Barry Irwin Speaks Out

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

...



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.

First, it's not disgruntled fans I am referring to -- it's much more than that. I'm a disgruntled fan, but I am still a fan. Always will be. I am a disgruntled owner, but I will always stay in the game because I have a passion for it. I've seen and fought for many changes and improvements in this great sport. However, some of what I've seen is counterproductive. You solve your alleged problem today and then you find out your problem wasn't exactly what you thought it was. It's not about "some fans are bad too" -- not at all. I was and am a fan as well, before I was in the business. Always will be. However, all fans complain, ask questions, have answers, etc. -- differently.

Second, wherever you got the idea I am looking to get bad fans out of the business, and that takes precedent over getting rid of bad apples, very simply put, you couldn't be more wrong. If that's what you get from my commentary than one, you are taking commentary out of context (and content), and two, you're entitled to think that's my motive, but you are wrong.

Your observation that this was about owners hating other owners -- that's where I see a problem, and as I've said you'll never satisfy everyone. I'll read and listen to what Barry Irwin has to say, and I'll read the comments that he's a hypocrite. However, how does that problem get solved? He should only give his horses to the moral majority or mass accepted trainer. Hey, I am all for him giving horses to Chuck Simon, and I am sure plenty of people here would love that. But does that solve our problem? Yes, for one owner it might appear to. Obvious? Sure. But obvious doesn't seem to get much credibility.

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

...



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.

And, I agree with much of the commentary about pots and kettles. What I find more troubling is how successfully defense is put forward and accepted. Pletcher's positive was OK to many, but Asmussen's was not -- because his was a billion times more than Pletcher's or the legal limit. OK, I'll buy that. But like I've always said, it's not black and white and for those who think it is they are very mistaken.

No, I don't think there is credibility in Barry's arguement. Of course he does. And while I think something must be done about various aspects of Rick Dutrow, throwing him out of the business for clenbuterol positives is not one that I am in support of. Because after Dutrow, it's then one of the good guys who plays the game the right way, still succeeds, and someone else wants them gone.

Go to zero tolerence, take away ALL bute, clenbuterol, legal drugs, etc. -- and I think you will see the "real" cheaters have an even bigger edge.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

And, I agree with much of the commentary about pots and kettles. What I find more troubling is how successfully defense is put forward and accepted. Pletcher's positive was OK to many, but Asmussen's was not -- because his was a billion times more than Pletcher's or the legal limit. OK, I'll buy that. But like I've always said, it's not black and white and for those who think it is they are very mistaken.

No, I don't think there is credibility in Barry's arguement. Of course he does. And while I think something must be done about various aspects of Rick Dutrow, throwing him out of the business for clenbuterol positives is not one that I am in support of. Because after Dutrow, it's then one of the good guys who plays the game the right way, still succeeds, and someone else wants them gone.

Go to zero tolerence, take away ALL bute, clenbuterol, legal drugs, etc. -- and I think you will see the "real" cheaters have an even bigger edge.

Eric

Pletcher's positive was OK to whom? Those like Barry Irwin who want to rationalize their continued support for him, and those in the media who have long characterized him as a "golden boy." I'm not aware of many others who bought his contamination defense. In fact, there recently was a discussion on this board in which participants were laughing about how ridiculous Pletcher's explanation was - that basically the laws of physics ceased to exist in his barn, and that's how Tales of Glory tested positive for mepivicaine.

Not everything is black and white, but neither is everything gray, and that's where we seem to have problems here. For example, it appears that it is "black and white" to all that we need to cleanse the "bad apples" from the sport. But while Coach Pants and DrugS state that it is "obvious" that Scott Lake falls into the category of "bad apple" (I agree with them), you disagree, for other "obvious" reasons.

Finally, I don't think many are advocating that we take away all legal drugs. But the way you present the choice, we should just accept the status quo.

[Fearless Leader]

Originally Posted by 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.

THAT was classic hypocrisy from this guy.

Originally Posted by ELA

First, it's not disgruntled fans I am referring to -- it's much more than that. I'm a disgruntled fan, but I am still a fan. Always will be. I am a disgruntled owner, but I will always stay in the game because I have a passion for it. I've seen and fought for many changes and improvements in this great sport. However, some of what I've seen is counterproductive. You solve your alleged problem today and then you find out your problem wasn't exactly what you thought it was. It's not about "some fans are bad too" -- not at all. I was and am a fan as well, before I was in the business. Always will be. However, all fans complain, ask questions, have answers, etc. -- differently

I didn't ask for it to be solved immediately.

