Lost amid the North America Cup fanfare over the weekend was the
news that the New Jersey Racing Commission fined trainer Ernest Adam and owner/vet Stephen C. Slender following reported positive EPO tests on six of their horses. The fine-- $56,000-- is hefty. The additional fee, to pay for the costing of testing-- $12,000-- also is significant. Now the question is whether the Commission has the fortitude to fight against the inevitable "stay pending appeal" which will be filed on behalf of one or both of the men.
We all know what will happen if the Commission rolls over. The stay will be granted and the two men will continue on their merry way for years before judgment day. At some point down the road, the case will settle, the men will pay a fraction of the costs initially assessed, and then one day they'll resume their careers.
I'd like the Commission to act outside the box this time and fight the request for a stay. I'd like the NJRC to argue before the courts and administrative law judges that the length of time it takes for a case to be resolved-- think Smedshammer and the Hambo-- effectively makes a "stay" an acquittal for those charged. If the policy behind the testing regulations is to prevent doping of horses, to create disincentives against bad behavior, than stays should be granted only in extraordinarily rare circumstances. And those don't appear to exist here.
Without a stay, the case against Adam and Slender will be resolved quickly-- the two men will demand it. And other people out there who may be involved in the same sort of activity with which the men have been accused may think twice about continuing their dirty work. Justice delayed is justice denied. Usually that cliche is employed on behalf of the individuals; in these cases it could easily be applied to the regulators as well.
Comments
Post A Comment
