Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
trying to win isn't fraud. how is falsifying data and paying off a clocker trying to win?
trying to win by juicing a horse is fraud. or at least cheating.
i'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner, with all the rumblings the last few years. some people have been saying for some time that racing needed to do more, have consistent rules, have a way to punish the notorious cheaters.
well, someone got cheated, or knows somebody, or the feds just had enough-or saw an opening.
of course it all may lead to nothing. the feds don't win all their cases. but if these people end up found guilty, they have no one to blame but themselves.
tracks want people to bet-it would be in their best interest to keep things as honest as possible. they need to take a page out of the casinos book-they don't countenance anyone working the system, and they get lots of customers because of it. if a casino was perceived as having dealers working for and with certain customers, they won't have other patrons for long.
|
You seem to be missing the point. The impact on racing and the fact that there has been little or poor oversight isnt in question (Though 2 of the 4 were caught by state investigators)
My point is that don't they have to prove their case more than saying "oh they were going to give their horse an "illegal" treatment", that's fraud? Alan Pincus who apparently is going to be defending at least one of the accused has already made the statement that these are administrative issues, not criminal ones. Again I am not a lawyer but you'd have to believe that the burden of proving fraud has to be more than what we know considering the thousands of similar cases over a long time period haven't been criminalized.