Chicago Barn to Wire Breeders' Cup Handicapping Tournaments
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


October 31, 2014, 12:20:47 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Doug o Neill criticism by penny chenery  (Read 2130 times)
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12705

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: June 02, 2012, 09:01:38 PM »

Quite the opposite, in my experience.

Not mine.

Quote
The thing is, you never bothered to count before, and you thought it was way more.

You're right I didn't count exactly. I looked it over and ticked them off until I came to more than 9, saw it was easily more than "well over single digits", and that was that.

And yes, it is "well over". When you add the 4 years worth that are not on that list, it comes to WELL over, giving the lie to your original claim there were only single digits as of now, which is the issue - your continued claim of that every time this comes up. There's no getting out of that by trying to divert the conversation to how well I counted one source that's four years old.

Quote
No matter how you slice it, though, I was far closer to correct than anything you've previously intimated.

Really? Please post those previous intimations of mine, so we can see how they were worded.

Quote
Ah, yes, the infamous Witch Hunt Document.

Naturally. A witch hunt.

Quote
The butorphanol positive was never going to be enough to create a marginally credible "double secret probation" order, was it, so it's a darn good thing those syringes showed up in Dutrow's UNSECURED barn. I could walk into Dutrow's barn right now and put syringes in his desk drawer, if no one was around. Backstretch security in New York is a fecking joke.

Uh huh. Planted.

Quote
Now, which one of Dutrow's horses tested positive for xyzaline, the drug that was in those syringes that the investigator "found" in his barn.

Oh. None? Well, certainly Dutrow has prior positives involving xyzaline, right? Oh...none of those, either?

So now you're making the claim that it has never been used in Dutrow's barn at all, are you?  Roll Eyes It's not like it is some banned substance. It's a legitimate horse medicine, for sedation and analgesia. It's not even something all that serious. (You know, serious like if you were REALLY trying to set a guy up.) But you know what? It doesn't matter at all. The issue is trainer responsibility and a non-vet being in possession, just like it says in the complaint. That's against the rules. It is a drug violation.

Quote
It couldn't POSSIBLY be a jam-job, could it?  Roll Eyes

Oh yes, naturally. Any time a trainer gets caught for anything that's what it was. Just ask anyone who's been caught.  
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
faster horses
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 478




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: June 02, 2012, 09:08:23 PM »

Stick to what you have "no idea" about; don't project your lack of knowledge and information on me.

Here's the exact commentary from the Hearing Officer (emphasis mine):

“We rejected (O’Neill’s) well argued due process defense primarily because of the overwhelming evidence that California trainers in general and Mr. O’Neill in particular have learned various ways to manipulate TCO2 scores without serving milkshakes."

If this were O'Neill's first TCO2 overage (or if the high TCO2 level was detected before the race), I might listen to the "innocent bad test" theory...but it's not the first time one of his horses test incomprehensibly high after a race, when TCO2 readings should be at their lowest.

(I'm sure O'Neill knows how much alkalizing agent to give each of his horses *now*, in order to come in just under the high mark. If California racing gets the money they want to be able to afford unannounced out-of-competition and pre-race testing, we will start getting a constant stream of trainer suspensions, until they all figure out some other way to beat the box.)

This trainer pushes the envelope on things just like the other top trainers do. One of O'Neill's horses was over the limit, and he got caught.

And if he was my trainer, I'd help pay his fine, because he knows how to win and make giant money. That's TODAY's brand of horse racing, like it or not. 45 day suspensions and monetary fines are merely the cost of doing business.

OK, fair enough.
Report to moderator   Logged
Round Table
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2845

And then I saw her, coming out of the sun.




Ignore
« Reply #52 on: June 02, 2012, 09:41:26 PM »

Din't hear a peep out of her when Curlin became an overnight sensation.

With all due respect, hasn't she got anything better to pontificate over?

Maybe she ought to take a piss test.

Unfortunately we'll never know what her charger was hopped up on.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2012, 09:44:08 PM by 7474505B » Report to moderator   Logged

They ought to return to Tampa and fix the mistake they made.
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12705

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: June 02, 2012, 10:06:05 PM »

Unfortunately we'll never know what her charger was hopped up on.

Did her trainer get a lot of positive tests back in the day?
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
Round Table
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2845

And then I saw her, coming out of the sun.




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: June 02, 2012, 10:10:57 PM »

Did her trainer get a lot of positive tests back in the day?

Back in the day?  When East germany was an olympic steroid power?  Unfortunately, there was very little to identify positively back in "the day".

Sadly, we'll never know what he was hopped up on. 

Report to moderator   Logged

They ought to return to Tampa and fix the mistake they made.
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12705

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: June 02, 2012, 10:23:09 PM »

Back in the day?  When East germany was an olympic steroid power?  Unfortunately, there was very little to identify positively back in "the day".

And not nearly so much to identify.

Quote
Sadly, we'll never know what he was hopped up on.  

Or just as (if not more) likely, not hopped up on. You can't just make a claim like that with no proof.

However, what I was asking was if her trainer (Lauren? Laurin?) got caught a lot in the drug testing that WAS conducted back then. They've been doing various drug tests since early in the 20th century. Did Lauren have a rep for chemical cheating? That, if I read the story correctly, was what she was talking about, owners and their responsibility in choosing trainers with "dirty records", which O'Neill certainly had to some degree way before this latest CO2 incident. Did Lauren have a rep like that? If he did, then she's got no room to talk. But if he didn't, and she really did pick a trainer with a clean rep, well, she's on the high ground here.
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4428




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: June 02, 2012, 10:53:58 PM »

Naturally. A witch hunt.

Here's the chronology (source: DRF article from 5/22/2012):

"In February 2011, Dutrow was suspended 90 days by the board for two violations that occurred in November 2010. First, one of his horses tested positive for a banned substance. Second, three syringes filled with the drug xylazine were found in the desk drawer of Dutrow’s Aqueduct office.

"Dutrow appealed those suspensions on Feb. 16. The following day, Ed Martin, executive director of the RCI, made public a letter asking the New York racing board to hold a show-cause hearing to review whether Dutrow should have his trainer’s license revoked because of a history of repeated rules violations."

In other words, Ed Martin had a hissy fit: how dare Dutrow appeal those suspensions! I'll show him!

Just like in other cases where trainers have appealed their suspensions: "Oh yeah? Well, we just DOUBLED your suspension and your fine, Mr. Trainer! How do you like that?"

Go ahead, Terry -- tell us how there is no connection between Dutrow appealing his suspension one day, and the head of the RCI issuing a "show cause" order the very next day.

Nah, no "witch hunt" here!  Roll Eyes 
Report to moderator   Logged
Round Table
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2845

And then I saw her, coming out of the sun.




Ignore
« Reply #57 on: June 02, 2012, 11:03:13 PM »

Regarding, in the context of, I'll Have Anothers legitimacy, the irrelevancy of her opinion carries absolutely ZERO weight with me.

I don't care a fig about Mrs Chenery, her grandness , her position on the matter, or how she says she would  handle "the situation".

TRULY SAD.  I feel sorry for her.  












Report to moderator   Logged

They ought to return to Tampa and fix the mistake they made.
Round Table
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2845

And then I saw her, coming out of the sun.




Ignore
« Reply #58 on: June 02, 2012, 11:23:20 PM »

Regarding the Andrew cohen's article -

"Interesting how Mr. Cohen, who has been carrying on a vendetta against Doug O'Neill for over a week, omitted asking Ms. Chenery about the allegations that her Triple Crown horse, Secretariat, who died with a 22 lb. heart, was on steroids when he raced.  The allegations are contained in the book Headless Horsemen, by former Chicago Tribune editor Jim Squires, who was the owner of 2001 Kentucky Derby winner Monarchos.  Cohen, who never writes about horse racing except when he has something negative to say, lacks the integrity to ask such a tough question.  Instead he carries on with his campaign against O'Neill."

