McLaughlin with 3 positives; Gets 30 day ban..

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

In my world its pretty simple, if the ruling body isnt specifically testing for a dangerous substance then clearly it can not be illegal.

So, you were OK with Biancone using cobra venom? After all, we're told that there's currently no test for it.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Scav

I wasn't being negative on McPeek that much, I was just pointing out something I consider extreme on his part. I think it would be much smarter for him to be selling 80% for the total sale price instead of marking up the horse up. I would have no issue with him keeping 20% and recouping his expense.

All this is really means nothing because the guy is doing really well right now. Lets see where alot of these two year olds are late in their 3 year old year though. Personally, I would rather have a horse progress and be around for 20 starts, then have them blow their load within their first two starts and be a 10nw3 claimer by November of their 3 year old year.

20 starts what horses race 20 times anymore? That is like 30 months of training after the first start.. 20 starts your funny..

BTW how is McPeek going to sell other partnerships to the same people if he isnt winning early? Think about it the point is to get people to win money and reinvest it in new stock how does winning late help? There is a method to winning early beside the fun joy and profit..lol
You figure those 2 and 3 year old wins at Keeneland in allowance and stakes company dont personally work for you? Yeah I see your point winning stakes at Keeneland must suck.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by gales0678

i let it go after chuck told me to , then gpk brings it up again this AM , what i'm not allowed to respond mr slot czar?

Just kidding

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

So, you were OK with Biancone using cobra venom? After all, we're told that there's currently no test for it.

Cobra venom is most likely dangerous for a horse to run on. ANYTHING that would endanger a horses welfare is WAY off base.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Just kidding

you can just type 'jk' and he would know what you are talking about. Save those fingers from carpal tunnel

[Scav]

Originally Posted by freddymo

20 starts what horses race 20 times anymore? That is like 30 months of training after the first start.. 20 starts your funny..

BTW how is McPeek going to sell other partnerships to the same people if he isnt winning early? Think about it the point is to get people to win money and reinvest it in new stock how does winning late help? There is a method to winning early beside the fun joy and profit..lol
You figure those 2 and 3 year old wins at Keeneland in allowance and stakes company dont personally work for you? Yeah I see your point winning stakes at Keeneland must suck.

That was never my point. His recent Keeneland meet probably had his phone ringing off the hook.

[phystech]

Originally Posted by Scav

That was never my point. His recent Keeneland meet probably had his phone ringing off the hook.

Exactly what is your point, then?

You don't think it is right for the guy to do all the leg work on a horse he buys at a sale and then not be compensated for that legwork and any expenses he incurs? If he is selling the shares after he has made the purchase, you expect him to bear all the risk on the horse and not be rewarded for taking the risk? Who buys shares in the horse if it dies the night he takes it home? Who buys the shares if the horse dies before he sells all of the shares? Who shoulders that financial burden?

Ultimately, it is up to the share buyer to decide whether it is worth the markup being paid, isn't it?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Scav

I wasn't being negative on McPeek that much, I was just pointing out something I consider extreme on his part. I think it would be much smarter for him to be selling 80% for the total sale price instead of marking up the horse up. I would have no issue with him keeping 20% and recouping his expense.

All this is really means nothing because the guy is doing really well right now. Lets see where alot of these two year olds are late in their 3 year old year though. Personally, I would rather have a horse progress and be around for 20 starts, then have them blow their load within their first two starts and be a 10nw3 claimer by November of their 3 year old year.

10nw3 claimers at Penn run for 23k 40% premium if you are a Pa bred.. I will have one in such a race in a few weeks.. gotta love slots lol

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Cobra venom is most likely dangerous for a horse to run on. ANYTHING that would endanger a horses welfare is WAY off base.

So now you're drawing the following distinction: (1) if they can't test for it but it would endanger a horse's welfare, it's not OK; versus (2) if they can't test for it but it would not endanger a horse's welfare, it's OK.

Isn't the question of whether something would endanger a horse way too subjective a standard? After all, there are plenty of legal therapeutic medications that, if abused, could endanger a horse's welfare.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by phystech

Exactly what is your point, then?

You don't think it is right for the guy to do all the leg work on a horse he buys at a sale and then not be compensated for that legwork and any expenses he incurs? If he is selling the shares after he has made the purchase, you expect him to bear all the risk on the horse and not be rewarded for taking the risk? Who buys shares in the horse if it dies the night he takes it home? Who buys the shares if the horse dies before he sells all of the shares? Who shoulders that financial burden?

