ECLIPSE VIOLATORS FROM AWARDS
Steve Asmussen should not be allowed on the Eclipse Award ballot as North America’s leading trainer this year, no matter how many races or how much money he’s won. I don’t think Todd Pletcher should be, either, or Rick Dutrow, or Larry Jones or any other trainer who in this calendar year has either served a suspension for a medication violation or has a pending complaint for a banned substance in a horse under his care.
The Eclipse Awards are the sport’s highest honor. The National Thoroughbred Racing Association, which is "in charge" of these awards (along with the Daily Racing Form and National Turf Writers Association), could go a long way toward cleaning up the sport’s image by instituting a policy, beginning in 2009, that will exclude from consideration any individuals with confirmed or pending medication infractions in the same calendar year. The exclusion should be extended to owners as well. A separate set of standards should be written for jockeys (i.e., abuse of the whip, an excessive number of interference suspensions, etc.).
It’s overdue. The sport is drowning in bad publicity. Action is required.
Let us know what you think on this subject. The Daily Paulick Poll at www.paulickreport.com asks whether medication violations should disqualify a trainer from Eclipse Award consideration. Feel free to add your comments below.
As for Pletcher, call me naïve, but I believe his story of how Wait a While tested positive for procaine when she finished third in the Breeders’ Cup Filly & Mare Turf on Oct. 24. As the Paulick Report first detailed and Pletcher later confirmed, the Maria’s Mon filly came out of her victory in the Yellow Ribbon in late September with a respiratory infection that necessitated treatment with penicillin.
Pletcher and his veterinarian had options on what to use, but they apparently decided to go with a penicillin product that contains procaine, which one leading veterinarian told me is the most effective way to treat the type of problem Wait a While had. It also takes a long time to clear the bloodstream. If the last treatment was given 18 days before the Breeders’ Cup, as we reported and Pletcher also stated, and the withdrawal time recommended by the Racing and Medication Consortium is 15 days (emphasis on the word recommended), Wait a While should have tested clean.
The California Horse Racing Board, which now will adjudicate the charges against Pletcher through its board of stewards, offers complimentary testing to horsemen before a race to determine if therapeutic substances such as procaine have cleared a horse’s system. Pletcher had this option and apparently did not take advantage of it.
I’d give Pletcher the benefit of the doubt that he may have followed the advice of a veterinarian or the RMTC recommended withdrawal guidelines for procaine penicillin and still got burned by a positive test. Nevertheless, the responsibility is his, and absent mitigating circumstances should be fined and suspended in line with the CHRB guidelines.
He also should be on the list of trainers who in 2008 have served medication suspensions or are facing charges and should be excluded from consideration for Eclipse Awards.
Copyright © 2008, The Paulick Report
Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Tags: eclipse awards, larry jones, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, rick dutrow, steve asmussen, todd pletcher, wait a while
December 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I couldn’t agree more and can’t think of anything to add. I would like to know more, though, about the complimentary testing available. How close to race day can this be done and results yielded?
December 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Yeah, right. The NTRA will do something that both makes sense and is what fans and horseplayers favor. I will take book on all the action that this will NEVER happen.
December 6th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Agree totally on those who have been given suspensions. However, trainers who are charged but still in process should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Also agree on Jockeys being held accountable and excluded for whip offenses or a pattern of dangerous riding.
December 6th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I disagree, but then again what would you expect from someone who works for Steve Asmussen!
However, I think if a distinction could be made regarding drugs that are intended to deliberately enhance performance illegally … versus therapeutic drugs that were there unintentionally or due to some timing issue (as may be the case for pletcher) … then that would be good.
Working for Steve for more than a year, and with various assistants during that time, I am absolutely convinced Steve is a great guy who is sometimes not so well understood.
I even have a funny story to tell about a conversation we had one day, which nearly led to him firing me, but will save that for another time …
December 6th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Why not? Who really cares about these awards except the people in the running for one. Maybe some of the brainwashed owners who think that there are only 5 or 6 trainers that know how to train a good horse yet get multiple drug positives can be exposed to trainers that train and run a tight ship. Honestly the Ecplise awards are similar to the BCS in that only a few huge outfits are really eligible anyway. And the BCD sucks so draw your own conclusions.
