Is This Justified??

[Observer]

I do admit, I never did see this race in question, but something just doesn't seem right about this Donnie Meche thing.

He was suspended for a year, but now he's been denied renewal of his license, which expired June 30.

If this guy's license has expired, he can't still be serving his suspension, can he? If this is the case, that would mean, if and when they did grant him a license again, he would still be faced with serving the remainder of his time.

If they really felt he shouldn't have a license, shouldn't they have revoked it back during their initial ruling? Can't they do that?

I just don't get this. Why is this one case so severe??

Donnie Denied (http://www.drf.com/news/article/49038.html)

[PurplePower]

Originally posted by Observer
I do admit, I never did see this race in question, but something just doesn't seem right about this Donnie Meche thing.
I just don't get this. Why is this one case so severe?? According to my "source" that was in FG stable area at time and who knows DM personally (as do I), there was "evidence" that Donnie "profited from his ride" in that he had caused to be placed an exacta wager on the other two horses. To my knowledge, neither the stewards or the La Racing Commission made a public statement of the evidence that they had regarding the race. The fact that the horse in question BARELY won the final of that stake was evidence that maybe he was not going to be a "runaway winner" of the trial. Secondly, Donnie was riding on an appeal of a bad test for something in his urine other than beer, wine or soda. His six months suspension was because he had "two violations" being considered at the same time -- then when he appealed, the racing commission increased that time to one year. I watched several "trial" races since and if the stewards were to enforce that rule evenly on all jockeys that didn't "ride all out" in the trial, there would be enough jockeys on suspension to fill a small hotel. (You see the long thread on this subject when it was hot news back in February or March? It was "Rider Suspended six months" -- just do a search for Donnie Meche and it will come up.)
The commission considers him serving his suspension even though his Louisiana license was no renewed. They do not renew any license of a licensee that is onl suspension until the suspension has been served.

[Observer]

Thanks for the clarification. Obviously, I was thinking he couldn't be considered serving out his time if he wasn't licensed .. but thanks for clearing that up .. that's something the DRF story should have done.

As for the other stuff .. it did seem as if there had to be more to the story than him simply not riding out his horse .. but again, this makes for poor reporting on this topic .. someone should have been asking questions, and gotten at least vague answers that he had "two violations" at the same time. And if someone did report it .. I guess I missed it. Regarding the thread on this topic earlier this year, I do remember it .. but I guess I'm fuzzy on the details.

[WINMANWIN]

I cant say that I blame you for being confused Observer, I am most confused when trainers come back with drug positives.
How come the positives come back sometimes 6 to 8 mths after the TEST.confused: I would think 2 weeks time, would be
more than Enuff time, to come up with the results.

[PurplePower]

Originally posted by WINMANWIN
I cant say that I blame you for being confused Observer, I am most confused when trainers come back with drug positives.
How come the positives come back sometimes 6 to 8 mths after the TEST.confused: I would think 2 weeks time, would be
more than Enuff time, to come up with the results. In Texas, results of the initial test are usually back within a week. The trainer gets notified the sample tested positive and (s)he has 48 hours to ask that the split portion be sent to a referee lab. Referee labs generally take a month and sometimes two months to report back their findings. If the result is negative, all is forgiven. If the result is positive the trainer is given a 10 day notification of a hearing where he may present evidence. The stewards then make a ruling and must hand it down within 72 hours. The trainer has til 5PM of third day after the date of the ruling to file an appeal with the racing commission. Racing Commission agendas are set 45 days in advance, so if the ruling is just after the 45 day notice period, the trainer's appeal will not be heard for almost 90 days. And, so the trainer decides to take his "vacation", drops his appeal and the ruling is then published - about 6-8 months after the race. (During that time, that horse's share of the purse is held in escrow. Second, third etc. get their purse money provided they did not have a testing problem as well. If the positive is verified and purses are redistributed, the additional money is added to the owner's account.)

[WINMANWIN]

Thank you Reid, It's always a pleasure, Looking forward to meeting you at Toga.;)

[PurplePower]

Originally posted by WINMANWIN
Thank you Reid, It's always a pleasure, Looking forward to meeting you at Toga.;) Ditto, WINmanWIN

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by PurplePower
According to my "source" that was in FG stable area at time and who knows DM personally (as do I), there was "evidence" that Donnie "profited from his ride" in that he had caused to be placed an exacta wager on the other two horses.

Damn...Damn....Damn!!!!!!!!!!! he should be done for good!

Anybody who bets those kind of races shouldn't be surprised.....but come on.....!!!! The next time somebody asks you if racing is Crooked, how are you going to answer now?

[PurplePower]

Originally posted by JustRalph
Damn...Damn....Damn!!!!!!!!!!! he should be done for good!

Anybody who bets those kind of races shouldn't be surprised.....but come on.....!!!! The next time somebody asks you if racing is Crooked, how are you going to answer now? Two points: One -- neither the stewards nor the Racing Commission "proved" that those statements were made - at least I have not seen any transcripts where that proof was offered. His supsension was based on rule that says the stewards can suspend for the "appearance of wrong doing". (That is reason there is a rule that two trainers cannot be in the same saddling stall without permission from the stewards. Even though they might be talking about what they read on the PA BB, the fans around the paddock fence might think they were deciding which one's horse would win.) IF they have incontrovertible proof that he in fact did profit from his ride then he should be looking for alternate ways to make money for rest of his life.
Two - Students at MIT are caught with a stolen exam that is to be taken the next day. The next time someone asks you if all college students cheat, how would you answer?
Sad fact of life is that I do not know of an industry, business, sport or hobby in which someone cannot point out "crookedness". Racing is policed more than most and we know about the crookedness because it is exposed. Doesn't make it right - I don't like it - but I still find handicapping and playing the horses to be much preferred to chasing a little white ball around a beautiful pasture that someone has stuck 18 flags in to warn players of holes in the ground where there ball is supposed to get lost. (That's how I'm going to answer.) :)

[JustRalph]

Purple

Good points. I swear one of these days I am going to make it to Sam to visit. You and Dave Schwartz (Reno) are tops on the list of places to go. With a swing thru Boston and Saratoga too.......