Report: Dutrow Facing Drug Positive

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

This is just not true. If I recall correctly from the numbers that were recently provided by the Racing Commissioners to Congress, only about 10% of all licensed trainers have had a drug positive called against them. There are plenty of men and women who can take care of the horses for those who don't know how to abide by the rules.

In my opinion you are collapsing the shield and the sword. A drug positive does not make a person a cheater in my mind. It is not absolute. I was not inferring the industry would disappear.

As far your last sentence, I don't understand what you are saying.

Eric

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by ELA

In my opinion you are collapsing the shield and the sword. A drug positive does not make a person a cheater in my mind. It is not absolute. I was not inferring the industry would disappear.

As far your last sentence, I don't understand what you are saying.

Eric

Are you in favor of extending the absolute lability rules to owners?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Are you in favor of extending the absolute lability rules to owners?

I saw your thoughts on that a few days ago. At some point in the process, it may be worth considering, but how can you punish an owner whose trainer may go against their instructions and drug anyway? Look, if Cannon got busted for something severe, I would 1) be shocked as hell, but 2) accept zero blame for the incident. Now, if I choose to stay with said trainer and there is another severe offense, then that may be a different story

[ELA]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Are you in favor of extending the absolute lability rules to owners?

Enforcable ones? Yes, absolutely. I have said that numerous times. Delaware tried to do this but added a stipulation (or more) that was not practical nor enforcable -- downright not fair.

The trainer resposibility rule operates within the confines and parameters of an industry. You cannot ask me as owner or expect me to control who my suspended trainer does business with -- Delaware tried to do this. You cannot expect me as an owner to control who my suspended trainer talks to on the phone. That's on the trainer -- NOT ME! You can only expect and control what the trainer does -- or penalize him/her for what they did and weren't supposed to.

Expect something realistic of me and pass it. Make it feasible, practical and most of all address the other parts of this problem. Don't neglect the rest of the problem and just blame it on the owners.

If you think this problem is exclusively the fault of the owners, then you are sadly mistaken or ignorant.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

In my opinion you are collapsing the shield and the sword. A drug positive does not make a person a cheater in my mind. It is not absolute. I was not inferring the industry would disappear.

As far your last sentence, I don't understand what you are saying.

Eric

I never said that a drug positive makes a person a "cheater." Just like the fact that, given the current limits of testing, the fact that a person has never had a positive does not mean that he or she isn't cheating. (See Marion Jones in another sport.)

However, when one has multiple, repeated offenses for the same thing (you use clenbuterol as an example), I think there is a real problem. Sometimes these clenbuterol positives are innocent, but I've had a trainer of mine tell me that most of them are not so innocent, especially those that occurred when testing for clenbuterol was first started. The "guilty parties," in an effort to push the envelope, were trying to determine withdrawal times and doses they could get away with. Given the lack of serious penalties, they were willing to "take a positive" to learn how they could take an advantage down the road.

As for the last sentence of my thread, there are about 13,000 trainers (90% of the total) with clean records. If we were to run out of the game every trainer that had a positive (I'm not advocating this), there would be more than enough horsemen to take care of the horses currently trained by the other 10%.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I never said that a drug positive makes a person a "cheater." Just like the fact that, given the current limits of testing, the fact that a person has never had a positive does not mean that he or she isn't cheating. (See Marion Jones in another sport.)

However, when one has multiple, repeated offenses for the same thing (you use clenbuterol as an example), I think there is a real problem. Sometimes these clenbuterol positives are innocent, but I've had a trainer of mine tell me that most of them are not so innocent, especially those that occurred when testing for clenbuterol was first started. The "guilty parties," in an effort to push the envelope, were trying to determine withdrawal times and doses they could get away with. Given the lack of serious penalties, they were willing to "take a positive" to learn how they could take an advantage down the road.

As for the last sentence of my thread, there are about 13,000 trainers (90% of the total) with clean records. If we were to run out of the game every trainer that had a positive (I'm not advocating this), there would be more than enough horsemen to take care of the horses currently trained by the other 10%.

I agree, and understand clearly you didn't say that (makes a "cheater") -- however, that is the absolute that becomes a problem. Make that the standard and that is your new problem. Multiple offenses for clenbuterol might in fact be a real problem -- but it might not. So, let's say it is. Eliminating that real problem is not your solution. Because that is far too wide a net to cast. Trainer A loses an owner to Trainer B and Trainer A gets vindictive. He contaminates Trainer B's feed. There is one clenbuterol positive. He then does something else -- strike two. Trainer B is now a victim, but a victim who is now a "cheater" and in this panacea world he now loses his ability, or is on his way to losing his ability, to earn a living.

