Re: Mitchell goes into the D-Barn... (606 Views)
Posted by:
HP (IP Logged)
Date: August 02, 2005 01:00PM
Class,
In this particular case, what difference does "legal" or "illegal" make and what are you talking about?
The rule is CLEAR AS DAY and Mitchell violated it. He's not even appealing, as far as I can see. Here is a case where there is an agreed-upon standard and it's in a CONTRACT and Mitchell's horse comes up in violation of the standard and you're getting into this totally irrelevant area again.
It was irrelevant in the Pletcher case too, where Pletcher's horse tested positive and the substance was ILLEGAL and you STILL went on about "legal" vs. "illegal."
The only issue in the Pletcher matter is the AMOUNT of the substance used. It is WITHOUT QUESTION illegal. Ask Barry Irwin!
You are just pathologically incapable of acknowledging that these guys are cheating and even when they get caught you are ready to turn the subject into mush with this phantom "legal v. illegal" issue. I'm assuming that you just can't accept the fact that it's Dr. Allday (White Mercedes), etc. and not any astute handling of lightly raced stock that has resulted in Pletcher's incredible run. But here you are again when the worm turns against Mitchell.
I could see where the "legal" vs. "illegal" debate might be relevant, but it is NOT relevant either in this Mitchell matter or with Pletcher. In both cases, ILLEGAL and CHEATING. Period.
Is there ever going to be an instance where the facts put a dent in your opinion on this?
HP