McLaughlin with 3 positives; Gets 30 day ban..

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Kasept

The lack of furor is because McLaughlin is perceived as likable, innocuous and, most utterly mystifying, somehow above reproach. That was my point originally. There's a shocking double standard about who gets vilified when these incidents come up. The well-packaged, most blatant edge-takers somehow skate in the public eye while the Oil Can Harrys are heaped on in an orgy of outrage.

This too, for sure. Some, like Vaders or Beatties (pick one) are universally reviled, others like Asmussen, Dutrow, and Pletcher are polarized, and a select few are placed above like McLaughlin and Frankel despite their errors in judgement.

Makes the select few who DON'T cheat, like Mandella and Shirreffs, look even better.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

In my world its pretty simple, if the ruling body isnt specifically testing for a dangerous substance then clearly it can not be illegal. There are laws on the books that are valid, those are the ones enforced, you know tested for etc. You elect to avoid medication which you know will be beneficial to your stock because you have concerns that in 2037 there might be enforcement of a ridiculous law without teeth? More power to you if you can make folks money and earn a living being concerned about 2037 testing in 2010 congrats.

So let me get this right.. People use certain meds that the State Authorities have deemed illegal yet they did as such under the broad spectrum of "Anything Unnaturally Occuring", they failed to set guideline on use and allowable amounts(how could they they have no clue what it is they are talking about) and deemed ANY existence in ANY quanitity offensible eventhough guidelines haven't been established. I guess they figure they can set the guidelines after they figure out what indeed they are looking for. So you figure these people are cheaters because they are using meds that the state hasn't given any friggin structure on at all.. So you figure you will self police yourself and you will determine in Chucky's world what is Aspirin vs. Heroin. More importantly, your definitions as such will be the guidelines for whom you call smug cheaters and whom you call squeaky clean. Anything else you would like to share with us? How about an 11th commandment? Thou shall live by Chuck's self righteous self serving views.. . Again always root for you and your success just because I think your completely insane doesnt mean I dont wish you and yours the very best of success and luck.

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/810/001/018.htm

Here are the rules Freddy. Yes my "self righteous, self serving views" happen to be the rules of racing in at least one state.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

OK, you win Chuck - he totally sucks as a blood-stock agent and a trainer and you're like the best EVAH.

You people are nuts. I said was skeptical that he won with a bunch of "50k types" at the last Kee meeting, you offer up a list of mostly long gone horses and suddenly I said all these things? Where did i say he sucks? Where did i say anything about me? Incredible. I am still skeptical that he won a bunch of races last meet with a bunch of 50k types and nothing you have shown with the exception of 1 horse says otherwise.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You people are nuts. I said was skeptical that he won with a bunch of "50k types" at the last Kee meeting, you offer up a list of mostly long gone horses and suddenly I said all these things? Where did i say he sucks? Where did i say anything about me? Incredible. I am still skeptical that he won a bunch of races last meet with a bunch of 50k types and nothing you have shown with the exception of 1 horse says otherwise.

He actually did win with a bunch of yearling purchases under 100k. Mind you I never question your horsemanship or talents as a trainer.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

He actually did win with a bunch of yearling purchases under 100k. Mind you I never question your horsemanship or talents as a trainer.

I am not the point here nor am I the point in most threads. I never said anything about Mcpeek negatively or positively. Because I train horses doesnt mean that everything I said is to be taken in the context of me. Far from it. I have more words put into my mouth here than I put food in it in real life, which is a tough thing to do.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/810/001/018.htm

Here are the rules Freddy. Yes my "self righteous, self serving views" happen to be the rules of racing in at least one state.

Thanks for the laundry list. Apparently its worthless since Ky. has rules without enforcement. Who wouldn't rob a bank if there wasnt any penalty? Apparently you and James Jerkins.. You want people to obey the states rules when the state doesnt test? More magic beans Jack haven't you bought enough? Plus the meds that people apparently are helping their stock with aren't listed in name only in medical theory. Theory leaves the door open for interpatation, thats were I come in. Again, we are talking about meds that help a horse to feel better so it runs better not meds which endanger a horses life!!