"That report is just a hack job and a disgraceful work of journalism. It is bad reporting to boot. There are many people who know Ms. Chenery, who have worked with her and have listened to her speak. She is thoughtful and circumspect. There is something that stinks about this article. There is something missing in the give and take of the conversation as reported which indicates that this reporter asked leading questions and Ms. Chenery took him at his word and responded with incomplete facts. The CHRB did not find that Mr. O'Neill milkshaked his horse. That was not the finding. The finding was not reported in this article, which I take as further evidence of what a shoddy low class journalistic hack Andrew Cohen is. This is just slick."

"O'Neill was not suspended for a "doping violation."  The CHRB's ruling declared that it found no evidence of milkshaking, drugs, or any other wrongdoing by O'Neill in this case.  He was suspended because one of his horses had a slightly elevated TCO2 level in its blood, something that does not necessarily result from illegal substances or treatments.  I am not a fan of O'Neill at all, but when an article fundamentally misrepresents the basic facts on which it conclusions are predicated, it's hard to call it anything but hackwork."


"First of all,  I never said O'Neill was "clean."  Indeed, I was angry with him regarding the incident involving Burna Dette at Los Alamitos in 2010. Any time a horse is claimed for $25,000, and then put in a $2,000 claiming race (a 4.5 furlong sprint) shortly thereafter, it suggests that the horse had physical issues, and they were trying to sell her off quick.

Second, I never "besmirched" Secretariat.  I merely questioned Mr. Cohen's integrity for, on the one hand, enlisting Ms. Chenery against O'Neill and, on the other hand, not even asking her to address the allegations leveled by Jim Squires and others that her own Triple Crown horse was given performance-enhancing drugs.  A journalist would have asked the question.  Cohen is a hypocrite for not doing so.

Third, Cohen also omitted a critical fact from his story: in connection with his suspension, the CHRB specifically found that O'Neill did NOT milkshake the horse, Argenta.  Instead, O'Neill was strictly liable (a legal term that perhaps Cohen may understand, a term that does not connote intent or malice) for the TCO2 overage.  But that does not fit neatly into Cohen's distorted narrative.

So, Mr. Cohen, please explain why you did not ask Ms. Chenery about the allegations surrounding her own horse?  Notably, not even O'Neill's worst detractors have suggested that I'll Have Another was given illicit drugs.  

Cohen's piece about integrity in horse racing is an example of the lack of integrity in journalism."

"The author of this article seems to be taking most of his details about Ms. Chenery's life from the Disney movie. "

"Shame on Ms. Chenery. Her own horse was doped to his eyeballs on steroids to 'make sure' he won the '73 Belmont . I know this from a first-hand account by the track vet's assistant at Belmont in '73. Both her big horses, Riva Ridge and Secretariat, were infertile at the end of their racing careers due to steroid use. Shame on the writer of this article as well for a lack of research on his part."














« Last Edit: June 02, 2012, 11:27:10 PM by 7474505B » Report to moderator   Logged

They ought to return to Tampa and fix the mistake they made.
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12705

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: June 02, 2012, 11:33:18 PM »

Here's the chronology (source: DRF article from 5/22/2012):

"In February 2011, Dutrow was suspended 90 days by the board for two violations that occurred in November 2010. First, one of his horses tested positive for a banned substance. Second, three syringes filled with the drug xylazine were found in the desk drawer of Dutrow’s Aqueduct office.

"Dutrow appealed those suspensions on Feb. 16. The following day, Ed Martin, executive director of the RCI, made public a letter asking the New York racing board to hold a show-cause hearing to review whether Dutrow should have his trainer’s license revoked because of a history of repeated rules violations."

