Biancone agrees to a softer ban

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

just the trannys ....should suit you fine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2vECYez4OI

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by Danzig

so then isn't it essentially a one year ban? only the financial benefit seems shortened.
either way, it allows a repeat offender back in the sport next year. great.

today's update....there should be another article tomorrow...
http://www.drf.com/news/article/89547.html

[Cannon Shell]

Terry Finley, the president of West Point Thoroughbreds, the horse racing partnership that owns Irish Smoke, said that he was willing to let Biancone's appeal run its course and that he did not feel pressure to remove Irish Smoke from Biancone's barn prior to the settlement.

"I'll be honest with you, I didn't appreciate a lot of people in this industry crucifying the guy before he had his day in court," said Finley, a former Army captain. "That drove me nuts. I heard all the talk and innuendo. But he didn't have his shot at due process, and no matter what anyone says, this is still America."
Biancone, a native of France, trains for many powerful clients, including the principals behind Coolmore Stud, the multinational racing and breeding operation that owns La Traviata. A spokesman for Coolmore, Richard Henry, said the group had not determined who would train the Biancone horses after the Breeders' Cup.

Carl Lizza, the owner of Cosmonaut under the stable name Flying Zee Stables, said that he had not determined who will train the four Flying Zee horses currently stabled with Biancone. But he said he would not hesitate to give Biancone horses when the trainer is able to operate a stable again.

"I don't know what he did wrong," said Lizza, who called Biancone "one of the 10 best horsemen" in the U.S. "From what I read in the papers, it was just possession. He wasn't using it. Unless something else comes out, yes, of course I'll give him horses."




Still think the owners aren't the problem in this game?


Hey Terry...facts and innuendo are not the same thing...

Hey Carl...why dont you give your horses to one of the other "nine" best horseman who dont have that pesky little Cobra Venom "possesion" violation on their looooong rap sheet? What was he doing with it? Recreational use?

[Bobby Fischer]

However, Biancone's assistant could begin to put together a racing stable, and Biancone would be able to consult on the operation of the stable as long as he does not go to the backstretch, according to John Veitch, the Kentucky state steward.



thought the new class-A rule was against this ?

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Terry Finley, the president of West Point Thoroughbreds, the horse racing partnership that owns Irish Smoke, said that he was willing to let Biancone's appeal run its course and that he did not feel pressure to remove Irish Smoke from Biancone's barn prior to the settlement.

"I'll be honest with you, I didn't appreciate a lot of people in this industry crucifying the guy before he had his day in court," said Finley, a former Army captain. "That drove me nuts. I heard all the talk and innuendo. But he didn't have his shot at due process, and no matter what anyone says, this is still America."
Biancone, a native of France, trains for many powerful clients, including the principals behind Coolmore Stud, the multinational racing and breeding operation that owns La Traviata. A spokesman for Coolmore, Richard Henry, said the group had not determined who would train the Biancone horses after the Breeders' Cup.

Carl Lizza, the owner of Cosmonaut under the stable name Flying Zee Stables, said that he had not determined who will train the four Flying Zee horses currently stabled with Biancone. But he said he would not hesitate to give Biancone horses when the trainer is able to operate a stable again.

"I don't know what he did wrong," said Lizza, who called Biancone "one of the 10 best horsemen" in the U.S. "From what I read in the papers, it was just possession. He wasn't using it. Unless something else comes out, yes, of course I'll give him horses."




Still think the owners aren't the problem in this game?

the owners lost all virtue when they decided against the "inconvenience" of switching trainers before the Breeders Cup.

now it sounds like he will be allowed to train via cell-phone after all.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

That's pretty pathetic and telling why the game is where it is.

I have hammered this point to anyone who would listen but people still want to blame the authorities. There is a limit to what commissions and authorities can do when the owners are willing to turn a blind eye towards a guy getting caught with a class 1 drug in the barn, ordered by his defacto private vet. Not to single out Finley but he is a member of many governing boards including the Breeders Cup board and his attitude is typical of many on these boards, in effect the people who run the game. That Tom Ludt voted against the settlement was funny seeing as his trainer is Steve Assmussen. At least Dell Hancock has been consistent.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Are you stating that the owners are demanding that trainers use this drug? More specifically, or you stating that Biancone's owners are demanding that he use this drug?

