Report: Dutrow Facing Drug Positive

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by GBBob

But you can't be responsible for something you have no control of or knowledge of. If society worked under that premise, parents would go to jail for their minor child's felony conviction, a team's trainer would be punished for every steroid violation, etc. Accountability is one thing, but fair is fair.

Should the owner of the Jeremy Rose horse be accountable for his actions? How about the trainer?

The parents of the felony child probably don't go to jail. However, they very likely are subject to civil action, no?

Securities firms are fined for the actions of their sales reps. Same thing happens all the time with insurance companies and agents.

I don't think team trainers should be summarily disciplined when players get caught juicing. But I do absolutely believe team owners should be fined in that situation.

You have me on the Jeremy Rose thing, I admit.

My point is that the owners are the top of the food chain. If they are not culpable, then you are less likely to see compliance. Trainers will simply see their modest penalties as a cost of doing business. And just who is paying that bill?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

The parents of the felony child probably don't go to jail. However, they very likely are subject to civil action, no?

Securities firms are fined for the actions of their sales reps. Same thing happens all the time with insurance companies and agents.

I don't think team trainers should be summarily disciplined when players get caught juicing. But I do absolutely believe team owners should be fined in that situation.

You have me on the Jeremy Rose thing, I admit.

My point is that the owners are the top of the food chain. If they are not culpable, then you are less likely to see compliance. Trainers will simply see their modest penalties as a cost of doing business. And just who is paying that bill?

In theory, I don't have a problem including owners in the group that needs to be accountable. But the way things are now, a lot needs to be set up to remove all grey area from accidental overages, etc before I would ever sign up for that plan, especially if a first time offense was punishable at the owner level.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

I didn't say, infer or imply owners are exclusively culpable. And frankly, if horses that were under prior care of a suspended trainer have to be transferred in order to run, who cares what persons that suspended trainer talks to?

I am in favor of suspending and fining owners as well as trainers when violations occur. I also favor requiring all horses nder prior care of a suspended trainer be transferred (and not to an existing assistant) in order to run.

I agree. While you didn't say it, and I know that -- the slippery slope can be rampant. The problem is that efforts to implement these types of rules and regulations have severely missed their mark, vis a vis Delaware's efforts. When I saw what Delaware was trying to do and was told that every owner was going to have to sign an agreement (agreeing to certain terms and conditions) -- I immediately contacted my law firm and was more than prepared to litigate. Delaware drastically dialed back their rules and I have no idea where they finally landed.

You cannot just fine and suspend owners when violations occur -- period. It has to be coupled with other preventative measures, rules, regulations, etc. How are you going to prevent owners from sabotaging their competition? Owners should be held responsible, to the same extent that others should be -- and to the extent they can be.

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Yes. How would it be better to wait?

I own a horse. I hire a trainer. I pay the trainer. I give him authority to treat my horse with medications. There are rules about medications. If my trainer breaks rules with my horse while acting under my authority, should I get a pass?

How is it much different from any other principal-agent relationship?

How about if you don't authorize him to use medications? OK, that changes a great # of things.

It is not that simple.

Eric

[Scav]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

The parents of the felony child probably don't go to jail. However, they very likely are subject to civil action, no?

Securities firms are fined for the actions of their sales reps. Same thing happens all the time with insurance companies and agents.

I don't think team trainers should be summarily disciplined when players get caught juicing. But I do absolutely believe team owners should be fined in that situation.

You have me on the Jeremy Rose thing, I admit.

My point is that the owners are the top of the food chain. If they are not culpable, then you are less likely to see compliance. Trainers will simply see their modest penalties as a cost of doing business. And just who is paying that bill?

One thing that you fail to note is that most of these owners couldn't tell the horses front from the back.

I agree that new owners should be doing their due diligence when choosing a trainer but MOST of the time, you are meeting a trainer through a friend or other owner

It is a broken system, I couldn't agree more, but fineing the owner would further diluate the owners within the game.

I am more so on how baseball does it, first one is 15 days, 2nd one is like 90 days, and the 3rd time is a year. And it should be a grid as far as how much the overage is. I mean, if they are 1% over, sure it is a positive but COME ON, the horses genetic makeup could have caused that, but if you are 100% over, regardless of how much picograms, that means funny business, if you ask me.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

The parents of the felony child probably don't go to jail. However, they very likely are subject to civil action, no?

Securities firms are fined for the actions of their sales reps. Same thing happens all the time with insurance companies and agents.

I don't think team trainers should be summarily disciplined when players get caught juicing. But I do absolutely believe team owners should be fined in that situation.

You have me on the Jeremy Rose thing, I admit.

My point is that the owners are the top of the food chain. If they are not culpable, then you are less likely to see compliance. Trainers will simply see their modest penalties as a cost of doing business. And just who is paying that bill?

You know, yes, they are at the top of the food train -- and it would be great if a big owner "stepped up to the plate", but again, where do we draw the line.

Analogies don't always work, but how many people can hire to "watch" and prevent my trainer from breaking rules that I set for him/her? We can't have the economics drive owners out of the game. It already has.

I know people say if it wasn't for the bettors there would be no game. Well, it's a circular discussion. Watch what happens if owners start leaving the game. Watch what happens to breeders. Watch what happens to the industry. Let's not discount the vital role owners play.

At the same time, the bettor cannot be conned and stolen from. Neither should the owner or the trainer or the vet.

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by GBBob

In theory, I don't have a problem including owners in the group that needs to be accountable. But the way things are now, a lot needs to be set up to remove all grey area from accidental overages, etc before I would ever sign up for that plan, especially if a first time offense was punishable at the owner level.

Agreed. Excellent point.

Eric

[ELA]

So, I have a question. If George Steinbrenner was to be held responsible for his players that use steroids -- what could he do. Many things -- all which cost money. Perhaps a lot of money. He could hire people, "integrity officers", staff, etc. -- all people, proceedures, rules, etc. to enforce and protect his interests.

As an owner, can I do the same thing? If I go to a trainer who races on hay and water, I am at a competitive disadvantage. So is the trainer. He/she won't be making any money because under the current system we are competing against others who are not playing by the rules. What do I do then? Under the current system, you cannot penalize owners for merely sending horses to Scott Lake, Rick Dutrow, or Steve Asmussen. So, I use Bruce Levine, I use Peter Walder (who had a positive clenbuterol test -- when the rule(s) was changed and the tests came about), I use Mike Maker (who used hyperbaric therapy), I use Mike Hushion (I haven't yet, but I could see myself possibly doing so). I use Cody Autrey. I use others.

The current system is broken. Should I be able to use Chuck Simon? Sure. But Chuck, who plays the game by the rules, he might have had a positive test once, for a perfectly legal drug. OK, that's once time. Can I use Gary Sciacca -- who couldn't prove his innocence because of a broken and faulty system, and it was in his best interest to "take the days" so to speak -- who had a severe penalty for an incident? I think we all understand that the current system is broken and faulty and the solution is just not that simple.

I want a better, fair system. I would do better as an owner if there was such a system.

Eric

[asudevil]

Sit him down for a year. Take all the horses away. That's the only way a message will be sent.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by asudevil

Sit him down for a year. Take all the horses away. That's the only way a message will be sent.

Maybe that's the answer. However, it's the collateral damage that concerns me.

Eric

[asudevil]

Originally Posted by ELA

Maybe that's the answer. However, it's the collateral damage that concerns me.

Eric

Understood, but we might have to suffer minor setbacks in order for this game to survive.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, yes, I agree with you. However, where does the line get drawn on the difference between Jackson and me? He's using Steve Asmussen and I am using Scott Lake. OK, maybe he has dozens with Steve and I have one with Scott. Does that make me any less of a hypocrite? His horse is Curlin, and mine is a beaten 5 at Pimlico or Penn National. I just don't know.

So, I don't give horses to Scott Lake. I give them to this other trainer I referenced. The guy shoots 25% meet after meet. Wins races. Steps up horses. Wins at 35% off the claim. And so on. Now do people critisize my because I am using a "super trainer" who "they just know is cheating" and who just hasn't got caught yet? How many people to I have to satisfy? Where does it end.

Regardless, I agree about Jackson. Let's remember that Jackson, originally, was calling for transparency. That was his motivation and agenda. It wasn't until various people in the industry realized that: a) he had a voice that would be heard and, b) that he would get the appropriate forum; and then they started to him to further the agenda of medication reform.

Listen, there are people who will give Dutrow, Lake, Asmussen, and others, horses. I have always said that if Scott Lake gets a positive for some designer, exotic, secret, whatever you want to call it drug -- in reality it shouldn't happen just once if that was the key or secret to his success. Now it's known, there should or could be a test. The walls should come crumbling down. His barn(s) should fall apart. However, I have always said that if a trainer of mine comes up positive for one of these ILLEGAL, designer, exotic, etc. drugs -- I will pull horses from him/her. However, again, and I will always ask -- is that the absolute I have to live by and run my business. If the industry wants to rid itself of Trainer X -- and someone sabotages a horse, feed, or something. Do I still live in the world of absolute.

More importantly, would you want me to if you were my trainer, I had horses with you, and you were Trainer X. Hypohtetical? Yes. Could it be reality? Yes, unfortunately it can be.

Eric

When you start preaching to Congress about the issue of medication I will take you to task. I understand where you are coming from. I understand it is hard to draw the line somewhere. But when a trainers barns expands while on a 6 month suspension it simply is hard to understand why anyone would say that there isnt a real problem of ethics among owners. We know that a lot of trainers are challenged in that area. But trainers that have no fear of losing owners and horses if they have repeated drug violations are surely going to be emboldened. Especially since we supposedly simply just sun ourselves during those suspensions.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

When you start preaching to Congress about the issue of medication I will take you to task. I understand where you are coming from. I understand it is hard to draw the line somewhere. But when a trainers barns expands while on a 6 month suspension it simply is hard to understand why anyone would say that there isnt a real problem of ethics among owners. We know that a lot of trainers are challenged in that area. But trainers that have no fear of losing owners and horses if they have repeated drug violations are surely going to be emboldened. Especially since we supposedly simply just sun ourselves during those suspensions.