December 6th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
What do we need to understand about a man who has 70+ violations? I agree that mistakes are mistakes, and that Pletcher’s, and sometimes Asmussen’s, violations are far different from something like Biancone’s…but 70? How many mistakes do you need to make before you figure it out, or are more careful?
December 6th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Depending on what other medications a horse is receiving, such as the concurrent use of bute, banamine, clenbuterol, etc., the withdrawl times can be prolonged for any particular substance (i.e. procaine penicillin.) It is definitely the responsibility of the trainer and their veterinarian to determine the risks involved when determining withdrawl times. The CHRB guidelines are just that: guidelines.
December 6th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
No trainer with a class 1,2,or 3 positive during the calender year should be considered for an Eclipse.
Pletcher’s past record of of drug violations, including those horses that mysteriously dropped dead at Saratoga that summer, make me think this procaine was an innocent mistake.
December 6th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I respect Mr. Paulick’s opinion and agree with almost all his points. However until there is uniformity and enforcement across the US, I can’t say they should be excluded as of today. Until a National Standard is determined and consistently enforced by a nationally governing and regulatory body with enforcement teeth, I don’t know how one can pick this year’s Eclipse Awards as the starting line.
Also, as to Mr. Jones (for example), I’m not really sure his charges weren’t tampered with by a disgruntled employee or jealous peer. Again, until security standards in the shedrow, with transporters , drug types and levels, time frames and chain of custody issues can be put in place nationally, I don’t think they can legally be excluded.
If a horse needs drugs to compete, it shouldn’t compete…even that Salix/Lasix stuff. And please don’t tell me all horses will eventually bleed if pushed. They don’t use it at many international tracks. Period. But I suspect that there are too many “important” people that have a stake in horses that bleed and will never agree if left to their own devices.
December 6th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I stand corrected. Mr Paulick wants to start this in 2009. But a national and comprehensive program needs to be in place first.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Owners and trainers who break too many horses down should not be honored regardless how much money or how races they won in a year. It should be about quality, honor and merit, not breakneck numbers.
RIP Mighty Beau, last owned by Eclipse Award winner as Owner of the Year Mike Gill. Nuff said.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Careful on the 70 violations thing. Because someone has been mentioned 70 times in the record doesn’t equate to 70 violations (and 30 citations doesn’t mean 30 violations, etc)…
Not sure I agree with Ray here, though I agree with him often. Voters should take into consideration the nature and number of positives. As Alex points out, an overage for a permitted medication is different than performance enhancers or something that clearly should never be given to the horse. Of course, Asmussen’s had 1-2 of the latter…
December 6th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Shirley, you jest. If they’ve given an Eclipse Award to Mike Gill, they might as well retire the awards (after sterilizing them). Reminds of the old Groucho Marx line that “I wouldn’t want to join any club that would have me as a member.” If they really did give Gill some Eclpse award, they’ve definitely lost their meaning.
December 6th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Edmond is correct that the “70 violations” is not a proper interpretation of the lifetime RCI rulings against trainers like Steve Asmussen and Rick Dutrow that have been published at the Paulick Report or elsewhere. Many of the rulings are for things like “late to the paddock” or “foal certificate not on file” or a disrespecting racing officials fine.
I understand Edmond’s position, even though I don’t agree. Why is it that some trainers with significant stables can go a lifetime without an overage of bute, or an accidental finding of some anesthetic and some guys can’t go a year without one?
As for Rob Whiteley’s comment that we shouldn’t punish trainers until they’ve had their day in court, I’d like to agree, but feel that the wheels of justice move so slowly in so many of these cases that years go by before cases are settled.
And New Jersey Jake, it’s sad but true. Mike Gill was elected “outstanding owner” in 2005. I called it the worst Eclipse Award ever given. (see my column here http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/monday-morning-quarterback-churchill-vs-horsemen/ )
December 6th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I agree with Wesley.
December 6th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Agreed 100%! Asmussen has had a cavalier attitude about the issue of cheating, regardless of his personal involvement in testing - and for that matter, so have a whole lot of other trainers, racing executives, et al.
