90 Days for Dutrow; ARCI calls for license revocation

[Kasept]

Trainers most certainly can be banned for 'drugging' horses, with the most egregious and serious of narcotics, and I know of no jock whose personal drug use resulted in a lifetime ban. As in every case with this topic, generalizations cannot be applied. As has been discussed this week with Migliore, Haskin and Allday, the problem you have, specifically with Rick Dutrrow, is that suddenly saying after the fact that previous history is now part of a new penalty, is patently unfair... The 'double secret probation' mentality.

You want to admonish him and set up a set of ground rules he's required to follow going forward, fine. That's fair. But the way this is being gerrymandered isn't right and won't hold up legally. Even Allday, who has had a very public breakup and fight with Dutrow, said that you better apply the same standards to EVERYONE if you're going to go down this road.

And has been said here before, there's several 'angels with dirty halos' around that get away with as much or more envelope pushing as Rick Dutrow. Would be curious to see the reaction of the public if some of them were dragged out into the spotlight. Dutrow brings a lot of negative focus on himself, but the doctrine of fair play has to be part of whatever attempt there is to provide an atmosphere of integrity in the sport.

[golfer]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Trainers most certainly can be banned for 'drugging' horses, with the most egregious and serious of narcotics, and I know of no jock whose personal drug use resulted in a lifetime ban. As in every case with this topic, generalizations cannot be applied. As has been discussed this week with Migliore, Haskin and Allday, the problem you have, specifically with Rick Dutrrow, is that suddenly saying after the fact that previous history is now part of a new penalty, is patently unfair... The 'double secret probation' mentality.

You want to admonish him and set up a set of ground rules he's required to follow going forward, fine. That's fair. But the way this is being gerrymandered isn't right and won't hold up legally. Even Allday, who has had a very public breakup and fight with Dutrow, said that you better apply the same standards to EVERYONE if you're going to go down this road.

And has been said here before, there's several 'angels with dirty halos' around that get away with as much or more envelope pushing as Rick Dutrow. Would be curious to see the reaction of the public if some of them were dragged out into the spotlight. Dutrow brings a lot of negative focus on himself, but the doctrine of fair play has to be part of whatever attempt there is to provide an atmosphere of integrity in the sport.

Do you think Dutrow invokes "the doctrine of fair play" in his daily activities?
In my opinion, the sport would be better off without Rick Dutrow (and IEAH). I don't believe he should be singled out, they should go after every trainer "pushing the envelope", but you have to start somewhere.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by golfer

Do you think Dutrow invokes "the doctrine of fair play" in his daily activities? In my opinion, the sport would be better off without Rick Dutrow (and IEAH). I don't believe he should be singled out, they should go after every trainer "pushing the envelope", but you have to start somewhere.

That's fine, but start somewhere with an established framework of what constitutes eligibility for license revocation or similar exclusion. Because the inclination to single out individuals based on perceived image isn't right or fair. And more importantly, because it may not be accurate.

I'll reiterate that there are individuals and operations out there doing things far worse than whatever people think Dutrow, or IEAH for that matter, are doing. Those just seem to be convenient pinatas for the public and media and low-hanging fruit for regulators. In the meantime, the wolves in sheep's clothing operate freely.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Kasept

That's fine, but start somewhere with an established framework of what constitutes eligibility for license revocation or similar exclusion. Because the inclination to single out individuals based on perceived image isn't right or fair. And more importantly, because it may not be accurate.

I'll reiterate that there are individuals and operations out there doing things far worse than whatever people think Dutrow, or IEAH for that matter, are doing. Those just seem to be convenient pinatas for the public and media and low-hanging fruit for regulators. In the meantime, the wolves in sheep's clothing operate freely.

There is a well documented framework at play in NYS though most cases come from the Harness side of things.

And I have to disagree that Dutrow is being singled out here. We all talk about the glory years and such but the truth is that when the stewrds ruled with an iron fist there is no doubt in my mind that he would have been sent packing long ago and probably would not have been alone. At some point a standard has to be created and if this is the one, so be it.

I don't know that trainers are afforded the same "rights" other than due process anyway. We are guilty until proven innocent in medication cases and in NY and other jurisdictions are prodded into not contesting suspensions with the threat of additional time or in some cases twice as much time for simpy asking for a hearing. Guilty and more days if you try to prove innocence.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by golfer

Do you think Dutrow invokes "the doctrine of fair play" in his daily activities?

As for this question, I'd say that Dutrow's program tries to take every advantage it can under the rules to get the best performance possible from its' horses. There are dozens of large outfits that operate the exact same way. But its' funny that when those outfits catch medication positives, apologies are made FOR them by the public and media. It's not equitable.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

howie tesher cant wait for this to play out

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

As for this question, I'd say that Dutrow's program tries to take every advantage it can under the rules to get the best performance possible from its' horses. There are dozens of large outfits that operate the exact same way. But its' funny that when those outfits catch medication positives, apologies are made FOR them by the public and media. It's not equitable.

Owners have no problem in fact demand that such trainers push the enevelope as far it can go without crossing the line.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Owners have no problem in fact demand that such trainers push the enevelope as far it can go without crossing the line.

The million dollar question is: If a substance NOT ILLEGAL then is it LEGAL? If the answer is legal than the sport will always be playing catch-up to the chemists.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by jms62

The million dollar question is: If a substance NOT ILLEGAL then is it LEGAL? If the answer is legal than the sport will always be playing catch-up to the chemists.

