NYRA bars Mullins for 6 months
 

Horse Trainer Barred for Drug Violation
By JOE DRAPE
Published: October 29, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/sp...orse.html?_r=1

The New York Racing Association will announce Friday that the trainer Jeff Mullins will be barred from its racetracks for six months for giving one of his horses an unknown substance in the Aqueduct monitoring barn in April and repeatedly lying about it. The association has also made it clear that, in contrast to past practices among trainers, Mullins cannot transfer his horses to an employee, relative or business associate to get around the suspension in order to run in New York.

The punishment will extend only so far, however. Mullins, one of the most successful trainers in the country — and one of the most notorious for his many medication violations — is free to run in any other racing jurisdiction during the ban. That includes Santa Anita in California, where he intends to run a horse next week at the Breeders’ Cup, one of racing’s richest events.

why no reciprocity in this case?

thats a nothing punishment, the guy hardly ever ships to NY

What abourt I want revenge? Oh he has done enough

thats like it that I can remember, I knew I could count on you to bring up the one horse who did ship, nice work.

Imagine he is going to have to out juice Cannon Ball at Philly Park this winter...Good luck to him

Three questions
1. Why does the headline read "drug violation" when there was in fact no drug?
2. Why did it take this long to adjudicate the case considering there was no court and Mullins apparently had no legal defense?
3. Why didn't they suspend him for a much longer period of time or even indefinitely since there was no state commissions involved and he clearly had intent to break the rules?

mullins doesnt run in NY he cant it isnt the wild wild west region, so who cares it isnt like its Contessa or Jacobsen with a million starters the guy knows his crap doesnt fly in Ny so who really cares

One other thing, if Mullins sends a horse to NY during this time frame and the owner puts him under the care of someone Mullins has never done business with doesnt that effectively circumvent the rule?

please translate

It is just a track ruling, not a state ruling

the guy runs 3 horse a year in NY who cares about him.. If he is smart he will move his tack and juice to delaware park till the slots run dry..

Delaware Park? What about Penn Nat? I'm sure Mullins can get a few to run 55 BSF's.

yea, the guy aint baffert, he rarely ships to NY.

This guy is an earner never mind cheater... Pa. is tough on heroin

Of course not, why would horse racing ever want to hand down sanctions with teeth.

I understand that he doesnt run there which is why once again horse racing officials draw us negative attention without really accomplishing much. I really think NYRA dropped the ball here simply by banning a guy for 6 months when he has no intention of running there anyway, though there may be some legalities that we dont know about. If mullins happens on a good three year old he can march right back into the detention barn and run in the Belmont. I'm sure with the state watching over their back NYRA triple checked to make sure they were ok in doing this. But in the grand scheme, was this a positive as presented?

Of course it isn't a positive. Any person with knowledge of the sport knows the ruling is a joke with basically no penalty at all.

Sounds like NYRA had a weak case and they throw this out there like they are the tough guys of racing.

ok, thanks.

one of these days i'll put up the pics of the horses from the visit. appreciate your time by the way.

We all know that Mullins doesn't run much in New York, so the deterrent impact with him is minimal. However, might the penalty set the bar for what NYRA may do with other "serial cheaters" if they get caught doing something naughty at a NYRA track. If it doesn't, then I agree that this is just a "window-dressing" penalty.

With ineffective state regulators, the only way that racing is going to clean up the sport is by having tracks assert their private property rights with respect to cheating trainers, just as they are very willing to do with jockeys. The recent decision at Charles Town seems to support their ability to do so without the need for regulatory approval.

At least the NY tracks will not have to put up with Mullins shenanigans, as in cheating .

Karen Murphy, Mullins's attorney, said that the trainer did not plan to take any legal action contesting the order, though she characterized the penalty as "grossly irresponsible, wasteful, and unnecessary" while criticizing NYRA for spending money on pursuing the penalty.

"If anyone should sue, it should be the betting public, because they are being deprived of seeing the best horses in California start in a failing racing jurisdiction," Murphy said.

That was from the DRF article up now. http://www.drf.com/news/article/108546.html

Best horses in California? Failing racing jurisdiction? I can watch the best horses in California race in a failing racing jurisdiction Wednesday thru Sunday on Calracing.com!

I don't think Karen Murphy has ever seen a trainer deserving of punishment. She's certainly no advocate for the betting public.

Is it possible the fact that the horse in question never actually ran in a race is the reason it is not a violation of state racing rules? A technicality, of course, but it is difficult in law to penalize someone for intending to break the rules but not actually doing so. If a guy intended to rob the bank messenger, but got pulled over for running a red light and missed his chance, he only gets a ticket for the red light.

Not the same thing. . . at all. . . He's being punished for taking the substance into the barn and administering it to the horse, not running or attempting to run a drugged-up horse.

I suppose it depends on what your definition of "drug" is. According to the rules of racing in New York:

(c) Drug. Any substance or its metabolites which does not exist naturally in the untreated horse and which can have a pharmacological effect on a horse.

The ingredients of Air Power would fit the bill.

In addition, you would have to presume that what Mullins admittedly administered was in fact Air Power. Did they test the horse?

I thought (correct if wrong) that they did go ahead and test the horse, and it came back clean. The violation was violation of the detention barn rules - bringing in the syringe and administering something in the barn.

What would air powers pharmacological effect be, if that was actually the substance used since no one seems to know?

Ever drank a beer?

In light of the detention barn rule that he violated, is this question really relevant?

It isnt relevant in the terms of the violation, just trying to define what a "drug" is.

Yes but dont see the correlation

Good thing it wasn't a 8-month penalty -- because after he wins the Kentucky Derby and Preakness by 10 lengths, would he be prevented from going for the Triple Crown????????