It's a Bird

[Rick B.]

HP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of trainers can
> comply with this rule and Wolfson can\'t, don\'t you
> think this needs to be addressed?    

Yes, of course -- although I would point out that the \"overwhelming majority\" of trainers don\'t win nearly as much as Wolfson does, and therefore don\'t have their horses tested as often as Wolfson.

Winning invites increased scrutiny, and too bad about that, Messrs. Wolfson, Dutrow, Lake, et. al. -- you\'ll just have to live with it -- but I think that the assumption that numerous other \"lesser\" trainers are somehow in total compliance with the rules is a bit faulty. Absent testing of ALL horses, how do we really know who\'s totally \"clean\" and who isn\'t? Hell, I haven\'t been a saint all my life -- I\'ve just never been caught.
 
> Based on my limited research...there have been
> numerous advisories to horsemen about using
> naproxene.  There are guidelines about how to use
> it and when to stop using it to comply with the
> rules.  It doesn\'t sound like something that a
> front line trainer would really have a problem
> understanding...

I don\'t believe for a minute that Wolfson doesn\'t understand the rules. I also don\'t believe that he would risk hundreds of thousands of dollars in purse money by cutting it too close on withdrawal times. I haven\'t seen the specifics yet, but I have a hunch that we are looking at a trace amount here that might be due to human use of Aleve and subsequent incidental transfer to the horse.

I suppose I\'m going to look pretty foolish if the Ark. Racing Commission comes back with a number that would indicate that Wolfson shoved a whole bottle of the stuff into the horse on the day of the race, but I\'m betting on something innocuous here, like a groom with bad knees taking his morning Aleve, then touching feed, or a bit, etc...or even dropping a tablet on the barn floor. We\'ll see.

[HP]

I only know I heard the same argument on Pletcher recently and the positive was upheld.  We\'ll see...Wolfson certainly deserves his chance to defend himself and maybe some of you guys can go with him!  Just joking...    

HP

[Rick B.]

HP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I only know I heard the same argument on Pletcher
> recently and the positive was upheld.  We\'ll
> see...Wolfson certainly deserves his chance to
> defend himself and maybe some of you guys can go
> with him!  Just joking...    
>
> HP

Fair poke at fun. I defend these guys here sometimes, partly as a devil\'s advocate, and partly because it just doesn\'t follow that they can be so successful AND stupid at the same time. Hell, I\'m plenty stupid at times. Maybe I should open a stable, and get rich.
 
The positive on It\'s a Bird will be likely be upheld -- zero tolerance means zero. He\'s busted...unless Arkansas does with naproxen what Illinois did a few years ago on another drug, and retroactively implement thresholds.
 
Hopefully, the commission will temper the penalty to somewhat match the level of naproxen detected...if they are even allowed the discretion to do so, that is.

I\'d hate to be the owner that loses a six-figure purse over a trace finding, simply because years ago, some political hack thought \"Zero Tolerance\" on aspirin was a good way to show that they are \"tough on drug cheaters\".

[marcus]

Why anyone would run a horse who \"needs\" to use that type of medication specially on race day doesn\'t make sense and there\'s lots of negative side effects associated with that drug .

[HP]

I agree with you again Rick.  However, regarding this...

\"I\'d hate to be the owner that loses a six-figure purse over a trace finding, simply because years ago, some political hack thought \"Zero Tolerance\" on aspirin was a good way to show that they are \"tough on drug cheaters\".\"

In this situation if you\'re the trainer and I\'m the owner you\'re fired right after the hearing where they uphold the positive and take back the cash.  It\'s part of your job to comply with the rules.  Not to debate the validity or the quality of the rules.  

HP

[Rick B.]

HP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In this situation if you\'re the trainer and I\'m
> the owner you\'re fired right after the hearing
> where they uphold the positive and take back the
> cash.  It\'s part of your job to comply with the
> rules.  Not to debate the validity or the quality
> of the rules.  
>
> HP

That would be your right as an employer, but IF the positive was due to a trace finding that was simply out of my control, and you couldn\'t understand this -- I\'d quit you just as fast as you might fire me.

I\'ve worked for unreasonable people before. I\'ll bet you have too...are you still with them?

[TGJB]

Rick-- you don\'t know how funny that last line was.

[HP]

\"I\'ve worked for unreasonable people before. I\'ll bet you have too...are you still with them?\"

(short answer - laughing) No.  I\'ve never worked for anyone I would call...\"unreasonable\"...but I have worked for Jerry!    

Rick...this really depends on the level of responsibility you would assign  someone.  I would listen to an explanation for sure.  But you\'re going to have a hard time convincing you are not responsible, even if it\'s a \"trace amount.\"  As a trainer, you\'re supposed to be supervising everything and everybody involved with the horse...right?  

HP

[Rick B.]

HP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As a trainer, you\'re supposed to be supervising
> everything and everybody involved with the horse...right?  
>
> HP

\"Everything and everybody\"? No, because it\'s not possible. The majority of trainers are not with the horse (or even around the barn) 24/7, which is the only way that standard could be met...and then only if the trainer never slept.

Barns and stable areas at most tracks are open-air environments with adequate but not necessarily airtight security -- that alone would seem to cast doubt on how tightly a trainer can control his horse\'s environment.

Even if security is top-notch, how hard would it be for a licensed person to walk down the shedrow of a competitor\'s barn and toss a tablet or two into a stall, for a nice little piece of sabotage?

I\'m reaching, sure, but the point I\'m trying to make is legit, I believe: \"absolute responsibility\" sounds great...looks great on paper...and is an impossible standard. It\'s an imperfect world we live in, where most rules have exceptions. That\'s why I am so leery of the whole zero tolerance movement.

We obviously see things differently, HP: you seem to want rigidity on this issue -- yes or no, black or white, on or off. I submit that when living, breathing mammals -- human and / or equine -- are involved in most any situation you can dream of, things are rarely so clear cut.

Good discussion. You get the last word.

[chrifron]

from DRF article...\"Arkansas has a zero-tolerance policy on naproxen, according to a commission official.\"

Isn\'t this the same Arkansas that wanted to put Larry Jones on the carpet for having a chiropractor work on one of his horses?

I get that tolerance of medication and performance enhancing drugs are a slippery slope--but the real problem is lack of uniform rules across the industry. The real cheaters are probably ahead of the testing curve, just like in Olympic Sports involving humans.