Barry Irwin Speaks Out

[Echo Farm]

From TDN:

I am writing in response to Michael Iavarone's request
to have other owners join him in taking the initiative
to order their trainers to stop using race day medication
except Lasix.
I think almost all of what he proposes makes sense.
The problem is that Mr. Iavarone's headline trainer is
Rick Dutrow. When he received a suspension for violating
the rules in Kentucky this month, it marked the
73rd ruling against him since 1976. (Link to the rulings:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/acrobat/2008-05/
38903142.pdf)
I am sure that I speak not only for myself when I
answer his call to join him in saying no to drugs as
follows: only somebody terribly naive is going to sign
up as long as Rick Dutrow trains for IEAH. If he really
want to make a statement, he should consider moving
his horses. Then he might get somebody's attention.
Until then, the proposal looks like an attempt at damage
control or a PR stunt. Mr. Iavarone's peers are
some of the most sophisticated and successful business
people in the world of sport. Give them something
to sink their teeth into, and they might swallow the
bait. --Barry Irwin

[the_fat_man]

What's a joke to me is that this is about RACE DAY medication and slip ups with it. So, while just about ALL TRAINERS are using medication, the present focus seems to be entirely on those caught using it on race days -- whether by intent or miscalculation.

Why, then, would I really care WHO GETS CAUGHT, when EVERYONE is training with it? Some 'cheat' MORE than others but the distinction is really one of degree and not of kind.

What might interest me, however, would be a NON COSMETIC effort to ban ALL (enhancing) MEDICATION in the training of horses. I mean, if a horse, say, can't run without bleeding, maybe it really shouldn't be running.

Of course, this could be about as practical as banning medication in all sports. You need the drugs to recover quicker after an injury.

And then it becomes all about spin skills in an increasing hypocritical forum.

[RolloTomasi]

Yes. Like when Mr. Irwin took his horses away from Ralph Nicks (who got caught having his vet give an adjunct medication to a runner with its lasix shot) and distributed them amongst Todd Pletcher, Steve Asmussen, and Kiaran McLaughlin.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

This is pretty funny stuff Irwin has going.

It's as if he's saying 'my trainer, the one time hop artist Pletcher, is now cleaner than Dutrow - I think IEAH should give their horses to him.'

It's enough to make Left Bank, Freedom's Daughter, and Warners all turn in their graves.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It's enough to make Left Bank, Freedom's Daughter, and Warners all turn in their graves.

Come on, give the poor guy a break. Don't you recall the bad grass epidemic that hit Saratoga during the summer of 2002.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

It's enough to make Left Bank, Freedom's Daughter, and Warners all turn in their graves.

Golf clap...

[ateamstupid]

I like that someone called Iavarone's bullshit publicly, even if Irwin isn't squeaky clean himself.

Pot. Kettle.

[ELA]

Not that it matters, and it's certainly not the case here, however, if you give your horses to a "high profile" or "high percentage" trainer, who has a perfectly clean record, no positives, overages, etc. -- there will always be a group of people who scrutinize, critisize, and some who "just know" that they are "doing something" or along those lines.

Eric

Eric you constantly do this. You don't get questioned about your ultra positive/naive view of racing one tenth of what you give to the doubters. It's ponderous.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Eric you constantly do this. You don't get questioned about your ultra positive/naive view of racing one tenth of what you give to the doubters. It's ponderous.

I have no idea what you are even taling about. Regardless, take it anyway you like it. IMO it is not ultra positive, nor naive in light of the reality. It doesn't have to be your reality, but that doesn't make it so and the same goes for me. Also, as far as the doubters, who are you talking about?

Eric

[blackthroatedwind]

Apparently sane and logical now passes for naive.

There are very few in this business who can be absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing. And quite frankly criticism of people who are suspect of what's going on in this industry is not helping the game correct itself.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by ELA

Not that it matters, and it's certainly not the case here, however, if you give your horses to a "high profile" or "high percentage" trainer, who has a perfectly clean record, no positives, overages, etc. -- there will always be a group of people who scrutinize, critisize, and some who "just know" that they are "doing something" or along those lines.

Eric

And then there are others that like to bury their heads so far into the ground.

Gosh, I guess if someone says they didn't do something they obviously did, they must be innocent!

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Apparently sane and logical now passes for naive.

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I bet you don't play well in the sandbox.

The word disingenuous comes to mind. Are you just being contrarian for the fun of it?

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

And then there are others that like to bury their heads so far into the ground.

Gosh, I guess if someone says they didn't do something they obviously did, they must be innocent!

Now that's naive, LOL. If you draw that conclusion from my comments than best of luck in your interpretation.

Eric

Originally Posted by ELA

I have no idea what you are even taling about. Regardless, take it anyway you like it. IMO it is not ultra positive, nor naive in light of the reality. It doesn't have to be your reality, but that doesn't make it so and the same goes for me. Also, as far as the doubters, who are you talking about?

Eric

...

Not that it matters, and it's certainly not the case here, however, if you give your horses to a "high profile" or "high percentage" trainer, who has a perfectly clean record, no positives, overages, etc. -- there will always be a group of people who scrutinize, critisize, and some who "just know" that they are "doing something" or along those lines.

Eric

The doubters are the disgruntled fans you were referring to.

I just don't understand why a thread about an owner hating on other owners has to include a captain obvious moment to remind everyone "well...well some of the fans are bad too!"

Are they as bad as the trainers who break the rules repeatedly?

Which is more important in the grand scheme of things...getting the bad apples out of the training profession or getting the disgruntled fans out?

I'd really like to know your and any other owner or trainers opinion.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I wouldn't think twice about employing a trainer - like a Scott Lake - who is certified pond scum - if it was strongly in the best interest of my horses future form.

However, I could never pretend that a guy like Lake isn't anything but bad for the game.

For Irwin to give another owner a lecture about which trainers not to employ because they seek advantages - it would be like Sumitas starting a thread giving Merasmag's a lecture about how crappy her posts are.

[Indian Charlie]

Pond scum?

That's expensive stuff man. Check out this pond scum for $220 a pound!

http://www.e3live.com/all_products/e...dfa1e1dc536ad7

I would hardly associate a trainer like Lake with this stuff!

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Do pond scum pills really move up people that much?