And? this is news, or just the way it is. They are banning horses from going into oxygen chambers. The only reason why is because some people cant afford it and some can. Why wouldnt you allow a horse to breathe oxygen whats next you cant give your horse a vitamin or organic supplement because it makes them feel better? Oxygen is now illegal.. Wouldnt want them breathing to much air?

[asudevil]

He's no phuckin good babe. A real low life babe. Not sayin' others aren't the same, babe. He's just no damn good for the game....BABE!!

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Owners have no problem in fact demand that such trainers push the enevelope as far it can go without crossing the line.

Could that be why the attorney whose representing Dutrow has recently worked in-house for Michael Dubb?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Could that be why the attorney whose representing Dutrow has recently worked in-house for Michael Dubb?

I don't know, all I do know is that Dubb is a savvy real estate developer, and Dutrow is a great horseman. I realize that Dutrow has had a ton of issues and I dodnt condone it but certainly those issues in the past cant be the basis for current punishment unless others of his ilk are treated in the future in kind. It's a slippery slope they are attempting to head down

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I realize that Dutrow has had a ton of issues and I dodnt condone it but certainly those issues in the past cant be the basis for current punishment unless others of his ilk are treated in the future in kind. It's a slippery slope they are attempting to head down

In almost every other area of life, the person's past history forms part of the context for current punishment. For example, a doctor with multiple incidents of malpractice is more likely to get his license revoked by the Department of Health for incompetence than a doctor with an otherwise "clean" record. How is this any different?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Trainers most certainly can be banned for 'drugging' horses, with the most egregious and serious of narcotics, and I know of no jock whose personal drug use resulted in a lifetime ban. As in every case with this topic, generalizations cannot be applied. As has been discussed this week with Migliore, Haskin and Allday, the problem you have, specifically with Rick Dutrrow, is that suddenly saying after the fact that previous history is now part of a new penalty, is patently unfair... The 'double secret probation' mentality.

You want to admonish him and set up a set of ground rules he's required to follow going forward, fine. That's fair. But the way this is being gerrymandered isn't right and won't hold up legally. Even Allday, who has had a very public breakup and fight with Dutrow, said that you better apply the same standards to EVERYONE if you're going to go down this road.

And has been said here before, there's several 'angels with dirty halos' around that get away with as much or more envelope pushing as Rick Dutrow. Would be curious to see the reaction of the public if some of them were dragged out into the spotlight. Dutrow brings a lot of negative focus on himself, but the doctrine of fair play has to be part of whatever attempt there is to provide an atmosphere of integrity in the sport.

100% accurate.. Dutrow is a terriffic trainer and a great personality that the sport needs. He also has cheated way to much and the SHIIT needs to stop. So make new rules that apply to all and sets the ground work for such penalty!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Kasept

but the doctrine of fair play has to be part of whatever attempt there is to provide an atmosphere of integrity in the sport.

i just found this comment funny when we are talking about cheaters!

Dutrow ruins the integrity of the sport with his actions.

I think Riot stole Steve's login info.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Kasept

You want to admonish him and set up a set of ground rules he's required to follow going forward, fine. That's fair. But the way this is being gerrymandered isn't right and won't hold up legally. Even Allday, who has had a very public breakup and fight with Dutrow, said that you better apply the same standards to EVERYONE if you're going to go down this road.

The "same standard" argument is really weak in this case. Even if you believe that there are several other top outfits that "push the envelope," aside from a guy like Asmussen, how many other trainers have a laundry list of infractions as long as Dutrow? In this regard alone, a harsher penalty may justifiably be imposed upon him.

You are also confusing the "rules" from the "penalties" here. The states already have set the ground rules that he's required to follow, and he's repeatedly shown that he's incapable (or unwilling) of following them. That racing has been lax on the penalties in the past doesn't mean that it is unfair to come to a point, even without providing notice of such intent, to impose harsher penalties. This argument essentially becomes: if I really knew that you were going to be tough on me, then I might have decided to follow the rules, but since I didn't fully appreciate what could be the consequences of my actions, it's unfair if you don't slap me on the wrist for the umpteenth time.

All that being said, from a purely legal perspective, NYSRWB may be making a mistake in joining the recent Fastus Cactus/syringe infractions with the broader eligibility issue at this time. If they waited until it was time for him to renew his license in August and simply declined to do so, he'd be hard-pressed to get such a determination overturned, given the very deferential "arbitrary and capricious" (agency decision would be upheld so long as there is a rational basis for denying the license, and with his history, such a denial would likely stick) standard of review that would apply to a legal challenge to that administrative determination.

[paulo537]

I expect Dutrow will get a minimum 6 month suspension and, more likely one year.

Will it hold in court? Nobody knows but how much is Dutrow willing and able to spend on legal fees to challenge?

That seems to be the real question to me.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by paulo537

I expect Dutrow will get a minimum 6 month suspension and, more likely one year.

Will it hold in court? Nobody knows but how much is Dutrow willing and able to spend on legal fees to challenge?

That seems to be the real question to me.

Does it really matter as his string will be passed to his assistants and he will manage from the clubhouse so to speak. You want to put teeth into this then ban all horses currently under training by Durtow from New York racetracks for the duration of his ban. This will certainly be a major detterent to this type of crap.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by paulo537

I expect Dutrow will get a minimum 6 month suspension and, more likely one year.

Will it hold in court? Nobody knows but how much is Dutrow willing and able to spend on legal fees to challenge?

That seems to be the real question to me.

wonder how many owners send him big horses after, ala steve a??