This Could Help Clean Up Racing

[Travis Stone]

I personally would be a huge advocate of regulating the horse care industry. No vet care is allowed or authorized without the proper filings through the state association. The horses are tested, and if they test positive to anything not filed with the association, stiff penalties.

To be honest, I just don't see why this has never been implemented - it seems like a no-brainer.

[ALostTexan]

Whatever Barry Irwin's view of Bobby Frankel may be, it has not stopped him from promoting Leroidesanimaux.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Whatever Barry Irwin's view of Bobby Frankel may be, it has not stopped him from promoting Leroidesanimaux.

Barry Irwin just loves the sound of his own sactimonious voice.
Has anyone else here been lucky enough to hear his tale of how he was such a superior track athlete in high school and college that it has enabled him to have a better vision that most anyone when it comes to seeing athleticism in a horse? please...

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Until the high-profile owners start taking horses away from those found guilty of these offenses, there is little deterrence. If they lack the integrity to do this, then it becomes incumbent for one of two things to happen: (1) when imposing penalties, the regulators have to rule that, during the period of the suspension, the horses may not race in the name of a family member or an assistant trainer (NY did this in the Greg Martin case); or (2) the racing associations need to deny stalls to the repeat offenders (as NYRA did with Shuman a few summers ago).

On this last score, how is it that tracks still give stalls to Scott Lake? What number suspension is he working on now? If someone is telling him after each suspension that it's his last chance, then it's (to quote Lt. Frank Drebin) "one of those major-league baseball, Steve Howe kind of last chances."

I've heard this before. I think this is similar to all bettors across the country boycotting a particular track. Sounds great, but not practical. More importantly, I don't think it's the solution. There will always be owners for people who produce results. I don't think this addresses the problem, again, not directly. Should I not be give my horses to Scott Lake because he has clentbuterol positives? There seems to be a disconnect here.

As far as the Greg Martin case, you are right, this did in fact happen. I don't know if it was the court system, NYRA, the NYSR&WB, or a combination thereof, but that case was very different. Denying stalls -- I think that could be part of a solution, but I am sure there are also issues there as well. I've seen in Ontario where a trainer is suspended and they don't allow the horses to be given to his sons. Sure, this can work -- not in and of itself, but as part of a solution.

Our judicial system is based upon prosecuting, convicting and penalizing those who commit crimes, those who are found guilty, etc. Sure, there are cases where going after the gun manufacturer, along with the shooter, may be appropriate. However, I think some of these solutions are off target and don't address the real problem. Now, understand, that's JMVHO. If several of these ideas were strung together, along with some others that address testing, technology, etc. -- I am all for it. A mutifaceted solution is neccessary here.

Eric

[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

[ALostTexan]

Eric,

Great discussion. My posts are not meant to be judgmental; perhaps that cannot be avoided.

As for Scott Lake, I guess have a little less sympathy for him because a filly I own ran a winning race this past spring at Aqueduct off a very long layoff only to finish second to a filly that he had just claimed - and moved up ten lengths in less than 30 days. I heard conversation after the race that would lead one to believe that the reason for that filly's improvement was not, for want of a better phrase, just good training. That being said, I do not know what goes on in Mr. Lake's barn, and I am not about to speculate here.

I think we all know that there are legitimate ways to improve a horse's performance, as well as illegitimate ways. If an owner, as a client of any trainer, believes that the trainer is only using legitimate methods with his or her horses, then the owner's selection of the trainer is what it is; nothing more, nothing less. On the other hand, if the owner believed (or worse, knew) that the trainer employed illegitimate methods with his or her horses, then I do believe that the owner is condoning the behavior and complicit in its occurrence. I guess we can all reach our own conclusions about what that may then say about the owner.

[ELA]

I agree -- 1000%! I understand that your motivation is not that of being judgemental. However, we of course cannot say the same thing about everyone else.

You have made excellent points, and I think the answer -- whatever it may be -- might be a "medium" between many of the so called soltutions that have been offered here and throughout the industry. The judgemental aspect, as you say, may not be avoided. Yes, I agree with that as well.

Being owners, and not trainers, yes, we all know there are various legitimate ways to improve a horse, their respective performance, etc. And we would all be very naive to ignore the fact that there are illegitimate and illegal ways as well. Like you said, in the case of an owner believing the former, then the selection is what it is. However, it's very easy for others to critisize and belittle that belief or selection.

However, your other point IMO is very much exactly on point -- if an owner thought, or as you say, even worse knew it was the latter -- then yes, the owner has responsibility in that. As I have said, you cannot have it both ways and use that as a shield and as a sword.

Thank you again.

Eric

Originally Posted by ELA

I agree -- 1000%! I understand that your motivation is not that of being judgemental. However, we of course cannot say the same thing about everyone else.

You have made excellent points, and I think the answer -- whatever it may be -- might be a "medium" between many of the so called soltutions that have been offered here and throughout the industry. The judgemental aspect, as you say, may not be avoided. Yes, I agree with that as well.

Being owners, and not trainers, yes, we all know there are various legitimate ways to improve a horse, their respective performance, etc. And we would all be very naive to ignore the fact that there are illegitimate and illegal ways as well. Like you said, in the case of an owner believing the former, then the selection is what it is. However, it's very easy for others to critisize and belittle that belief or selection.


However, your other point IMO is very much exactly on point -- if an owner thought, or as you say, even worse knew it was the latter -- then yes, the owner has responsibility in that. As I have said, you cannot have it both ways and use that as a shield and as a sword.

Thank you again.

Eric

Eric I agree with just about everything you have to say on the subject, and am not living in fantasyland and realize that we have a lot to clean up.
But you touch upon legal ways to move horses up, and there are many that not everyone can afford right now, which gives the edge to the bigger barns and owners who CAN afford to use these methods. I'm sure as an owner you have seen the bills for constant regimens of things like Adequan, Legend, Gastrogard, Glutial injections, injecting hocks and stifles, etc. Its not cheap, to say the least.
I have to laugh at those who label everyone who is successful right now as "cheating" except their favorite guys who they declare great and say they aren't cheating.
Its quite simple really, if you say that so and so is a GREAT trainer, you are saying that he posesses skills in his training regimen and knowledge of horses that supercedes that of his rivals, thus acknowledging that some guys are just better than others at training. This, I wholheartedly agree with.
But if you acknowledge that some trainers DO HAVE more skill than others, yet scoff at the notion that certain trainers don't have this talent and are juicing, you make yourself look like a first rate idiot of the highest order.
What you do when paint that picture is say that YOU KNOW what great trainers do, and how they do it, because in order to say that you KNOW that so and so isn't any good and must be juicing you must first have some knowledge of what GOOD trainers(in your own opinion) actually do that makes them good!!!!!
I'd like to hear these guys tell me what their philosophies are in regards to what good trainers actually do, how often to work, what distance progression to use in building up a horse, how long and often they should gallop each day, work and/or gallop and breeze in sets or alone, etc etc etc.
In other words, how do these "almighty and all knowing" geniuses KNOW who is juicing without knowing what a good trainer does to make them good? Is this so illogical?

[sumitas]

Some of the drugs do have therapeutic benefits. The idea is not to abuse them. Ray Paulik writes a sensible piece in bloodhorse.

http://opinions.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=36700

[Danzig]

isn't it ironic that euros decry the amount of meds given over here, yet as soon as the plane lands, they're calling the vet?!

a lot of one-time bleeders in australia are sent elsewhere after that first offense, as a repeat offense means a life-time ban. very, very stringent rules. also, go check out for yourselves how popular racing is over there!! a connection?! they get crowds we can only dream of, japan as well.