not such a bad idea IMO

[paisjpq]

to make a trainer have to pay his jockey even if the horse is DQ'd for a drug positive...I think hurting the checkbook is still the probably the best way to cut down on cheating...

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/nat...ied-horse.aspx

[AeWingnut]

That reminds me.. did Willie Martinez lose his share when Brass Hat was DQ'ed in the Dubai World Cup?

That bigger the purse the bigger the penalty

Originally Posted by paisjpq

to make a trainer have to pay his jockey even if the horse is DQ'd for a drug positive...I think hurting the checkbook is still the probably the best way to cut down on cheating...

http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/nat...ied-horse.aspx

That depends entirely on whose checkbook is going to be hurting. I doubt Todd Plechter was really sturggling to get by when his horse came up positive...

I maintain there should be a "Strike 3" rule. You get caught once, there's a fine. Twice, a bigger fine, a suspension, Three time, and you're out: Lifetime ban.

Of course, I'm not at all a tolerant person...

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

That reminds me.. did Willie Martinez lose his share when Brass Hat was DQ'ed in the Dubai World Cup?

That bigger the purse the bigger the penalty

I'm 99.9% sure he did. It was quite the talk on the backside after the ruling stood - a lot of sour feelings on that still.

[Holland Hacker]

I was always under the impression that the owners and not the trainers paid for the Jockey.

Assuming you're saying that the trainer should pay the jock out of his own pocket than following that logic should he also have to pay the owner the lost purse. Now that would hurt!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Holland Hacker

I was always under the impression that the owners and not the trainers paid for the Jockey.

Assuming you're saying that the trainer should pay the jock out of his own pocket than following that logic should he also have to pay the owner the lost purse. Now that would hurt!

now there's an idea.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

it opens a whole new realm of insurace issues..if this was a rule..id open a bond agencey for this perpose...

[Left Bank]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

it opens a whole new realm of insurace issues..if this was a rule..id open a bond agencey for this perpose...

Count me in on that.We could clean up.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

it opens a whole new realm of insurace issues..if this was a rule..id open a bond agencey for this perpose...

I can see franchises across the street from every track in the country....

I like you guys' line of thinking. The temptation to win at all costs is obviously too great with the current state of things. I think there should be strict liability with a 3 strikes system (kind of like the criminal penal code in California!!) that increases the punishment for the first two offenses and then requires a substantial ban (maybe not lifetime, because I believe people can learn from their mistakes) from the game to both hit them in the pocket and protect all the horsemen and horseplayers who expect integrity in the game.

Here's an example:

A horse you train tests positive: $10K fine

Any other horse you train tests positive for the second time: $50K

Any other horse you train tests positive for the third time: 5 yr ban from the game + another $50K fine.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Champali Chick

That depends entirely on whose checkbook is going to be hurting. I doubt Todd Plechter was really sturggling to get by when his horse came up positive...

I maintain there should be a "Strike 3" rule. You get caught once, there's a fine. Twice, a bigger fine, a suspension, Three time, and you're out: Lifetime ban.

Of course, I'm not at all a tolerant person...

perhaps it wouldn't truly 'hurt' the big trainers but the message it sends is the same...

the biggest problem with it would be trying to reason out the 'accidental' overages and the blatant abuse of illegal medications...ie a bute positive vs. a mepivicaine positive...they are not the same thing and should not be looked at the same...a rule like this probably creates more chaos than solution...

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

perhaps it wouldn't truly 'hurt' the big trainers but the message it sends is the same...

the biggest problem with it would be trying to reason out the 'accidental' overages and the blatant abuse of illegal medications...ie a bute positive vs. a mepivicaine positive...they are not the same thing and should not be looked at the same...a rule like this probably creates more chaos than solution...

And with no nationally recognized governing body is completely unenforceable. What is illegal and considered an overage in one state may be tollerable in another. What then?

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

And with no nationally recognized governing body is completely unenforceable. What is illegal and considered an overage in one state may be tollerable in another. What then?

the first part of your sentence hit on the real problem...we need a national governing body for the sport...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

the first part of your sentence hit on the real problem...we need a national governing body for the sport...

It simply wont happen

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It simply wont happen

I agree, but what is needed and what is done are often 2 different things.

[Cannon Shell]

This idea is one of the most shallow attempts by the Jockeys Guild to extort money yet.

If a horse comes up positive it is DQed because it supposedly was artificially enhanced and had an advantage over the other horses in the race. If this is true then why should the jockey benefit?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

That reminds me.. did Willie Martinez lose his share when Brass Hat was DQ'ed in the Dubai World Cup?

That bigger the purse the bigger the penalty

Yes he did

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Champali Chick

That depends entirely on whose checkbook is going to be hurting. I doubt Todd Plechter was really sturggling to get by when his horse came up positive...

I maintain there should be a "Strike 3" rule. You get caught once, there's a fine. Twice, a bigger fine, a suspension, Three time, and you're out: Lifetime ban.

Of course, I'm not at all a tolerant person...

The problem is that the rules and regulations and testing is so screwed up that until it is fixed any new rules are just band aids

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jman5581

I like you guys' line of thinking. The temptation to win at all costs is obviously too great with the current state of things. I think there should be strict liability with a 3 strikes system (kind of like the criminal penal code in California!!) that increases the punishment for the first two offenses and then requires a substantial ban (maybe not lifetime, because I believe people can learn from their mistakes) from the game to both hit them in the pocket and protect all the horsemen and horseplayers who expect integrity in the game.

Here's an example:

A horse you train tests positive: $10K fine

Any other horse you train tests positive for the second time: $50K

Any other horse you train tests positive for the third time: 5 yr ban from the game + another $50K fine.

Try to implement this system in most states and you can forget about racing

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This idea is one of the most shallow attempts by the Jockeys Guild to extort money yet.

If a horse comes up positive it is DQed because it supposedly was artificially enhanced and had an advantage over the other horses in the race. If this is true then why should the jockey benefit?

I agree with what you are saying...but to lplay devil's advocate...look at it from another perspective...the jockey didn't know that the horse he was on was going to test and he fufilled his obligation to ride the horse to the best of his ability...so why should he get screwed out of purse money when he didn't do anything wrong?