Re: drugged horses? (472 Views)
Posted by:
Michael D. (IP Logged)
Date: January 06, 2007 09:23PM
headstr8ner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are lots of reasons to have ongoing
> dialogues about finding new and thorough ways of
> managing the dilemma of “drugged” horses. Yes,
> there are trainers, vets, grooms and owners in the
> world who try to find ways of enhancing the
> performance of these fragile animals that we love
> to bet on (or own). Some of these “illegal” drugs
> (so called Type A, B, or C) have no business being
> in a horse while racing. Other “types” (D or E)
> are mere medications that any of us would take to
> aid in the management of itchy skin, sneezing,
> headache, etc. Let’s face it, these animals live
> in dusty places, which have rodent droppings, cat
> hair, rooster feathers and other horses’ manure
> under their roof 24/7. What concerns me is the
> quickness to judge and the guilty- before- trial-
> mentality of many handicappers. In light of the
> e-coli problems with lettuce, green onions, etc,
> especially originating from California, we must
> ask if it is it ever possible that farms selling
> products to the racing industry may have a role in
> this. For example, handlers preparing and
> packaging hay, feed, carrots or any other items
> critical in the racing/agriculture industry, may
> be drugs users or not clean in their handling of
> these items. Any innocent trainer/handler would
> not know this in advance. Or, can it be the
> outrider or valet or jockey or friend of a friend
> petting the horse? I know 2 people who were
> hospitalized for e-coli. I also know many people
> who have tested positive in a work environment and
> were found innocent afterwards after learning it
> came from a fellow co-worker. In one case, there
> were traces of cocaine on the hands of another who
> shared, ate/touched candy and cookies from a tray
> at work. So, moral of my story is please watch the
> negativity and jumping to conclusions that there
> is a “definite” connection to the trainers. Yes
> trainers are “in charge” but so are the CEO and
> Board at Taco Bell.
re the "in charge", NY appeals said this:
"The court said Pletcher's argument "overlooks the purpose and policy behind the trainer responsibility rule.'' The court added that the rule "deliberately'' places a responsibility on trainers to uphold the integrity and fairness of racing in the state. It noted that the law requires that trainers be "held responsible for any positive test unless he can show by substantial evidence that neither he nor any employee nor agent was responsible for the administration of the drug or other restricted substance"
and i don't believe the Pletcher, Asmussen, and Dutrow mepivacaine positives came from the carrots ...
a cocaine positive from cookies?
dude, i'm not buyin that one either.