Sign disqualification overturned
 

http://blogs.courier-journal.com/rac...laiborne-farm/

Sign, Al Stall Jr, and Claiborne Farm/Adele Dilschneider officially get the Pocahontas victory. There were other DQs and suspensions overturned. Honestly, do they just makeup drug overage thresholds sometimes? Is it like "well, 1 nanogram sounds like a good number"? With this drug in particular, sounds like contamination is a real possibility according to Rees.

I wonder how long before Equibase reflects the change. If you go to their chart, right now it shows the DQ. Sign's been injured and this is her only graded win. If she can't make it back, the result of this is all the more important just from a pedigree page standpoint. Obviously more than that was at stake, but it is something to remember.

Nice to see how the Jockey Club types call for enhanced penalties for medication violations, except when they apply to them.

Yeah that's not the takeaway here at all. By standing up to the positives and winning, the ruling could and should help the little guys, but it's a shame it took a bigger guy getting screwed first. It just further demonstrates a need for an overhaul in medication policies.

The "Jockey Club types" haven't said 'off with their heads' about any and all medication violations. It may be how you've taken it, but sounds like all of them are frustrated with how they can do all the right things and still get screwed. They're not saying horses can never get medication ever.

The Jockey Club types were the ones that fought for enhanced penalties, even for the lower level positives, in Kentucky. The rules they wanted were implemented. When Claiborne got tripped up by these, they argued that there was no precedent for such a stringent penalty (duh!). Do you think they would have advanced the same argument if a trainer of questioned repute was the trainer of Sign, and the filly was not owned by a stalwart of the Kentucky breeding industry?

As I have been preaching for years now the seemingly complete randomness to the allowable limits is an absolute joke. About 10 years ago when this medication stuff started being debated I was stunned to find out how little most people knew about the issue and i'm talking about industry people who should know. When the RMTC was originally developed I thought it was a great chance to "fix" things. Of course they bowed to the political pressure for the most part by doing things backwards by starting with the penalty phase first as opposed to when it should have been dealt with, last. So much of the rhetoric is just completely misguided which I believe is where parsix is going and I have to agree.

Demonizing legal medications is stupid, ignorant and shows a complete lack of understanding of the physical realities of racehorses. The Jockey Club types have absolutely polluted the waters with their willing co conspirators in the media. Sadly the lesson learned here will mostly likely soon be forgotten because for the most part they believe they are "different" and everything that happens to them is a "unique situation". Those two words in quotes are words that I heard used in reaction to this case by a blue blood type recently.

I dunno, you don't have to be a blueblood to think you're a special snowflake when it comes to medication issues or much of anything. Given the opportunity, there are a lot of people who would behave that way in the same situation. Douchery and self-involvement isn't limited to the upper class or old money. They just have more experience throwing their weight around over generations. I know uneducated but financially successful people actively getting in the way of their community's best interest out of poor character that they had well before they got the cash. They just didn't have the money to fulfill their clueless plans or bully fantasies, but they had'em all the same. I've seen plenty of it at all levels. The "unique situation" comment is a gut reaction, not a legal one (little guys having the money to mount a challenge is another issue). Don't think Claiborne is oblivious to how it could affect them in the future if nothing is done so even if they're being self-involved, no reason it can't benefit others even accidentally.