The same holds true for your point of the trainer who has never gotten a positive -- yes, you are right, that doesn't mean he's not cheating. Perhaps it means he's never gotten caught. And now, in the panacea world, this trainer is in the original 90% which is now the 100% because we rid the sport of the 10%. Where are we going here?

I just don't think there is a simple answer. The solution is multi-faceted and must be borne, paid for, enforced upon, etc. ALL parties -- vets, owners, trainers, grooms, and perhaps others as well.

Eric

[Thunder Gulch]

I knew this would happen with the bad publicity now that Dutrow has raised his profile through Big Brown.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

I just don't think there is a simple answer. The solution is multi-faceted and must be borne, paid for, enforced upon, etc. ALL parties -- vets, owners, trainers, grooms, and perhaps others as well.

I agree with this completely. Perhaps racing needs to go to a penalty system similar to what we have under the NY Vehicle and Traffic Law, where you get so many points for a violation, depending on its severity (for example, 2 points for running a redlight, 5 points for speeding 15 mph over the limit, with loss of license when you hit 12 points - and certain "old" offenses dropping out the equation when they reach a certain age [I believe it's 18 months in that case]); I think the NBA uses something similar for flagrant/technical fouls. This way, we wouldn't have the farcical statement of John Veitch saying that, under KY rules, Dutrow is a first-time offender, and past offenses would have an impact on future penalties.

[slotdirt]

Jeremy Rose's first infraction, six months off; Rick Dutrow's 73rd confirmed infraction, 15 days. Why does that not seem fair?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by tiggerv

How dangerous is that level of medication to the horse?

I have no idea. I have no idea what the allowable levels are and they dont want us to know. Not that it would make a difference if i knew. The recomended dosage is 5 cc's twice a day with a 72 to 96 hour withdrawl. We usually will stop 48 hours before that simply to avoid a bad test since clembuterol seems to generate more bad tests than any other med.Does that put us at a disadvantage? I doubt it considering how far out from a race you are at the legal withdrawl time. I suppose if you were to give 1 cc a few hours before the race the levels would come in sky high and that would hardy be dangerous to the horse. Most of the levels that horses test positive for are microscopic.

[slotdirt]

I did read that John Veitch said this is the highest level of clenbutorol he's seem in a horse since he became the chief steward in Kentucky.

[tiggerv]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I have no idea. I have no idea what the allowable levels are and they dont want us to know. Not that it would make a difference if i knew. The recomended dosage is 5 cc's twice a day with a 72 to 96 hour withdrawl. We usually will stop 48 hours before that simply to avoid a bad test since clembuterol seems to generate more bad tests than any other med.Does that put us at a disadvantage? I doubt it considering how far out from a race you are at the legal withdrawl time. I suppose if you were to give 1 cc a few hours before the race the levels would come in sky high and that would hardy be dangerous to the horse. Most of the levels that horses test positive for are microscopic.

Thanks for the info. I was just curious if Dutrow was putting a horse's health/life in jeopardy for a 20k purse.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, while I agree with you, as I've said -- this is not just an "owner" problem. You cannot expect one aspect of the industry -- a billion dollar industry -- to self police and govern itself to certain standards, when the remainder of the industry does not and will not have to. This is no different than merely cutting off one of Hydra's heads.

If you want owners to act with moral conscience, than you must have integrity in the other aspects of the game.

In addition, I use trainers who win races and they range from not one positive test in a 25-30 year career (in one case), to trainers who have had a clenbuterol positive (10 years ago I think), and others. And you know what? Those guys take the heat too. That doesn't give you immunity.

I have a trainer who IMO is a top trainer, an excellent horseman. Almost 30 years on the backstretch and he's never had a positive test. Not one. A friend of mine claims a horse for 20k and the horse goes nowhere after a couple of starts. The trainer won't drop him to where he can win, the excuses start. Third start off the claim he finishes 5th to a horse from my trainer's barn (not my horse). My friend's trainer looks at the form and says "oh yeah, it's a _(trainer's name)_ horse, well you can't beat him, we know what he's doing" -- on and on about my trainer. Not one positive and people "just know" he's doing something.

Why is it not about questions like -- How about picking a trainer who wins races? How about cut the BS, check your ego at the door, and drop your horse to where he can be competitive? Yes, I know it cuts both ways, but who are we blaming here and who are we looking at to solve the problem? It's not just "the owners".

People who are in this business, who spend time on the backstretch, in the race office, etc. -- they know that everyone is doing something. Don't ask owners to do something that other participants in the industry are not willing to do themselves.