He's stating that the owners say possession is acceptable, even if use was never proven. So I can get caught with 10 kilos of coke, but as long as I'm not using it, that's OK?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Are you stating that the owners are demanding that trainers use this drug? More specifically, or you stating that Biancone's owners are demanding that he use this drug?

No, I dont see where you are getting that but the owners dont seem to mind when they do use it. It is like when baseball players used to police the game on the field. Preen or strut after a HR and you paid the price...so guess what? Guys didn't do it...at least more than once. Same thing here. If owners would require a trainer to live up to some form of standard concerning illegal drugs then trainers would be a lot more cautious and would not be as brazen as some of these guys are. They know that the owners will run back to them so they 'push the envelope' and then cry foul when they get caught.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

He's stating that the owners say possession is acceptable, even if use was never proven. So I can get caught with 10 kilos of coke, but as long as I'm not using it, that's OK?

You are back!

[Bobby Fischer]

C'est la vie...

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are back!

I probably shouldn't post on this topic after drinking about 2 bottles of French wine on the flight back and zero sleep.

This is horseplop.com, right?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I probably shouldn't post on this topic after drinking about 2 bottles of French wine on the flight back and zero sleep.

This is horseplop.com, right?

Oui

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Terry Finley, the president of West Point Thoroughbreds, the horse racing partnership that owns Irish Smoke, said that he was willing to let Biancone's appeal run its course and that he did not feel pressure to remove Irish Smoke from Biancone's barn prior to the settlement.

"I'll be honest with you, I didn't appreciate a lot of people in this industry crucifying the guy before he had his day in court," said Finley, a former Army captain. "That drove me nuts. I heard all the talk and innuendo. But he didn't have his shot at due process, and no matter what anyone says, this is still America."
Biancone, a native of France, trains for many powerful clients, including the principals behind Coolmore Stud, the multinational racing and breeding operation that owns La Traviata. A spokesman for Coolmore, Richard Henry, said the group had not determined who would train the Biancone horses after the Breeders' Cup.

Carl Lizza, the owner of Cosmonaut under the stable name Flying Zee Stables, said that he had not determined who will train the four Flying Zee horses currently stabled with Biancone. But he said he would not hesitate to give Biancone horses when the trainer is able to operate a stable again.

"I don't know what he did wrong," said Lizza, who called Biancone "one of the 10 best horsemen" in the U.S. "From what I read in the papers, it was just possession. He wasn't using it. Unless something else comes out, yes, of course I'll give him horses."




Still think the owners aren't the problem in this game?


Hey Terry...facts and innuendo are not the same thing...

Hey Carl...why dont you give your horses to one of the other "nine" best horseman who dont have that pesky little Cobra Venom "possesion" violation on their looooong rap sheet? What was he doing with it? Recreational use?

F.uck Terry Finley for using the Captain America card.

[Danzig]

http://bc.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=41417

transferred his horses.


wonder if the refrigerator went along as well...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I should have typed that I place the responsibility first on the trainers, and then secondly on the owners, who, like you typed, don't mind it when trainers use drugs like this.

Shouldn't the trainer say to the owner, "I'm not using (fill-in-the-blank) on your horses?" In other words, shouldn't the horse's primary caretaker set the standard, or say, "I'm not going to cheat?"

I dont follow the logic. The standard should be set by the owners because they are the ones who ultimately pay the bills and call the shots. The horses are their property. What goes into them is their business and if they choose to look the other way or accept illegal substances being used then they are as responsibile.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont follow the logic. The standard should be set by the owners because they are the ones who ultimately pay the bills and call the shots. The horses are their property. What goes into them is their business and if they choose to look the other way or accept illegal substances being used then they are as responsibile.

