\"You can always tell a cowboy but ya can\'t tell him much.\" R. Lewis Bowman
First, I would like to thank Alydar and RVL for the kind words. I was really not looking for praise but that doesn\'t mean that I still don\'t appreciate it. I also want to thank Mall, OPM, Marc and TGJB for adding to the thread since my real motivation was not to pretend to have all the answers but to stimulate a little thinking and discussion on what I think is an important topic. I hope I have succeeded in that regard. Some interesting points were raised. For the most part, I agree with them and I think they actually reinforce the main points I was trying to make.
For instance, Mall felt it was not valid to lump Shuman with Baffert. He may be right. For that matter, it also may not be valid to lump Bonds with Sosa. I chose Shuman and Baffert for my examples because I thought they were both very visible this weekend (which is what triggered me to make the post in the first place) and that the \"rumors,\" whether valid or not, already do exist in both cases. One of my main points was that you are essentially forced to lump those two and everyone else together given the current state of affairs in racing. There is no reliable, objective way to differentiate them. They and everybody else who is successful are all under suspicion - true or false, fair or not. Unfortunately, racing today is not like an westerns of yesterday. The good guys are not wearing white hats because there is no easy place to get one. The only way to get a white hat is to spend your own time and money and find someone who will custom make one for you. (OK. I admit this analogy is weak but it is the best my not-so-creative mind could come up with.) I know that Mall has a strong, favorable opinion of Congaree\'s owner and, based on that, he (perhaps rightfully) is inclined to rationalize away any indirect evidence such as unusual changes in physical appearance or dramatically improved performance and ignore all the rumors. Others are not so inclined. They need to see that white hat.
I guess what I am trying to say is that the good guys are taking the worst of it from both directions right now. On one hand, most of them are getting \"really whooped\" by the bad guys. On the other hand those good guys that are talented enough and/or work hard enough to achieve success fall under the same suspicion as the bad guys. Their talent and effort is not acknowledged or respected. In fact, it instead makes them the target of the same rumor and innuendo.
I am an optimist (and perhaps a fool). I would like to think that there are more good guys than bad guys out there. If so, how can they let this condition persist? Why don\'t they do more to clear their own name and why don\'t they do more to clean up their sport? I know that there is often a silent majority but usually those folks are mobilized once the problems get to the point of affecting their livelihood and reputations. Hasn\'t the racing gotten to that point yet? If so, does that mean that there really is no silent majority? Could the illegal drug problem in racing be as bad as the steroid problem in baseball is rumored to be? Let\'s hope not and let\'s hope that the good guys will soon start ordering some custom white hats and start pulling out their six shooters (OK- I promise to stop using this lousy analogy).
OPM suggested adding another name to the list of trainers under suspicion and suggested that those under suspicion may even be innocent of any wrongdoing. I agree. Unfortunately, any successful trainer is going to be \"lumped\" into this category innocent or not. That is my basic point. The other basic point being that if most successful trainers today really are good guys (which I think/hope is the case), then why are they not being much more proactive and assertive since it is clearly in their best interest to do so?
Marc said that my suggestions were \"beyond practical\" and that an attempt by a trainer such as Mark Shuman to prove he is a good guy would be a waste of time and thus to suggest that his failure to do so offers some sort of evidence of guilt is, in itself, unfair. I do have to admit that some of my ideas are probably not practical and so that is valid criticism. I also agree that \"proclaiming\" your innocence is not \"proving\" it and a waste of time unless it is backed up with some proof. A robust battery of state-of-the art tests pre/post and between races for Congaree conducted by a credible, independent third party along with open inspections of Baffert\'s barns would go a long way toward proving (to me anyway and I would imagine to others as well) that his horse is running clean. In essence, Baffert/McNair can buy a white hat even if the industry is not currently selling them. Given their resources and what is at stake, this does not seem that impractical to me. Then again, I am an admitted optimist and could be wrong on this account.
Would such an act by two people solve all of racing\'s long term problems? No.
Would it enhance the reputation of the connections and the horse and add additional luster to their accomplishments? Yes.
Would it be a step in the right direction and could it exert some peer pressure on other trainers/owners to do the same? Yes.
If the idea gained some traction and all the good guys (I know they must be out there) got on the bandwagon, would it start to cast increased suspicion and implicit guilt on those that did not do so? I think so.
Could a \"white hat\" eventually become a \"voluntary requirement\" (I know that is a contradiction in terms but I still like it in this context) for things like participation in Graded Stakes or the Triple Crown or the Breeders\' Cup or even an Eclipse Award? Why not?
Sometimes building a program of voluntary compliance or accreditation achieves far more than simple mandatory enforcement. I am not saying that this would solve all the problems but it might be a \"practical\" way to begin to clean things up at the most prestigious and visible level of the sport. The best aspect of such an approach is that we don\'t have to wait for all the various racing groups and stakeholders to finally agree on something, which may never happen. Instead, it could start with just one or two brave, forward thinking individuals. Maybe a guy from Texas with a lot of money and a guy from Arizona with a lot of moxie; both of which would probably appreciate a good white Stetson and putting a little added pressure on their peers.
Finally, TGJB noted the \"perceived\" problems regarding the currently available EPO tests with the biggest problem apparently being that the drug may have been administered prior to a change in trainer/owner. I would put a slightly different spin on TGJB\'s idea consistent with the voluntary/user pays philosophy above. Why not give a new owner the option of paying for some \"insurance tests\" as part of a change in ownership? If the tests come up positive, the claim or transfer could be \"voided\" and appropriate punishment administered to the prior trainer. This would be strictly optional but would certainly be in the best interest of the new owner/trainer. This may be impractical for cheap claimers but it may make a lot of sense for higher priced claimers or private purchases. I also have a feeling that some of the good guys might be very eager to buy such insurance when claiming from a suspected \"bad guy\" figuring that they cannot lose either way. It may be that all the racing industry has to do is \"build it and they will come.\"
I will stop rambling. I know that this problem is a lot more complicated than I have described and these simple ideas are not going to solve it entirely; however, I don\'t think that the entire problem has to be solved in one fell swoop.
Feel free to chime in with other ideas and thoughts. I am sure that many of you can improve upon my ideas and that you have some different ones that may even be much better than mine. As an old Chinese proverb says, \"Ideas are like children; there are none so wonderful as your own.\"
Chris (Father of two wonderful children...and a lovely wife - figured I better add that last part in just to be safe...)
