A New York Times editorial weighs on Doug O'Neill

[goodcopy]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Unfortunately, it's people like you that understand this and not the majority of people that will be watching the Belmont for the first time or a horse race for the first time. I happen to think that O'Neill winning the TC will be bad for the sport. Fair or not, perception often outpaces reality and the perception of a lot of people outside of the sport is that it's full of cheaters and degenerates. Having a trainer with the record that O'Neill has will only further that perception. Having the spotlight in your shining moment being taken by a guy that's suspect in many eyes and a downright cheater in others, a guy that just got suspended, is not good I don't think. It would be like having Ron Artest, Latrell Sprewell, and Rasheed Wallace standing up to accept the gold medal at the Olympics for the basketball team.

What would you have him do,not run?
He was found not to have milkshaked his horse.
Never had a violation for performance enhancing drugs!

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by goodcopy

What would you have him do,not run?
He was found not to have milkshaked his horse.
Never had a violation for performance enhancing drugs!

You have to understand something. I'm not against O'Neill. I think most of the stuff against him is junk. I would not mind him winning. I wouldn't have minded Dutrow winning a few years ago. That is not the point of what I'm saying. I'm talking about how everyone is saying that a TC winner will be so great for the sport and I just don't know if I agree with that. Of course he should run and I wish him the best, although for totally different reasons, I would prefer that the horse loses.