Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Of course he wouldn’t admit it, but the burden is not on him to prove he didn’t dope the horse with something other than the legal therapeutic he agrees was in the horse’s system. So you DQ the horse, give him a suspension, and then he eventually comes back. This would probably be close to over already if he would have accepted responsibility right from the start. If they really want him out of the sport, IMO they have to do better than this drug at this level. Wiretaps seem to work. lol
|
I disagree. I think the positive test alone should draw the suspension and disqualification.
I don't think there's any such thing as "proving he didn't dope the horse". If the horse tests positive, he doped the horse.
One of the reason this sport has such a big drug problem is we are always looking for reasons to indulge and excuse the trainers. And bear in mind, that's not in the written rules- the written rules say trainers are absolute insurers, not that positive tests are OK if there's an excuse.
And I don't expect trainers to accept responsibility. I expect them to lie, because as I explained a few months ago, it is literally the trainer's job to lie. If the trainer admits doping, he violates a duty to his owner to try and win the race. I don't care what Baffert's explanations are. You test positive, you are DQ'd and suspended. Let Baffert and others figure out how to not have their horses test positive.