Quote:
Originally Posted by Merlinsky
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?