Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
Honestly, I think the positive itself would not have damaged the integrity of the sport nearly as much if it was explained to the general public in terms they could understand that it was a legal therapeutic drug, a very small overage, and not performance enhancing, but he would get due process and be punished appropriately.
Then when I talk to non racing people about the case they wouldn't all think he was juicing horses with all kinds of illegal steroids, EPO, and designer drugs that human athletes sometimes get busted for. He may be, but that's not what this case is about and we have no wire taps or syringes etc to prove that.
But in the haste to convict him because a lot of people want him out of the sport and think he does way worse than just use therapeutics recklessly, the narrative became WAY worse than the reality. The media being more interested in controversy and a story than the facts didn't help much either. Then Baffert became his own worst enemy and enemy of the industry by going on TV, not taking responsibility, and fighting the appropriate suspensions.
The idea should have been to minimize the story and maximize the punishment. Instead it became maximize the story and fight the punishment. Of course it's all Baffert's fault to start, but it has been a debacle.
|
This isn't right.
The only proper response is NOT to minimize it. You maximize it. "This guy cheated, we accept no excuses, and he needs to find another career" is the ONLY really acceptable narrative given the public hit we took.
Our sport doesn't have any credibility, so nobody will ever believe any claim that it is just an overage. And in any event, an overage in other sports can get you 2 years. That is what we should aspire to.
