https://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/view-eighth-pole-murray-rojas-trial-casts-dark-shadow-racing/
Yikes.
\"There is gambling going on in Casablanca\"? Shocking...
Can anyone explain why the clean trainers don\'t band together to demand the crooks get kicked out? If you were a trainer and constantly losing to crooks who were being allowed to cheat, wouldn\'t you cry foul?
Probably because they are outnumbered.
I asked that question some years ago to two NYRA based trainers, one of whom is in the Hall of Fame- in both cases they confided that they were concerned about retribution from NYRA in the form of lost stalls if they publicized their concern and upset about drug use.
rezlegal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I asked that question some years ago to two NYRA
> based trainers, one of whom is in the Hall of
> Fame- in both cases they confided that they were
> concerned about retribution from NYRA in the form
> of lost stalls if they publicized their concern
> and upset about drug use.
I\'m going to have to think about this for a minute. Is this some variation on the emperor has no clothes, or in this case, the horse thieves have no clothes and the emperor has no balls? Makes plenty of sense. Let\'s not publicize what everyone already knows because then we\'ll look terrible for not having enforced it, which everyone already thinks anyway. I think Joseph Heller got there first with something like this. Or the guys who write South Park.
What a waste of an iconic Jewish first name. A shonda.
Edgorman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a waste of an iconic Jewish first name. A
> shonda.
If the name has been appropriated by a female, as is the case here, does that mitigate the shanda?
Who watches the watchers?
I got a D in Latin, so forgive me if the person I lifted this from misquoted:
\"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?\"
Since there\'s only been one sided reporting by an agenda-driven source, here\'s an actual legal summary of the Jury Verdict in Murray Rojas\' case:
On Friday, June 30, 2017, the jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania entered its finding in the pending criminal case against horse trainer Murray Rojas. The jury found that Ms. Rojas was not guilty of the core and heart of the government’s case, the six (6) counts of wire fraud and the one (1) count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud that were brought against her. The attorney for Ms. Rojas considers this decision a resounding victory for not only Rojas but also for all horsemen.
However, the jury did find Ms. Rojas guilty on the charges of misbranding animal drugs and a count of conspiracy to commit misbranding. Ms. Rojas\' defense counsel stated that the jury verdict was a strong victory because the most troubling charges involving wire fraud are by statute very broad and all inclusive type charges that have been used successfully in the past. The misbranding charges are very specific and the elements of these charges were not proven during the trial.
The government asserted that Ms. Rojas committed the crime of misbranding (and, conspiracy to misbrand) by instructing licensed veterinarians to “administer†animal drugs to race horses (owned or trained by Rojas) on race day. The attorneys for Ms. Rojas state that this does not constitute the crime of misbranding (or conspiracy to commit same) because both the relevant statute relied upon, to wit, 21 U.S.C. 353(f)(1)(C), and the extant case law, applies only to pharmacists or others who sell or “dispense†drugs to others, as does not apply to veterinarians or trainers who administer drugs to their horses. Thus, the use of this statute was improper overreaching by the government.
Not only did the government fail to prove that Ms. Rojas personally dispensed any animal drugs, but it affirmatively introduced evidence that the licensed co-conspirator veterinarians (who were under extreme pressure to testify in a most favorable way for the government under plea deals) did not “dispense†any drugs in this case either. Never in the history of criminal law has the crime of misbranding been used to convict anyone under these circumstances because these circumstances do not fit within the elements necessary to establish such crime.
It appears to the defense that the government went to unprecedented and extraordinary lengths to invent a violation in order to prosecute this trainer. The defense for Ms. Rojas is convinced that Ms. Rojas will be vindicated upon appeal of this matter which they intend to file in the coming days.
And now we have an agenda-driven \"legal summary\" (priceless, Steve).
\"The attorney for Ms. Rojas considers this decision a resounding victory for not only Rojas but also for all horsemen.\"
Yes, we have our role models back.
Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And now we have an agenda-driven \"legal summary\"
> (priceless, Steve).
>
> \"The attorney for Ms. Rojas considers this
> decision a resounding victory for not only Rojas
> but also for all horsemen.\"
>
> Yes, we have our role models back.
So the propaganda \'reporting\' worked perfectly on you Rich, eh? Ridiculous that an editorialization with 50% of the story is accepted as fact.
It\'s only fair, We inject the pools, they inject the horses...er, except on the days when they don\'t.
https://www.paulickreport.com/features/the-friday-show/racing-in-the-courtroom/
\"So the propaganda \'reporting\' worked perfectly on you Rich, eh? Ridiculous that an editorialization with 50% of the story is accepted as fact.\"
Please do not \"understand\" me too quickly, Steve. I was careful not to say one word about the reporting. My one and only goal was to ridicule your ridiculous post.
Does this ludicrous \"legal summary\" provide balance of a sort? I guess one could argue that it does, in a shot-the-sheriff-but-did-not-shoot-the-deputy sort of way.
And I realize that your goal overall is to provide this sort of balance. I have listened to your show. You like to stay \"upbeat\" about racing. Somebody needs to do it. If loud, angry horseplayers start a boycott of CA races because of a takeout increase, there is a place for a radio guy who is willing to literally laugh at the boycott on the air and encourage people to bet into the bigger takeout.
So what you do has a place. And that is fine. And you don\'t always know where that place is. And I can\'t help but admire the spunk in that. But this \"legal summary\" post is an embarrassment.
The defense for Ms. Rojas is convinced that Ms. Rojas will be vindicated upon appeal of this matter which they intend to file in the coming days.
Wow! The defense thinks she will be vindicated on appeal. Every criminal defendant sitting behind bars has had the same thought. Be sure to let us know how that works out for her.
Kasept Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since there\'s only been one sided reporting by an
> agenda-driven source, here\'s an actual legal
> summary of the Jury Verdict....
The agenda you speak of seems to be one of wanting to rid the sport of cheating, one which the majority of horseplayers would agree with. What is your agenda? Are you implying that Ms. Rojas did nothing wrong?
Bet Twice wrote:
The agenda you speak of seems to be one of wanting to rid the sport of cheating, one which the majority of horseplayers would agree with. What is your agenda? Are you implying that Ms. Rojas did nothing wrong?
__________________________
Bet Twice: You will likely get the same exact answer as Ray Paulick received on twitter to this question he posed to Byk, \"Since you brought it up, do you receive any payment or expense reimbursements to broadcast from @NationalHBPA convention?\"
And the answer to that was
............................crickets.............................