15 days for Biancone

[pmacdaddy]

And the Cobra Venom - Toxin was part of smoking cessation program...

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Fearless Leader

I think it is sad that so many of you choose to criticize a successful, top notch, hard working trainer who's integrity is beyond reproach. The guy has had international success, has a top notch client base and people want to whine because he does the best for his horses and his clients.

How any of you think he is any different than the "big time" trainers many of you worship is laughable. Don't single him out for he operates the same as the rest of them.

Not all top notch trainers get kicked out of two countries for medication violations.
Some trainers manage to keep their reputations and integrity and do whats best and right for their owners without getting bad tests and getting lifetime bans from racing in certain countries.
This guy makes a mockery of the rules everywhere he goes and yet they still give him stalls at one of the best tracks in America , I just dont get it .

[PSH]

Always felt that some of these super trainers who are getting caught doing some bad things could not be better than other trainers who i respect like Ron McAnnaly, Dick Mandella, and many many others who abide by the rules....

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

I am not condemning or condoning. However, there is more to it and it is not as simplistic as it's made to appear here.

Eric

With all due respect, what's so complicated about this situation? The trainers with whom I've been associated have always erred on the side of not doing anything that might result in a positive. As a result, on occasion, we've had to not enter horses in certain races (particularly "extras") because the horse had received this treatment or that treatment, and the trainer did not want to push the envelope on withdrawal times.

Forget Biancone's history overseas. This year alone, he has been suspended once in KY, fined twice in CA, and that says nothing of the alleged cobra venom found in his barn. Despite all this, these owners stick with him. What am I missing? As an employment lawyer, it's black-letter law that when a company learns of wrongdoing by an employee, it either takes appropriate corrective action, or the company will be found to have condoned and ratified the wrongdoing. This is exactly the same situation. Apparently, Biancone's owners have no problem being associated with a character of his ilk, and in doing so, they are condoning his behavior.

[ELA]

One of the things you are missing is that these owners -- are not you. Unfortunately, we don't have black-letter of the law here. That is truly the foundation of the problem. Time and time again, all over, people who are and are not in this game hold others to their own standards. It's all hypothetical, because it's not you, it's not me, it's not whoever. I have 25-30% trainers who have never had a positive, and I have some who have.

My concern about what else is missing are the positive tests that aren't brought to public light. I know one -- high-profile trainer, who has spoken out against drugs, super-trainers, etc. regularly -- who came up positive 3 times this year (one meet, one track) for something that is not part of everyday use on the backstretch. You want to know where that's going? Nowhere -- because it never got started. Are the ones who are caught any more guilty than the ones who aren't?

However, I don't see Jess Jackson -- who is calling for "transparency" and drastic reform to certain aspects of the industry -- leaving his trainer. I don't see Satish Sanan --who himself has called for and acted as a catalyst for change and reform -- I don't see him leaving any of his trainers. What about Cot Campbell? Barry Irwin? WinStar? And the numerous others. Where does the judgemental line get drawn? With which drug? Which positive?

People will often stick by their friends, sometimes to a flaw -- at least a flaw to others. There's your side, my side, and his side. In this case, the owners who are the target of the hecklers, they are on their trainer's side -- and it's always going to be that way, until we have change.

I would suggest that people attend The Jockey Club Symposium, and all of the other industry events. This summer, in Saratoga, Ogden Phipps said that the Jockey Club board was very disturbed (I don't remember the actual words he used, but it was not soft-spoken) that this is going on and for the first time said that the Jockey Club would like to see owners held accountable. While it may bring us to entirely new and unknown world, something drastic is in fact needed -- a national governing body with bite behind the bark to enforce uniform medication rules, nationwide.

I think there is in fact a great deal more to it -- not that it would change your view or mine. A great deal to the point where it's beyond a discussion in an internet chatroom/BB/etc. There are many opinions here that I respect, read, and think about. For example, you brought up some very good points -- as perhaps benchmarks that should be looked for and the industry should look at. I put credence in those opinions becuase they come from a perspective of credibility. Then of course, there are the ramblings of armchair experts, internet trainers, etc.