In other words, Ed Martin had a hissy fit: how dare Dutrow appeal those suspensions! I'll show him!

Yeah. Right. The President of the RCI, which has nothing at all to do with the NYSRWB's actions, takes offense at Dutrow appealing the NYSRWB action. It makes such perfect sense.  screwy

How about we employ the Occam's Razor principle here and select the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions and offers the simplest explanation: Take Martin at his word.

Quote
Just like in other cases where trainers have appealed their suspensions: "Oh yeah? Well, we just DOUBLED your suspension and your fine, Mr. Trainer! How do you like that?"

I know of no other instance in which the President of the RCI has made such a suggestion to a State board, do you?

Quote
Go ahead, Terry -- tell us how there is no connection between Dutrow appealing his suspension one day, and the head of the RCI issuing a "show cause" order the very next day.

Mr. Martin's letter was presented to the NYSRWB on Feb. 17, the day after the NYSRWB had hit Dutrow with his new 90 day suspensions for butorphanol and the syringes. (Feb. 16) One (1) day after he'd been sanctioned for yet another infraction. Immediately AFTER the NYSRWB had made its decision on the latest case would reasonably be the appropriate time to suggest such an action, because you sure wouldn't want to do it ahead of time in case they dropped the latest charges. See timelines below. Now then, you are the poster trying to foist an alternate reality of intrigue and mystery off on us, one that conflicts with simplest explanation of the "officially documented" one, so why don't you show some actual hard evidence for your version of it?  

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/people/dutrow-suspended-90-days-for-two-infractions/
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/61433/call-for-full-review-of-dutrows-license

Quote
Nah, no "witch hunt" here!  Roll Eyes

Witches don't exist and never have. Mr. Dutrow's record is real, and well documented.
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12705

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #60 on: June 02, 2012, 11:36:21 PM »

Regarding, in the context of, I'll Have Anothers legitimacy, the irrelevancy of her opinion carries absolutely ZERO weight with me.

I don't care a fig about Mrs Chenery, her grandness , her position on the matter, or how she says she would  handle "the situation".

So you've carried on for what, four or five posts now about it?
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
Round Table
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2845

And then I saw her, coming out of the sun.




Ignore
« Reply #61 on: June 02, 2012, 11:49:28 PM »

So you've carried on for what, four or five posts now about it?

Why?  Is there anything more you want to say? 
Report to moderator   Logged

They ought to return to Tampa and fix the mistake they made.
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12705

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #62 on: June 02, 2012, 11:54:24 PM »

Why?  Is there anything more you want to say? 

Yes.

"Tareyton: I'd rather FIGHT than switch!"
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
Round Table
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2845

And then I saw her, coming out of the sun.




Ignore
« Reply #63 on: June 03, 2012, 12:07:17 AM »

Yes.

"Tareyton: I'd rather FIGHT than switch!"

You're punchy. Back on ignore.
Report to moderator   Logged

They ought to return to Tampa and fix the mistake they made.
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12705

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #64 on: June 03, 2012, 12:16:14 AM »

You're punchy.

High praise indeed from the spewmaster of such gems as,

JStufff.  He's not as "hopped up" as Secretariat was to be ever considered a "legend".

His owner isn't grand.  His trainer isn't clean. He's a ...

mess.  And, he came east after racing in California.


Legend?

Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
fuzzypants
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 9416




Ignore
« Reply #65 on: June 03, 2012, 12:17:29 AM »

747and change

Maybe your right and maybe the vets assuming a lot.
But if you are right and just maybe Ms P is so sickened by what had been done to her horses and  would be like any other owner that truly cares and loves their horse and is trying to make a positive stand and maybe a hole lot angered if she was duped dunno dunno Just trying to understand what might be the motivation for her comments if they were even her comments or were really plagiarized.
Report to moderator   Logged

" when I get got , I get my Glock"
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4428




Ignore
« Reply #66 on: June 03, 2012, 01:45:20 AM »

Yeah. Right. The President of the RCI, which has nothing at all to do with the NYSRWB's actions...

