I will 2nd that. Isn't this the 3rd country that he has broken medication rules in? Its a shame that this great sport has to deal with crooks like him.

The article didn't mention that Biancone can enter a track if he has a slot machine attached to his back.

he can't apply for a license anywhere for the whole year....after 6 months he will be allowed back on racetrack grounds (but only on the frontside, ie 'public areas')....it's not clear if, after 6 months his horses can be transfered back to his assistants (allowing him to benefit financially again) but for the first 6 months at least, the horses must go to other trainers.

I'll be looking at DRF for his update. I'm still interested in seeing what CA does, regarding his suspended sentence if you don't get in trouble elsewhere for a year (he, um, got in a little bit of trouble, obviously).

What countries are left for him? Argentina? Australia?

so then isn't it essentially a one year ban? only the financial benefit seems shortened.
either way, it allows a repeat offender back in the sport next year. great.

today's update....there should be another article tomorrow...
http://www.drf.com/news/article/89547.html

Terry Finley, the president of West Point Thoroughbreds, the horse racing partnership that owns Irish Smoke, said that he was willing to let Biancone's appeal run its course and that he did not feel pressure to remove Irish Smoke from Biancone's barn prior to the settlement.

"I'll be honest with you, I didn't appreciate a lot of people in this industry crucifying the guy before he had his day in court," said Finley, a former Army captain. "That drove me nuts. I heard all the talk and innuendo. But he didn't have his shot at due process, and no matter what anyone says, this is still America."
Biancone, a native of France, trains for many powerful clients, including the principals behind Coolmore Stud, the multinational racing and breeding operation that owns La Traviata. A spokesman for Coolmore, Richard Henry, said the group had not determined who would train the Biancone horses after the Breeders' Cup.

Carl Lizza, the owner of Cosmonaut under the stable name Flying Zee Stables, said that he had not determined who will train the four Flying Zee horses currently stabled with Biancone. But he said he would not hesitate to give Biancone horses when the trainer is able to operate a stable again.

"I don't know what he did wrong," said Lizza, who called Biancone "one of the 10 best horsemen" in the U.S. "From what I read in the papers, it was just possession. He wasn't using it. Unless something else comes out, yes, of course I'll give him horses."




Still think the owners aren't the problem in this game?


Hey Terry...facts and innuendo are not the same thing...

Hey Carl...why dont you give your horses to one of the other "nine" best horseman who dont have that pesky little Cobra Venom "possesion" violation on their looooong rap sheet? What was he doing with it? Recreational use?

However, Biancone's assistant could begin to put together a racing stable, and Biancone would be able to consult on the operation of the stable as long as he does not go to the backstretch, according to John Veitch, the Kentucky state steward.



thought the new class-A rule was against this ?

the owners lost all virtue when they decided against the "inconvenience" of switching trainers before the Breeders Cup.

now it sounds like he will be allowed to train via cell-phone after all.

I have hammered this point to anyone who would listen but people still want to blame the authorities. There is a limit to what commissions and authorities can do when the owners are willing to turn a blind eye towards a guy getting caught with a class 1 drug in the barn, ordered by his defacto private vet. Not to single out Finley but he is a member of many governing boards including the Breeders Cup board and his attitude is typical of many on these boards, in effect the people who run the game. That Tom Ludt voted against the settlement was funny seeing as his trainer is Steve Assmussen. At least Dell Hancock has been consistent.

He's stating that the owners say possession is acceptable, even if use was never proven. So I can get caught with 10 kilos of coke, but as long as I'm not using it, that's OK?

No, I dont see where you are getting that but the owners dont seem to mind when they do use it. It is like when baseball players used to police the game on the field. Preen or strut after a HR and you paid the price...so guess what? Guys didn't do it...at least more than once. Same thing here. If owners would require a trainer to live up to some form of standard concerning illegal drugs then trainers would be a lot more cautious and would not be as brazen as some of these guys are. They know that the owners will run back to them so they 'push the envelope' and then cry foul when they get caught.

You are back!

C'est la vie...