I never take a myopic or one-dimensional view of anything. Either people are going to be in the stands or in the game. I for one like to see accountability in every aspect of the game, including the judge and jury. Unfortunately today, we have very little. But that will change.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

Are the ones who are caught any more guilty than the ones who aren't?

No, but we need to start somewhere. I hear what you are saying about where are lines drawn (perhaps at Class I medication violations at a minimum), but to me, the Biancone situation is an easy one.

At the end of the day, it's about right and wrong, and maybe my moral compass is different from others. I agree that the "industry leaders" that you cite in your message do nothing but perpetuate the notion that racing will never be serious about cleaning up its own house. However, in order to get racing cleaned up, good people need to start becoming more judgmental. I'd rather do it that way than have some knucklehead in Congress with absolutely no understanding of the racing industry tell us involved in it what's "right and wrong." I think that their uninformed view on that subject would not please anyone in racing.

Having attended some industry events in Saratoga over the years, people talk and talk about these issues, but nothing ever seems to get accomplished. Maybe it's that the "powers that be" want to maintain the status quo, because they're happy making money in the game as it is today. I hope that's not the case. I hope that Dinny Phipps's recent comments at the Jockey Club Roundtable will prove to be a wake-up call to all industry leaders, and those of us involved in the game need to show our support for them. I hope that, if the Jockey Club stewards are really serious about cleaning things up, their leadership, coupled with an "unshackled" NYRA running NY racing, will start to effect the change that the racing game needs so badly on this subject. I know that's hoping for a lot. But if we lose that, we might as well get out of the game.

[Danzig]

there shouldn't be limitless fining and suspending. sooner or later, there should be an 'enough is enough' rule...a lifetime ban for chronic cheating and drug positives. that way, it isn't up to an owner, a state board...it's up to the trainer to modify his own behavior, or he'd be out of the business permanently. then it isn't up to perception, believability, friendship, etc. after X amount of rule-breaking, you're gone.

[Honu]

Hopefully here in California they will procede with the idea of punishing owners along with trainers for positives. There is alot they have to work out before they can put it in stone but I think it will make owners accountable for the trainers they employ , if you want a cheat then when he gets busted for a positive with one of your horses you get to do the time with him .
I dont subscribe to the B.S. that the owners dont know what goes on , because believe me when you are paying day rates of 75 to 125 dollars you will research the trainer you employ.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

No, but we need to start somewhere. I hear what you are saying about where are lines drawn (perhaps at Class I medication violations at a minimum), but to me, the Biancone situation is an easy one.

At the end of the day, it's about right and wrong, and maybe my moral compass is different from others. I agree that the "industry leaders" that you cite in your message do nothing but perpetuate the notion that racing will never be serious about cleaning up its own house. However, in order to get racing cleaned up, good people need to start becoming more judgmental. I'd rather do it that way than have some knucklehead in Congress with absolutely no understanding of the racing industry tell us involved in it what's "right and wrong." I think that their uninformed view on that subject would not please anyone in racing.

Having attended some industry events in Saratoga over the years, people talk and talk about these issues, but nothing ever seems to get accomplished. Maybe it's that the "powers that be" want to maintain the status quo, because they're happy making money in the game as it is today. I hope that's not the case. I hope that Dinny Phipps's recent comments at the Jockey Club Roundtable will prove to be a wake-up call to all industry leaders, and those of us involved in the game need to show our support for them. I hope that, if the Jockey Club stewards are really serious about cleaning things up, their leadership, coupled with an "unshackled" NYRA running NY racing, will start to effect the change that the racing game needs so badly on this subject. I know that's hoping for a lot. But if we lose that, we might as well get out of the game.