What? Did you really write that?

The NYSRWB is a member jurisdiction of the RCI, and has pretty much rubber-stamped everything the RCI has suggested for YEARS. This is merely the first time the first time the RCI has meddled in a member's trainer licensing issues. 

The idea to ban Dutrow for an extended period of time came from the RCI, not the NYSRWB -- the latter is simply the assigned hit man in this case: Ed Martin "say", NYSRWB "do".

I know of no other instance in which the President of the RCI has made such a suggestion to a State board, do you?

It's coming. Keep an eye on the Lou Pena case.


Mr. Martin's letter was presented to the NYSRWB on Feb. 17, the day after the NYSRWB had hit Dutrow with his new 90 day suspensions for butorphanol and the syringes. (Feb. 16) One (1) day after he'd been sanctioned for yet another infraction. Immediately AFTER the NYSRWB had made its decision on the latest case would reasonably be the appropriate time to suggest such an action, because you sure wouldn't want to do it ahead of time in case they dropped the latest charges. See timelines below. Now then, you are the poster trying to foist an alternate reality of intrigue and mystery off on us, one that conflicts with simplest explanation of the "officially documented" one, so why don't you show some actual hard evidence for your version of it?  

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/people/dutrow-suspended-90-days-for-two-infractions/
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/61433/call-for-full-review-of-dutrows-license

I already did. It went like this:

* Feb 16: NYSRWB issues Dutrow suspensions

* Feb 16: Dutrow appeals the suspensions (this is what happened "immediately after" the NYSRWB issued the suspensions)

* Feb 17: Ed Martin ups the ante, and calls for even broader sanctions against Dutrow
 
The "hard evidence" of the actual sequence of these events are in the press articles YOU cited; you just omitted an important part -- Dutrow's appeal -- and then tried to pass what was left as the "officially documented" reality.

Now, if you want to argue with my interpretation of the sequence and timing of each event, go ahead -- but don't try to pass your interpretation off as fact. I say Ed Martin wouldn't have done a damn thing if Dutrow had simply accepted his suspensions and paid his fines, and that he issued his "show cause" letter in a fit of pique over that uppity Dutrow guy trying to wiggle out of being suspended. In other words, he pulled rank over the NYSRWB.

Witches don't exist and never have. Mr. Dutrow's record is real, and well documented.

Yes, but witch hunts -- roundups used to burn and bury the "undesirables" under false pretenses -- were also very real, and well documented.

Dutrow has dealt with, served, and / or satisfied all of his previous suspensions and fines; as a matter of law, trying to punish him again for anything other than the 2 open suspensions is simply unwarranted. What was Dutrow supposed to do, OVERPAY his monetary fines? Stay away 60 days when a suspension called for 30?   

This isn't good enough for Ed Martin, however; by God, he's going to show Dutrow who's boss (and show the NYSRWB how to kick some ass), in essence by taking a couple of new offenses (with one of them being extremely dubious, in and of itself), and mixing and mashing those in with all of the other stuff Dutrow has already paid the price for, to create one massive crime, so the "death penalty" can be applied.

It's utter bullshit, and deep inside you, where your logic gene is located, you know it; you can't possibly have been born, raised and educated in the US if you think it's OK to penalize someone more than once for the same offenses, even if this isn't an issue before the criminal courts.

Dutrow has been building his war chest since last year -- he's winning at an even higher percentage than ever, and he's been clean as a whistle while doing so; that HAS to be pissing some people off (I am LOVING IT). He has more than ample funds to fight the 10 year ban all the way to the SCOTUS, if he is so inclined. I hope he does, and I hope he makes a mockery of the whole drug issue in racing, in repayment for Ed Martin trying to make him scapegoat for "all that is wrong in racing".

