Originally Posted by cmfhb411 (Post 1163215)

So every owner who hires a trainer who eventually cheats
with their horse, or NOT their horse, knew the trainer was
going to cheat ahead of time? Every one ?

Originally Posted by Konk (Post 1163227)

Good point. It is critical to any sucess full drug policy that it be clearly defined,
I'm no vet, but I assume that finding an overage of a theraputic drug would have to classified and handled differently than finding snake venom.

Take the ~25% top trainers for fewest drug incidents anually and set that as the minimum standard goig foreward. If 1/4 of the population can do it, demand the rest do it too.

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 1163228)

Thanks Tom at least we agree on something.

Originally Posted by freddymo (Post 1163144)

Is racing better off without Baffert? Perhaps the very best dirt trainer ever banished forever?

Originally Posted by cmfhb411 (Post 1163239)

To your Caveat Emptor point: of course. I've spent and invested a few bucks before.

And, none of us have to walk, or go back in time, very far
to see that bad actors only get emboldened when and where
there is little or no threat of serious consequences.
So no disagreement there too.

I'm just not ready to torch an owner with clean horses
for hiring the wrong trainer who had no prior record
of wrongdoing. If I missed that clause, in this thread,
which protects such an owner then I missed it.