JB:

Here is a brief reflection. It might qualify as bombastic.

Lots of issues here, and for some reason I am thinking about how mass murderer
Al Capone was finally stopped (tax evasion), and how mass murderer John Gotti
may never have been convicted if it weren't for the RICO statute. Navarro and
Gindi are not Capone and Gotti, they are just a couple of knuckleheads who
would have been thrown out of the clubhouse in any track in America when people
used to actually attend the races, and when there was a real distinction
between the way folks behaved (and dressed) in the clubhouse as opposed to the
grandstand.

The point is that when you get an opportunity like this (here "behavior
detrimental") it should be taken advantage of. Give Navarro a five stall
allocation and let him run his horses off a training center in Colts Neck,
where, without prying eyes, he can work on all the chemistry experiments he
wants to.

To me freezing and retesting samples ten years down the road is futile UNLESS
you are going to hold a percentage of the purse in an interest bearing escrow
account. This unfortunately would affect the legitimate trainers as well as the
performance enhancers. I will leave it to Rezlegal or one of the other
barristers among the T-generates to ponder how a cheater who gets caught ten or
fifteen years after the fact could be dealt with without denying said cheater
due process of law.

I'm thinking "Bundles" now because I just changed cable/phone providers. The
"Bundle" I am fixated on now involves three issues I see every day walking the
streets of Manhattan. (a) Panhandlers and homeless people (Hoover: "A chicken
in every pot"; deBlasio "A panhandler on every block"), (b) unemployment and
(c)unused, blighted vacant buildings. How to deal with this bundle: Put people
to work renovating vacant buildings and get the people off the streets and
living in these renovated buildings. Simple? No because it cuts across too many
government agencies, involves unions and who is going to pay? How much is it
worth to an individual taxpayer not to see a street person defecating on the
sidewalk in broad daylight?

Did I wander too far off the reservation in order to take a gratuitous shot at
a Mayor I am not fond of? No, I am "circling back" to the issue of who would
bear the cost of state of the art testing and enforcement. Take a percentage of
purse money? Increase takeout? Both?

What we call "Racing" is actually a "bundle" of industries: The breeders
produce the bloodstock; the bloodstock is either raised by the breeders or sold
at auction; the nearly finished product is sent to the racetrack for final
preparation; a groom leads the horse to the racetrack, a trainer gives a jockey
a leg up and game on! Millions of people, either at the track or a few miles or
a thousand miles away, are able to participate by wagering. Of course these
horses eat and require feed; stables require equipment; horseplayers want state
of the art data. I guess my point is there is a lot of money changing hands on
and off the track and there must be some revenue that can be tapped for state
of the art testing and/or surveillance.

Pinhookers (hypothetical) buy a yearling at a September auction for $250,000
and turn around and sell said yearling at an April 2YO in training auction for
$750,000. Sadly, many times the $750K 2YO, who went an 1/8th mile in "nine and
change" at the sale turns out to be limited at distances past a half mile and
never pans out. But the pinhooker got a half million dollars basically for
nurturing a growing animal (I will be a good lad and not discuss what surgeries
and performance enhancement these young prospects are subjected to in order to
produce that glorious nine second dash). If Racing had uniform governance, some
percentage of that half million could be "diverted" to a fund. Call it "The
Future of Racing Fund".

Expand the idea and look to bloodstock auctions. How much will champion Tepin,
reported in foal to Curlin, sell for in the auction ring? Between $3 and $4
million? Could we impose a tax on auction proceeds for the "Future of Racing
Fund?"

Enough already. I could go on for a while, and JB I think we both agree that
giving Lasix only to runners that really need it would be a huge step forward.
Long story short, Navarro is not good for racing, getting mad results against
the Mom and Pop trainers at Monmouth. He gave Racing an opportunity to say "No
mas", even if for the wrong reasons. Only a Dennis Drazin, worried that his
entry box will suffer next year, could be shallow enough to support him under
these circumstances.

Bottom line: I want Jorge N out and Frank D back in.