Indian Charlie goes after Ken McPeek

[Fager Fan]

And goes after him hard:

http://www.indiancharlie.com/2010/08/11/thursday-august-12-2010/

[nijinski]

Guess he figured the timing was right .

[point given]

Full of crap as a fat babys diaper !

I love it :lol: :lol: :lol:

[OTM Al]

Some people think this guy is funny. I think he's a racist homophobe who exemplifies everything that's bad about racing and humanity in general. His rag is not even worthy to wipe my rear end.

[bane]

What do you expect from a former Jocks Agent :D

I do find him very funny and he goes after a part of the sport that the press never covers.

[Grits]

Didn't cover his own income tax evasion, though, until Ray Paulick brought it to light. Not everyone in the industry is a fan of IC. He can make one laugh, but sometimes, at great expense.

http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/tag/ed-musselman/

(This truly wasn't too bright.:faint: )

[Fager Fan]

Either there was no claim before the NJ Racing Commission or there was. Either the story about Pitts/Sarava is true or it's not. Both of those charges would seem to be true based on one being a matter of record and the other naming Pitts who could easily dispute the charge if it's not true.

It doesn't matter one's thoughts on the messenger when the message is truth.

As for IC not highlighting his tax evasion issue, Paulick didn't really delve into his apparent drug abuse problem until forced either. I can see why both men didn't want to go there.

[OTM Al]

Either there was no claim before the NJ Racing Commission or there was. Either the story about Pitts/Sarava is true or it's not. Both of those charges would seem to be true based on one being a matter of record and the other naming Pitts who could easily dispute the charge if it's not true.

It doesn't matter one's thoughts on the messenger when the message is truth.

As for IC not highlighting his tax evasion issue, Paulick didn't really delve into his apparent drug abuse problem until forced either. I can see why both men didn't want to go there.

I'm not talking about individual stories. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm talking about the individual and some of the disgusting, vindictive and intentionally cruel things this individual has said and done.

[bane]

Like I said he is a former Jockey's agnt, what else do you expect ;)

[OTM Al]

Like I said he is a former Jockey's agnt, what else do you expect ;)

Much better.

[Fager Fan]

I'm not talking about individual stories. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm talking about the individual and some of the disgusting, vindictive and intentionally cruel things this individual has said and done.

Great. Doesn't have a thing to do with the bigger issue, though, does it? We have a trainer who was charged with willfully sending a horse out to its death, backed up by two people in the barn (who I'm guessing lost their jobs over it), and he's still a trainer in good standing within horse racing? He gives interviews where he talks of himself being a good steward of the horse?

[OTM Al]

Great. Doesn't have a thing to do with the bigger issue, though, does it? We have a trainer who was charged with willfully sending a horse out to its death, backed up by two people in the barn (who I'm guessing lost their jobs over it), and he's still a trainer in good standing within horse racing? He gives interviews where he talks of himself being a good steward of the horse?

Yeah actual it does. This guy's spewed so much crap that I have a lot of trouble with any credibility in his stories whatsoever. Issues like he brings up would not be passed on by mainstream media. There's enough out there that don't like horse racing that stories such as these would make the news. Maybe they happened, maybe they didn't, but wasn't Savara 2002? And that is the latter of the two supposed incidents. Remotely possible if he was that way he changed? His motto is the only acurate thing in his rag. "We never let the truth get in the way of a good story"

[startngate]

His motto is the only acurate thing in his rag. "We never let the truth get in the way of a good story"Probably so.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2002/04/28/2002-04-28_coming_up_roses_mcpeeks_take.html

"By 1993, McPeek had built a successful career as a claiming trainer, but that was nearly destroyed on a rainy September night. McPeek tried to scratch a filly named Mean Doris Jean from a claiming race at the Meadowlands that was moved off the turf to a muddy track. The racing secretary told McPeek he had already "stuck" another trainer, meaning that to keep enough betting interests in the race the secretary was preventing McPeek from scratching Mean Doris Jean because there was no medical reason to do so.

~~the rest at the link above~~

Of course that doesn't speak to the Sarava claim, but here it looks like a disgruntled ex-employee (that lost their job before this incident) with an axe to grind tried to hang him.

IC has been taking jabs at McPeek for years, and although most have been good natured ribbing, this certainly is not.

[Fager Fan]

Probably so.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/2002/04/28/2002-04-28_coming_up_roses_mcpeeks_take.html

"By 1993, McPeek had built a successful career as a claiming trainer, but that was nearly destroyed on a rainy September night. McPeek tried to scratch a filly named Mean Doris Jean from a claiming race at the Meadowlands that was moved off the turf to a muddy track. The racing secretary told McPeek he had already "stuck" another trainer, meaning that to keep enough betting interests in the race the secretary was preventing McPeek from scratching Mean Doris Jean because there was no medical reason to do so.

~~the rest at the link above~~

Of course that doesn't speak to the Sarava claim, but here it looks like a disgruntled ex-employee (that lost their job before this incident) with an axe to grind tried to hang him.

IC has been taking jabs at McPeek for years, and although most have been good natured ribbing, this certainly is not.

