Dutrow Hearing

[moosepalm]

alm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That\'s a very nice sentiment.  Apply it throughout
> this sport and throughout time (such as taking
> trainers and their horses out of our Hall of Fame
> - the Horse of the Year for example) and you end
> up with a lot of blank walls and short fields.

Yes, my post was full of platitudes, but it\'s nice to remember the sign posts once in a while.  Now, if you clear out the Hall of Fame of transgressors, that\'s really not going to cause me any loss of sleep, but I doubt that\'s going to happen retroactively.  As for the short fields, how many trainers have left the game because they can\'t compete?  I really have no idea, but I think the law of supply and demand would start to balance the books soon enough.  The horses won\'t disappear.  Graham Motion might be an exceptional talent, but I doubt he\'s the only one capable of training without additives (unless he\'s just one very clever Brit).  There are other good ones and they\'d start getting the stock.

[Rick B.]

moosepalm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong is wrong.

> When we\'re done with him, bring on the next guy,
> and then the one after him.

You know, if I thought this was actually going to happen, then I might be all for this trumped up kangaroo court they are dragging Dutrow through.

But they won\'t. They will fry one guy, then everybody will go back to their long nap, convinced that racing \"did something\" to fix the game.

It\'s a heaping pile of dung they are building. Everybody that is stoked with bloodlust, eagerly awaiting Dutrow\'s demise -- enjoy the view.

[moosepalm]

Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> moosepalm Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wrong is wrong.
>
> > When we\'re done with him, bring on the next
> guy,
> > and then the one after him.
>
> You know, if I thought this was actually going to
> happen, then I might be all for this trumped up
> kangaroo court they are dragging Dutrow through.
>
> But they won\'t. They will fry one guy, then
> everybody will go back to their long nap,
> convinced that racing \"did something\" to fix the
> game.
>
> It\'s a heaping pile of dung they are building.
> Everybody that is stoked with bloodlust, eagerly
> awaiting Dutrow\'s demise -- enjoy the view.


While it may not be your intent, your words lend themselves to an interpretation favoring a game plan of inertia.  I doubt anyone here who pays attention has any illusions about the efficacy of racing jurisdictions in their current configurations.  One might even go so far as to say the entire industry, not just its enforcement mechanisms, is one of the most structurally inefficient, macro and micro, of any business model out there.  Hardly a provable assertion, but impressionistically, not unfair either.  None of that, however, mitigates the fact that one man currently stands accused, and railing against the \"system,\" is a bloodlust of its own.  Battles are fought one at a time, and if this, as you suggest, is as far as it goes, then it\'s unfortunate, but failure to at least fight the first battle would even be more unfortunate.

[Rick B.]

moosepalm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick B. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > moosepalm Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Wrong is wrong.
> >
> > > When we\'re done with him, bring on the next
> > guy,
> > > and then the one after him.
> >
> > You know, if I thought this was actually going
> to
> > happen, then I might be all for this trumped up
> > kangaroo court they are dragging Dutrow
> through.
> >
> > But they won\'t. They will fry one guy, then
> > everybody will go back to their long nap,
> > convinced that racing \"did something\" to fix
> the
> > game.
> >
> > It\'s a heaping pile of dung they are building.
> > Everybody that is stoked with bloodlust,
> eagerly
> > awaiting Dutrow\'s demise -- enjoy the view.
>
>
> While it may not be your intent, your words lend
> themselves to an interpretation favoring a game
> plan of inertia.  I doubt anyone here who pays
> attention has any illusions about the efficacy of
> racing jurisdictions in their current
> configurations.  One might even go so far as to
> say the entire industry, not just its enforcement
> mechanisms, is one of the most structurally
> inefficient, macro and micro, of any business
> model out there.  Hardly a provable assertion, but
> impressionistically, not unfair either.  None of
> that, however, mitigates the fact that one man
> currently stands accused, and railing against the
> \"system,\" is a bloodlust of its own.  Battles are
> fought one at a time, and if this, as you suggest,
> is as far as it goes, then it\'s unfortunate, but
> failure to at least fight the first battle would
> even be more unfortunate.

Can\'t agree with this.

While it might not be your intent, what you are saying is, frying one guy to make us \"feel good\" -- then not doing anything else -- is better than nothing.

It\'s window dressing, Moose. Even a child can recognize a meaningless farce when he sees one.

[moosepalm]

Nope, Rick.  That\'s the wrong read.  Has nothing to do with \"feels good.\"  That\'s at most, a collateral benefit.  Or, as Michael Corleone might phrase it, \"it\'s not personal, just business.\"  And farcical or not, how is it meaningless to Dutrow?  You can\'t obscure the issue of wrongdoing by trying to turn the spotlight on the process employed in addressing the wrong.

[MonmouthGuy]

from everything i understand, this is the wrong trainer/barn to go after.

this is an easy and meaningless scalp.

sloppy and disorganized.

[Rick B.]

moosepalm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nope, Rick.  That\'s the wrong read.  Has nothing
> to do with \"feels good.\"  That\'s at most, a
> collateral benefit.

You are either naive, or you are being untruthful. Plenty of trainers have racked up violations, but Dutrow is everybody\'s favorite guy to kick. It\'s *exactly* why they are going after Dutrow. Don\'t try to put any perfume on this pig.  

> You can\'t obscure the issue of wrongdoing
> by trying to turn the spotlight on the process
> employed in addressing the wrong.

Sure I can. Ever hear of due process? How about double jeopardy?

Dutrow has done wrong, been suspended, served time away, paid fines...and now his whole body of violations is being re-evaluated, with the possibility of him being banned from the game. If that happens, he will be paying TWICE for some or all of the same infractions.