While I wish you the very best clearly this crap isnt as cut and dry as you think otherwise people would be extremely fearful of penalties, they aren't nor should you be. Get on the stick... embrace success.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by philcski

This too, for sure. Some, like Vaders or Beatties (pick one) are universally reviled, others like Asmussen, Dutrow, and Pletcher are polarized, and a select few are placed above like McLaughlin and Frankel despite their errors in judgement.

Makes the select few who DON'T cheat, like Mandella and Shirreffs, look even better.

I agree, but I also don't think you can simply "lump" all of these people into the same category of "cheater" so to speak. This discussion can turn into a discussion of semantics in the blink of an eye.

Eric

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I am not the point here nor am I the point in most threads. I never said anything about Mcpeek negatively or positively. Because I train horses doesnt mean that everything I said is to be taken in the context of me. Far from it. I have more words put into my mouth here than I put food in it in real life, which is a tough thing to do.

Your posts came across poorly, perhaps it wasnt your intention.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Your posts came across poorly, perhaps it wasnt your intention.

I read through them. They were pretty clear.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I read through them. They were pretty clear.

Well if one trainer reps that "the vast majority" are retired after a guy just knocked the friggin cover off the ball this fall..It seems a bit suspect.. How about the guy has been solid gold but he went thru quite a few to find a few diamonds? Maybe that is what you were thinking but failed to acknowledge he kicked butt with a bunch of VERY moderately priced yearlings.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Well if one trainer reps that "the vast majority" are retired after a guy just knocked the friggin cover off the ball this fall..It seems a bit suspect.. How about the guy has been solid gold but he went thru quite a few to find a few diamonds? Maybe that is what you were thinking but failed to acknowledge he kicked butt with a bunch of VERY moderately priced yearlings.

I dont seem to remember saying ANYTHING about McPeek except that I didnt believe his success at Keeneland was with a bunch of 50k types. This is just another example of saying i said something that I never even implied.

Did you look at the list on the link? It is a list of stakes winners, the vast majority of them havent raced in some time. How that list has anything to do with the last meet at Keeneland i am unsure of.

[freddymo]

I am quite sure you watched the Keeneland meet. I am quite sure you watched McPeek win with everything. I didn't need to look at a list to tell me what went on three weeks ago neither did you. So your post is what a comment on the list?

IF? you read the thread I was simply posting that McPeek had a big meet.. Gales commented that he was on vacation and it was his assistants doing the work(good for McPeek).. Then Scavs chimes in on McPeeks cut on partnership(jealous) then you suggest incorrectly for a change about McPeeks stock purchase prices. I didnt need a list all I needed to do was read the friggin form daily and watch the meet. Sightseek posted the list for whatever friggin reason but clearly he was takin back by your lack of insight on McPeeks success and IMO shouldnt have dragged your business into it. Your business is your business but whatever you have a lot to say so I guess you have to be willing since your business is somewhat public to deal with the critisms(your a big boy you handle yourself fine). ANYHOO who gives a dam about the list the conversation was about McPeek, his work habits (gales) his Chop (Scavs) and his success (FMO).. the assertion that McPeek stock is retired suggests what? He burned them out ? The drugs killed them? The stock was crap? Oh you we just clarifing that the list didnt accurately represent that McPeek had just crushed Keeneland of course we should have guessed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I am quite sure you watched the Keeneland meet. I am quite sure you watched McPeek win with everything. I didn't need to look at a list to tell me what went on three weeks ago neither did you. So your post is what a comment on the list?

IF? you read the thread I was simply posting that McPeek had a big meet.. Gales commented that he was on vacation and it was his assistants doing the work(good for McPeek).. Then Scavs chimes in on McPeeks cut on partnership(jealous) then you suggest incorrectly for a change about McPeeks stock purchase prices. I didnt need a list all I needed to do was read the friggin form daily and watch the meet. Sightseek posted the list for whatever friggin reason but clearly he was takin back by your lack of insight on McPeeks success and IMO shouldnt have dragged your business into it. Your business is your business but whatever you have a lot to say so I guess you have to be willing since your business is somewhat public to deal with the critisms(your a big boy you handle yourself fine). ANYHOO who gives a dam about the list the conversation was about McPeek, his work habits (gales) his Chop (Scavs) and his success (FMO).. the assertion that McPeek stock is retired suggests what? He burned them out ? The drugs killed them? The stock was crap? Oh you we just clarifing that the list didnt accurately represent that McPeek had just crushed Keeneland of course we should have guessed.

