This doesn't sound good (for Servis and Navarro)

[Saratoga_Mike]

Maximum Security moved to Baffert.

[groupie doll]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

Maximum Security moved to Baffert.

Not surprising since the owner already has other horses with Baffert...

[pandy]

I don't trust Baffert, I think his results are too good to be true, plus he has had enough things happen in his career that raise suspicion. If Maximum Security races again, and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't, he'll have to race clean and it's hard to imagine that he'll run anywhere near as well as he has.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by acorn54

riddle me this onefast. if what you say is true, how is that hong kong racing can be so above board?

or did elvis leave that building too

Simple, they have the most advanced testing and penalties in the world. Hong Kong also has the smallest horse population in the world and it is easier to manage under one jurisdiction that prides itself on integrity. They are also the most transparent track as well. Owners pay a fee in advance for the retirement of the horse(s) they own.
It would be an impossibility for US tracks to match this system.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by onefast99

Simple, they have the most advanced testing and penalties in the world. Hong Kong also has the smallest horse population in the world and it is easier to manage under one jurisdiction that prides itself on integrity. They are also the most transparent track as well. Owners pay a fee in advance for the retirement of the horse(s) they own.
It would be an impossibility for US tracks to match this system.

Yes, it's very easy to do everything "the right way" when everything is under one management team and one security team and one vet team etc. etc. etc.

I love when people try and point to Hong Kong as the model and think why can't that work over here? It should be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO easy, right?

[RunForTheRoses]

Originally Posted by pandy

I don't trust Baffert, I think his results are too good to be true, plus he has had enough things happen in his career that raise suspicion. If Maximum Security races again, and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't, he'll have to race clean and it's hard to imagine that he'll run anywhere near as well as he has.

I agree. I know earlier in the thread CJ mentioned his suspicions over the style of running tops off layoffs (just paraphrasing and not saying he agrees with my post here) but who is the maestro of that maneuver?

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.....................................





I don't think it's even possible to clean up the sport

because of technology synthetic drugs can be manufactured that mimic the effects of the original drugs

there are no tests for these drugs and when there are they will simply manufacture a slightly different version that no test has been developed to detect

this is similar to what has happened with street drugs that druggies use to get high




https://www.paulickreport.com/news/r...esigner-drugs/

I agree, though you would think some of these people who have been in the trouble in the past, which some of these 27 people have been, would not have been let continue in the sport.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by johnhenry81

I wonder if this explains why Benter and Woods chose Hong Kong?

They chose Hong Kong because of pool size/liquidity.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I agree, though you would think some of these people who have been in the trouble in the past, which some of these 27 people have been, would not have been let continue in the sport.

Navarro was his own worst enemy when the “vegetable juice” video surfaced on August 4th 2017 and NJ had their chance to get rid of this trainer they simply slapped him on the wrist with a $5000 fine, why? Because his 100 plus horses at MP could have severely impacted racing there if those horses left. Three years later the guy gets taken down in a huge horse doping scandal with a Mr. Peabody trainer Jason Servis as well. This industry needs to stop the insanity of not removing those who are repeat offenders quick enough!

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses

I agree. I know earlier in the thread CJ mentioned his suspicions over the style of running tops off layoffs (just paraphrasing and not saying he agrees with my post here) but who is the maestro of that maneuver?

One example that makes me not trust Baffert is Arrogate. That career looks very suspicious.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

.....................................





I don't think it's even possible to clean up the sport

because of technology synthetic drugs can be manufactured that mimic the effects of the original drugs

there are no tests for these drugs and when there are they will simply manufacture a slightly different version that no test has been developed to detect

this is similar to what has happened with street drugs that druggies use to get high




https://www.paulickreport.com/news/r...esigner-drugs/

It is never possible to clean up 100%. But it is possible to do a lot better than the sport is doing.

[Appy]

IMO lifetime bans are in order, but I doubt even that would stop them. They would just resume working behind the scene with others at the tracks who are willing to try anything to grab quick money.
Regardless, it's always nice when the good guys come through with a cleanup once in a while.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Yes, it's very easy to do everything "the right way" when everything is under one management team and one security team and one vet team etc. etc. etc.

I love when people try and point to Hong Kong as the model and think why can't that work over here? It should be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO easy, right?

It occurred to me the reason the cheating operations described in the indictments grew to become SO rampant and SO widespread is because here in the US we don't have anything like the Hong Kong Model.

Instead we have more than 30 individual state regulatory bodies where many of the people doing the regulating will look the other way if they can because they don't want to come down too harshly on one of their own.

The way most of them become regulators in the first place is when the Governor's Office appoints them from a short list of names provided by lobbyists from the local horsemen's alphabet group.

Imo, under such a system there's little chance of integrity.

Imo, our system here in the US is broken because the regulatory body isn't independent from those it is supposed to be regulating.

Had we adopted something like the Hong Kong model 10-15 years ago:

I think some of the US horsemen would still be making attempts to cheat. (At this point I'm half convinced it's embedded in their DNA.)

But I also think the cheating itself would be taking place on a much smaller scale because the regulatory body would be making an effort to I don't know... actually regulate.


-jp

.

[acorn54]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Yes, it's very easy to do everything "the right way" when everything is under one management team and one security team and one vet team etc. etc. etc.

I love when people try and point to Hong Kong as the model and think why can't that work over here? It should be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO easy, right?

its not only hong kong, austrailia, ireland, england to name a few other countries that are above board.
the "united states is too big, alibi", grows old. if you seek and expect excellence that is what you will get most times. if you just throw up your hands in despair, you become second rate in every thing. my two cents

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by acorn54

its not only hong kong, austrailia, ireland, england to name a few other countries that are above board.
the "united states is too big, alibi", grows old. if you seek and expect excellence that is what you will get most times. if you just throw up your hands in despair, you become second rate in every thing. my two cents

Also, "the US is so big it will be impossible to achieve HK levels of cleanness" is a good argument. "The US is so big it is impossible to implement a much stricter regime analogous to Hong Kong" is not a good argument.