Some \"process\". Why not just shitcan the guy, without all the hearings and the dog and pony show and the BS appearance of \"fairness\"? At least that would be honest.

[moosepalm]

Admirable principles, and they rule the day in an actual court of law.    

I haven\'t seen anyone do anything other than criticize the process.  My main  interest in this thread is trying to separate issues.  Some get enlarged at the expense of others, and in so doing, try to submerge the original concerns.  In other places, facts and opinions have been used interchangeably.  

My only strong opinion is that I have a really hard time viewing this guy as a victim.  When you play fast and loose with the rules, you run the risk of kangaroo courts, lynch mobs, witch hunts, and other misused terms thrown around with reckless abandon.  Kind of like that \"as you sow, so shall you reap,\" business.

[Boscar Obarra]

MonmouthGuy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> from everything i understand, this is the wrong
> trainer/barn to go after.
>
> this is an easy and meaningless scalp.
>
> sloppy and disorganized.

 REally? So nothing suspicious out of this outfit over the last 10 years?

[Rick B.]

I understand that you want Dutrow out, badly. So do many others.

But at what expense? Total abandonment of the usual principles of fairness and equitable punishment?

You say that they are not conducting the process in a court of law, which is true...but then you go on to say that the terms that are normally applied to such proceedings -- \"kangaroo court\", \"witch hunt\", etc., do not apply, either.
 
Well, then, what is it, exactly?

I see a process that is wide-open -- free from the constraints of rules and laws, free from those troublesome \"admirable principles\" of due process and double jeopardy...and with a bonus: the ability to make it up as they go along.

Where have I seen this before?

It\'s Animal House, with Dutrow as the entire Delta Tau Chi fraternity, on \"Double Secret Probation\", being held in judgment by empty suits: Albany\'s version of Greg Marmalard, Douglas Niedermeyer, and the hapless Dean Vernon Wormer.

(Here are the Albany guys at work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0cF2piwjYQ&NR=1)

Similar contrived process, same pre-ordained result.

But hey, anything goes when the guy is as rotten as Dutrow, right? That seems to be your premise, Moose.

[jma11473]

Alm, sort of bad reasoning not to enforce the rules though, isn\'t it? Yes, barring Dutrow doesn\'t stop ALL cheating trainers. Arresting a serial killer doesn\'t stop ALL or even MOST murders though, so who cares, right?

[mjellish]

The difference is we don\'t arrest serial killers to make an example out of them.

Trust me, I have no real love for Dutrow.  He is a good horseman, but he has also pushed the issue.  Not exactly the Carlo Gambino type...    

Problem I have with all of this is making an example of Tricky won\'t won\'t fix the problem.  It\'s like the House Assassinations Committee hearings back in the 70\'s.  Easier to go through the charade of making a spectacle of something rather than really deal with the issue at hand.

Better to change the testing rules and have a consistent set of consequences that are enforced.  

And let\'s not forget about the vets.

[moosepalm]

Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But hey, anything goes when the guy is as rotten
> as Dutrow, right? That seems to be your premise,
> Moose.

Not exactly, Rick, but let me put it another way.  When you sit down at a poker table, and are told the house rules, some of which are \"subject to whim\" should you cheat, and you cheat anyway, what recourse would you expect to have?  This is a State Racing and Wagering Board.  Whom was he expecting to adjudicate this?  John Roberts?  Is this the way I would conduct such a procedure?  Of course not, but what does that have to do with the price of hay and oats? There is hardly anything about the thoroughbred industry (non-breeding) that I would conduct similarly to how its currently configured, so why should I be surprised about any of this?  I will restate my premise, hopefully for the final time so that you do not try to re-frame it again.  I have no sympathy for him, even in a Keystone Kops judicial operation (that was one that I forgot, above), because he assumed that risk when he kept pushing it, and pushing it in a system that can, effectively, make its own rules.  Hell, he had recourse.  He could have stopped doing it after the fiftieth time.

[Rick B.]

moosepalm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick B. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > But hey, anything goes when the guy is as
> rotten
> > as Dutrow, right? That seems to be your
> premise,
> > Moose.
>
> I will restate my premise, hopefully for the final
> time so that you do not try to re-frame it again.
> I have no sympathy for him, even in a Keystone Kops
> judicial operation...

Well, good then, I don\'t have to \"re-frame\" anything: you don\'t care how they get Dutrow, as long as they get him. It\'s right there, in what I underlined. I mean, I sort of already knew, but it\'s better that you speak for yourself.

You could have just said as much 5 posts ago, instead of misguidedly attempting to confer any merit or legitimacy on the current proceedings.

[moosepalm]

Rick B. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Rick B. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------

> Well, good then, I don\'t have to \"re-frame\"
> anything: you don\'t care how they get Dutrow, as
> long as they get him. It\'s right there, in what I
> underlined. I mean, I sort of already knew, but
> it\'s better that you speak for yourself.
>
> You could have just said as much 5 posts ago,
> instead of misguidedly attempting to confer any
> merit or legitimacy on the current proceedings.


Well, Rick, you did it again.  I never said that I \"don\'t care how they get Dutrow.\"  My \"caring\" was not part of the premise upon which my \"lack of sympathy\" was based.  It was based on his assumption of risk within a system with capricious regulatory bodies (and once again I have conferred \"merit or legitimacy on the current proceedings\" with the flattering characterization of it as \"capricious\"}.

So this time, instead of cherry-picking, why don\'t you specifically address my premise?  Go back to the poker game example.  If it\'s not on point, make the distinctions.  If you\'re going to continue to disagree with me, it has to be with the point I\'m actually making, and not the one you want to argue against.