This Could Help Clean Up Racing

[Rupert Pupkin]

Here is an idea suggested by Barry Irwin who is the President of Team Valor:

"Allow no vets or horsemen to possess any medication, legal or not. If vets want to prescribe drugs, they must buy them directly from the racing association and inform the state vet which horses will receive them and for what exact purpose. Anything found in a horse's system that did not come from the medicine chest of the track would result in harsh penalties for both the vet and the trainer."

For those that want to read the entire article, here is the link:

http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=36701

[blackthroatedwind]

Somehow Barry Irwin preaching about the evils of drugs in our game, when Team Valor's list of trainers reads like a who's who of drug violators in racing, severly damages his credibility.

It's important to practice what one preaches. And, as far as I can tell, the author of that piece does not.

[Scav]

I think I read somewhere that in Japan, they have to buy all drugs through the track vet and if they are caught with any other drugs in their system, they are banned for life. Pretty cool if you ask me, if this is how it goes

[sumitas]

Makes sense.

[Danzig]

it's a start. i've been saying for some time there has got to be a vet at each track, answerable to no horsemen, and all meds have to go thru him.

also, amazing isn't it how much security they can afford to keep bettors honest, but don't have the $ to put cameras in barns...

To me the solution is simple. No medication at all.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Somehow Barry Irwin preaching about the evils of drugs in our game, when Team Valor's list of trainers reads like a who's who of drug violators in racing, severly damages his credibility.

It's important to practice what one preaches. And, as far as I can tell, the author of that piece does not.

This issue has been debated time and time again -- and the industry at large should continue to address it until "we fix it" so to speak. I think too many people saying it's "broken" is not going to get it "fixed". I am for an overhaul, revamping, etc. or whatever you want to call it of the medication rules and regulations. Make it practical however. I am also for uniform medication rules. I think "zero tolerance" as clear as it may sound has not yet been defined as much so that it can have practical application.

However, as creative and thought provoking as a measure like this is, IMHO, it is not addressing the problem -- at least not directly. First, the this will not do away with "illegal" drugs --whether the vet has them, the trainer, or "someone else" (and yes, I believe there is a "someone else" often involved in these situations -- think about it. We have all read about the cases where people have been caught, indicted, etc. -- Woodbine, NJ, FL, etc.). Second, from a practicality standpoint, I think this is extremely difficult. It's kind of like Congressional efforts on "carry over basis" in tax reform acts. Sounds great -- then when you look at how you can get there, you realize you can't. Think about how this works? Will the regulatory body, racing commission, whoever it might be -- are they going to do a search, and more importantly, an audit of every single vet, and truck, that enters and moves around the grounds of the track? Are they going to do this every single day? What about their offices -- on and off the grounds?

This is a much more global issue from a practicality standpoint. Regardless, how do the drugs get onto the grounds now? Hey, here is another question -- how do we know we are talking about a "drug" in a traditional sense? Interesting. So, with all this in mind, how about that we still aren't addressing the real problem. One aspect of this, and I see that it makes the problem worse, is the lack of a "leader" to lead the industry. I would think that if the industry decided to give the Jockey Club more bite, they would be the ideal choice. People have called for a racing "Czar" for quite some time. Also, part of the real issue here is money, testing, technology, and everything that goes along with this. Money -- very simple -- how big is this industry? Come on now, this can't be that much of a problem. Testing? Other countries got it right. There are certain states -- like NJ -- who seem to be light years ahead of other jurisdictions and the industry as a whole, as far as testing, catching people, sting operations, enforcement, harsher penalties, etc. Why not follow suit?

Last, but certainly not least, Andy's post above hits the nail on the head. For too long this too has been part of the problem. Whether you want to call it grandstanding, soapbox preaching, pointing fingers, whatver -- this is it. You want this to be fixed -- be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I am sure Barry Irwin has a lot more to say about the global issue, and his own position on employed trainers coming up positive. Now, I personally would have liked to seen and heard more of that within the parameters of the article. That would have added credibility to his position. Absent of that, yes, in my mind there is a credibility issue, but also one of "pointing fingers" at everyone else.

I for one find it very disturbing that someone like Barry Irwin says the things he says about a Hall of Fame trainer like Bobby Frankel. Where is that being part of the solution? I find it disturbing that he doles out nicknames to other trainers, with monikers like "chemical" so and so, or so and so "syringe". Is that being part of the solution? These people are not guilty just because Barry Irwin says so. They are not guilty because people Barry Irwin knows and trusts told him so. They are not guilty because of any reason that Barry Irwin or anyone else offers up. This too is part of the problem. Perhaps many people, including Barry Irwin don't see that.

Eric

Originally Posted by ELA

This issue has been debated time and time again -- and the industry at large should continue to address it until "we fix it" so to speak. I think too many people saying it's "broken" is not going to get it "fixed". I am for an overhaul, revamping, etc. or whatever you want to call it of the medication rules and regulations. Make it practical however. I am also for uniform medication rules. I think "zero tolerance" as clear as it may sound has not yet been defined as much so that it can have practical application.

However, as creative and thought provoking as a measure like this is, IMHO, it is not addressing the problem -- at least not directly. First, the this will not do away with "illegal" drugs --whether the vet has them, the trainer, or "someone else" (and yes, I believe there is a "someone else" often involved in these situations -- think about it. We have all read about the cases where people have been caught, indicted, etc. -- Woodbine, NJ, FL, etc.). Second, from a practicality standpoint, I think this is extremely difficult. It's kind of like Congressional efforts on "carry over basis" in tax reform acts. Sounds great -- then when you look at how you can get there, you realize you can't. Think about how this works? Will the regulatory body, racing commission, whoever it might be -- are they going to do a search, and more importantly, an audit of every single vet, and truck, that enters and moves around the grounds of the track? Are they going to do this every single day? What about their offices -- on and off the grounds?

This is a much more global issue from a practicality standpoint. Regardless, how do the drugs get onto the grounds now? Hey, here is another question -- how do we know we are talking about a "drug" in a traditional sense? Interesting. So, with all this in mind, how about that we still aren't addressing the real problem. One aspect of this, and I see that it makes the problem worse, is the lack of a "leader" to lead the industry. I would think that if the industry decided to give the Jockey Club more bite, they would be the ideal choice. People have called for a racing "Czar" for quite some time. Also, part of the real issue here is money, testing, technology, and everything that goes along with this. Money -- very simple -- how big is this industry? Come on now, this can't be that much of a problem. Testing? Other countries got it right. There are certain states -- like NJ -- who seem to be light years ahead of other jurisdictions and the industry as a whole, as far as testing, catching people, sting operations, enforcement, harsher penalties, etc. Why not follow suit?

Last, but certainly not least, Andy's post above hits the nail on the head. For too long this too has been part of the problem. Whether you want to call it grandstanding, soapbox preaching, pointing fingers, whatver -- this is it. You want this to be fixed -- be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I am sure Barry Irwin has a lot more to say about the global issue, and his own position on employed trainers coming up positive. Now, I personally would have liked to seen and heard more of that within the parameters of the article. That would have added credibility to his position. Absent of that, yes, in my mind there is a credibility issue, but also one of "pointing fingers" at everyone else.

I for one find it very disturbing that someone like Barry Irwin says the things he says about a Hall of Fame trainer like Bobby Frankel. Where is that being part of the solution? I find it disturbing that he doles out nicknames to other trainers, with monikers like "chemical" so and so, or so and so "syringe". Is that being part of the solution? These people are not guilty just because Barry Irwin says so. They are not guilty because people Barry Irwin knows and trusts told him so. They are not guilty because of any reason that Barry Irwin or anyone else offers up. This too is part of the problem. Perhaps many people, including Barry Irwin don't see that.

Eric

Thanks for the great post Eric. I agree with most of what you say, and these guys who tell us "that they know who is juicing" lose me right there.
Its as obnoxious and arrogant a thing that anyone could do.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Thanks for the great post Eric. I agree with most of what you say, and these guys who tell us "that they know who is juicing" lose me right there.
Its as obnoxious and arrogant a thing that anyone could do.

I agree with you on this. I have no idea who is juicing and who isnt. Without 100% proff I dont think anyone should be calling anyone out.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by ELA

This issue has been debated time and time again -- and the industry at large should continue to address it until "we fix it" so to speak. I think too many people saying it's "broken" is not going to get it "fixed". I am for an overhaul, revamping, etc. or whatever you want to call it of the medication rules and regulations. Make it practical however. I am also for uniform medication rules. I think "zero tolerance" as clear as it may sound has not yet been defined as much so that it can have practical application.

However, as creative and thought provoking as a measure like this is, IMHO, it is not addressing the problem -- at least not directly. First, the this will not do away with "illegal" drugs --whether the vet has them, the trainer, or "someone else" (and yes, I believe there is a "someone else" often involved in these situations -- think about it. We have all read about the cases where people have been caught, indicted, etc. -- Woodbine, NJ, FL, etc.). Second, from a practicality standpoint, I think this is extremely difficult. It's kind of like Congressional efforts on "carry over basis" in tax reform acts. Sounds great -- then when you look at how you can get there, you realize you can't. Think about how this works? Will the regulatory body, racing commission, whoever it might be -- are they going to do a search, and more importantly, an audit of every single vet, and truck, that enters and moves around the grounds of the track? Are they going to do this every single day? What about their offices -- on and off the grounds?

This is a much more global issue from a practicality standpoint. Regardless, how do the drugs get onto the grounds now? Hey, here is another question -- how do we know we are talking about a "drug" in a traditional sense? Interesting. So, with all this in mind, how about that we still aren't addressing the real problem. One aspect of this, and I see that it makes the problem worse, is the lack of a "leader" to lead the industry. I would think that if the industry decided to give the Jockey Club more bite, they would be the ideal choice. People have called for a racing "Czar" for quite some time. Also, part of the real issue here is money, testing, technology, and everything that goes along with this. Money -- very simple -- how big is this industry? Come on now, this can't be that much of a problem. Testing? Other countries got it right. There are certain states -- like NJ -- who seem to be light years ahead of other jurisdictions and the industry as a whole, as far as testing, catching people, sting operations, enforcement, harsher penalties, etc. Why not follow suit?

Last, but certainly not least, Andy's post above hits the nail on the head. For too long this too has been part of the problem. Whether you want to call it grandstanding, soapbox preaching, pointing fingers, whatver -- this is it. You want this to be fixed -- be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I am sure Barry Irwin has a lot more to say about the global issue, and his own position on employed trainers coming up positive. Now, I personally would have liked to seen and heard more of that within the parameters of the article. That would have added credibility to his position. Absent of that, yes, in my mind there is a credibility issue, but also one of "pointing fingers" at everyone else.

I for one find it very disturbing that someone like Barry Irwin says the things he says about a Hall of Fame trainer like Bobby Frankel. Where is that being part of the solution? I find it disturbing that he doles out nicknames to other trainers, with monikers like "chemical" so and so, or so and so "syringe". Is that being part of the solution? These people are not guilty just because Barry Irwin says so. They are not guilty because people Barry Irwin knows and trusts told him so. They are not guilty because of any reason that Barry Irwin or anyone else offers up. This too is part of the problem. Perhaps many people, including Barry Irwin don't see that.

Eric

Nice post.

[ALostTexan]

Eric,

I'm not naive enough to think that the two suggestions that I raised above will solve the entire problem. As you suggest, advanced testing and the like will have to be part of the solution. However, unless there are harsh consequences to a trainer that gets a positive (and the current system and its lenient penalties are comical), this sort of behavior will continue to go on.

As for the owners' part of this, I recognize that there will always be a segment of the population that subscribes to the "if I ain't cheating, I ain't winning" theory. An owner's choice of trainer(s), however, speaks volumes about whether they want to see the game cleaned up - or whether, by hiring the trainers that employ questionable tactics, they are condoning and ratifying that behavior. If the "honest" owners out there took horses from these guys (and I do believe that 90% of the people on the backstretch are hard-working, honest individuals), then the game might start to "self-police" itself.

