News of Equidaily’s critique of several of my posts, an article on my own blog as well as a comment on another blogger's post, arrived me right when I was readying myself to go to bed, so please excuse me if this response seems a bit rushed. That's because it actually is.
First, if you choose to directly attack one of my posts on your website, I would consider it a question of basic decency to notify me. It doesn't really bode well for your argument that I have to find out about it from a post about a post discussing your post.
The source for my claim that AirPower is illegal in California is this Ray Paulick article, which makes it clear that absolutely anything except for water is illegal on raceday in Mullins’ home state. That’s clear enough, I guess. You’re right that it hasn't been “proven for certain” that Mullins didn't administer the substance in plain sight, but doubts have been serious enough as to be cited by NYRA in explaining why the investigation was still open.
I do admit fault for interpreting “won’t test” as “non-detectable”. You have the facts on your side, and my response that the context of this statement clearly implies the substance gives the horse an edge over his or her competiton without outright violating regulations shouldn't take away from the fact that, writing this sentence for an ad-hoc response on another blogger’s site, I was guilty of sloppy research. Sorry for that.
In case you really didn't understand (I mention it because you spend several paragraphs on the argument): I make a point of AirPower being “performance-enhancing” because it undermines the premise of Mullins’ defense. If his horse is the only one in the field gaining advantage from a performance-enhancing drug administered at a time when trainers are forbidden to do so there clearly is no merit in arguing that the incident was “harmless”.
For a more general thought about the premise of your article, and those of others, see the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment