IEAH attempts to take the high road... - Page 3

Cannon Shell · #41 06-23-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freddymo

She is certainly doable anyway

certainly compared to the usual horseracing reporters

Strategic Mission · #42 06-23-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

J. Edwards just stated on ESPN that this is a "Huge Deal" and could change the way things are done in the business. I'm hoping that she was just trying to sound positive, pardon the pun.

She is completely clueless. Thinking IEAH and Dutrow are going to clean up the sport is like saying Karl Rove is going to clean up politics. As long as they have their designer drugs they don't really care what drugs are banned. The drugs they use aren't tested for and everyone knows it.

Antitrust32 · #43 06-23-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

certainly compared to the usual horseracing reporters

......... wait! You dont think Hank Goldberg is doable???

Danzig · #44 06-23-2008, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

......... wait! You dont think Hank Goldberg is doable???

maaaan, i just ATE! ugh

Cannon Shell · #45 06-24-2008, 08:44 AM

From the DRF story:

"We haven't fully researched it," Iavarone said Monday, after the group put out a statement announcing the policy. "We're committed to the rules they have in Europe and Dubai. That's the standard everyone mentions."

In general, European regulations do not allow any medications to be administered on raceday. The policies in many European countries allow for concentration levels of certain drugs in post-race tests, so that horsemen can administer medications to horses while in training.

In contrast, every racing jurisdiction in the United States allows for the raceday administration of furosemide. In addition, several other jurisdictions allow for the raceday administration of so-called "adjunct bleeder medications" used in concert with furosemide, and several jurisdictions also allow for administration of phenylbutazone, a painkiller, within 48 hours of a race. As in Europe, U.S. racing states use concentration levels for dozens of commonly used drugs.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/95722.html

Interesting that they would make a statement without having fully researched it.

Kind of eyeopening for those who believe European racing to be totally "drug free". For all the talk about how rampant our drug problem is and how nothing has been done, after Jan 1st the only real difference will be Lasix and Bute and Bute is not even given on raceday here.

Rupert Pupkin · #46 06-24-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

From the DRF story:

"We haven't fully researched it," Iavarone said Monday, after the group put out a statement announcing the policy. "We're committed to the rules they have in Europe and Dubai. That's the standard everyone mentions."

In general, European regulations do not allow any medications to be administered on raceday. The policies in many European countries allow for concentration levels of certain drugs in post-race tests, so that horsemen can administer medications to horses while in training.

In contrast, every racing jurisdiction in the United States allows for the raceday administration of furosemide. In addition, several other jurisdictions allow for the raceday administration of so-called "adjunct bleeder medications" used in concert with furosemide, and several jurisdictions also allow for administration of phenylbutazone, a painkiller, within 48 hours of a race. As in Europe, U.S. racing states use concentration levels for dozens of commonly used drugs.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/95722.html

Interesting that they would make a statement without having fully researched it.

Kind of eyeopening for those who believe European racing to be totally "drug free". For all the talk about how rampant our drug problem is and how nothing has been done, after Jan 1st the only real difference will be Lasix and Bute and Bute is not even given on raceday here.

They asked Dutrow what he thought about Iavarone's supposed new policy. Here is what Dutrow said: "He said it's all for raceday stuff and that's fine," Dutrow said. "I don't have any issues with that".

So what is he saying? He's saying that on race day they won't give anything except for lasix. They're not supposed to be giving anything on race day except for lasix.

Cannon Shell · #47 06-24-2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

They asked Dutrow what he thought about Iavarone's supposed new policy. Here is what Dutrow said: "He said it's all for raceday stuff and that's fine," Dutrow said. "I don't have any issues with that".

So what is he saying? He's saying that on race day they won't give anything except for lasix. They're not supposed to be giving anything on race day except for lasix.

It may have been taken out of context but it is funny. "We will stop giving meds on raceday except lasix" is similar to saying "I will not cheat on my wife except with my girrlfriend".

