Pletcher Positive /Question for Barry Irwin

[Caradoc]

Great, then you can clear any confusion that does exist: what is his position? And before you answer, read all the press coverage from last June regarding the Nicks incident (specifically the Thoroughbred Times article I referenced), all of Barry\'s posts from July in the \"Surgeries and Procedures\" string, and his post last night.

\"what is his position?\"

Why not allow him elaborate instead of assuming the worst?

His position may not be the same as yours or what you would like it to be, but it\'s pretty clear that he uses judgment on a case by case basis while being very anti-drug.

[Caradoc]

Speed: He HAS elaborated, in various press statements and at great length on this board.  There is no assumption of the worst that you could identify in my post. If I assumed the worst, I would have said (and I did not) that he tried to paint Team Valor as the white horse in the debate on drugs, when in fact the truth is (as determined by his actions) Team Valor is somewhere in the gray.  As I said above, he isn\'t obligated to offer any explanations to people outside Team Valor for why he hires or fires a trainer.  Nonetheless, if he chooses to do so (such as giving a statement to the Thoroughbred Times) and those explanations are obviously contradicted by his own actions, then his statements, explanations and actions are fair game.  

I think you are failing to see my point.

Unless someone is making a comprehensive statement covering all aspects of policy (like he might in a legal document to investors or others), I think it makes some sense to understand that they aren\'t expecting a lawyerly-like attack on their words. They are expecting to make a point. So it isn\'t surprising that they may need to elaborate on that policy at a later date.

If I understand you correctly, it seems you took zero tolerance to literally mean \"your definition\" of zero tolerance as opposed to the intention of BI.  

If I understand BI correctly, \"intent\", \"what was used\", and perhaps other things are part of his thinking about what will be tolerated.

You may not agree with his standards, but IMO they are quite logical and consistent with a strongly anti-drug stance without being detrimental to the stable in a foolish way just to be consistent with some \"words on the subject\" that weren\'t a full expression of his views.

To me this is pretty clear unless the goal is to bust chops.

In any event, if BI elaborates further I suspect it will not satisfy you because you seem far more interested in the words he used than what he meant by them.

[Barry Irwin]

\"To me this is pretty clear unless the goal is to bust chops.\" says speedkills

Thanks, speedkills. Better said by you than me.

[davidrex]

Barry,

Did you ever think that you could generate so much venom?
Hope you realize its not you.
These are not folks w/a gambling problem...just people who had or have a dream to aspire to a level you have reached.
Not only reached,but are a pioneer in setting up consortiums that are responsible to all parties involved.
We\'re not included,so you have become shark bait.Now you know why upper level equine operators don\'t bother corresponding w/such a board that responds in great quantity about a T.V. show and nada about gambling,horses or women!

May your xmas sox be filled with bagels and lox!!!

[JimP]

Caradoc, I don\'t see anything that is inconsistent in the two quotes. The first quote says that he has zero tolerance and the second quote simply clarifies what he has zero tolerance for. That\'s pretty straightforward. What\'s the confusion?  

[Caradoc]

Barry: Nice dodge. Again.  Perhaps I should not have expected more.

To you and to Speedkills: if it is so clear, then articulate it in a coherent English sentence that explains the June 2004 statement and the posts on this board.

[JimP]

I don\'t know Barry Irwin personally and I\'ve never had any business dealings with him. I can\'t vouch for his honesty or integrity. But I can read/hear and understand what he has said and it seems pretty clear to me.

Here\'s what I understand his approach to be from what he has stated: He has zero tolerance for anyone in his employ who intentionally tries to circumvent the rules. When someone does that, he takes his business away from them for some period of time that he feels to be consistent with the violation. After an appropriate period of time, circumstances may permit him to give a past violator a second chance. He also takes into consideration that accidental violations sometimes occur and he does not feel compelled to withdraw his business for such violations.    

I think what he has said is straightforward and reasonable. Only he knows if his actions are always consistent with his policy. I certainly would not profess to know enough about his business dealings to judge his actions in this regard. But his policy seems clear.

[Caradoc]

Jim: I agree with you that Barry\'s position now seems to be that he has zero tolerance for anyone in his employ who intentionally tries to circumvent the rules, and when someone does, he takes his business away from them for some period of time that he feels to be consistent with the violation.  But if that is the position, then the statement he gave when he \"fired\" Ralph Nicks is, to be kind to Barry, misleading.  This is the statement he gave:

\"Team Valor has a zero-tolerance policy with regards to drugs. We had no choice other than to do what we did.  This was the most difficult business decision I\'ve ever had to make, because we like Ralph and we think he is an outstanding horseman.\"

You will have to forgive anyone who gets the impression from that statement that a) Team Valor would not tolerate drug violations by its trainers, and b) Ralph Nicks was fired, done, exiled, you name it from Team Valor, forever.  But the truth was otherwise, wasn\'t it?  Why was it \"the most difficult business decision (Barry) ever had to make . . .\" if he was going to turn around and re-hire Ralph Nicks?