Perhaps the real problem - and I say this as an attorney - is that we're more concerned with protecting the due process rights of the cheaters, than with the honest horsepeople (owners and trainers alike) that these people have driven out of the sport.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Eric,

I'm not naive enough to think that the two suggestions that I raised above will solve the entire problem. As you suggest, advanced testing and the like will have to be part of the solution. However, unless there are harsh consequences to a trainer that gets a positive (and the current system and its lenient penalties are comical), this sort of behavior will continue to go on.

As for the owners' part of this, I recognize that there will always be a segment of the population that subscribes to the "if I ain't cheating, I ain't winning" theory. An owner's choice of trainer(s), however, speaks volumes about whether they want to see the game cleaned up - or whether, by hiring the trainers that employ questionable tactics, they are condoning and ratifying that behavior. If the "honest" owners out there took horses from these guys (and I do believe that 90% of the people on the backstretch are hard-working, honest individuals), then the game might start to "self-police" itself.

Perhaps the real problem - and I say this as an attorney - is that we're more concerned with protecting the due process rights of the cheaters, than with the honest horsepeople (owners and trainers alike) that these people have driven out of the sport.

parsixfarsm, I agree with you and I think you bring up some very good points. However, first as an owner, and second being that of the problem itself, I am not of the belief that "if I ain't cheating, I ain't winning" -- and I don't think that is the issue per se with many. I am sure there are some. However, I do think you brought up some excellent points. Harsher penalties are without question part of the solution. But that is seperate and distinct from the owners element.

An owners choice of trainers may -- and I stress "may" -- speak volumes about many things. However, of how much a person wants to clean up the game? No, I respectfully disagree with that. Who is going to sit in judgement of who? Do we now dismiss everything Barry Irwin has to say becase of his choice of trainers? Sure, it would be easy to say "yes" and in this case I am sure many would hope for that, LOL. Or do we completely dismiss everything I have to say for that matter? Other owners? You? In my opinion you cannot enforce rules on others, and draw a defintive conclusion about their position on this issue -- not based upon your "story" or interpretation vis a vis their trainer selection.

That is far too myopic in my mind. In addition, I think it far too judgemental as it speaks to others being held to standards that might only be established or clear to a small select group -- case in point, like this BB. My choice of having Scott Lake as one of my trainers -- does that say volumes about me? If the majority of this BB thinks it does, then I need to re-examine and question whether or not this is a BB community I want to be part of. There is an entire discussion in and around this issue. I have been beaten by Scott Lake, and the other so called "drug" trainers far more than I have beaten them, and far more than the # of races won by them for me.

I think far too many people are forgetting and dismissing the facts here as it relates to Lake. Scott Lake has been found guilty of clenbuterol positives. I don't trivialize it and I don't minimize the crime. He was found guilty and now he pays the price -- period! However, all I keep reading on BB's is that "I know he is doing something else" or "my friend had horses with him and said" or "he has to be using something because" -- and more along these lines. The armchair, wannabe trainers and experts are very heavy and strong in the "I know" department, but they appear to be very light or empty in the "facts" department. Is there not a disconnect there?

Because a great # of people -- who's opinion may not even be a qualified one -- say they know better; that doesn't make it so. It doesn't make it true. I am not looking to protect due process, although you do bring up an excellent point here. I appreciate and respect that. However, I am looking for "integrity" in the process, whatever it may be. I don't think you should be able to hand out lifetime bans, 10 year suspensions, $100,000 fines, etc. all because someone "must be doing something".

That is why I say let's "treat" and "deal" with the problem head on. Harsher penalties, tougher testing, more modern testing and facilities, more money, more security, split samples -- how about frozen samples! People are being found guilty and not guilty by the way of rape and murder today -- all because DNA testing did not exist so many years ago. Frozen samples -- so as testing develops, so does possibility and probability of catching and enforcing. I am sure there are going to be problems here but that's with any solution.

Thank you again for the great post.

Eric