Jerry Hollendorfer Banned from Santa Anita

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

That goes way too far. And you better care about the owners else you have no sport to bet on. They’re bigger gamblers than you are.

WHY does it go too far?

Simply because it sometimes affects innocent people? All sports suspensions do.

Because owners will leave the sport? Owners who pay no attention to what their trainers and vets are doing, or actually encourage doping, need to leave the sport.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

WHY does it go too far?

Simply because it sometimes affects innocent people? All sports suspensions do.

Because owners will leave the sport? Owners who pay no attention to what their trainers and vets are doing, or actually encourage doping, need to leave the sport.

You're embarrassingly clueless. It's not about paying attention. It's about not knowing, nor having any control over it.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

You're embarrassingly clueless. It's not about paying attention. It's about not knowing, nor having any control over it.

No control? Are you serious? Did I wake up somewhere in some alternate universe where owners have no right to find out what is being given to their horses, no right to order a trainer not to dope, and no right to fire a trainer?

Of course they have control! They may not have the guts to exercise it, but that's why we have to create better incentives.

At any rate, owners in other sports don't take the drugs either. Yet we don't mind hurting them by suspending their players

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

No control? Are you serious? Did I wake up somewhere in some alternate universe where owners have no right to find out what is being given to their horses, no right to order a trainer not to dope, and no right to fire a trainer?

Of course they have control! They may not have the guts to exercise it, but that's why we have to create better incentives.

At any rate, owners in other sports don't take the drugs either. Yet we don't mind hurting them by suspending their players

Again, you're ignorant. Let me explain how this works, Dilan.

Owner hires trainer to train his horses. Trainer proceeds to do that, and makes almost 100% of the decisions, whether to gallop, how far, work, how far, walk the shedrow, when to see the farrier, what race he enters, and what the vet is to attend to. The owner talks to the trainer and gets updates on how his horse is doing, may discuss what races are being contemplated, and attends or watches the races. Each month, he gets bills for the prior month, so with vet bills, they're basically 2-4 weeks old by the time the owner sees them.

Our owner is an educated owner and looks over the vet bills. He's studied enough to know what each drug listed is for, and they're all therapeutic. If he sees x-rays and such he knows what that's about because the trainer had told him that they're going to check an ankle or a knee or something.

Nothing weird seems to be going on, the owner is satisfied with the work of the trainer, but then the trainer gets a bute overage or something. You and others think the owner should have all his horses suspended? For what reason? What the hell did he do? The trainer is at fault, not him, and the trainer's name isn't one of the ones Joe Public has decided must be a cheat.

And if the owner was a newbie or ignorant about which trainers may be cheats (or one who believes a rumored cheat is not a cheat), do you think that the meds that the trainer is cheating with is on the vet bills? Of course it isn't, so hell if the owner can know that the trainer is cheating.

So no, it's not going to happen that owners get penalized more than is reasonable, and rightly so.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Again, you're ignorant. Let me explain how this works, Dilan.

Owner hires trainer to train his horses. Trainer proceeds to do that, and makes almost 100% of the decisions, whether to gallop, how far, work, how far, walk the shedrow, when to see the farrier, what race he enters, and what the vet is to attend to. The owner talks to the trainer and gets updates on how his horse is doing, may discuss what races are being contemplated, and attends or watches the races. Each month, he gets bills for the prior month, so with vet bills, they're basically 2-4 weeks old by the time the owner sees them.

Our owner is an educated owner and looks over the vet bills. He's studied enough to know what each drug listed is for, and they're all therapeutic. If he sees x-rays and such he knows what that's about because the trainer had told him that they're going to check an ankle or a knee or something.

Nothing weird seems to be going on, the owner is satisfied with the work of the trainer, but then the trainer gets a bute overage or something. You and others think the owner should have all his horses suspended? For what reason? What the hell did he do? The trainer is at fault, not him, and the trainer's name isn't one of the ones Joe Public has decided must be a cheat.

And if the owner was a newbie or ignorant about which trainers may be cheats (or one who believes a rumored cheat is not a cheat), do you think that the meds that the trainer is cheating with is on the vet bills? Of course it isn't, so hell if the owner can know that the trainer is cheating.

So no, it's not going to happen that owners get penalized more than is reasonable, and rightly so.

If the government decides that owners will be held responsible, they will be.

What you are offering is a bunch of excuses. But nothing has to work that way. If trainers know a doping offense will make them unhirable, they won't dope. And that's what holding owners responsible will do.

[Frost king]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

If the government decides that owners will be held responsible, they will be.

What you are offering is a bunch of excuses. But nothing has to work that way. If trainers know a doping offense will make them unhirable, they won't dope. And that's what holding owners responsible will do.

