Norman gets six-month suspension

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

It's kind of like you are having a conversation with yourself. You said a great deal there. Wow, that's a real leap of semantics. Interesting enough -- I didn't say any of that. Here's what I said and here is what it means -- it means exactly what I said! Not what you think I said or accusing me of saying. Take a couple of steps back from the keyboard and relax. I am not nor did I accuse anybody of lying. I don't care what you and your friend claim on this matter. It's not a CA matter and I am not interested in your hypothetical matters, whether CA or otherwise.

I did not agree with your opinion on the entire subject. Thus, the words weren't my words and I didn't want them misconstrued as my words -- period!

Eric

It was not a hypothetical. The guy told me about a specific case where they asked a trainer(and he even named the trainer) to turn over his bank records. The trainer complied.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You don't believe the words to be true? Does that mean you think I'm lying or you think the former commisioner from the CHRB is lying. I've known the guy for 25 years. We even owned a horse together back in the 1980s. I can assure you that he's not lying.

Instead of accusing people of lying, why don't you call the CHRB and ask them if and how they make sure that a suspended trainer is not still collecting money while he's on suspension.

As stated before, the CHRB was a joke for years. They fined trainers for offenses which should have been suspensions and then, worst of all, kept it under the table.
I have ZERO confidence in them or any other racing commission to get much of anything done right. In one major racing state you can shockwave your horse the day before a race or even the day of the race if it is done on a property other than a race track or certified training center. The commission wrote a bad rule and has never got around to fixing the loophole. They know about it but its not on their "agenda".

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

As stated before, the CHRB was a joke for years. They fined trainers for offenses which should have been suspensions and then, worst of all, kept it under the table.
I have ZERO confidence in them or any other racing commission to get much of anything done right. In one major racing state you can shockwave your horse the day before a race or even the day of the race if it is done on a property other than a race track or certified training center. The commission wrote a bad rule and has never got around to fixing the loophole. They know about it but its not on their "agenda".

I agree with you for the most part.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

The bottom line is that its extremely hard for any trainer to stay in the business for an extended period of time at major tracks on purse winning %'s alone.
What trainers really build their finances or retirements on are commissions from selling a horse(Most trainers receive 5-10% when they sell one privately) and moreso on breeding rights in stallions or the 5-1% they get from the owner if the horse is sold as a stallion(most owners do pay this, not all(like one guy I know), but most).
Guys like Zito, Pletcher, Mott, Baffert, etc build up these breeding rights which can be sold each year or used.
A guy like Zito has a breeding right to Unbrdidled's Song(trained him at the end of his career) and each year he can sell that on the market or do a foal share with someone who has a mare and then race or sell the foal.
Guy like Pletcher will soon be making more money on his breeding rights than he will on the purses, and when you sell a horse like Ashado for over 9 mill, its customary to give the trainer who trained the horse 5%.
If you train a horse that the owners sell outright as a sire, its customary to give the trainer 5% of the money received.
Simply living on purse money at the highest level of racing is a non stop rat race thats hard to take.

There is only an extremely small percentage of trainers that are making money on breeding rights. You are talking about way less than even 5% of the trainers when you include all the tracks across the country. There are plenty of trainers out there who have nothing but $20,000 claiming horses. At some of the really small tracks, it's more like nothing but $5,000 claiming horses.

Anyway, I would estimate that well over 95% of trainers make the majority of their money from their salary(which comes from day money), rather than from purses. Even on a big circuit like the Southern California circuit, I would estimate that over 80% of the trainers make more money from their salary than from purses.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There is only an extremely small percentage of trainers that are making money on breeding rights. You are talking about way less than even 5% of the trainers when you include all the tracks across the country. There are plenty of trainers out there who have nothing but $20,000 claiming horses. At some of the really small tracks, it's more like nothing but $5,000 claiming horses.

Anyway, I would estimate that well over 95% of trainers make the majority of their money from their salary(which comes from day money), rather than from purses. Even on a big circuit like the Southern California circuit, I would estimate that over 80% of the trainers make more money from their salary than from purses.

I would estimate that 5% of trainers make enough on the day rate to not be considered poverty level.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I would estimate that 5% of trainers make enough on the day rate to not be considered poverty level.

That was the point of my post that Richi took issue with and tried to disprove.
Perhaps Richi only deals with higher end guys, but I know quite a few trainers who people would think are "successful" guys to some extent who really have to scrape by.
The point of my post was that be financially successful at the higher end venues as a trainer, you must develop horses that are sold for good money or train one who gets a stud deal.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by oracle80

That was the point of my post that Richi took issue with and tried to disprove.
Perhaps Richi only deals with higher end guys, but I know quite a few trainers who people would think are "successful" guys to some extent who really have to scrape by.
The point of my post was that be financially successful at the higher end venues as a trainer, you must develop horses that are sold for good money or train one who gets a stud deal.