Let me repeat myself so this is clear. I never said anything about Ken McPeek other than suggest that his horses at the recent Keeneland meet were better than 50k types. You were the one who brought the guy up. Sightseek was the one who had her little temper tantrum after I pointed out her list wasn't relevant (those are horses from his entire training career, not the last meet at Keeneland). If I want to insult or knock Ken McPeek I will do so to him directly. I have no such desire to do so other than to point out his horses may be a little more expensive than you are giving them credit for. He is having a great year and I have nothing bad to say about him here. Nor have I. Since you and sightseek havent backed up your assertion with any tangible evidence I maintain my stance. If you or her or someone else were to provide evidence to the contrary I would say that I was wrong. Get drugs to look it up. Otherwise you are simply making implications about me that simply are not true.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Let me repeat myself so this is clear. I never said anything about Ken McPeek other than suggest that his horses at the recent Keeneland meet were better than 50k types. You were the one who brought the guy up. Sightseek was the one who had her little temper tantrum after I pointed out her list wasn't relevant (those are horses from his entire training career, not the last meet at Keeneland). If I want to insult or knock Ken McPeek I will do so to him directly. I have no such desire to do so other than to point out his horses may be a little more expensive than you are giving them credit for. He is having a great year and I have nothing bad to say about him here. Nor have I. Since you and sightseek havent backed up your assertion with any tangible evidence I maintain my stance. If you or her or someone else were to provide evidence to the contrary I would say that I was wrong. Get drugs to look it up. Otherwise you are simply making implications about me that simply are not true.

chuck do you get as much vacation time as kenny?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Let me repeat myself so this is clear. I never said anything about Ken McPeek other than suggest that his horses at the recent Keeneland meet were better than 50k types. You were the one who brought the guy up. Sightseek was the one who had her little temper tantrum after I pointed out her list wasn't relevant (those are horses from his entire training career, not the last meet at Keeneland). If I want to insult or knock Ken McPeek I will do so to him directly. I have no such desire to do so other than to point out his horses may be a little more expensive than you are giving them credit for. He is having a great year and I have nothing bad to say about him here. Nor have I. Since you and sightseek havent backed up your assertion with any tangible evidence I maintain my stance. If you or her or someone else were to provide evidence to the contrary I would say that I was wrong. Get drugs to look it up. Otherwise you are simply making implications about me that simply are not true.

Its a shame you require the Rainman of Racing to prove what you should have witnessed and admired weeks ago. Not a issue, once the Rainman comes back from subway(he had a 15% off coupon) he will rep all the purchase prices of McPeeks special Keeneland meet. Anything else we all can do as a community to enlighten you..lol

A simple "so that is how you do it" will suffice..fair enough?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by gales0678

chuck do you get as much vacation time as kenny?

Why is what he does with his free time anybody's business including his owners? He is not a public servant. He isn't paid by taxpayer dollars. How he decides to run his business or spend his time is his decision.

Saturday is the 2nd 2yo day at CD. McPeek has 7 horses in that were sold at public auction. They average $101k. Not that means anything but it is interesting. And no there were no mega prices that skewed the numbers. A high of 180k and a low of 50k.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by gales0678

chuck do you get as much vacation time as kenny?

Isn't Chuck retired?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Its a shame you require the Rainman of Racing to prove what you should have witnessed and admired weeks ago. Not a issue, once the Rainman comes back from subway(he had a 15% off coupon) he will rep all the purchase prices of McPeeks special Keeneland meet. Anything else we all can do as a community to enlighten you..lol

A simple "so that is how you do it" will suffice..fair enough?

Is an overdose even possible anymore?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Why is what he does with his free time anybody's business including his owners? He is not a public servant. He isn't paid by taxpayer dollars. How he decides to run his business or spend his time is his decision.

Saturday is the 2nd 2yo day at CD. McPeek has 7 horses in that were sold at public auction. They average $101k. Not that means anything but it is interesting. And no there were no mega prices that skewed the numbers. A high of 180k and a low of 50k.

Now your making my point...he stays in the 50 to 100 range

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Is an overdose even possible anymore?

only from allday