I probably shouldn't post on this topic after drinking about 2 bottles of French wine on the flight back and zero sleep.

This is horseplop.com, right?

Oui

F.uck Terry Finley for using the Captain America card.

http://bc.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=41417

transferred his horses.


wonder if the refrigerator went along as well...

I dont follow the logic. The standard should be set by the owners because they are the ones who ultimately pay the bills and call the shots. The horses are their property. What goes into them is their business and if they choose to look the other way or accept illegal substances being used then they are as responsibile.

Chuck, it's not that simple and all of us who are in the business know that. I agree there must be accountability -- across the board. I agree there must be checks and balances. However, don't think for a second that anyone -- trainer or owner -- gulity or innocent -- would lay down. Personally, I'll discuss and debate the issue with you over a few beers anytime. I know we agree with, probably, 95% of the issues. I say debate in a friendly, constructive way.

However, if you think that a racing commission would shy away from litigating with a trainer, what about an owner -- pick a name -- who has 50 head or so, a major metropolitan law firm on retainer, and an amount of resources that only they could decide to throw at something like this.

Let's try and hold MSG or Dolan responsible for the NY Knicks roster, or Steinbrenner for that matter. Of course it's different, but look at the applicable parallel. Look at what they tried to do in Delware and before the agreement got out of the blocks, it was amended and revised -- because it wasn't going to fly an inch of the ground.

I am all for owner accountability -- 100% so. I am all for "not looking the other way" so to speak. However, you are not going to hold an owner liable for day to day operations when they delegate same to an independent contractor. If the owner knows, is involved, etc. -- then 100% they are in as much as anyone else. But if not, well, that same dog won't hunt. The court of public opinion -- here or anywhere else -- can be judge and jury. It's an interesting discussion, but that's about all it is.

BTW, give me a shout over the weekend if get a chance -- totally unrelated topic (I mean unrelated to this of course, LOL).

Eric

Eric
I certainly hold Dolan responsible for the mess that is the NY Knicks. He, like Stienbrenner and TB owners, ultimately call the shots. If Dolan hires an idiot and allows that idiot to continue to destroy the team then HE is responsible, not the idiot. The action of Dolan in hiring and retaining the idiot directly caused the issue. By not getting rid of the idiot when he clearly is not qualified to do his job , Dolan becomes responsible. By the same token if owners allow trainers to repeatedly break rules, especially in a serious manner, yet continue to employ those trainers with no reprecussion, they are responsible. When the illegal actions of a trainer do not lead to any decrease in business then why would you expect any change in behavior? If your dog craps in the house and you continue to make excuses for him, will he stop? Frightengly enough it is that simple. If you as the owner draw the line, trainers will either toe the line or lose the owner. When guys who are part of the 'ruling class' of the sport hire guys with a checkered past and then rush to his defense when he gets caught redhanded, it makes the sport a joke. If we were a major sport and had more intense media coverage, guys like Finley and Lizza especially would be getting lit up. That they just continue with the business as usual routine is a really bad sign.

I am not suggesting that the commissions hold the owners directly responsible. That is a fight that would be too difficult to accomplish. In fact I believe that it is not the job of the commissions to tell owners what to do. But what I am saying is that if the racing indusrty really wants to fix things then they can do it, pretty simply. If 100 of Terry Finleys investors suddenly walked out if Biancone remained associated with them do ya think he'd still be training for them? If a trainer knew they were going to lose horses, a signifigant number, do you think that they would be more careful? Less willing to push the envelope?

Look for the lead investigator in the Biancone case to "retire" by spring of 2008.

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

owners in other sports are held accountable, so why not in horse racing? how many times has mark cuban paid a fine now? why should horse racing be different?

if the racing bodies gave real punishment, and i think the biancone one year suspension is a step in the right direction, than that would help to achieve a cleaner sport. there should be a limit however to how many times a trainer can get in trouble before he is banned for good. lifetime bans exist in other sports, horse racing needs to do the same thing. it's for the good of the industry--the sport won't suffer if certain trainers are gone, but it will certainly suffer if they remain, and the cheating continues.

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.

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.

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...

"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.