Racing fvcked up by not having stronger sanctions in place to begin with, with a clearly defined path for expulsion from the game; trying to implement this on the fly while applying it retroactively to someone who isn't very well liked by the authorities is simply the equivalent of putting perfume on a pig; merely getting rid of Dutrow won't make this game stink any less. You'll see...if Dutrow doesn't fight whatever is coming, that is.
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12705

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #67 on: June 03, 2012, 02:44:08 AM »

What? Did you really write that?

The NYSRWB is a member jurisdiction of the RCI, and has pretty much rubber-stamped everything the RCI has suggested for YEARS. This is merely the first time the first time the RCI has meddled in a member's trainer licensing issues. 

Right. I did write that. The RCI had nothing at all to do with the initial action against Dutrow, and no particular reason to be affronted by his appeal. No history at all of "Well, we'll double your suspension!", like you claimed was common.

Quote
The idea to ban Dutrow for an extended period of time came from the RCI, not the NYSRWB -- the latter is simply the assigned hit man in this case: Ed Martin "say", NYSRWB "do".

Yes it did. That's just how good an idea it was.

Quote
It's coming. Keep an eye on the Lou Pena case.

The NYSRWB acted on their own to toast Pena, and have already pretty much recommended banning him for a very,  very long time. (And by the way - didn't you several times make the case how it was just so unfair that they never treated anyone like Dutrow? Meet Lou Pena, exhibit A.) Hard to think think the RCI could recommend anything harsher, but even so, if they did, bravo. About time to take some serious action against these serial scofflaws.

Quote
I already did. It went like this:

* Feb 16: NYSRWB issues Dutrow suspensions

* Feb 16: Dutrow appeals the suspensions (this is what happened "immediately after" the NYSRWB issued the suspensions)

* Feb 17: Ed Martin ups the ante, and calls for even broader sanctions against Dutrow

Right. And your claim is the only reason the RCI did what it did was the appeal, and I call bullshit on that. I say it was because the ruling came down Feb. 16 and then and only then the RCI decided to add its 2 cents, just like they said.
 
Quote
The "hard evidence" of the actual sequence of these events are in the press articles YOU cited

There's no hard evidence at all of motivation, which what your entire "witch hunt" theory is based on. Your "facts" are not in evidence.

Quote
Now, if you want to argue with my interpretation of the sequence and timing of each event, go ahead -- but don't try to pass your interpretation off as fact.

It's as much fact as anything you claim, and that's the point. Furthermore, in support of my theory, we have Ed Martin's own claims about why he did what he did, as opposed to, in your case, well, Internet screen name claims.

Quote
Dutrow has dealt with, served, and / or satisfied all of his previous suspensions and fines; as a matter of law, trying to punish him again for anything other than the 2 open suspensions is simply unwarranted.

No, it's the same thing as the law punishing recidivists for a long rap sheet. Keep doing the same thing over and over, and the penalties increase.

Quote
This isn't good enough for Ed Martin, however; by God, he's going to show Dutrow who's boss

Bullshit argument unsupported by any actual hard evidence.

Quote
and more unreadable jail house mama apologia

"My boy was a good boy! He couldn't have done what they said! The cops are prejudiced! They shot him for no reason!"
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
HorseVoice*
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4428




Ignore
« Reply #68 on: June 03, 2012, 06:31:25 AM »

(And by the way - didn't you several times make the case how it was just so unfair that they never treated anyone like Dutrow? Meet Lou Pena, exhibit A.)

Oh please. Day late and a dollar short...times about a zillion.

If anything, it bolsters my case for unfair treatment of Dutrow; what, they just found out about Pena and his 1,700+ rules violations (!) last week? My ass. What have these peckerheads been DOING for the 16 months since they tried to railroad Dutrow. (1700 rules violations over 28 months, vs. 75 over 30 years...and the guy with the 75 was Public Enemy #1...but there was no witch hunt against Dutrow, no.)