I agree with you. However, notice, how on such a simple situation, we've already address many related issues -- and in this simple situation, the positive that I know for a fact Biancone got hit with, was for a drug that has an everyday, therapeutic use on the backstretch. The cobra/snake venom is still alleged and I won't touch that being completely absent of facts. Regardless, I don't know enough about Biancone's other offenses to say what I would or would not do. Be that as it may, yes, in a simple situation -- knowing all of the facts -- I think it's easy for someone to take a stand.

Like others here, I've been in this game my entire adult life. I think we all learn over time and the learning curve can be everchanging. I've served on committees that have actually made recommendations, and served on others where there's been "paralysis by analysis" -- we see everything in our industry. The Biancone situation is going to be clear cut to some, and perhaps not to others. Until there is a clear-cut, quantifiable benchmark where people will be guilty or innocent, then we might not see change.

About the owners, Martin Schwartz might be different than the Coolmore gang, Gary Tanaka -- or might not. Personally, I don't know. However, and this may sound very simplistic, I don't hold people -- strangers might I add (hence the hecklers) -- to my standards. I think there is a difference between a qualified and unqualified opinion, an educated and uneducated one, and I think that and more adds or subtracts to/from credibility.

Now, I hold my partner to that standard and if a trainer of mine becomes involved in a scandal, comes up positive for some designer/exotic/super-drug, etc. -- not without a conversation or discussion -- I would ultimately pull my horses from that trainer. But for clenbuterol? One positive? Two positives? Three? No, I don't think I am pulling horses for that (depending on the trainer, a 5 horse barn would have a different bearing than a 200 horse barn). Too me, it's too hypothetical and not that simple. Biancone perhaps, but not all others.

Excellent points.

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Danzig

there shouldn't be limitless fining and suspending. sooner or later, there should be an 'enough is enough' rule...a lifetime ban for chronic cheating and drug positives. that way, it isn't up to an owner, a state board...it's up to the trainer to modify his own behavior, or he'd be out of the business permanently. then it isn't up to perception, believability, friendship, etc. after X amount of rule-breaking, you're gone.

I agree. Question though -- for what drugs? Class 1? 3? I think a graduated scale is needed without quuestion, and for more harsh violations, there should be a X strikes and you get a year. More harsh, 5 or 10 years. For the most severe violations -- lifetime could be applicable.

But it needs to be clear cut. I don't want contamination issues coming into play, sabotage, etc. There will always be exceptions.

Eric

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ELA

I agree. Question though -- for what drugs? Class 1? 3? I think a graduated scale is needed without quuestion, and for more harsh violations, there should be a X strikes and you get a year. More harsh, 5 or 10 years. For the most severe violations -- lifetime could be applicable.

But it needs to be clear cut. I don't want contamination issues coming into play, sabotage, etc. There will always be exceptions.

Eric

well, since certain substances get more days, or a harsher punishment then others, maybe they would have a limit set...when you limit out, you're out. one major, a couple of minors....there absolutely should be a limit. it shouldn't be a constant hand out of positives, a fine, a slap, a short suspension that is really a vacation. it's ridiculous. what's more ridiculous imo are the deep-pocketed owners who don't care what a trainer does, as long as they get their mug in the winners circle picture.

[phystech]

Originally Posted by Danzig

what's more ridiculous imo are the deep-pocketed owners who don't care what a trainer does, as long as they get their mug in the winners circle picture.

You are now an owner - do you know everything your trainer does?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by phystech

You are now an owner - do you know everything your trainer does?

nope.

but it's hard not to know (for example) about steve asmussens double digit positives, as well as the fines and suspensions. biancone is banned from hong kong, just got days, and then a fine...so why hire either of them? positives, suspensions and fines are a matter of public record. why should chronic offenders be tolerated? if an owner doesn't care, or isn't interested in due diligence, then i think it is in the sports best interests to tell certain individuals that their services are no longer desired. that racetracks will no longer open their doors to these folks.
do you remember a few years ago, an owner named gill was denied stall space? very simple remedy, and one that should be employed more often.