I would estimate that more trainers make money trading horses than training them. I'm positive that a lot of trainers are losing money. And with expenes continuing to rise i'll bet the % goes up every year.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I would estimate that 5% of trainers make enough on the day rate to not be considered poverty level.

Are you including their salary? There are hundreds of trainers across the country whose horses earn under $200,000 for the year. These guys are obviously making more than $20,000 a year. I'm not saying they're getting rich. I'm not saying that by any means. I'm sayng that they're getting by and making a living. Let's say you have a trainer at one of the smaller tracks and he has 20 horses and they earn a total of $200,000 for the year. Let's say the trainer is charging $55 a day. What would his salary be? He'd probably be making around $6 a day per horse. That means he's making $120 a day, so his salary would probably be around $3,600 a month. So this guy would probably be making a little over $50,000 a year total. That's not a lot of money, but it's enoiugh to get by, especially in a small town.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Are you including their salary? There are hundreds of trainers across the country whose horses earn under $200,000 for the year. These guys are obviously making more than $20,000 a year. I'm not saying they're getting rich. I'm not saying that by any means. I'm sayng that they're getting by and making a living. Let's say you have a trainer at one of the smaller tracks and he has 20 horses and they earn a total of $200,000 for the year. Let's say the trainer is charging $55 a day. What would his salary be? He'd probably be making around $6 a day per horse. That means he's making $120 a day, so his salary would probably be around $3,600 a month. So this guy would probably be making a little over $50,000 a year total. That's not a lot of money, but it's enoiugh to get by, especially in a small town.

What about the owners who stick you for bills of an amount to small to waste lawyer fees on that he has to eat?
YOu got that figured into the equation?
Unless you are talking about a place where that never happens. Its called Fantasyland downs.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

What about the owners who stick you for bills of an amount to small to waste lawyer fees on that he has to eat?
YOu got that figured into the equation?
Unless you are talking about a place where that never happens. Its called Fantasyland downs.

Sure there will occasionally be people that don't pay their bills. That happens in any business.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Are you including their salary? There are hundreds of trainers across the country whose horses earn under $200,000 for the year. These guys are obviously making more than $20,000 a year. I'm not saying they're getting rich. I'm not saying that by any means. I'm sayng that they're getting by and making a living. Let's say you have a trainer at one of the smaller tracks and he has 20 horses and they earn a total of $200,000 for the year. Let's say the trainer is charging $55 a day. What would his salary be? He'd probably be making around $6 a day per horse. That means he's making $120 a day, so his salary would probably be around $3,600 a month. So this guy would probably be making a little over $50,000 a year total. That's not a lot of money, but it's enoiugh to get by, especially in a small town.

This is where your theory is inaccurate and flawed. If a trainer were charging $55 per day they wouldn't be living in a small town and couldn't be making a decent living at $55,000 per year. We are completely neglecting the real cost of living and I am not talking about some hypothetical nonsense where we believe that the inflation rate is 3%, and a person's cost of living is stagnant.

I have a trainer at Penn National -- a high %, leading trainer. The guy shoots very good. He charges $45 a day. So your theory of "he'd probably me making $6 a day per horse" is, a) completly hypothetical and nothing more than a guess, and b) flawed because the $55 per day is not realistic. He couldn't possibly make the same amount of money you claim he is making (in your purely hypothetical claim) at $45 a day as he would be making at $55 a day. The economics make no sense.

I think most trainers don't make money on their daily rate and if there is a salary built into the equation, there is not enough room to make a so called "living" exclusively on the daily rate. At best it might pay for some personal expenses. I know too many trainers who aren't "making a living" off of just training horses. I think the money is in the portion of the 10% they get to net or keep, the bonus or commission, if you want to call it that, on a big horse being sold, and other variables.

There are economies of scale that most trainers cannot take advantage of unless and until they get their operation to a point of scale where they can make money. I have heard of trainers making money on the daily rate by potentiallycutting corners on help, doing the work of a man/woman themselves, cutting corners on feed, equiptment, or cutting corners some other way.

We have a trainer here telling us the real and accurate situation. I see no reason not to believe that other than to perpetuate some massive facade.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

This is where your theory is inaccurate and flawed. If a trainer were charging $55 per day they wouldn't be living in a small town and couldn't be making a decent living at $55,000 per year. We are completely neglecting the real cost of living and I am not talking about some hypothetical nonsense where we believe that the inflation rate is 3%, and a person's cost of living is stagnant.

I have a trainer at Penn National -- a high %, leading trainer. The guy shoots very good. He charges $45 a day. So your theory of "he'd probably me making $6 a day per horse" is, a) completly hypothetical and nothing more than a guess, and b) flawed because the $55 per day is not realistic. He couldn't possibly make the same amount of money you claim he is making (in your purely hypothetical claim) at $45 a day as he would be making at $55 a day. The economics make no sense.