Chuck, it's not that simple and all of us who are in the business know that. I agree there must be accountability -- across the board. I agree there must be checks and balances. However, don't think for a second that anyone -- trainer or owner -- gulity or innocent -- would lay down. Personally, I'll discuss and debate the issue with you over a few beers anytime. I know we agree with, probably, 95% of the issues. I say debate in a friendly, constructive way.

However, if you think that a racing commission would shy away from litigating with a trainer, what about an owner -- pick a name -- who has 50 head or so, a major metropolitan law firm on retainer, and an amount of resources that only they could decide to throw at something like this.

Let's try and hold MSG or Dolan responsible for the NY Knicks roster, or Steinbrenner for that matter. Of course it's different, but look at the applicable parallel. Look at what they tried to do in Delware and before the agreement got out of the blocks, it was amended and revised -- because it wasn't going to fly an inch of the ground.

I am all for owner accountability -- 100% so. I am all for "not looking the other way" so to speak. However, you are not going to hold an owner liable for day to day operations when they delegate same to an independent contractor. If the owner knows, is involved, etc. -- then 100% they are in as much as anyone else. But if not, well, that same dog won't hunt. The court of public opinion -- here or anywhere else -- can be judge and jury. It's an interesting discussion, but that's about all it is.

BTW, give me a shout over the weekend if get a chance -- totally unrelated topic (I mean unrelated to this of course, LOL).

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, it's not that simple and all of us who are in the business know that. I agree there must be accountability -- across the board. I agree there must be checks and balances. However, don't think for a second that anyone -- trainer or owner -- gulity or innocent -- would lay down. Personally, I'll discuss and debate the issue with you over a few beers anytime. I know we agree with, probably, 95% of the issues. I say debate in a friendly, constructive way.

However, if you think that a racing commission would shy away from litigating with a trainer, what about an owner -- pick a name -- who has 50 head or so, a major metropolitan law firm on retainer, and an amount of resources that only they could decide to throw at something like this.

Let's try and hold MSG or Dolan responsible for the NY Knicks roster, or Steinbrenner for that matter. Of course it's different, but look at the applicable parallel. Look at what they tried to do in Delware and before the agreement got out of the blocks, it was amended and revised -- because it wasn't going to fly an inch of the ground.

I am all for owner accountability -- 100% so. I am all for "not looking the other way" so to speak. However, you are not going to hold an owner liable for day to day operations when they delegate same to an independent contractor. If the owner knows, is involved, etc. -- then 100% they are in as much as anyone else. But if not, well, that same dog won't hunt. The court of public opinion -- here or anywhere else -- can be judge and jury. It's an interesting discussion, but that's about all it is.

BTW, give me a shout over the weekend if get a chance -- totally unrelated topic (I mean unrelated to this of course, LOL).


Eric

Eric
I certainly hold Dolan responsible for the mess that is the NY Knicks. He, like Stienbrenner and TB owners, ultimately call the shots. If Dolan hires an idiot and allows that idiot to continue to destroy the team then HE is responsible, not the idiot. The action of Dolan in hiring and retaining the idiot directly caused the issue. By not getting rid of the idiot when he clearly is not qualified to do his job , Dolan becomes responsible. By the same token if owners allow trainers to repeatedly break rules, especially in a serious manner, yet continue to employ those trainers with no reprecussion, they are responsible. When the illegal actions of a trainer do not lead to any decrease in business then why would you expect any change in behavior? If your dog craps in the house and you continue to make excuses for him, will he stop? Frightengly enough it is that simple. If you as the owner draw the line, trainers will either toe the line or lose the owner. When guys who are part of the 'ruling class' of the sport hire guys with a checkered past and then rush to his defense when he gets caught redhanded, it makes the sport a joke. If we were a major sport and had more intense media coverage, guys like Finley and Lizza especially would be getting lit up. That they just continue with the business as usual routine is a really bad sign.