Subsequent events suggest that the statement he should have given is this:  \"Team Valor has a zero-tolerance policy with regards to drug violations if we conclude a trainer intentionally attempted to circumvent the rules.  We had no choice other than to take our horses from Ralph for an appropriate period of time.  This is a very difficult business decision because Ralph is an outstanding horseman and we hate to suspend him for an appropriate period of time.\"  Others can speculate as to why that more accurate but less admirable statement was not given.

Maybe because he wasn\'t talking to a prosecuting lawyer while on the witness stand where he knew each word would be analyzed and thrown back in his face unless every \"i\" was dotted and every \"t\" was crossed with regard to meaning. Seriously, I don\'t get you at all. I would hate to have a conversation with you about anything. I\'d be afraid to open my mouth. Most people simply do not communicate the way you seem to think except in legal documents.

[Caradoc]

That\'s one interpretation.  There are others.  Regardless, I doubt Barry is comfortable with the picture your post paints of him as someone who was careless with his choice of words in this episode, and nowhere has he argued that he was careless.  He is an ex-writer.  The language I quoted above is from a press release, which no doubt was reviewed more than once by Barry and others at TV.  Within the past twenty-four hours, ON THIS VERY SITE, he has criticized others for their lack of analysis and their use of the written word.  If he\'s comfortable with what your post implies about him, so be it.

[marcus]

Barry - It sounds like your taking a \"real world\" approach to these matters . I don\'t understand fully the in the trenches view of all this , however I\'m confident it differs emencely w/ outsider perceptions .    

[JohnTChance]

Barry,

Thanks for stopping by and being candid with us. You get three stars. Uhh... but while we\'ve got you here...

You mentioned Dr. Harthill\'s \"magic,\" \"his undeniable talent,\" and the idea that you\'d be unwise not to use that talent to take your stable \"where you wanted to go.\" OK. But this implies that with a lesser, mere mortal veterinarian - one who\'s not as aggressive; one who\'s working on horses for bread-and-butter 10% trainers - you\'re less likely to succeed! Take away Dr. Harthill from Whittingham and is SUNDAY SILENCE another animal? A lesser animal? Does CAPTAIN BODGIT earn less money with another, less aggressive vet? Yes? Yes? And yes? The vet\'s the difference? More so than the God-given talent and \"natural\" development of the animal? Now take Rick Dutrow out of his situation and replace him with any of a long list of sharp, capable trainers WHILE LEAVING THE SAME VET IN PLACE. Will the horses run about the same? Dutrow was replaced this Summer and the barn kept on the solid roll they were on prior to Rick\'s suspension. The bottom line seems to be: \"it\'s the vets, stupid!\" And that\'s what infuriates us dumb horseplayers because it\'s tough to read between the DRF performance lines.

Was it really Ralph Nicks that deserved the suspension? Did he initiate that \"shot that broke the rules?\" Or did his vet advise him, and then Ralph acquiesce? It seems that there\'s a separation of powers on the backstretch whereby the trainers train, and the vets vet - to a great extent, independent of each other. [I\'m thinking of the Patrick Byrne/Greg Fox incident at Saratoga a few years ago where one hand - the trainer - admittedly didn\'t know what the other - the vet  - was doing. When CHARISMATIC shipped to Kentucky years ago and the Dr. worked his magic, his Ragozin sheet line suddenly took a \"dogleg left\" detour. After his stunning win in the Derby, Lukas said: \"Gee, that horse really fooled me!\" Hey, he was telling the truth!] Does Todd Pletcher look over the shoulder of his vet every time that person steps into a barn stall? I presume there\'s communication between the two. But ultimately, the vet\'s in the stall alone, \"working on\" the horse. If any fingers are to be pointed towards that barn, like in the latest situation, shouldn\'t Todd\'s vet be the one fingers are pointed at?

Finally, a blast from the past. Team Valor won the Santa Anita Handicap with the 51-1 longshot MARTIAL LAW in 1989. Good for you, and the animal\'s up-and-coming trainer, Julio Canani. You\'re geniuses. If he paid over $100 that day, do you recall how out-of-sync that performance was relative to his prior races ON THE SHEETS? I won\'t ask you if MARTIAL LAW would\'ve passed the Japan Cup test. But I\'ll be your best friend if you tell us whether MARTIAL LAW was given a little visit prior to the race by Dr. Harthill. Say it ain\'t so.

JTC

I think it\'s pretty obvious you are more interested in criticizing BI than anything else.

IMO....

Without subjective judgment being part of the process, a manager might find
himself permanently firing honest and hard working employees due to accidental positives that were in no way intended to manipulate race results etc...

Similarly, one would never be able to use the services of a highly competent horseman if he ever made a mistake in his life, even if it was obvious he was a changed individual now.    

The goal is to eliminate cheating, not to criticize and hold people that are on our side on this issue to their literal words of \"zero tolerance\" when they seem to be using sensible judgment on a case by case basis. Most people would understand to begin with that judgment was probably going to be part of the process.