Rich:OK Joe, I get your drift. You speak like a lawyer. Rucker has his rights to go to court. My point was taking into account the amount of positives and violations Rucker has had no Judge should have let him obtain a TRO. He is not a first time offender. You mean to tell me that the IRB or whoever can't argue in front of a Judge not to let Rucker have a TRO because of his record? He was given a 6 month suspension under the rules of racing. When you sign your stall app. and your license you agree to abide by the rules of the IRB. With all this legal bullshit you just explained they should just burn the F**kin IRB rule book.
I know you better than that. You obviously know my position on this case. Just like everyone else, Rucker is entitled to have his rights respected, file an appeal, and receive his due process of law. There was not any first azzhole who went to court and obtained a TRO in the name of justice. I don't care if a horseman gets 100 positive tests, they still have rights and the IRB must go through proper procedures to ensure that the accused receive his/her fair and just hearing. The problem I have with the IRB administrative hearing process is that it is applied unevenly and unparallel, meaning different rules for different fools. That is what is wrong with the entire The Horse Racing Act of 1975. It is old, outdated, and applied to different people at different times. That my friend is unfair and unjust.
What Dan is saying does have some merit because violators are treated much differently today as opposed to years gone by. Over the last 20 years, attorneys became interested in racetrack law and a quest for justice for their clients. This was supposed to force the IRB to change their procedures and be held accountable for their actions. I think the only thing horsemen today want is one set of rules and regulations that are applied equally across the board. It’s not too hard to achieve. Unfortunately, it appears that the IRB is failing miserably as horseracings governing body and as an administrative agency as well. Although they have a tough job to do, I don't believe it is asking too much for the rules to be applied just and equally to all participants, period. That does not happen in Illinois, which is the reason why people like Dan, Tc, and myself speak out. I have a real problem when I see the corruption poisoning the IRB as it has. For an administrative agency to work, be successful, and develop a respect from society, it must be squeaky clean, honest, fair, and act in the same manner all of the time, no matter whom or what is involved. My point is, the next time you point a finger at a horsemen you feel is cheating, think about the cheating and dishonest polices and procedures administered by the IRB in the most unfair and unjust manner. I might get shot down on this but I think we would all agree that there must be rules and regulations in any facet of life. The real problem arises when those rules and regulations we speak of are applied to certain people at certain times and others when they feel like it. That is not good. As far as I am concerned, Rucker has not done a thing wrong until he is convicted of wrongdoing in a circuit court of law, not some silly IRB administrative hearing process that is full of corruption and deceit.
To Dan Nance:
I am not sure if you knew this but, the IRB attorney has not a word to say when any case is appealed and goes to either circuit or chancery court. That is the beauty of it all; when the case leaves the administrative agency process and goes to court, the Attorney General's office takes over representation of the IRB and state at that time. Very often the AG who represents the IRB and state is green and really not up on racetrack law. They are going through the motions and have a understanding that the IRB is very often wrong in the way things were handled. Nowadays, when one files an appeal in court seeking a TRO, it becomes a total crapshoot on whether or not you will be successful in obtaining one or not. It all depends on what judge you get and his/her position on matters like this. You are certainly entitled to file for one SOJ (substitute of judge) if you do not feel comfortable with the judge that was originally assigned to the case. There are good judges whom feel obligated to allow the accused the opportunity to still work and be employed at the track, while others feel they are within their own power by denying the TRO. I have seen cases where the judge gets really pissed off at the IRB for sending this case to their courtroom. It is an expensive pursuit and one that I must admit, is fair and just once you get in court. I have no problem with our current Justice System as long as there are not any rights violated and the accused gets his/her day in court. Is it a perfect system, no, but please tell me what is? Dan, I guarantee you one thing, just ask your brother Scott where he was treated fairly and was considered innocent until proven guilty. You can bet the answer will not be at the IRB administrative hearing! Take care.
Joseph M. Dakuras
(A UNLV Runnin Rebel For Life)
Now you know why I'm tired of being Joe Honest and now want to be Joe Crook. The crooks have more rights then the honest people do.
HEY JOE...... F*CKEM ALL.... FROM THE IRB TO THE CIVIL COURTS..... FROM THE CIVIL COURTS TO THE SUPREME COURT.... AND FROM THE SUPREME COURT TO GOD KNOWS WHAT.
I SAY TAKE EVERY CROOK AND THROW THEM ON SOME ISLAND SOMEWHERE AND STARVE THEM TO DEATH. THAT'S THE DAN NANCE WAY. OR LIKE OSCAR GOODMAN SAID " CHOP THEIR THUMBS OFF ". BETTER YET CHOP THEIR THUMBS AND LEGS OFF THE CROOKED BASTARDS.
Yours truly " Psycho " Nance