woods isn't John Daley.

This brings up an important point.

If Woods married John Daley, would you have the name John Wood or Daley Wood?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

This brings up an important point.

If Woods married John Daley, would you have the name John Wood or Daley Wood?

I think most guys would be worrying about where Tiger's wife went.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think most guys would be worrying about where Tiger's wife went.

Come to think of it, that might be the reason I almost never sleep.

Do you have any recommendations to help me sleep? I'm trying to figure out which sleep aid would work best for me.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think most guys would be worrying about where Tiger's wife went.

She'd be with me.

[Payson Dave]

Originally Posted by Riot

I think most guys would be worrying about where Tiger's wife went.

In TAP's case we should not go there....

[Phalaris1913]

So basically, what you're saying is that a guy who's had two seperate horses (that won or placed in races) with significant levels of local anesthetic in their systems during the immediate post-race period looks rosier than a guy who had an unused vial of illegal medication sitting in a refridgerator.

A 1.6 nanogram mepivacaine positive - when most states have threshold levels much higher than that - is a "significant level?"

I understand the desire to catch cheaters. I do not understand the mindset that wants to see trainers get "gotcha'd" for using legal medication that jurisdictions tell them they can use, at days out from races that jurisdictions tell them they can use it.

This mindset does more damage, re: drug use, to racing than anything else. Most - so they say, virtually all - positives involve nothing but trivial overages of routine, legal medication. The outside world, which hears only that TRAINER X HAS DRUG POSITIVE (not that trainer x used a legal medication several days, or even weeks, ago, often following the official withdrawal recommendations), can only assume that said positive means that trainer x intentionally gave an performance-affecting medication right before the race for nefarious reasons or else they wouldn't be publicising and punishing him for it. Racing needs to figure out how to handle legal medications in a way that doesn't allow abuse but also doesn't criminalize trainers for using them. How it's handled now is not accomplishing that.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

A 1.6 nanogram mepivacaine positive - when most states have threshold levels much higher than that - is a "significant level?"

In a word, yes. What you neglected to mention when bringing up the fact that other states allow for threshold levels of mepivacaine was that New York, at the time, did not allow for any level of mepivacaine. Thus, its not a valid comparison. Even a minor trace of mepivacaine proved that the horse was administered the drug in an illegal fashion (within 7 days of the race) as far as the State of New York was concerned (regardless of whether it was used for therapeutic or nefarious reasons).

I understand the desire to catch cheaters. I do not understand the mindset that wants to see trainers get "gotcha'd" for using legal medication that jurisdictions tell them they can use, at days out from races that jurisdictions tell them they can use it.

Mepivacaine is a local anesthetic. While it has therapeutic uses as far as lameness diagnosis and minor surgery goes, it has no business being in a racehorse's system on raceday.

The fact that Pletcher has recently been handed a second violation for another local anesthetic (I realize many here are trying to sugar coat it by calling it an "antibiotic" positive--but Wait A While tested positive for procaine) makes things look anything but rosy. At best the repeat offense makes him look careless, and at worse it makes him look like he's trying to toe the line with what he can "get away" with.