Second O'Neill horse tests positive

Scav · #1 09-08-2010, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

BTW, this has to be at least the 4th time he's been caught doing this (2nd time this year.)

Scuds, you have to be a fan of Ray after this article.

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/do...l-a-tired-act/

SCUDSBROTHER · #2 09-09-2010, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

Scuds, you have to be a fan of Ray after this article.

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/do...l-a-tired-act/

Still think he shaked Peace Chant on 2-14 09 at Turf Paradise. He loves to claim off a clean trainer (Mandella,) and shake. He owned that horse outright. Horse ran huge that day to win that sprint stakes at Turf Paradise (1st off the claim.) Then, didn't race for 7 months. Showed up back East for Phipps. Ran o.k. for one race, and then hasn't run good in 3 races since. The last 2 races have been with O'neil. I guess the Phipps guy gave up, and they sold the horse back to O'neil. Hasn't raced since May 31. Horse might be in food cans by now. Tell you another time I think he cheated. The day that Bobby Flay chef guy from NYC had to settle (Mrs Kipling) for 2nd in the 3 year old filly turf stakes at Anita (Providencia.) I think he shaked the hell out of Acting Lady that day. Obviously he's shaked a lot of horses, but those two really stood out in my mind as examples of it. She was like the 8th choice. They kept saying she got a great trip, but she looked shaked to me. Full of run the whole way, and she's never looked that good since. I remember the owners just happened to be in from England to see the race. Kipling ran good, but O'neil had his filly ready to pull a house down the street. It's been worth it to him. He's made some nice money cheating, and not really had to pay the price. I knew he was cheating the 1st couple weeks of this meet. He was so happy. It was like they stopped testing the 1st part of this Del Mar meet. Did they wait (releasing this news) until the holiday weekend was over, and only 1 day was left in the meet? They are way too helpful to these dirty trainers.

slotdirt · #3 09-09-2010, 09:40 AM

You know, I know the comments on those Paulick articles can be shrill, but someone mentioned that a trainer with a positive during the calendar year of a Breeders Cup shouldn't be allowed to run at the Breeders Cup doesn't sound like an altogether horrid idea.

Thunder Gulch · #4 09-09-2010, 10:32 AM

What's it going to take to stop this guy?

#5 09-09-2010, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thunder Gulch

What's it going to take to stop this guy?

A massive earthquake that has a disdain for fat guys with horrible fashion sense.

GPK · #6 09-09-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

A massive earthquake that has a disdain for fat guys with horrible fashion sense.

Wouldn't that eliminate Chuck too?

#7 09-09-2010, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GPK

Wouldn't that eliminate Chuck too?

Chuck wouldn't be caught dead in that liberal cesspool.

Scav · #8 09-09-2010, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

You know, I know the comments on those Paulick articles can be shrill, but someone mentioned that a trainer with a positive during the calendar year of a Breeders Cup shouldn't be allowed to run at the Breeders Cup doesn't sound like an altogether horrid idea.

I agree

MaTH716 · #9 09-09-2010, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

You know, I know the comments on those Paulick articles can be shrill, but someone mentioned that a trainer with a positive during the calendar year of a Breeders Cup shouldn't be allowed to run at the Breeders Cup doesn't sound like an altogether horrid idea.

Yeah good idea, but realistically would any horses just be transfered to an assistant trainers name?

philcski · #10 09-09-2010, 11:36 AM

Anybody ever wonder why Lava Man ran so poorly outside of California?

I don't.

slotdirt · #11 09-09-2010, 11:52 AM

I would like to apologize for constructing the worst sentence ever in my previous post.

slotdirt · #12 09-09-2010, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

Yeah good idea, but realistically would any horses just be transfered to an assistant trainers name?

Not if you ban the horse entirely, no?

MaTH716 · #13 09-09-2010, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Not if you ban the horse entirely, no?

Do you think that's fair to the owners, who might not necessarily know what's going on inside the barn?
Granted you would think that it would hurt some trainers, who might lose some buisness from owners not wanting to roll the dice. But I really think that it's more of a punishment for an owner/investors of the sport who spend a lot of money on a stable only to be banned from one of the biggest race days of the year.

MaTH716 · #14 09-09-2010, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerS

Think owner needs to suffer consequences.

Maybe they will think twice about who they hire.

If they want to go the win at all costs approach then they are taking a risk

Maybe they will stop buying horses and investing in the game as well. I'm not saying all of them are innocent when it comes to these issues. But it's very tough to punish the people who make the sport go round.

richard · #15 09-09-2010, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerS

Think owner needs to suffer consequences.

Maybe they will think twice about who they hire.

If they want to go the win at all costs approach then they are taking a risk

The owners do suffer consequences in that the purse money must be returned on a positive test .