Hi Ho No Pimlico

[jms62]

I realize I'm a broken record but truly believe what I am saying.
The NCAA bans the entire school from Post season and TV Money for violations not just the coach. Everyone is penalized. If Horse racing wants to be serious they ban trainer, all horses of trainer and owner of horses under trainer that were caught. Is it stiff? Yes. Is it fair? No. Will it Deter by evening out the Risk/Reward ? Yes. As of now the rewards of cheating FAR outweigh the cost of getting caught. We would be very naïve to think owners have no idea what is going on here. At this point their only real risk is returning purse money. After getting popped they just run under assistant or transfer to another trainer. You can be certain that putting them at real financial risk of their aging asset missing the Triple crown and unable to earn money in any race will incentivize them to pressure trainers to be clean or avoid them all together.

[Kasept]

Just to show how damaging their publicity stunt is, note these vile victory lap tweets from active opponents of the sport, fund raising as they pretend they had a hand in Baffert's exclusion..

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Just to show how damaging their publicity stunt is, note these vile victory lap tweets from active opponents of the sport, fund raising as they pretend they had a hand in Baffert's exclusion..

Why would the executive director of the Maryland Racing Commision write a letter like that?

[Konk]

Originally Posted by jms62

I realize I'm a broken record but truly believe what I am saying.
The NCAA bans the entire school from Post season and TV Money for violations not just the coach. Everyone is penalized. If Horse racing wants to be serious they ban trainer, all horses of trainer and owner of horses under trainer that were caught. Is it stiff? Yes. Is it fair? No. Will it Deter by evening out the Risk/Reward ? Yes. As of now the rewards of cheating FAR outweigh the cost of getting caught. We would be very naïve to think owners have no idea what is going on here. At this point their only real risk is returning purse money. After getting popped they just run under assistant or transfer to another trainer. You can be certain that putting them at real financial risk of their aging asset missing the Triple crown and unable to earn money in any race will incentivize them to pressure trainers to be clean or avoid them all together.

I agree. Suspensions, imho, shouls include the owner and all the horses in the trainer's barn. Harsh, yup. Easy to avoid? Yup....don't cheat.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

I'm not on board with: all the horses in the trainer's barn.

Example: You hire a particular trainer for the 1st time. Same trainer is caught cheating with my horse a week later.
Exactly, why should your horse be kept from running?

Does owner in your hypothetical have an inkling which trainers are sketchy or just claim ignorance and insult our collective intelligence? Would the trainer cheat if he knew the consequences of it? Would you as owner ever use him again if this happened? Would you as a deep pockets owner consider suing him for damages of your horses not running? If you really want to clean up the game the penalties need to be severe and the risk/reward at least evened out. As of now it simply is a cheating tax. Cheat 100 times get caught 5 and give up 5 purses and let your assistant run the horses.

[blackthroatedwind]

Drug overages are not necessarily cheating. We don't further the argument by mislabeling things. Any trainer can get an overage once, as many honest trainers have, and conflating that with cheating muddies the conversation.

I'm not defending anyone, and think every trainer needs to take their responsibility extremely seriously ( as most do ). However, we have to think about our responsibilities to the outside world. Conversations are furthered by accuracy not mistruths.

[Konk]

Good point. It is critical to any sucess full drug policy that it be clearly defined,
I'm no vet, but I assume that finding an overage of a theraputic drug would have to classified and handled differently than finding snake venom.

Take the ~25% top trainers for fewest drug incidents anually and set that as the minimum standard goig foreward. If 1/4 of the population can do it, demand the rest do it too.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Konk

Good point. It is critical to any sucess full drug policy that it be clearly defined,
I'm no vet, but I assume that finding an overage of a theraputic drug would have to classified and handled differently than finding snake venom.

Take the ~25% top trainers for fewest drug incidents anually and set that as the minimum standard goig foreward. If 1/4 of the population can do it, demand the rest do it too.

Thanks Tom at least we agree on something.

[Conrad]

Originally Posted by jms62

Thanks Tom at least we agree on something.

Tom ?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

So every owner who hires a trainer who eventually cheats
with their horse, or NOT their horse, knew the trainer was
going to cheat ahead of time? Every one ?

Nope and it makes no difference. Caveat Emptor. The model is broken currently. As I stated my idea isn't fair however it will disincentivize chronic cheaters and owners that employ them and I believe it will do it quickly. Right now there is incentive to find and use a trainer that cheats and take the slap on the wrist if caught.

But to Andy's point on simple overages. That is a fly in the ointment. How to distinguish the difference between obvious cheating and simple overages?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

To your Caveat Emptor point: of course. I've spent and invested a few bucks before.

And, none of us have to walk, or go back in time, very far
to see that bad actors only get emboldened when and where
there is little or no threat of serious consequences.
So no disagreement there too.

I'm just not ready to torch an owner with clean horses
for hiring the wrong trainer who had no prior record
of wrongdoing. If I missed that clause, in this thread,
which protects such an owner then I missed it.

I absolutely see where you are coming from. Unfortunately I see no other way than stopping the flow of money and making it so risky to cheat. I also though see the need to somehow separate overages and mistakes on legal meds.. It is a very complicated issue to tackle. I don't see it happening as the industry isn't interested in punishing those that are putting their money in the game (Owners).