Follow Ray: Live from Louisiana Dermorphin hearings, Part 2

by | 09.28.2012 | 9:25am
  • click above & share!
    X
  • click above & share!
    X


  • click above & share!
    X
  • click above & share!
    X

The Louisiana State Racing Commission enters day two of meetings on Friday to hear the appeals of eight trainers who have had horses test positive for the powerful painkiller, Dermorphin.  These are the first public hearings on Dermorphin, which has been discovered in several states this year.

Ray Paulick is on the scene in New Orleans and will be continuing to report the developments during Friday’s hearings.

The commission is expected to hear from four more trainers today.

Follow Ray on Twitter to get the latest updates from Louisiana – #Ladermorphin.

New to the Paulick Report? Click here to sign up for our daily email newsletter to keep up on this and other stories happening in the Thoroughbred industry
  • Thelibrarian

    What is this circus? Eight trainers positive. Hearings? Just apply penalties! They’re guilty!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000351961052 Darlene Allison Anders Sanner

    just love how he trainers are saying they never heard of the stuff and have no clue how the horses got it But doesn’t trainer rules say the buck stops with the trainer He is the one ultimately responsible for the horse 

  • Sampan

    There is a preponderance of evidence that all the horses named had positives for Dermorphin. The trainers can say whatever they want but they are the ones responsible for the drug being in the horses. I hope the Louisiana State Racing Commission deals with them in a firm forthright manner. I’m glad they were caught and hopefully can be put out of the business for a long, long time.  

  • Vebra

    i agree that they should be held accountable, but so should their owners and the vet that had the drug to administer to the horses. Racing is a team sport. No one person takes an animal and gets it to the track. It takes a team. And as a team, they should all be held responsible for the part they played in this.

  • DianeTPelletier

    I can,t tell you how glad something is finally being done somewhere for the severe cheating that makes you feel like you have been kicked in the stomach time after time

  • Steve

    I don’t understand the reason for the different suspension times.  Some got 5 years for a positive some got 3 years? 

  • Concerned Texas Horsemen

    As they say on the cop shows “they cut a deal because they rolled on their dealer”

  • Runningstag188

    In reference to owners having some say in the drugs that are given the good owners look for trainers that have not had any positives! People know when a trainer goes from winning at a 3 % clip to a 30 % that they didn’t just give better OATS 

  • nu-fan

    Runningstag188:  “…good owners look for trainers that have not had any positives!”  That is what some people do not get.  The owners have a lot of control.  They can decide who they are going to hire.  Good ones will take the time to check out references and do background checks.  They will talk to others that they respect in the industry and find out which trainers sand vets are reputable and which ones aren’t.  And, I do not know of any industry where people don’t talk.  That gossip mill can sometimes be wrong but when one keeps getting the same story from various corners, it should set out all sorts of red flags waving.  The owners cannot absolve themselves of the responsibilities that come with their positiion.  Those that cannot do that should find something else to do with their lives.  From too much of what I have read and seen, there is so much finger-pointing. Well, the buck does stop with the owner.  If they do not do their jobs well, they should pay some consequences for the poor job that they are doing. 

  • nu-fan

    Steve:  When I first started reading the article, I thought “Great! Finally a commission that has their act together and getting tough with these people who have no redeemable value.”  But, as I kept reading and seeing how some were getting much lesser penalties, I was having some reservations as you are voicing.  There’s something called the “iceberg principle” used in business.  It states that if someone is caught cheating, even if something seemingly small, that one thing might be just what is seen.  But, what is unseen, under the water, may be a mountain of other things that had not been detected.  I wonder if those who got the light sentences just didn’t get caught at other unethical acts.  Maybe, they were smarter that the others who got stiffer penalites. 

Twitter

follow us on twitter »