I'm not sure how accurate that accounting is, as there were two employees of McPeek's who testified to her unsoundness.

http://www.equinelawsafety.org/case/racing/27

This is the factual background. On September 17, 1993 �Mean Doris Dean,� recently arrived from Kentucky, fell and broke her leg during a race at the Meadowlands track. The horse was euthanized. McPeek, the trainer, was in Kentucky at the time of the race but he had applied for a New Jersey trainer's license from the New Jersey Racing Commission (Commission). Although the Commission did not issue McPeek a trainer's license until September 23, 1993 he did receive a temporary license on September 6, 1993.

After �Mean Doris Jean� was destroyed, two former employees complained to the Commission that, although McPeek knew the horse had swollen and inflamed ankles and was not in a condition to race, he still decided to race her. Following this complaint, the Commission's Board of Stewards conducted a disciplinary hearing on December 8, 1993. On December 11, 1993 the Board of Stewards suspended McPeek's license for thirty days, concluding that he (1) had acted detrimentally to racing, contrary to N.J.A.C. 13:70-1.15; (2) had entered or started a horse not in serviceable, sound racing condition, contrary to N.J.A.C. 13:70-20.11; and (3) had committed questionable conduct, contrary to N.J.A.C. 13:70-16.23.

I don't see the point in McPeek's talk of trying to scratch the filly. Does that mean he thought her problems would find her holding up on the turf course but would cause her to break down on the dirt? Obviously, that's not acceptable. Unless he tried to scratch her, admitting that he knows her to be infirm and he worries for her safety, and they made him run her anyway (which they really don't have the power to do, because that's a vet scratch), then that's the only way his argument about scratching makes any difference and comes to his defense.

I don't know if McPeek is guilty or innocent. My frustration is with the fact that we don't know if he is. Just as we don't know what Gill or O'Neill or Biancone or any number of other trainers or owners are really guilty of as they continue to be part of the racing community. I want indisputable evidence and those who are bad for racing to be banned from racing. That includes ever sending out a horse that one knows to have a problem that could see the horse worsened or possibly not make it around the track.

[JustRalph]

Like I said he is a former Jockey's agnt, what else do you expect ;)

Wow! That's a huge broad brush you are swinging all the way from Afghanistan

[OTM Al]

Fager Fan I agree with what you are saying. My only point is if you really want the truth, this rag is not where you will find it.

[startngate]

I don't see the point in McPeek's talk of trying to scratch the filly. Does that mean he thought her problems would find her holding up on the turf course but would cause her to break down on the dirt? Obviously, that's not acceptable. Unless he tried to scratch her, admitting that he knows her to be infirm and he worries for her safety, and they made him run her anyway (which they really don't have the power to do, because that's a vet scratch), then that's the only way his argument about scratching makes any difference and comes to his defense.It was a turf race that came off the turf because of severe storms that night. Perfectly sound horses get scratched when a race comes off the turf all the time. The main track was a mess, and it appears he was not allowed to scratch by the racing secretary because he didn't have a vet excuse. Not having a vet excuse means to me that the horse was sound enough to run. Every State has rules about how many horses may scratch without having a vet excuse. Horses getting stuck does occur, and the only option the trainer has if he doesn't want to run the horse is to disobey the order and not lead the horse over.
I don't know if McPeek is guilty or innocent. My frustration is with the fact that we don't know if he is.Well, the administrative law judge that heard the case apparently thought he was innocent, and the regulators in NJ elected not to appeal something they thought was so serious they gave him a year. I'd say that's a pretty clear statement.

[Fager Fan]

It was a turf race that came off the turf because of severe storms that night. Perfectly sound horses get scratched when a race comes off the turf all the time. The main track was a mess, and it appears he was not allowed to scratch by the racing secretary because he didn't have a vet excuse. Not having a vet excuse means to me that the horse was sound enough to run. Every State has rules about how many horses may scratch without having a vet excuse. Horses getting stuck does occur, and the only option the trainer has if he doesn't want to run the horse is to disobey the order and not lead the horse over.

Again, what does wanting to scratch have to do with anything? It doesn't indicate that the filly was sound or unsound and is irrelevant.

Well, the administrative law judge that heard the case apparently thought he was innocent, and the regulators in NJ elected not to appeal something they thought was so serious they gave him a year. I'd say that's a pretty clear statement.

A jury found OJ not guilty too.

[startngate]

Again, what does wanting to scratch have to do with anything? It doesn't indicate that the filly was sound or unsound and is irrelevant.Don't know how much clearer I need to make it.

McPeek wanted to scratch the horse because the race came off the turf. That request was refused because he didn't have a vet's slip to get out. If the vet would not issue a slip to get out of the race, then the horse wasn't unsound. It's 100% relevant.

Even if you don't want to follow that logic, then you still can't hold that McPeek 'willfully' (your word) ran an unsound horse. He tried to scratch, and the racing secretary refused to allow him to. Again 100% relevant.
A jury found OJ not guilty too.You want to compare OJ's jury to an administrative law judge? Allrighty then, no reason to continue this discussion ... :bang:

[Fager Fan]

Don't know how much clearer I need to make it.