I am not suggesting that the commissions hold the owners directly responsible. That is a fight that would be too difficult to accomplish. In fact I believe that it is not the job of the commissions to tell owners what to do. But what I am saying is that if the racing indusrty really wants to fix things then they can do it, pretty simply. If 100 of Terry Finleys investors suddenly walked out if Biancone remained associated with them do ya think he'd still be training for them? If a trainer knew they were going to lose horses, a signifigant number, do you think that they would be more careful? Less willing to push the envelope?

Look for the lead investigator in the Biancone case to "retire" by spring of 2008.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Eric
I certainly hold Dolan responsible for the mess that is the NY Knicks. He, like Stienbrenner and TB owners, ultimately call the shots. If Dolan hires an idiot and allows that idiot to continue to destroy the team then HE is responsible, not the idiot. The action of Dolan in hiring and retaining the idiot directly caused the issue. By not getting rid of the idiot when he clearly is not qualified to do his job , Dolan becomes responsible. By the same token if owners allow trainers to repeatedly break rules, especially in a serious manner, yet continue to employ those trainers with no reprecussion, they are responsible. When the illegal actions of a trainer do not lead to any decrease in business then why would you expect any change in behavior? If your dog craps in the house and you continue to make excuses for him, will he stop? Frightengly enough it is that simple. If you as the owner draw the line, trainers will either toe the line or lose the owner. When guys who are part of the 'ruling class' of the sport hire guys with a checkered past and then rush to his defense when he gets caught redhanded, it makes the sport a joke. If we were a major sport and had more intense media coverage, guys like Finley and Lizza especially would be getting lit up. That they just continue with the business as usual routine is a really bad sign.

I am not suggesting that the commissions hold the owners directly responsible. That is a fight that would be too difficult to accomplish. In fact I believe that it is not the job of the commissions to tell owners what to do. But what I am saying is that if the racing indusrty really wants to fix things then they can do it, pretty simply. If 100 of Terry Finleys investors suddenly walked out if Biancone remained associated with them do ya think he'd still be training for them? If a trainer knew they were going to lose horses, a signifigant number, do you think that they would be more careful? Less willing to push the envelope?

Chuck, I think we will end up disagreeing, and of course that's OK. It's a good thing. Perhaps I am talking about practicality and not a court of public opinion or something similar so to speak.

I am also not talking about stupidity. Hiring and retaining an employee was not my point at all. I was more talking about liability. You are not going to hold George Steinbrenner legally liable and responsible -- and penalize and punish him -- because one of his players takes and gets caught using steroids. UNLESS, he knew about it and turned a deaf ear, or helped, aided, and so on. UNLESS he is found to be a party to the crime, or made the drugs available, and so on. UNLESS he was negligent, and so on . . . and so on and so on. I am certainly not going to argue the parallel because none exists.

I thought my example was applicable, but with analogies there is always a great deal of interpretation. I was merely trying to show what I thought was a direct comparison. Do the laws and legislation exist in our sport and business? If they do not exist, then all that is left is what? Self governing or self policing?

Like I said Chuck, I agree, owners must be held responsible. However, it must be done in not only the proper way, but in a prudent and legal way as well. I've said it before and I'll say it again -- in isolation, I am not pulling horses from a guy who gets a clenbuterol positive. Not one, not two and not three. Now, a hard core, designer, exotic, etc. drug -- that's a completely different issue of course. In this specific case, I move my horses -- period. But I am not pulling horses because of what "everybody knows" so to speak and of course that's not the case here.

Anyway, we agree on the destination. We may just disagree on the journey to get there.

Catch up later.

Eric

[Danzig]

owners in other sports are held accountable, so why not in horse racing? how many times has mark cuban paid a fine now? why should horse racing be different?

if the racing bodies gave real punishment, and i think the biancone one year suspension is a step in the right direction, than that would help to achieve a cleaner sport. there should be a limit however to how many times a trainer can get in trouble before he is banned for good. lifetime bans exist in other sports, horse racing needs to do the same thing. it's for the good of the industry--the sport won't suffer if certain trainers are gone, but it will certainly suffer if they remain, and the cheating continues.