It finally dawned on these idiots that a ruling might come down any day about Dutrow, and the natural reaction would be, "Whew -- that took awhile! So, uh, what ELSE have you guys found? Nothing??"

NOW meet Lou Pena, exhibit A. (There -- that's more like it.)

Right. And your claim is the only reason the RCI did what it did was the appeal, and I call bullshit on that. I say it was because the ruling came down Feb. 16 and then and only then the RCI decided to add its 2 cents, just like they said.

Well, I call bullshit on that. RCI could have "added its 2 cents" on the same day the ruling came down...but they didn't. The fact is, suspensions were issued, Dutrow appealed, and then, on the NEXT DAY, the RCI issued the "show cause" letter. This is undisputable. And it sure leaves the door open on whether the RCI really would have done anything if Dutrow would have simply accepted the suspensions.
 
No, it's the same thing as the law punishing recidivists for a long rap sheet. Keep doing the same thing over and over, and the penalties increase.

Except that the laws regarding punishing repeat offenders were codified IN ADVANCE OF THE OFFENSES! When the "three strikes" rule was implemented, it was NOT applied to cases in progress that culminated in a third felony. How can you keep ignoring the fact that the penalty they are trying to impose on Dutrow is being made up out of thin air, and on the fly? Is that your idea of how justice should be obtained here, Komrade?

and more unreadable jail house mama apologia

Hey, Ace, I have a riddle for you: how do you know it's "jail house mama apologia" if it's unreadable? 

This is the chickenshit debate tactic you pull when you know I have made some rather important points. Shall I write it slower for you?

#1
It's utter bullshit, and deep inside you, where your logic gene is located, you know it; you can't possibly have been born, raised and educated in the US if you think it's OK to penalize someone more than once for the same offenses, even if this isn't an issue before the criminal courts.

#2
Racing fvcked up by not having stronger sanctions in place to begin with, with a clearly defined path for expulsion from the game; trying to implement this on the fly while applying it retroactively to someone who isn't very well liked by the authorities is simply the equivalent of putting perfume on a pig; merely getting rid of Dutrow won't make this game stink any less. You'll see...if Dutrow doesn't fight whatever is coming, that is.


If you think a concept that is central to the Fifth Amendment (double jeopardy) is mere "jail house mama apologia", then this debate is over, and I win, on the grounds that you don't have the fundamental understanding of the U.S. Constitution necessary to participate. People have inalienable rights in this country, ones that can't be trifled with by bullshit self-important commissions.
Report to moderator   Logged
honest & balanced terry
formerly plain old clockerterry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 12705

silver-tongued track bum




Ignore
« Reply #69 on: June 03, 2012, 10:14:25 AM »

Oh please. Day late and a dollar short...times about a zillion.

If anything, it bolsters my case for unfair treatment of Dutrow; what, they just found out about Pena and his 1,700+ rules violations (!) last week? My ass. What have these peckerheads been DOING for the 16 months since they tried to railroad Dutrow.

I believe you said something to the effect of, "Just watch, they'll never do anything like this to anyone else", while my opinion was, "This is just the start", and now look, you have been proved wrong ... and you're arguing it's an invalid example? Please. you look back at what they gave Dutrow, 10 years and $25,000 fines, and it is precisely the same thing they're hanging on Pena now.

And as far as "railroading" Dutrow, no. They did not. This is apparently a trainer who (as you put it above re: O'Neill) constantly pushed the envelope in pursuit of winning at all costs, accepting the fines and suspensions as mere costs of doing business, and now he's found out what that cost really is.

Quote
It finally dawned on these idiots that a ruling might come down any day about Dutrow, and the natural reaction would be, "Whew -- that took awhile! So, uh, what ELSE have you guys found? Nothing??"

