Biancone agrees to a softer ban

[Danzig]

but the owners are a problem in that they ignore what's in front of them, and keep their horses with a repeat offender trainer. how many times now has biancone been in trouble? banned in hong kong, out a year now here--yet terry finley says no sweat, i'll keep sending him horses. that is a problem, and it's a problem all over, with owners who either don't know, or don't care, or choose to ignore a problem right in front of them--because they care more about that winners circle photo then they do about the horse they're in there with! ego over the safety of horse and rider.
curlin, taken from a trainer who got him noticed, and given to the care of an almost two dozen offense trainer. why?! and given to him by two owners who supposedly want everything in this sport to be aboveboard--an oxymoron in action.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I understand that owners are culpable, of course, but when you typed, "still think that the owners are not the problem in this game," it looked like you were placing the emphasis on them, as opposed to the trainers.

By my thinkng, I wouldn't use cobra venom on a Thoroughbred and if an owner demanded that I use it, I'd walk away from the owner, that's all. And if I couldn't compete without using drugs other than what is permitted, then I'd find another profession.

I guess my logic is skewed, but I think about it from the people closest to caring for the horse, and work outward.

I am placing the emphasis on the owners because in the end THEY call the shots, not the trainers. I highly doubt any owner directly instructs a trainer to use an illegal substance. However when they continue to employ them after repeated violations aren't they in effect saying that that behavior is ok? Of course the trainers are to blame directly but the attitude of owners like the 2 quoted in the story are the reason that this will continue. The owners have the power in this business, not the trainers.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, I think we will end up disagreeing, and of course that's OK. It's a good thing. Perhaps I am talking about practicality and not a court of public opinion or something similar so to speak.

I am also not talking about stupidity. Hiring and retaining an employee was not my point at all. I was more talking about liability. You are not going to hold George Steinbrenner legally liable and responsible -- and penalize and punish him -- because one of his players takes and gets caught using steroids. UNLESS, he knew about it and turned a deaf ear, or helped, aided, and so on. UNLESS he is found to be a party to the crime, or made the drugs available, and so on. UNLESS he was negligent, and so on . . . and so on and so on. I am certainly not going to argue the parallel because none exists.

I thought my example was applicable, but with analogies there is always a great deal of interpretation. I was merely trying to show what I thought was a direct comparison. Do the laws and legislation exist in our sport and business? If they do not exist, then all that is left is what? Self governing or self policing?

Like I said Chuck, I agree, owners must be held responsible. However, it must be done in not only the proper way, but in a prudent and legal way as well. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- in isolation, I am not pulling horses from a guy who gets a clenbuterol positive. Not one, not two and not three. Now, a hard core, designer, exotic, etc. drug -- that's a completely different issue of course. In this specific case, I move my horses -- period. But I am not pulling horses because of what "everybody knows" so to speak and of course that's not the case here.

Anyway, we agree on the destination. We may just disagree on the journey to get there.

Catch up later.

Eric

Eric I agree about the legal liability. Legal should be a moot point. But when guys make statements like Lizza did......do you really expect the people who bet on the sport to take all these "clean up the sport efforts" seriously? At some point the owners have to take the responsibility and make the call. I mean hell, racing was alive and well in this country before Pat Biancone showed up. We should be self regulating, not relying on racing commissions and legal gray areas. If a guy get caught redhanded, string him up. If a guy gets a clembuterol positive, different story...

[Bobby Fischer]

"Patrick Pinocchio requests special "buttersoft" ban"


at the present,
top Trainers are rewarded for quality with big $$$
The drug rules are basically nonexistent

the above enviornment is what gives the trainers incentive to cheat.

Steroids are considered perfectly fine to use on your race horses. Those drugs increase strength ,speed, bloodpressure, heartrate, appetite.
You have most of the cheap races full of geldings on as much steroids as their owners can afford.


Satire or reality?? -
If I was an owner for profit - I sure as hell would want my top stock to have Pletcher's brilliant late kick. If they didn't suddenly show that late kick I would complain to Pletch and threaten to go elsewhere if he won't use his best "stuff".
I would want my claimers and fillies to get the heavy steroid doses that makes these horses huge. You see Frankel or Dutrow fillies that look like BULLs running around.
I want my horses with pain and injury to go to Mike Mitchell. He can get a few more wins out of them, I want the next Sun Boat.

Until the Owners agree to clean up the sport, starting with a whole new drug program, the above comments are sadly all too realistic and common.