I think most trainers don't make money on their daily rate and if there is a salary built into the equation, there is not enough room to make a so called "living" exclusively on the daily rate. At best it might pay for some personal expenses. I know too many trainers who aren't "making a living" off of just training horses. I think the money is in the portion of the 10% they get to net or keep, the bonus or commission, if you want to call it that, on a big horse being sold, and other variables.

There are economies of scale that most trainers cannot take advantage of unless and until they get their operation to a point of scale where they can make money. I have heard of trainers making money on the daily rate by potentiallycutting corners on help, doing the work of a man/woman themselves, cutting corners on feed, equiptment, or cutting corners some other way.

We have a trainer here telling us the real and accurate situation. I see no reason not to believe that other than to perpetuate some massive facade.

Eric

I didn't say the guy making $55,000 a year was "making a decent living". I said about the guy making $55,000 a year that "That's not a lot of money but it's enough to get by, especially in a small town". That was my quote. I never said that the trainers at the smallest tracks charge $55 a day. I would expect to see $55 a day at some of the smaller tracks, not necessarily the smallest tracks. We have a horse at Mountaineer who has not run yet. I just looked at the bill and the trainer is charging us $48 a day. On the other hand, one of our trainers at Hollywood Park is charging us $100 a day. Depending on what track you're at, you could see anything from around $45 a day all the way up to around $120 a day. There are certainly trainers that charge $55 a day and that's not at the big tracks. at the big tracks, most of them charge between $75-$100.

Are you saying that most trainers don't take a salary? Cannon Shell told you that they take a salary. If they didn't take a salary, they couldn't survive. What do you think the average trainer's horses make in a year? Maybe $250,000? If they didn't take salary, that would mean that the avegra trainer was making less than $25,000 a year.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Trainers will always tell you that they don't make a profit on day rates. This is somewhat misleading. It is true that they are not making a profit after all the expenses are paid. What they don't tell you is that the expenses not only include the salaries of all the employees, but they include the trainer's salary too. The trainer's salary is included in the expenses. The trainer gets a salary. They forget to mention that when they say that they don't make anything on day money.

There are plenty of trainers out here that have 15-20 horses and win maybe 10 races a year. The total purses for all their horses is around $150,000(10% of that is only $15,000). Some of these trainers have a wife and two kids. They have a nice car and a decent house. Do you think they're surviving on $15,000 a year? Of course not. They are taking a salary of about $50,000 a year, in addition to the 10% of the purse money. So while it is true that they spend the whole $85 a day per horse, part of that money they spend is going to their salary. So it's very misleading when they say that they don't make anything off the day money.

So you want trainers to work for free?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So you want trainers to work for free?

No, not at all. I have no problem with trainers taking a salary. Most trainers could not survive without taking a salary.

All I was saying was that many people that aren't in the indusrty and even a few in the industry, don't realize that trainers take a salary. People hear trainers say that they don't make anything on the day money, and some people take that to mean that the only money that trainers make is from purses. These people don't realize that the trainer gets a salary.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

No, not at all. I have no problem with trainers taking a salary. Most trainers could not survive without taking a salary.

All I was saying was that many people that aren't in the indusrty and even a few in the industry, don't realize that trainers take a salary. People hear trainers say that they don't make anything on the day money, and some people take that to mean that the only money that trainers make is from purses. These people don't realize that the trainer gets a salary.

Would a trainers salary not be considered a legitimate expense?

[Cannon Shell]

Being that we are dealing with hypotheticals here try this: Trainers expenses exceed training income regardless of trainers salary. Racing income (10%) puts stable back in black. Does trainer make money on the day rate?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Would a trainers salary not be considered a legitimate expense?

Nah,
You should be training them out of the goodness of our heart in exchange for a lotta grief and aggravation and an occasional free meal at Sergios.
What the hell is the matter with you!!!??? Don't you know that?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Would a trainers salary not be considered a legitimate expense?

Yes, it's a legitmate expense. I already said that.

I don't understand why trainers are so sensitive about this subject. They are always crying poverty, yet they have nice houses and drive nice cars.

If a trainer(in Southern California) has 40 horses and he is taking a salary of $130,000 a year, I'm not going to feel sorry for him if he's losing $10,000 a year on day money after all the salaries are paid including his own. That means he's still making $120,000 a year and that does not include what he makes on purses.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, it's a legitmate expense. I already said that.

I don't understand why trainers are so sensitive about this subject. They are always crying poverty, yet they have nice houses and drive nice cars.

If a trainer(in Southern California) has 40 horses and he is taking a salary of $130,000 a year, I'm not going to feel sorry for him if he's losing $10,000 a year on day money after all the salaries are paid including his own. That means he's still making $120,000 a year and that does not include what he makes on purses.

No, they all don't.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

No, they all don't.

I'm not saying they all do. It's like any other business. Not everyone survives. Some trainers go out of business. If you have a trainer in Southern California that only has 8 horses and he rarely wins races, this guy will be barely be squeeking by if he's lucky. A guy like this probably won't last very long unless he can somehow live on $30,000-$35,000 a year.