[phystech]

Originally Posted by Danzig

nope.


do you remember a few years ago, an owner named gill was denied stall space? very simple remedy, and one that should be employed more often.

I remember Mr. Gill all too well. I competed against him for over 5 years in the mid-Atlantic. Actually, denying Gill stall space didn't matter beacuse he went out and bought a farm with a track and a couple barns, and then he thumbed his nose at track officials. In the end, little guys like me were hurt by the rules some tracks enforced to try to hurt Gill.

Denying stalls didn't do a thing.....

I think anyone that follows the game knows about the well publicized trainers with positives for varying things. But a lot of guys flying under the radar can do the same things the Asmussens, Biancones, etc do. Just because they aren't getting the ink doesn't mean their owners can be any more aware of what they are doing than the big name owners that employ name trainers.

My pure guess is that 90% of owners out there would only have a clue about what their trainer might be doing, if/when their trainer gets caught.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by phystech

You are now an owner - do you know everything your trainer does?

Excellent point/question. Here is where part of the potential problem begins. I understand that Phipps called for this, and to some extent, this is part of the solution. However, I don't see this being "absolute" so to speak. Are we going to see owners -- big-time owners -- litigating with racing commissions? What about individuals or members of boards? What will the outcome be? The critics and negative voices can say all they want, but there has to be a broad, comprehensive solution.

I don't know the details, but recently in NJ, there was a trainer (and driver) who got something like 10 years, big money fines, etc. First, I could be wrong, but I was told the trainer shipped his stock back to IL and was in business, racing as if nothing happened. That surprised me. Perhaps it was because the NJ case was under appeal or something, but I don't think he could race in NJ. Anyway, time goes on, case goes on, it works its way through the legal system and now -- I believe he is eligible to apply for a NJ license (after about a year, time served, probation, etc.).

Is this what could happen with an owner, but without lost time? Take an owner who is the founder/CEO/Chairman of a Fortune 500 company. He/she gets suspended. Can he sell the horses to his wife? I don't think this is the type of litigation that solves the problem. However, this is part of the solution.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by phystech

My pure guess is that 90% of owners out there would only have a clue about what their trainer might be doing, if/when their trainer gets caught.

I tend to agree with you on this one, but I suspect that, if there was some sort of "owner responsibility" rule (I'm not advocating one - I'd like to start with giving meaningful penalties and ending the sham suspensions, and see how those measures work first), owners would probably start making it their business to find out what their trainer might be doing - and ensuring that their stable doesn't get sent to the "penalty box". To those that don't care, the old adage that "if you play with fire, you might get burned" will probably apply.

[Danzig]

well, yeah, it stands to reason that no one would know what anyone was doing til they got caught. my bone of contention is that it's business as usual after they get caught. repeatedly. slap, don't do it again, and back to work. and invariably, back to the same stuff they were doing before. why in the world would it be acceptable for a trainer to have over 20 positives? not 2 or 3 over a period of years, but almost two dozen. that's outrageous.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I tend to agree with you on this one, but I suspect that, if there was some sort of "owner responsibility" rule (I'm not advocating one - I'd like to start with giving meaningful penalties and ending the sham suspensions, and see how those measures work first), owners would probably start making it their business to find out what their trainer might be doing - and ensuring that their stable doesn't get sent to the "penalty box". To those that don't care, the old adage that "if you play with fire, you might get burned" will probably apply.

I agree, and that's happening today. Delaware has made some progressive steps in this direction regarding "owner responsibility"; however, I agree with you and believe you are correct that meaningful penalties are needed, ones that make an impact. Delaware has done this and has added the owner aspect as well.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Forgive my ignorance (since we only race in NY), but what is Delaware doing?

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9c1_1188968489

he needs to get this line repaired.............