The Bid · #48 06-24-2008, 10:05 AM

I thought big corporations tried to keep the fools behind the scenes where they cant be exposed. Unfortunately when you deal with the egos involved in this game the fools come out from behind the scenes.

jms62 · #49 06-24-2008, 11:51 AM

Ivarone comes off as very disingenous to me. They had horses with Greg Martin a few years back who were accused of being milkshaked. THrough
their attorney IEAH was outraged and denied knowing anything about it. So what do they do for an encore, use Dick Dutrow who has a history of suspensions for drug positives.
One would think they would get so far away from someone with that reputation but alas the wall street mentality, win at all costs. This latest move to me is simply pandering to the media.. If Dutrow gets caught IEAH again will march out the attorney and claim to be outraged... I can see this coming a mile away setting the table for plausible deniability. I've had enough of IEAH .

jms62 · #50 06-25-2008, 06:51 AM

Let's see how IEAH treats this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/sp...=1&oref=slogin

Danzig · #51 06-25-2008, 07:16 AM

'The Kentucky Horse Racing Authority will issue the ruling on Wednesday, suspend Dutrow for 15 days and demand the horse’s owner to return the $20,000 in purse earnings.'

'Veitch said the 15-day suspension and return of the purse money was the penalty for a first offense, according to Kentucky rules.'

but it's not his first offense, and not his first clenbuterol overage--is this his first in kentucky? and even if it is....well, let's revisit jeremy rose's six month suspension for a moment. he's off in delaware for six months, but they concede it's essentially a six month nationwide ban due to reciprocity between the states.

so why is there no reciprocity for things like this??

jms62 · #52 06-25-2008, 09:15 AM

One could surely speculate that over the years Dutrow may have made some major betting scores on horses that tested positive and later lead to his suspensions... Basically the way I see it is if you dope a horse and he wins and you collect a bet basically are you not attempting to FIX the outcome of the race?? I believe is a federal offense.. Where are the federal officials ???? Of course this is my opinion...

parsixfarms · #53 06-25-2008, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62

One could surely speculate that over the years Dutrow may have made some major betting scores on horses that tested positive and later lead to his suspensions... Basically the way I see it is if you dope a horse and he wins and you collect a bet basically are you not attempting to FIX the outcome of the race?? I believe is a federal offense.. Where are the federal officials ???? Of course this is my opinion...

I'm not sure racing wants things to go this route (criminalizing drug positives), but this is how the feds got Greg Martin in the A One Rocket case.

freddymo · #54 06-25-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It may have been taken out of context but it is funny. "We will stop giving meds on raceday except lasix" is similar to saying "I will not cheat on my wife except with my girrlfriend".

Your quote has made perfect sense to me for years

freddymo · #55 06-25-2008, 09:52 AM

I know this sounds kind of dumb but can't they test horses in the D barn the day before the race?

parsixfarms · #56 06-25-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freddymo

I know this sounds kind of dumb but can't they test horses in the D barn the day before the race?

The horses don't go to the detention barn until about 6 hours before the race.

The Bid · #57 06-25-2008, 10:32 AM

It essentially is racefixing, especially if you are cashing large tickets. It doesnt matter what the feds want, it should be what the people want who gamble and run this business. Its ridiculous

Cannon Shell · #58 06-25-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I'm not sure racing wants things to go this route (criminalizing drug positives), but this is how the feds got Greg Martin in the A One Rocket case.

And if they did a little more surveillence they could do more of this. Though I admit the Feds did stumble onto to this.

parsixfarms · #59 06-25-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And if they did a little more surveillence they could do more of this. Though I admit the Feds did stumble onto to this.

I agree on the surveillance part. Would you object to a camera in every stall?

Cannon Shell · #60 06-25-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I agree on the surveillance part. Would you object to a camera in every stall?

Waste of time. Too large of a project to police. Plus how would you tell what is legit and what isnt or which horse is which? If there are 1500 stalls at Belmont would you have 1500 monitors or people to watch the tapes? What there should be in real investigators. I ask you as a lawyer, how far do you think they could go before you get into privacy issues?