McPeek wanted to scratch the horse because the race came off the turf. That request was refused because he didn't have a vet's slip to get out. If the vet would not issue a slip to get out of the race, then the horse wasn't unsound. It's 100% relevant.

First, horses can scratch for a race coming off the turf. Beyond that, having a vet slip doesn't mean a horse is unsound, it can well mean that your vet obliged you by giving you a vet slip. Not having a vet slip doesn't mean the horse is sound, it can mean that a vet hasn't looked at the horse and then issued a slip.

You want to compare OJ's jury to an administrative law judge? Allrighty then, no reason to continue this discussion ... :bang:

Same back at you. You think that every judge and jury decision is the right one or proof of someone's innocence or guilt?

[PaceAdvantage]

Even if you don't want to follow that logic, then you still can't hold that McPeek 'willfully' (your word) ran an unsound horse. He tried to scratch, and the racing secretary refused to allow him to. Again 100% relevant.Isn't it also relevant that employees of his ratted him out? Why would they do that? They don't like money? They wanted to go on the unemployment line or try and find another barn to work for? (Good luck with that...I doubt many trainers out there are itching to hire whistle blowers).

[v j stauffer]

If your horse is entered in a turf race and that race is taken off the turf ANY horse can scratch without permission or penalty. Furthermore it is NEVER the decision of the racing secretary. He or she may try to persuade a trainer to stay in and run on the main track to hold the race together but that's as far as it goes. Stewards have the final say as to who may or may not scratch. No steward ANYWHERE would say to an owner or trainer that their horse MUST RUN
when there's a surface change.

[owlet]

thanks for the clarification, Vic. The sorry mainstream media that both contributes to and reports on the sport's demise with puff pieces that end up backfiring is (and as far as I can tell always has been) in the double barreled sights of IC.

and yet look how people howl when he pulls back the steel lid and exposes what is going on.

[Pine Tree Lane]

If your horse is entered in a turf race and that race is taken off the turf ANY horse can scratch without permission or penalty. Furthermore it is NEVER the decision of the racing secretary. He or she may try to persuade a trainer to stay in and run on the main track to hold the race together but that's as far as it goes. Stewards have the final say as to who may or may not scratch. No steward ANYWHERE would say to an owner or trainer that their horse MUST RUN
when there's a surface change.

To Vic's point, if you do run after the switch to the main, they will make sure you get first draw the next time there is a turf race written.

[Robert Fischer]

sometimes MP gets em to run fast for a little while.

[ArlJim78]

Some people think this guy is funny. I think he's a racist homophobe who exemplifies everything that's bad about racing and humanity in general. His rag is not even worthy to wipe my rear end.
You've got it right on here. Why anyone would read that worthless garbage is beyond me.

[WJ47]

Some people think this guy is funny. I think he's a racist homophobe who exemplifies everything that's bad about racing and humanity in general. His rag is not even worthy to wipe my rear end.

I agree. I read a few of them and I was appalled. Who is this guy anyway? I should print out a few copies to use next time I run out of toilet paper.

[Hanover1]

Anyone that makes a living slinging mud like that ought to run for office.

[startngate]

If your horse is entered in a turf race and that race is taken off the turf ANY horse can scratch without permission or penalty. Furthermore it is NEVER the decision of the racing secretary. He or she may try to persuade a trainer to stay in and run on the main track to hold the race together but that's as far as it goes. Stewards have the final say as to who may or may not scratch. No steward ANYWHERE would say to an owner or trainer that their horse MUST RUN
when there's a surface change.Perhaps not where you hang your hat, but according to the story, at least one horse had already been 'stuck' in the race so it was happening at the Meadowlands. Having worked as a racing official I can also tell you I have personally seen horses trying to scratch in races that come off the turf get stuck at the tracks I have worked at (east coast and mid-west). I have also seen trainers get fined for not leading their horse over after getting stuck. Granted, not very often, but it does happen.

And yes, Stewards do make the call in these cases. Reading the story I didn't take it that McPeek claimed the Racing Secretary made him stay in. I took it that when he called to scratch the Racing Secretary told him another horse had already been stuck. The logical conclusion therefore would be that if they had stuck one horse, they were going to stick him too. A vet slip would certainly have gotten him out, but he didn't have one.
To Vic's point, if you do run after the switch to the main, they will make sure you get first draw the next time there is a turf race written.Yep, at many tracks if you stay in when a race comes off the turf, you either get an additional preference star, or your old preference date back. This will help you get into the next race if it overfills.

[sonnyp]

i'll give credit to indian charlie in one area. there are no "sacred cows".

from marylou whitney, to pletcher, to the breeding moguls, to the sheik.....they're all fair game.

you won't find that "unbiased" slur very often these days. politically correct he aint.

[Hanover1]

i'll give credit to indian charlie in one area. there are no "sacred cows".

from marylou whitney, to pletcher, to the breeding moguls, to the sheik.....they're all fair game.

you won't find that "unbiased" slur very often these days. politically correct he aint.

Quite a charming fellow. Always welcome to the after race get togethers :rolleyes: