Medication Infraction Penalties

[Roguelet]

Interested in people's opinions on medication infraction penalties, what is the most fair way to assess these penalties?

[Sam]

Instinctively speaking, the only way to ensure 'fairness' in penalties is to completely remove human interference with them. By definition, that would mean option 3. You set up a chart of penalties and there is no wavering from it.

Life isn't that black and white. The chart should be there, but there should be some kind of review committee because sometimes things do come up.

[geowarrior]

I picked option 4 which was closest to what I thought, but I would like the advisory committee to not only have the power to decrease penalties for extenuating circumstances but to increase them in particularly egregious circumstances. It's unfortunate that Stewards and Commissioners are often too close to the situation to make objective judgements and so the advisory committee should be appointed in some kind of objective fashion and possibly have at least one representative that is far removed from the racing community. I don't know enough about the setup in Indiana to suggest more precisely how the advisory committee might be struck.

[BenB]

In our country feedsuppliers needs to sign a paper and declares that there is no forbidden stuff in it.
So I would tend to the forelast mentioned in the poll
If you starting with circumstances optioned, everybody stes in for court hearing etc By than it will prove not to work.
Just makes things clear to all and everybody. Using Cat 1 stuff is automatically 1 year suspension for the first time a second time 5 year off
third time gets another job and so on.

[Roguelet]

I would love to see this committee develop a prototype for a way to handle medication rules, regulations and penalties, that could then be adopted by more and more states. Such a prototype could eventually be the basis for a uniform National policy.

I voted for option #4, by the way, although I do see Ben's point. In most cases, I think a positive is a positive, and really would not need review. The cases that would deserve review would be so few and far between that maybe it's not worth bogging down the system with a review board, because EVERYONE will SAY their case deserves review, even if they cheated and they KNOW they cheated. That's a tough call.

[Rokeby Forever]

Are we talking medications or illegal substances?

If a horse is accidently given too much lasix, it shouldn't be weighed as heavily as a CO2 positive from a Milkshake. And the day the labs ever figure out how to detect EPO - just ban anyone involved. No excuses...you're out!

Just my 2 cents.

[Tairaterces]

I voted for option 3. Then we will see how many infractions there are reported. Bet it will be surprising.

Option 4 leaves room for them to push the envelope and they do love to push the envelope!!!!!!

Tairaterces

[geowarrior]

I actually did consider Rogulets point about everybody wanting review if a review board existed. A strong review board would just say no to most of the appeals that would automatically come forward.

[BJ]

I actually did consider Rogulets point about everybody wanting review if a review board existed. A strong review board would just say no to most of the appeals that would automatically come forward.

While I agree with option #4...it sure will open up the jobs in the legal field...so trainers...start studying for those LSAT's

[Nemesis]

I believe it should be a standardized chart with some sort of variable. Example: Class 1 first offence.
$1000 -$2000 fine
6 month to 1-year suspension
Loss of purse
Depending on the mitigating circumstances a board of horsemen decide the penalty, within the range of the allowable penalties associated with the infraction.
I know a gentleman who had a cocaine positive. After pleading his case to the stewards they went back and reviewed some video and found out the groom was doing cocaine between races and was the one who put the tongue tie on. The trainer was still found guilty by neglect and was given a lesser penalty.

[joeangelo]

It was actually two positives. The horses ran two days apart think. Anyway the second horse ran before notified of the first positive. They both ran second so lose purse money, fine for each infraction, pay for split samples. total loss approxamently $7000 for owner trainer combined. That was an expensive groom. But, how do you know when you are shipping and need a groom.
So after all of this I think that option 4 would be best.

[Nemesis]

[quote="joeangelo"] But, how do you know when you are shipping and need a groom.

[/quote]

I think there needs to be more drug testing on the backside. All personel.

[BJ]

But, how do you know when you are shipping and need a groom.

I think there needs to be more drug testing on the backside. All personel.

I agree, the people should be drug tested too. But that would likely be cost prohibitive, IMO.

I think they should all just have to take periodic lie-detector tests..including trainers and vets. This crap will stop overnight...and much more cheaply too. That, and install security cameras in places you know the "personnel" hang out to pass things to each other. The old handshake is rarely what it seems

[BenB]

The solution is not so difficult as it seems. A drug test is costing some 1,5 K on each side I suppose, so when the test is positive a far as is concerning to human or horses, put the bill there where it belongs on the positive parties, and otherwise take it into the balance.
Just be straight, honest and leaves no gateways.

[Nemesis]

.[/quote]

I agree, the people should be drug tested too. But that would likely be cost prohibitive, IMO.
[/quote]
Each individual needs to pay for their own drug test, if the test comes back negative, the Commission should pay for it.