Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
Pletcher's positive was OK to whom? Those like Barry Irwin who want to rationalize their continued support for him, and those in the media who have long characterized him as a "golden boy." I'm not aware of many others who bought his contamination defense. In fact, there recently was a discussion on this board in which participants were laughing about how ridiculous Pletcher's explanation was - that basically the laws of physics ceased to exist in his barn, and that's how Tales of Glory tested positive for mepivicaine.
Not everything is black and white, but neither is everything gray, and that's where we seem to have problems here. For example, it appears that it is "black and white" to all that we need to cleanse the "bad apples" from the sport. But while Coach Pants and DrugS state that it is "obvious" that Scott Lake falls into the category of "bad apple" (I agree with them), you disagree, for other "obvious" reasons.
Finally, I don't think many are advocating that we take away all legal drugs. But the way you present the choice, we should just accept the status quo.
|
You are terribly mistaken as to my position and claims. As far as Pletcher's positive, yes, I was referring to Barry Irwin and others. Other owners, the media (not all of course) and fans alike defended him -- and there's nothing wrong with that. The discussion on this board that you refer to IMO was not the common theme. It was not the norm as far as I read it. I read more about rationalizing and justifying Pletcher's positive, vis a vis Asmussen's, than I did about it being "wrong" so to speak. It's very easy to take a positive from the "Golden Boy" and make it not as bad, OK, or justifiable (whatever your motive might be), when you compare it to something worse (in this case Asmussen). I am not saying you or anyone else did that. But that was done. Be that as it may, if I read all of these comments wrong -- like I am saying you did with mine -- I'll accept that.
Personally, I don't care who defends who. I also don't think that there's anything wrong with pointing it out -- like others did here with Barry Irwin. The media bought Pletcher's defense far more than other positives we've seen. I think that's a byproduct and understandibly so. I repeatedly asked why when Pletcher came up positive, it didn't become "public knowledge" for almost one year, however, when Dutrow comes up positive it's 24 hours and then it's all over AP. Does that say anything about my morals or my position or who I am defending. No, it absolutely doesn't. If someone takes it that way, so be it. That doesn't make it true. I don't defend Pletcher, or Dutrow. I will defend process.
As far as black and white -- yes, I agree with you. Not everything is gray either, yes, I agree as well. Regardless, yes, I agree that we need to cleanse the business of the bad apples. I've said that, although it's conveniently neglected. But -- I want to make sure that it's all bad apples based upon one set of universal standards, not just some of the bad apples, or not just ones who are unpopular. Sure, perhaps we disagree on are who the bad apples are. Obvious is a relative term. You can say Scott Lake is a bad apple. I'll respect that. He comes up positive -- that's black and white as far as I am concered. I've said that as well. Bad apple? I'll look at the proof all day long, and I do. I don't think he has done anything to deserve a lifetime ban. Is he a patron saint? Please. Of course not. If I have to speak to that then this is nothing but a waste of time.
With regard to my presentation concluding that we leave things as status quo -- simply put, you are indeed very wrong. That is not my position at all. Many in this industry are in fact advocating zero drugs on a zero tolerence playing field. The Jockey Club addressed this as one point on a spectrum of possibilities. Opinions all are over the board. I was merely trying to portray that the one solution, and perhaps some others, will not bring about the desired result. That's all. On the other hand, if you think I am defending status quo, than you are guilty of selected reading and taking the comment you want to critisize out of context and neglecting the very large majority of my comments and positions.
Eric