Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasept
That's fine, but start somewhere with an established framework of what constitutes eligibility for license revocation or similar exclusion. Because the inclination to single out individuals based on perceived image isn't right or fair. And more importantly, because it may not be accurate.
I'll reiterate that there are individuals and operations out there doing things far worse than whatever people think Dutrow, or IEAH for that matter, are doing. Those just seem to be convenient pinatas for the public and media and low-hanging fruit for regulators. In the meantime, the wolves in sheep's clothing operate freely.
|
There is a well documented framework at play in NYS though most cases come from the Harness side of things.
And I have to disagree that Dutrow is being singled out here. We all talk about the glory years and such but the truth is that when the stewrds ruled with an iron fist there is no doubt in my mind that he would have been sent packing long ago and probably would not have been alone. At some point a standard has to be created and if this is the one, so be it.
I don't know that trainers are afforded the same "rights" other than due process anyway. We are guilty until proven innocent in medication cases and in NY and other jurisdictions are prodded into not contesting suspensions with the threat of additional time or in some cases twice as much time for simpy asking for a hearing. Guilty and more days if you try to prove innocence.