Hi Ho No Pimlico

[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).