Quote:
Originally Posted by Track Phantom
I understand the Absolute Insurer idea but if the penalty was say a lifetime ban, would that encourage others to do something nefarious to get a certain trainer out of the way?
For example, if trainer A had 70% of the horses for a prominent owner and trainer B had 30% of the remaining horses for that owner (and assume not the higher quality), wouldn't it behoove him to have trainer A "out of the way" to increase his pipeline of good horses?
I know that is tinfoil-hat thinking but is it such a stretch to think someone affiliated with trainer B couldn't sneak into a the barn of trainer A and inject a horse with something?
How do you protect against that?
|
The basic answer is that if that becomes a problem, AT THAT TIME you consider a modification to the rule. Or you create a narrow exception for that situation.
Or you might even not change it at all, and tell Trainer A to hire security guards and put cameras in the barn.
The problem is, the far, far, far more common scenario is a doping trainer who claims that someone drugged the horse, rather than your scenario. And therefore, making your scenario the central situation to be avoided would just empower the dopers and cheaters.
