Not again ....

parsixfarms · #1 10-29-2007, 02:21 PM

I was looking at the Aqueduct overnights for Wednesday and Thursday. I saw Juan Rodriguez listed as the trainer for a few horses that would typically be Dutrow-trainees. Has Dutrow been suspended again? If so, for what this time and how many times does he get slaps on the wrists before the people in NY make a serious statement about him?

Kasept · #2 10-29-2007, 02:29 PM

Looks like you slipped right past the powerful Kim Jackson string in with several too Wednesday...

She's back saddling them for Pinocchio..

parsixfarms · #3 10-29-2007, 02:30 PM

That's another story...

parsixfarms · #4 10-29-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

Hasn't Dutrow done enough?

More than enough.

Rudeboyelvis · #5 10-31-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept

Looks like you slipped right past the powerful Kim Saunders string in with several too Wednesday...

She's back saddling them for Pinocchio..

Kim Jackson.

Contessa got 15 days for Lidocaine which is legal and used all over the backside. The caveat is that a horse can't be exposed to it for 96 hours prior to a race - apparently every horse, regardless of tolerance, should have zero trace of this in the blood after 96 hours, or they have some sort of a subjective threshhold, I'm not an expert by any stretch -

"In New York State Lidocaine has restricted usage labeling it a Class 2 foreign substance. A horse must have no contact with the Lidocaine substance 96 hours (4 days) prior to post time of the race in which they are entered. Whats interesting, New York State permits the use of topical applications at any time up to race".

So.... it's conceivable that a horse can test positive for it even if said horse had not been treated systemically for it within the guidelines... depends on the horse's own physiology/tolerance, as it could potentially absorb enough topically to be detected in a blood test...Gotta love it, NY.

Not making excuses for him, but it's not exactly a milkshake or EPO, which ARE used to cheat.... Why the hate Steve?

ELA · #6 10-31-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept

Looks like you slipped right past the powerful Kim Jackson string in with several too Wednesday...

She's back saddling them for Pinocchio..

Is Kim Jackson, the former Kim Laudati? I know she got married, but I didn't know she took on her husband's name. Anyway, Kim has been back working for him for a while now.

Eric

Cannon Shell · #7 10-31-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ELA

Is Kim Jackson, the former Kim Laudati? I know she got married, but I didn't know she took on her husband's name. Anyway, Kim has been back working for him for a while now.

Eric

Did she marry Michael?

TheSpyder · #8 10-31-2007, 01:32 PM

No, heard it was Jesse

Cannon Shell · #9 10-31-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSpyder

No, heard it was Jesse

Not Phil?

Danzig · #10 10-31-2007, 05:47 PM

as the barn turns....

Rudeboyelvis · #11 10-31-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

There is no "hate" from Steve there, and I suspect that the original poster is aware of drug rules in New York.

Why, though, is a positive on a legal medication OK? And why is it that the same trainers seem to have the problem with the legal medications?

If it's illegal, it's illegal. What is the problem with understanding that concept?

Didn't know you spoke for him....After reading your post, I doubt he does too.

It's illegal and the trainer is paying the price. I don't know where you got the impression that is was "OK" to purposely break the rules - certainly not from my post.

The only point that was attempting to be debated was the vagueness of the rule, the fact that you can use this medication practically up to post time, (topically) and the crap shoot as to which ones will test positive and which ones won't.

Lidocaine doesn't give anyone any sort of racing advantage, and inadvertant overages happen every day of the week around this country, feel free to ask Nick Zito about it.

If you can't decern the difference between a minor non-perfromance inhancing legal med overage and a blantant violation of controlled substances (EPO doping, Milkshaking, et. al.) then I can see why my post went clearly over your head.

parsixfarms · #12 10-31-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

And why is it that the same trainers seem to have the problem with the legal medications?

Amen!

paisjpq · #13 10-31-2007, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Lidocaine doesn't give anyone any sort of racing advantage, and inadvertant overages happen every day of the week around this country, feel free to ask Nick Zito about it.

you're kidding right? lidocaine is a painkiller....ever had novocaine at the dentist? can't feel anything for hours.....I agree that accidental overages happen, but come on...anyone can see how this drug has potential abuse written all over it, which is why it has mandatory zero test limits.

parsixfarms · #14 10-31-2007, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardus

Your post didn't go over my head. But if the rule is vague, and the drug is "a minor non-performance inhancing (sic) med overage," why not err on the conservative side, especially if it is non-performance enhancing, as you claim?

It's called "pushing the envelope." The same thing happens with the trainers that have all these clenbuterol positives; they are not as dumb as their "we don't understand the rules" statements would lead people to believe.

Rudeboyelvis · #15 10-31-2007, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paisjpq

you're kidding right? lidocaine is a painkiller....ever had novocaine at the dentist? can't feel anything for hours.....I agree that accidental overages happen, but come on...anyone can see how this drug has potential abuse written all over it, which is why it has mandatory zero test limits.

Over 1100 starts this year, and this is the only infraction. Hardly what any sane person would consider "potential abuse". Pais, you're point is well taken -but the fact of the matter is that there are strings of horses at every track in NY, and teams of vets, vet assistants, etc. tending to them around the clock. Human error happens.

parsixfarms · #16 10-31-2007, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Over 1100 starts this year, and this is the only infraction.

No, this is at least Contessa's second suspension this year. When he was on the bench in July, the assistant's name at the time was Kim Laudati (see discussion above).

paisjpq · #17 10-31-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Over 1100 starts this year, and this is the only infraction. Hardly what any sane person would consider "potential abuse". Pais, you're point is well taken -but the fact of the matter is that there are strings of horses at every track in NY, and teams of vets, vet assistants, etc. tending to them around the clock. Human error happens.

I agree but why does it seem to happen over and over again in some of the same barns? surely if it was just 'human error' and it kept happening the caretakers would lose their jobs?

sorry if I can't buy that certain trainers just have staff problems....if that was the case they would have made changes so that they aren't serving multiple suspensions per year.

Rudeboyelvis · #18 10-31-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

No, this is at least Contessa's second suspension this year. When he was on the bench in July, the assistant's name at the time was Kim Laudati (see discussion above).

That was bute, not lidocaine....I stand corrected 2 in 1100....Throw the bum out

parsixfarms · #19 10-31-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Human error happens.

Yes, that's true, but this gets to Cardus's point: how come the same individuals never seem to learn from their errors?

Rudeboyelvis · #20 10-31-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Yes, that's true, but this gets to Cardus's point: how come the same individuals never seem to learn from their errors?

The "same individuals" saddle an expotential amount of mounts, with horses stabled around the country - relative to the others. It's not a matter of right or wrong, it is WRONG. Period.
Last year he saddled over 1500 mounts and had zero positives to my knowledge. Is he responsible? Absolutely. If a horse ships in from the SPA training track to AQU and tests positive, even if he personally hasn't seen the horse until race day, he is held accountable. It is his responsibility to take action with his staff to prevent it from happening again, but He ultimately pays the price. Which is fair and right.

I take issue with the fact that there are a couple of trainers that get away with murder because they "never learn"and "Get away with it" . I doubt they personally had anything at all to do with it, frankly. And more to the point, what kind of a trainer would purposely risk a very potential breakdown by knowingly violating the rules regarding lido/bute? Do you honestly believe any trainer would be in business tomorrow if that were the case? Would you give your horse to someone with that rep? I doubt it.