This is how far we’ve descended into the slime of cheating - and the tolerance of it - in just 38 years. The quotation solely specifies harness racing officials and executives, but it is not unreasonable to state that it also had applied to the entire racing industry, with few exceptions, in the era in which that this was written:
From “Ainslie’s New Complete Guide to Harness Racing” (Tom Ainslie, aka Richard Carter; Simon & Schuster (1970):
“Not Everyone Bets”
“Not that the sport is overrun with such characters [cheaters]. Neither is it congested with Eagle Scouts and avenging angels. But raceway operators and leading horsemen are the stewards of huge capital investments from which they and their partners extract substantial profits. They believe with good reason that their continuing prosperity depends on their ability to satisfy the public’s standards of sporting rectitude” (p. 24).
Now, in 2008, when’s there’s a positive testing, the almost-unanimous reaction is:
“So What?”
December 7th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Bravo.
Cheating trainers don’t care about the game, the breed, or the betting public. They care about their wallets. For three decades, their greed has sold us out, corrupted our sport, and damaged the breed. And for those of you who defend them, remember: there are fair owners and trainers out there trying to make an honest go of it. Brutal greed and a cavalier attitude is akin to giving the finger to anyone who loves the game.
December 7th, 2008 at 6:13 am
I wanted to add, I’m not really sure how important the Eclipse Awards are in the long run (pun intended). It certainly didn’t make an important difference in “Ferdinand’s” life or the respectful continuation of it….here today, gone tomorrow.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Hi Ray, Thought you might have a spot for a vote, but I couldn’t find it. I think a readership poll would be a great idea since the NTRA doesn’t seem to have any connection with the public as far as Eclipse awards. We have raced in California and have been in a similar situation where a horse has gotten a respiratory infection between races. Now, Todd might not have know it (but he should have since procaine is not legal anywhere in the U.S.), but the CA vet we used informed us there was a non-procaine penicillin they used to avoid getting a med positive so I find it incomprehensible that the vet would use the procaine formula, especially before the Breeders Cup. I firmly believe that a trainer should be ineligible for an Eclipse award in any year which he has a positive for an illegal drug. In addition, we must speed up the process of hearings. The current situation gives the public the perception that a trainer who gets busted can now string things out until after the important races and then simply take a vacation.
December 7th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
[...] bookmarks tagged horse racing ECLIPSE VIOLATORS FROM AWARDS saved by 3 others rikutaka bookmarked on 12/07/08 | [...]
December 7th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Number one thought on this topic is that I agree with Denise, the rules need to be the same across the board in every state before you start saying what should eliminate a horse or person from being eligible for an Eclipse award. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen inquiries happen in other states go unchanged, knowing full well that it more than likely would have been a totally different scenerio here in California. The same thing goes on with interpretation of most of the racing rules. If a rule violation were added into the Eclipse nomination process, then I can just see the beginning of yet another problem for racing, that where someone purposely tries to set up another player in the sport for a violation just to eliminate them from Eclipse competition. Seriously the sport needs change we can agree on that, but you need to start from the ground up.
December 8th, 2008 at 10:20 am
As shown by the Larry Jones case, until there are uniform rules and much better security/scrutiny which allows for more accurate charges of violation, this is a flawed system that cannot be used to further punish the potentially innocent and goo-guy types we want to REWARD for their contribution to racing.
Any system that puts Larry Jones, who “had never had a violation in 25 years as a horse trainer, according to the Racing Commissioners International database,” in the same category as trainers with 50-70+ infractions, isn’t working.
I agree with Ray’s sentiment, but like the death penalty in this country, the system is too imperfect and leaves far too much margin for error.
December 8th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I thought the Eclipse Awards were to honor the exemplary people in this business,… ? The elite, the best of the best,…. ? I think the industry would go a long way in making a statement to put the guys in this spot that show what this industry can and should be if only,…..
We don’t need any Drugs in Racing. There are alternatives for Lasix that I’ve personally proven do in fact work. Natural Herb remedies. One just has to be a little more dilligent and patient in finding what’s best for their particular horse.
I’m sure we should honor those making a marked effort to improve this industry not use it for the dollar value.
Ray, I do agree with you on the NTRA and Waldrop is a disgrace in my view. He’s not a horseman though. He’s a suit and an empty one at that.
Thanks for giving me a Voice,
lj (jock4hire)