Lawyer: Pa. horse trainer doping case not a crime
HARRISBURG — Federal prosecutors pursuing doping allegations at a central Pennsylvania racetrack are trying to criminalize matters routinely handled by state regulators, a defense lawyer argued Saturday.
Three trainers and a timer were arrested Friday at Penn National Race Course in Grantville and led into federal court in handcuffs, still in their barn clothes.
The Pennsylvania “Horse Racing Commission looked at the facts of this matter and decided that Mrs. (Patricia) Rogers should be suspended,” defense lawyer Alan Pincus of Las Vegas said on Saturday. “To try to take the same set of facts and call it a crime is a new theory on the part of the prosecutor.”
The indictment unsealed Friday charges that Rogers, a 43-year-old horse trainer from Hummelstown, was caught trying to inject a horse named Strong Resolve at the track in August. The horse was pulled from the race.
Federal prosecutors argue that doping — using drugs to bolster a horse's performance — defrauds bettors, both at Penn National and those watching on videos simulcast around the world.
The other trainers charged are David J. Wells, 39, of Grantville and Sam Webb, 63, of Jonestown.
Security caught Webb preparing to inject a horse named Papaleo in May, prosecutors said. Wells, a trainer and horse owner, allegedly used banned substances on horses for several years, through early 2012. Penn National timer Danny L. Robertson, 63, of Hershey allegedly took bribes to report false workout times to racing officials.
All four defendants pleaded not guilty and were released pending a January trial.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.