Ultimately, it is up to the share buyer to decide whether it is worth the markup being paid, isn't it?

Scavs was indirectly supporting Cannon Shell.Which is cool, why wouldnt he, unfortunately the point was never particularly meaningful, you just had to let it go and understand my man was sticking up for his main man. Its right thing to do!

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

So now you're drawing the following distinction: (1) if they can't test for it but it would endanger a horse's welfare, it's not OK; versus (2) if they can't test for it but it would not endanger a horse's welfare, it's OK.

Isn't the question of whether something would endanger a horse way too subjective a standard? After all, there are plenty of legal therapeutic medications that, if abused, could endanger a horse's welfare.

BTW I posted that if the meds endangered the horse they shouldnt be used and the state is obligated to test for them.

To answer your question you cant endanger a horse with meds legal or "Not Tested/illegal" But the stuff that could be illegal maybe just stuff that doesnt endanger a horse it could be stuff that truly makes them feel better not feel nothing at all.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by freddymo

10nw3 claimers at Penn run for 23k 40% premium if you are a Pa bred.. I will have one in such a race in a few weeks.. gotta love slots lol

Freddy, you are missing out right now. The state to hit right now is Indiana, 50 BSF and you run 3rd in a 70k stakes race. That is jackpot city...

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by freddymo

10nw3 claimers at Penn run for 23k 40% premium if you are a Pa bred.. I will have one in such a race in a few weeks.. gotta love slots lol

is he live freddy? bet him in the gimmicks?

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

BTW I posted that if the meds endangered the horse they shouldnt be used and the state is obligated to test for them.

The issue, in the terms that you previously framed it, isn't whether the state should be testing for them. Rather, the issue is whether it's OK to use something simply because they are not testing for it.

Ten years ago, they didn't have a test for EPO. Now they do, and evidence suggests that EPO's use is harmful to the horse. That there was not a test for it ten years shouldn't mean that the trainers that used it back then were doing something that was OK.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The issue, in the terms that you previously framed it, isn't whether the state should be testing for them. Rather, the issue is whether it's OK to use something simply because they are not testing for it.

Ten years ago, they didn't have a test for EPO. Now they do, and evidence suggests that EPO's use is harmful to the horse. That there was not a test for it ten years shouldn't mean that the trainers that used it back then were doing something that was OK.

Those glorious EPO days when horses rebroke during the race....And Lance Armstrong won at will. Those were the days.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Scav

Freddy, you are missing out right now. The state to hit right now is Indiana, 50 BSF and you run 3rd in a 70k stakes race. That is jackpot city...

Belterra is my spot! Love Jeff Rubys Steakhouse.. AWESOME food amazing service, very solid wine list 3 1/2 stars! I have never won a friggin dollar on that evil boat but love the place for Derby weekend.. Indiana Breds geez that is really ridiculous.. Get those slot bucks while you can. Shop is closing up soon enough.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Belterra is my spot! Love Jeff Rubys Steakhouse.. AWESOME food amazing service, very solid wine list 3 1/2 stars! I have never won a friggin dollar on that evil boat but love the place for Derby weekend.. Indiana Breds geez that is really ridiculous.. Get those slot bucks while you can. Shop is closing up soon enough.

That boat is EVIL! I was telling some people up here that the one time we stayed there, we all got smoked, like abnormally smoked, and they all said the same thing, coldest BJ decks of all time.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The issue, in the terms that you previously framed it, isn't whether the state should be testing for them. Rather, the issue is whether it's OK to use something simply because they are not testing for it.

Ten years ago, they didn't have a test for EPO. Now they do, and evidence suggests that EPO's use is harmful to the horse. That there was not a test for it ten years shouldn't mean that the trainers that used it back then were doing something that was OK.

how many horses died or were hurt from EPO? How many horse die or hurt from a Hyperbaric Chamber? Running a horse at 35mph is way more dangerous to them then EPO. Its a brutal game.. Any med improperly used is harmful jjust noy necessarily dangerous. You can have your liver fail from too much Tylenol.. the point is always to not overdue any meds

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Oh really, Freddy?

Well I guess its ok if I do it to myself just not ok if someone does it to a horse..lol

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Well I guess its ok if I do it to myself just not ok if someone does it to a horse..lol

LOL