And of course this is something else you simply fabricated. Everything you have offered in defense of Dutrow as far as the motivations of the regulators is fabrication and "homer" speculation for which you have no hard evidence or knowledge.

Quote
Well, I call bullshit on that. RCI could have "added its 2 cents" on the same day the ruling came down...but they didn't.

No, they didn't. They offered it the day after the ruling was official, that same day Dutrow coincidentally chose to appeal it.

Quote
The fact is, suspensions were issued, Dutrow appealed, and then, on the NEXT DAY, the RCI issued the "show cause" letter. This is undisputable.

Yes, those are facts.

Quote
And it sure leaves the door open on whether the RCI really would have done anything if Dutrow would have simply accepted the suspensions.

Anything at all more than the facts is mere speculation. You do not know why the letter went out the next day.

Quote
Except that the laws regarding punishing repeat offenders were codified IN ADVANCE OF THE OFFENSES! When the "three strikes" rule was implemented, it was NOT applied to cases in progress that culminated in a third felony. How can you keep ignoring the fact that the penalty they are trying to impose on Dutrow is being made up out of thin air, and on the fly? Is that your idea of how justice should be obtained here, Komrade?

Guys have been ruled off for extended periods of time, for the sum of their sins, in the past. Dutrow is not the first.

Quote
Hey, Ace, I have a riddle for you: how do you know it's "jail house mama apologia" if it's unreadable?

Because I started going farther than I did, and saw nothing but a continuation of the same faulty logic based on ungrounded speculative assignation of motive to others. It wasn't worth finishing, or arguing further.
  
Quote
This is the chickenshit debate tactic you pull when you know I have made some rather important points.

You have made no points. Every single thing you've claimed about the motives of the RCI or NYSRWB has been shown to be nothing but a faulty product of your own imagination. You have produced zero actual proof in support of your claims.

Quote
It's utter bullshit, and deep inside you, where your logic gene is located, you know it; you can't possibly have been born, raised and educated in the US if you think it's OK to penalize someone more than once for the same offenses, even if this isn't an issue before the criminal courts.

Does a guy who gets his 3rd DUI get a worse sentence than the guy who just got his first?

Quote
Racing fvcked up by not having stronger sanctions in place to begin with

Well here we get to the root of the problem: Society is to blame.  bang head

Quote
with a clearly defined path for expulsion from the game; trying to implement this on the fly while applying it retroactively to someone who isn't very well liked by the authorities is simply the equivalent of putting perfume on a pig; merely getting rid of Dutrow won't make this game stink any less. You'll see...if Dutrow doesn't fight whatever is coming, that is.[/b]

Yes, we'll see.

Quote
If you think a concept that is central to the Fifth Amendment (double jeopardy) is mere "jail house mama apologia", then this debate is over, and I win, on the grounds that you don't have the fundamental understanding of the U.S. Constitution necessary to participate.

This is not a case of "double jeopardy". The "show cause" proceeding was a separate event and separate "charge".
Report to moderator   Logged

"There are no $7500 maiden claimers, state-bred or otherwise, at Arlington."
hungry
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3449




Ignore
« Reply #70 on: June 08, 2012, 02:07:13 PM »

There's a happy penny in the world today. She wasnt ready to share this exclusive club with these people.
Report to moderator   Logged
jrstark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6235



« Reply #71 on: June 08, 2012, 03:21:38 PM »

Secretariat was not infertile.  According to this fan website:

Quote
In early 1974 after the big red horse had made his mark in racing history, there was a question about his fertility. Several semen analyses revealed that his sperm appeared immature, so the next test was to breed him and see if a foal resulted.

http://ilovehorses.net/blog/history-2/secretariats-first-foal-had-spots/

His heart was large, not enlarged. Here is an article that talks about the large-heart gene in the Thoroughbred:
http://www.pedigreepost.net/archives/XFactorDWDavidge.html
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.193 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Breeders' Cup
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Breeders' Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy