O'Neil Refuses to Put Horses in Detention

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This was a recent case. It was a race run on January 17th this year. I don't know exactly when they got the results of the blood test, but lets assume that they got the results sometime in February, possibly even March after they re-tested. He was suppose to begin his 60 days in the detentin barn in late April. That's relatively quick justice.

Are you sure that they redistribute purse money for bicarbonates? I should know the answer to that but I don't.

Danzig, they are not trying to give O'Neil stricter rules. They are trying to give him the same rules as they give evryone else. That is why this is so surprising. It is surprising that they are not enforcing a rule that has always been enforced in the past.

when i read the article earlier ( didn't read the link above, had already seen the story elsewhere ) wherever i read it, it said the money had been re-doled.
and i thought also they were giving him the same rules-so generally when a trainer is appealing, does he run from the det. barn while waiting? if so, like cannon said, what happens if the appeal (for some godawful reason) comes down in the trainers' favor?

i wonder tho...once all this bs is said and done, and i have no idea how often this happens, wouldn't it turn out cheaper to just have better surveillance in the regular barns?

[Danzig]

"The $16,200 purse earned by Chicks Rule was redistributed earlier this year. At the time, O'Neill feared that Chicks Rule had been the victim of tampering."

yeah, i bet she was a victim of tampering...

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i wonder tho...once all this bs is said and done, and i have no idea how often this happens, wouldn't it turn out cheaper to just have better surveillance in the regular barns?

Actually, the first year they started penalizing trainers for excessive levels of bicarbonate out in CA, in one instance 24 hr security was placed at the trainer's regular barn as opposed to making him run out of a designated detention. This was at Del Mar and the trainer was Mike Mitchell. It might have been his 2nd offense at the time. I don't recall the circumstances exactly, but for whatever reason this is what was done.

I don't see why HP wouldn't do the same to appease everyone, because as it stands, on the surface, its absolutely ridiculous.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

when i read the article earlier ( didn't read the link above, had already seen the story elsewhere ) wherever i read it, it said the money had been re-doled.
and i thought also they were giving him the same rules-so generally when a trainer is appealing, does he run from the det. barn while waiting? if so, like cannon said, what happens if the appeal (for some godawful reason) comes down in the trainers' favor?

i wonder tho...once all this bs is said and done, and i have no idea how often this happens, wouldn't it turn out cheaper to just have better surveillance in the regular barns?

Yes, since they put these rules in place about 1 1/2 years ago or so, if you test over the limit you have to run out of the detention barn. If you are going to appeal, you would still have to run out of the detention barn while you wait for the appeal.

If you won the appeal, then you wouldn't have to pay the fine or incur any of the other penalties. You would still have had to run out of the detention barn though.

This is the first time that a track out here has not forced enforced this rule. They are afraind that O'Neil will refuse to run his horses and they are also afraid that he will take them to court. They should call O'Neil's bluff. What's he going to do? I highly doubt that he's going to ship all his horses somewhere else. In addition, does anyone really think that a judge would overturn this if it goes to court? It's not as if they are telling him that he can't run. They're just saying that since he keeps testing over the limits, his horses need to be under surveillance for 60 days. What judge would have a problem with that?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Actually, the first year they started penalizing trainers for excessive levels of bicarbonate out in CA, in one instance 24 hr security was placed at the trainer's regular barn as opposed to making him run out of a designated detention. This was at Del Mar and the trainer was Mike Mitchell. It might have been his 2nd offense at the time. I don't recall the circumstances exactly, but for whatever reason this is what was done.

I don't see why HP wouldn't do the same to appease everyone, because as it stands, on the surface, its absolutely ridiculous.

That might be the way they did it the first time, but that's not what they've been doing for the last 1 1/2 years or so. The new rule clearly states that you have to run out of the detention barn.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This is the first time that a track out here has not forced enforced this rule. They are afraind that O'Neil will refuse to run his horses and they are also afraid that he will take them to court. They should call O'Neil's bluff. What's he going to do? I highly doubt that he's going to ship all his horses somewhere else.

Actually, about a month back, it was reported that O'Neill was likely to send a sizeable string to Delaware when that meet starts. Was he laying the groundwork for this line-in-the-sand move or will he follow through?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That might be the way they did it the first time, but that's not what they've been doing for the last 1 1/2 years or so. The new rule clearly states that you have to run out of the detention barn.

Nonetheless, what I was getting at was that placing security at his regular barn is better than doing nothing, no?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Actually, about a month back, it was reported that O'Neill was likely to send a sizeable string to Delaware when that meet starts. Was he laying the groundwork for this line-in-the-sand move or will he follow through?

He did send a small string back east. I think he sent about 8 horses back there. It is possible that one of the reasons he did it was to show them that he can start sending horses other places if needs be. If he was trying to intimidate them, I think it worked.

I still think that it is extremely unlikely that he is going to send all or most of his horses somewhere else. He has somewhere between 150-200 horses out here. As much as he hates the detention barn, it would still be much easier for him to stay here than to ship all his horses somewhere else. It's over $8,000 per horse round-trip to go back east. It's not worth $8,000 per horse to ship back east for 60 days.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Nonetheless, what I was getting at was that placing security at his regular barn is better than doing nothing, no?

Yes, it would certainly be better than nothing. But I don't see why he should get preferential treatment.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

He did send a small string back east. I think he sent about 8 horses back there. It is possible that one of the reasons he did it was to show them that he can start sending horses other places if needs be. If he was trying to intimidate them, I think it worked.

I still think that it is extremely unlikely that he is going to send all or most of his horses somewhere else. He has somewhere between 150-200 horses out here. As much as he hates the detention barn, it would still be much easier for him to stay here than to ship all his horses somewhere else. It's over $8,000 per horse round-trip to go back east. It's not worth $8,000 per horse to ship back east for 60 days.

The interesting sub-story is that when announcing the shift eastward, O'Neill hinted that perhaps he's not as pro-synthetic as he seems ("This is a little experiment with horses that maybe we want to try on the dirt," he said. "Don't get me wrong. I love synthetic tracks, but I want to have the option."). If both he and Bob Baffert were to basically abandon CA racing, would it be a shot over the bough that would have the CHRB second-guessing the synthetic mandate? Is this part of the reason why both the track and the CHRB are willing to be buffaloed by him?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, since they put these rules in place about 1 1/2 years ago or so, if you test over the limit you have to run out of the detention barn. If you are going to appeal, you would still have to run out of the detention barn while you wait for the appeal.

If you won the appeal, then you wouldn't have to pay the fine or incur any of the other penalties. You would still have had to run out of the detention barn though.

This is the first time that a track out here has not forced enforced this rule. They are afraind that O'Neil will refuse to run his horses and they are also afraid that he will take them to court. They should call O'Neil's bluff. What's he going to do? I highly doubt that he's going to ship all his horses somewhere else. In addition, does anyone really think that a judge would overturn this if it goes to court? It's not as if they are telling him that he can't run. They're just saying that since he keeps testing over the limits, his horses need to be under surveillance for 60 days. What judge would have a problem with that?

well, if every other trainer ran out of the det. barn while appealing, then he should as well. o'neill needs them just as bad as they need him tho, right? how long will his owners be willing to pay a day rate if their stock stays inside??

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, if every other trainer ran out of the det. barn while appealing, then he should as well. o'neill needs them just as bad as they need him tho, right? how long will his owners be willing to pay a day rate if their stock stays inside??

I agree.

[The Bid]

Jug O'needle