I don't have a problem with anyone responding. Not at all. I wouldn't enter that arguement, and I never critisize those who do.
In this situation, I think it's pretty simple. Drug, medication, call it whatever you want. There's a rule. A Contessa trained horse came up positive, which is a violation of the rule. There is a trainer responsibility rule. There is a stipulated fine and penalty. He'll pay and serve.
Interesting thought process here though Cardus. Think about this a bit. How many people here at this BB have noticed or commented on how Contessa's results, stats, performance, wins, etc. have gone up over the recent years? Call it X years. How many people here will say it's because he's got something, or got something better, found something, got a new vet, changed the program, or some other rhetoric? Certainly since the rise I refer to, I've read more "juice trainer" comments attributable to him. I've certainly read more criticisms about Contessa.
My point? The same point I made when people said Mott was super-hot at the Spa and started out horribly at Belmont, and now at Aqueduct he's what? 0 for what? Too many people were "looking for reasons" and making a lot of comments. Point being -- there is more, often more to what meets the eye, the limited eye, the eye that often looks to and for negativity and to critisize.
I guess that's the tone of this place, the media and the industry at large. I wonder why we all stick around then, LOL.
Good night all.
Eric
|