Eric

I understand what you are saying. But when a guy like Jackson is calling for medication reform while at the same time his main trainer is a guy who is coming off of a 6 month suspension (there is a reason that this was a 6 month suspension) it is hard for me to take anything he says as anything but lip service. And I understand what the hell is going on. How do you explain that to Congress who seemingly "forgot" to ask Mr Jackson about his association with SA. I have nothing against either party but it hard to explain his "do as I say, not as i do " attitude. There is a reason that Barry Bonds is not playing this year and it has a whole lot less to do with his ability than it does with the black cloud that he lives under. And he never failed one test. Imagine if while he was playing there the owner of the Giants makes a big public proclamation about how we need to rid the sport of cheaters and drug users? The guy would be roasted across the country as a grade 1 hypocrite. Maybe I am naive as Freddy said but I would like to see a big owner (other than IEAH) make a statement with their actions. Not the lip service that we currently get. It is America, you can choose your trainers however you please. But for us to get right, owners have to take more responsibility for the actions of their trainer. You want to talk about the rest of the industry but I dont see how anyone else can make a statement without reprecussions. Hell you will be lauded as internet champions forever.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by phystech

Clenbuterol goes in the feed tub, right?

Is it possible then that feed tubs got mixed up?

Is it possible someone did up the feed and then someone else did it up again?

With 100 horses in the barn, mix ups occur.

Even if it was a mix up, Rick should pay the price..... no excuses.

No it is usually given directly to the horse in the mouth. He didnt hve many horses here that week and his top people were here. He admits they gave it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

If the industry allows the trainers to practice there trade then the industry is ok that they served the proper penalty and should be allowed to earn a living again.. what is worse Florida, NY or KY allowing Dutrow to continue to train or owners giving him horses? If he couldn't train in the state the owners can't give him horses right?

Look I wouldn't let Dutrow train my horse but I really think I would let Biancone.. I maybe crazy but I think Biancone is worth the risk

The difference is that you are mixing the "right" to train versus the owners "choice" to have him train. One is a legal issue, the other an issue of ethics. The "industry" which often means the state racing commission has to follow the letter of the law. An owner has free choice.

What is the risk of having Patrick train for you to you? Other than possible lung cancer if you hang around him there is none?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Let me ask you this. If they weren't with Dutrow, would they have won the Dubai Sprint, the Breeders Cup Mile(turf,) and the Kentucky Derby? I think they've had a substantial edge using this cheater. The best sprinter in the country, the best turf miler in the country, and the best three year old in the country, but they aren't getting an edge? Chuck is on a different planet(CONTRARIANO CUE) sometimes.

So it is ok to "have an edge" if you win?

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I have one of those mobile internet things now. I am on my way to Taco Bell for my pre race meal before I saddle the worst horse i ever trained in the 2nd. And she actually may have a shot. Talk about bad races. The 2nd at CD today may be the worst race ever put on by a major racing association.

congrats on having the worst horse you ever trained finish 2nd in the worst race ever put on by a major racing association!!

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by freddymo

The real penalty will be when IEAH leave him because of the negative publicity they are most certainly going to receive

I doubt they leave him...they knew he was going to get suspended, as evidenced by the stupid PR move that all of their horses will run free of medications, which came out BEFORE the news of the suspension. They have put themselves in the position of appearing to take the high road, even though the whole thing is nonsense anyway, the general public doesn't understand that.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I have no idea. I have no idea what the allowable levels are and they dont want us to know. Not that it would make a difference if i knew. The recomended dosage is 5 cc's twice a day with a 72 to 96 hour withdrawl. We usually will stop 48 hours before that simply to avoid a bad test since clembuterol seems to generate more bad tests than any other med.Does that put us at a disadvantage? I doubt it considering how far out from a race you are at the legal withdrawl time. I suppose if you were to give 1 cc a few hours before the race the levels would come in sky high and that would hardy be dangerous to the horse. Most of the levels that horses test positive for are microscopic.

Apparently the allowable level is 20 petagrams per milliliter. Dutrow's horse was at 41.

http://www.drf.com/news/article/95769.html

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

congrats on having the worst horse you ever trained finish 2nd in the worst race ever put on by a major racing association!!

It was depressing. I mean being second was fine (though I'm sure Scuds will find something I did wrong) but that was terrible. One disadvantage that KY has is no statebred races to fall back on hence these debacles. I had to get out of CD asap because 1) it was like being at a funeral, there couldnt have been 300 people there and 2) they were 4 races short of drawing from Sat's card and i didnt want to get cornered by the Racing sec. Plus i am trying the Krebs theory of posting to try to get my horses to run better.