Exactly DilaneP! It is no different, than the protocols put into the workplace for your employees. How come for the most part they follow orders in the workplace? What would be so difficult for the trainers to do the same.

[SandyW]

It sure looks like Calif. will have just enough horses to race two days a week when Santa Anita opens. Go get them Stronach and keep up the banning of great trainers like Jerry Hollendorfer who at this time one year ago had 98 horses in training in Calif.
WHAT A DISGRACE TAKING AWAY A MAN'S LIVELIHOOD.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

If the government decides that owners will be held responsible, they will be.

What you are offering is a bunch of excuses. But nothing has to work that way. If trainers know a doping offense will make them unhirable, they won't dope. And that's what holding owners responsible will do.

What the hell are you talking about? The government has no say in this.

No, they're not excuses. They're the reality. Why don't YOU go and invest $200,000 or $2m in racehorses, put them with what you think is a good, honest trainer, and then see how YOU feel if there is an accidental overage and ALL your horses are banned.

Hell yeh, ban the owner's horses, but never mind the vet who gave them the drug, right? Or the fact that these horses sit there in barns where they are easily gotten to by someone who wishes to get to them.

It's a stupid idea. The owners make this sport and if you want anything to bet on, then be logical and go after the offenders, who are NOT the owners.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by SandyW

It sure looks like Calif. will have just enough horses to race two days a week when Santa Anita opens. Go get them Stronach and keep up the banning of great trainers like Jerry Hollendorfer who at this time one year ago had 98 horses in training in Calif.
WHAT A DISGRACE TAKING AWAY A MAN'S LIVELIHOOD.

All the dead horses thank you for standing up for them.

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

All the dead horses thank you for standing up for them.

Dead horses from coast to coast, track to track is part of the game, if you don't like it then maybe we should eliminate horse racing altogether also you won't have anything to bitch about.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by SandyW

Dead horses from coast to coast, track to track is part of the game, if you don't like it then maybe we should eliminate horse racing altogether also you won't have anything to bitch about.

There are unforeseen accidents and there’s being careless with the lives of the horses and their riders. The latter is not an acceptable part of the game.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

What the hell are you talking about? The government has no say in this.

No, they're not excuses. They're the reality. Why don't YOU go and invest $200,000 or $2m in racehorses, put them with what you think is a good, honest trainer, and then see how YOU feel if there is an accidental overage and ALL your horses are banned.

Hell yeh, ban the owner's horses, but never mind the vet who gave them the drug, right? Or the fact that these horses sit there in barns where they are easily gotten to by someone who wishes to get to them.

It's a stupid idea. The owners make this sport and if you want anything to bet on, then be logical and go after the offenders, who are NOT the owners.

Fager, the government ultimately runs the whole sport. It can literally impose any eligibility criterion it wishes to for a horse race with legal wagering.

If the government imposed an owner responsibility rule, the owners would find a way to comply with it, by firing trainers and vets who got caught doping.

Shielding the owners allows them to pretend they can't do anything about doping. Which in turn shields the trainers and vets.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by SandyW

It sure looks like Calif. will have just enough horses to race two days a week when Santa Anita opens. Go get them Stronach and keep up the banning of great trainers like Jerry Hollendorfer who at this time one year ago had 98 horses in training in Calif.
WHAT A DISGRACE TAKING AWAY A MAN'S LIVELIHOOD.

The guy has had something like 30 violations. By comparison, in track and field, two violations gets your livelihood taken away for life.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Fager, the government ultimately runs the whole sport. It can literally impose any eligibility criterion it wishes to for a horse race with legal wagering.

If the government imposed an owner responsibility rule, the owners would find a way to comply with it, by firing trainers and vets who got caught doping.

Shielding the owners allows them to pretend they can't do anything about doping. Which in turn shields the trainers and vets.

"The government" is the commissions who impose $1k fines and overlooks horses sent to slaughter. I don't know what "government" you think is about to hold owners accountable for drug positives in animals not in their care or control. It's not going to happen. If they worry about lawsuits now, they'd be quaking out of their shoes at the thought of banning all of B Waynes Hughes' horses because one of Mandella's came up with an overage of Lasix.

No one's "shielding" the owners. The owners have no control over this. This is on the trainers and vets, the ones who actually have access to the horses.

[dilanesp]

The entire country of Russia was just suspended for four years from all international competitions, including Olympics and World Cup, for doping offenses.

Fager, numerous innocent Russian athletes are surely going to be hurt by this, just like your horse owners who you say (but who are actually not) innocent.

And yet, this is what was done, because Russia will now have an incentive to police doping. This is what serious sporting authorities do.

If horse racing were run by serious people, every owner who employed a cheating trainer, knowingly or unknowingly, would be out of the sport for awhile. Because I don't care if they are "innocent" (again, they aren't, but pretending they are)- I care that they have the right incentives to police their trainers.