Yes I know all fans are not the same too.

Originally Posted by ELA

Second, wherever you got the idea I am looking to get bad fans out of the business, and that takes precedent over getting rid of bad apples, very simply put, you couldn't be more wrong. If that's what you get from my commentary than one, you are taking commentary out of context (and content), and two, you're entitled to think that's my motive, but you are wrong.

Well if you would like to go into greater detail I'd be glad to read it.

Originally Posted by ELA

Your observation that this was about owners hating other owners -- that's where I see a problem, and as I've said you'll never satisfy everyone. I'll read and listen to what Barry Irwin has to say, and I'll read the comments that he's a hypocrite. However, how does that problem get solved? He should only give his horses to the moral majority or mass accepted trainer. Hey, I am all for him giving horses to Chuck Simon, and I am sure plenty of people here would love that. But does that solve our problem? Yes, for one owner it might appear to. Obvious? Sure. But obvious doesn't seem to get much credibility.

Eric

I don't see any of these horses going to Chuck Simon. The majority of horses are going to a select few and there are some in that group who are getting bad press.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Pletcher's positive was OK to whom? Those like Barry Irwin who want to rationalize their continued support for him, and those in the media who have long characterized him as a "golden boy." I'm not aware of many others who bought his contamination defense. In fact, there recently was a discussion on this board in which participants were laughing about how ridiculous Pletcher's explanation was - that basically the laws of physics ceased to exist in his barn, and that's how Tales of Glory tested positive for mepivicaine.

Not everything is black and white, but neither is everything gray, and that's where we seem to have problems here. For example, it appears that it is "black and white" to all that we need to cleanse the "bad apples" from the sport. But while Coach Pants and DrugS state that it is "obvious" that Scott Lake falls into the category of "bad apple" (I agree with them), you disagree, for other "obvious" reasons.

Finally, I don't think many are advocating that we take away all legal drugs. But the way you present the choice, we should just accept the status quo.

You are terribly mistaken as to my position and claims. As far as Pletcher's positive, yes, I was referring to Barry Irwin and others. Other owners, the media (not all of course) and fans alike defended him -- and there's nothing wrong with that. The discussion on this board that you refer to IMO was not the common theme. It was not the norm as far as I read it. I read more about rationalizing and justifying Pletcher's positive, vis a vis Asmussen's, than I did about it being "wrong" so to speak. It's very easy to take a positive from the "Golden Boy" and make it not as bad, OK, or justifiable (whatever your motive might be), when you compare it to something worse (in this case Asmussen). I am not saying you or anyone else did that. But that was done. Be that as it may, if I read all of these comments wrong -- like I am saying you did with mine -- I'll accept that.

Personally, I don't care who defends who. I also don't think that there's anything wrong with pointing it out -- like others did here with Barry Irwin. The media bought Pletcher's defense far more than other positives we've seen. I think that's a byproduct and understandibly so. I repeatedly asked why when Pletcher came up positive, it didn't become "public knowledge" for almost one year, however, when Dutrow comes up positive it's 24 hours and then it's all over AP. Does that say anything about my morals or my position or who I am defending. No, it absolutely doesn't. If someone takes it that way, so be it. That doesn't make it true. I don't defend Pletcher, or Dutrow. I will defend process.

As far as black and white -- yes, I agree with you. Not everything is gray either, yes, I agree as well. Regardless, yes, I agree that we need to cleanse the business of the bad apples. I've said that, although it's conveniently neglected. But -- I want to make sure that it's all bad apples based upon one set of universal standards, not just some of the bad apples, or not just ones who are unpopular. Sure, perhaps we disagree on are who the bad apples are. Obvious is a relative term. You can say Scott Lake is a bad apple. I'll respect that. He comes up positive -- that's black and white as far as I am concered. I've said that as well. Bad apple? I'll look at the proof all day long, and I do. I don't think he has done anything to deserve a lifetime ban. Is he a patron saint? Please. Of course not. If I have to speak to that then this is nothing but a waste of time.

With regard to my presentation concluding that we leave things as status quo -- simply put, you are indeed very wrong. That is not my position at all. Many in this industry are in fact advocating zero drugs on a zero tolerence playing field. The Jockey Club addressed this as one point on a spectrum of possibilities. Opinions all are over the board. I was merely trying to portray that the one solution, and perhaps some others, will not bring about the desired result. That's all. On the other hand, if you think I am defending status quo, than you are guilty of selected reading and taking the comment you want to critisize out of context and neglecting the very large majority of my comments and positions.

Eric

Originally Posted by ELA

And, I agree with much of the commentary about pots and kettles. What I find more troubling is how successfully defense is put forward and accepted. Pletcher's positive was OK to many, but Asmussen's was not -- because his was a billion times more than Pletcher's or the legal limit. OK, I'll buy that. But like I've always said, it's not black and white and for those who think it is they are very mistaken.

There are differences but some of these guys are repeat offenders in numerous states. There needs to be a central racing authority that has universal rules for offenses. If it takes 5 years it is worth the effort to keep the federal government from getting their incompetent hands on it.

Originally Posted by ELA

No, I don't think there is credibility in Barry's arguement. Of course he does. And while I think something must be done about various aspects of Rick Dutrow, throwing him out of the business for clenbuterol positives is not one that I am in support of. Because after Dutrow, it's then one of the good guys who plays the game the right way, still succeeds, and someone else wants them gone.

He would be long gone already with a national racing authority.

Originally Posted by ELA

Go to zero tolerence, take away ALL bute, clenbuterol, legal drugs, etc. -- and I think you will see the "real" cheaters have an even bigger edge.

Eric

I'm not sure about taking away all drugs. Just not running under some. No EPO.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

I repeatedly asked why when Pletcher came up positive, it didn't become "public knowledge" for almost one year, however, when Dutrow comes up positive it's 24 hours and then it's all over AP.

. . . .


With regard to my presentation concluding that we leave things as status quo -- simply put, you are indeed very wrong. That is not my position at all. Many in this industry are in fact advocating zero drugs on a zero tolerence playing field. The Jockey Club addressed this as one point on a spectrum of possibilities. Opinions all are over the board. I was merely trying to portray that the one solution, and perhaps some others, will not bring about the desired result. That's all. On the other hand, if you think I am defending status quo, than you are guilty of selected reading and taking the comment you want to critisize out of context and neglecting the very large majority of my comments and positions.

Eric

On the first part above, you make a very fair point on the delay in announcing the Pletcher positive.

On the second part, I know that you have not advocated for the status quo, but that's how the post I was responding to sounded.

As for the "bad apples," most ( I agree not all) of them are "unpopular," and I think we know the reasons why.

[ELA]

The Pletcher delay was really a minor issue -- but I think it is reflective of much bigger issues. It certainly wasn't a horsemen issue. At least I don't think so. I don't know that Pletcher could create such a delay. By the way -- the horse was a claimer. Wouldn't it have been interesting if the horse had been claimed when he came up positive.

Anyway, I am not sure what brought about the delay -- racetrack management, state racing commission, etc.

The media certainly doesn't help.

By the way, and I am being completely serious -- if there was a national racing commissioner or czar, or a national governing body -- exactly what specific charges or infractions would Dutrow be banned for life for?

The positive test/wagering aspect always concerned me and I am surprised that there is not more vocal concern about it. The Woodbine/Dutrow/Borislow incident I thought would have created much more in the way of ramifications. However, I feel that it's not only the business, sport -- but the public and their money must be protected at all costs.

Eric

[cmorioles]

It seems pretty apparent Mr. Pletcher has forgotten how to train. He is invisible these days.

[cmorioles]

What is next? Will Dutrow call another trainer a cheater? Will a Jerry Brown horse run for blatant cheater Assmussen? Will Hank Goldberg pick a few winners on national television?

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It seems pretty apparent Mr. Pletcher has forgotten how to train. He is invisible these days.

It is amazing. I was talking to a buddy of mine about this the other day. It wasn't that long ago that, possibly with the exception of Contessa, Pletcher had far more starters than any other trainer in New York at this time of year. This year, Barclay Tagg and Christophe Clement have more starters at Belmont than Pletcher, and Pletcher has very few wins (and of those I think almost half are maiden claimers or NW2L claimers). He almost has as many starters at Churchill and Arlington, which used to be his second and third string.

I always thought that the cold spell that he had at Saratoga last summer was not coincidental given its timing. Did his owners know something that we don't, as he no longer trains for Melnyk, has lost many Peachtree horses (to Clement and Jerkens), and even Team Valor gave its pricey Saarland filly Collegiate to Hennig.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

What is next? Will Dutrow call another trainer a cheater? Will a Jerry Brown horse run for blatant cheater Assmussen? Will Hank Goldberg pick a few winners on national television?

Will Hank Goldberg put together a complete, comprehensible sentence?

[Thunder Gulch]

Classic from Barry Irwin, a guy so concerned with his horses that he immediately looked behind Captain Bodgit at the end of the Derby because he was more concerned with who ran 3rd so he could catch the trifecta.