Absolutely. Preaching to Congress and being in that position holds one to a higher level perhaps. Not here in this forum though, or at least not with the moral majority, LOL. That's OK, I'll be the hypocrite. LOL.

Seriously though -- while there is an ethics problem amongst owners, this is a business. And the other side of the business tells us that there is an ethics problem amongst trainers, vets and others. For as long as there are people looking to gain an edge . . . there will always be people offering the availability.

Eric

[sumitas]

Let the punishment fit the crime. Too often in horse racing the "punishments" are mere vacations for the violators.

As far as the idea that businesses can ignore the rules because they are a business here's a reminder. The industrial revolution and resultant exploitation of labor in western society occurred in the 19th century. I regrettably see many in business, however, pining to return to the "good old days."

If you want to return to barbaric exploitation then move to the far east or some other emerging market. They are struggling with their own version of the industrial revolution and it ain't pretty.

IMO, western society should advance toward more humane and ethical standards. Not return to our dark past. Just my 2 cents.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by freddymo

The cobra venom was a gift from the snake hunter guy on the discovery channel.. apparently in some cultures giving snake venom from a King Cobra is the ultimate sign of respect.. It's unfair to accuse Biancone for anything other then knowing a guy who understands a special culture.. I thought everyone knew the REAL snake juice story...

I don't care how many country's have tossed him the guy is an amazing conditioner

you have got to be kidding me.

jcs just moved way up in my book.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I agree with Eric on this one.. How is an owner to know a trainer is currently cheating.. If I give a horse to trainer am I there to see what the trainer is doing? And why is it that a trainer can't change there training or cheating ways? In all walks of life people are given multiple chances to correct the mistakes that they have been made accountable for..

anyone giving a horse to the likes of assman or dutrow have to expect the positives that go with them. their resume is common knowledge. i'd think it would be those who are willing to do ANYTHING to win who will go to them. too bad when they have to re-pay purse money. it's their price for going with such nefarious characters to begin with.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

I knew this would happen with the bad publicity now that Dutrow has raised his profile through Big Brown.

he got caught before BB, and now after. i doubt the fact he had a positive has anything to do with his profile being raised. the horse would still have tested over, whether anyone knew the trainer or not.

only thing that might be different is now they may hit the front page of the sports page with this, rather than further back.

'derby trainer has drug positive'.

it's not the big story...the big story is that his umpteenth offense is being treated as a first offense. that's the worst part about it.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So it is ok to "have an edge" if you win?

No,it's not at all o.k to "have an edge." What I was saying is that it isn't "a perception" that these guys have an advantage. It's a fact. As far as having owners change trainers, it's a lil late out here for that. I don't think that very many trainers in SOCAL are winning much unless they are cheating in some way. All our leading trainers have been caught cheating. It's not gunna work out here (geting owners to move to different trainers.) The only successful day in/day out one I would suggest is Ron Ellis. He is probably clean, but I don't think he is realistic (his horses don't race very much.) He is a good trainer for the very wealthy(they can afford to wait n' wait.)Hey, we know who cheats. They do have positive tests. We just don't punish them enough to hurt them. It's a trainer's game. Anyone could have seen that on display last Friday Night when Stein unleashed that bomb closed on incredibly slow fractions(the only one that could.) P4 paid 24k, and if you don't think heavy breather had that, then you're kid'n yourself. It's a trainers game.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It was depressing. I mean being second was fine (though I'm sure Scuds will find something I did wrong.)

How would I know? We can't play the track. The only thing I ever told ya was to shorten up Bubble Berry's races, and run her in an easier spot. You did both. I don't know what other horses you have. I don't even remember the name of the one that had the starting gate get in the way. The only reason I ever said anything about Bubble Berry is because she was such an obvious case of a sprinter stopping in the 2nd turn of a route. You tried her again at a route. I'm not sure why, but I am sure you had some reason. Then, she won when you sprinted her, and she won again when you sprinted her. Damn if she didn't win a 3rd time when you sprinted her.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

But you can't be responsible for something you have no control of or knowledge of. If society worked under that premise, parents would go to jail for their minor child's felony conviction, a team's trainer would be punished for every steroid violation, etc. Accountability is one thing, but fair is fair.

Should the owner of the Jeremy Rose horse be accountable for his actions? How about the trainer?

if you hire someone with a huge, long rapsheet, just how innocent can you proclaim yourself to be? there are trainers out there who don't have a list of charger longer than my arm; by the same token you have trainers who are dirtier than The Indomitables Drugs' favorite sock. so, if you hire one of these socks, you can't really complain when some of the funk rubs off on you, can you?