15 days for Biancone

[phystech]

Originally Posted by Danzig

nope.


do you remember a few years ago, an owner named gill was denied stall space? very simple remedy, and one that should be employed more often.

I remember Mr. Gill all too well. I competed against him for over 5 years in the mid-Atlantic. Actually, denying Gill stall space didn't matter beacuse he went out and bought a farm with a track and a couple barns, and then he thumbed his nose at track officials. In the end, little guys like me were hurt by the rules some tracks enforced to try to hurt Gill.

Denying stalls didn't do a thing.....

I think anyone that follows the game knows about the well publicized trainers with positives for varying things. But a lot of guys flying under the radar can do the same things the Asmussens, Biancones, etc do. Just because they aren't getting the ink doesn't mean their owners can be any more aware of what they are doing than the big name owners that employ name trainers.

My pure guess is that 90% of owners out there would only have a clue about what their trainer might be doing, if/when their trainer gets caught.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by phystech

My pure guess is that 90% of owners out there would only have a clue about what their trainer might be doing, if/when their trainer gets caught.

I tend to agree with you on this one, but I suspect that, if there was some sort of "owner responsibility" rule (I'm not advocating one - I'd like to start with giving meaningful penalties and ending the sham suspensions, and see how those measures work first), owners would probably start making it their business to find out what their trainer might be doing - and ensuring that their stable doesn't get sent to the "penalty box". To those that don't care, the old adage that "if you play with fire, you might get burned" will probably apply.

[Danzig]

well, yeah, it stands to reason that no one would know what anyone was doing til they got caught. my bone of contention is that it's business as usual after they get caught. repeatedly. slap, don't do it again, and back to work. and invariably, back to the same stuff they were doing before. why in the world would it be acceptable for a trainer to have over 20 positives? not 2 or 3 over a period of years, but almost two dozen. that's outrageous.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I tend to agree with you on this one, but I suspect that, if there was some sort of "owner responsibility" rule (I'm not advocating one - I'd like to start with giving meaningful penalties and ending the sham suspensions, and see how those measures work first), owners would probably start making it their business to find out what their trainer might be doing - and ensuring that their stable doesn't get sent to the "penalty box". To those that don't care, the old adage that "if you play with fire, you might get burned" will probably apply.

I agree, and that's happening today. Delaware has made some progressive steps in this direction regarding "owner responsibility"; however, I agree with you and believe you are correct that meaningful penalties are needed, ones that make an impact. Delaware has done this and has added the owner aspect as well.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Forgive my ignorance (since we only race in NY), but what is Delaware doing?

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9c1_1188968489

he needs to get this line repaired.............

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Forgive my ignorance (since we only race in NY), but what is Delaware doing?

No ignorance, none whatsoever. I race in NY as well and was surprised when I learned about this. I didn't have anything racing in Delaware at the time, but I did have horses in training there. It was covered by some of the trade journals as well.

Apparently, Delaware will be requiring owners to sign an agreement that says, in part, if your trainer gets suspended, your horse will actually be transferred to and be trained by a new trainer. As an owner, you are also agreeing that you will not be paying the suspended trainer during his/her suspension. I don't remember if communications were covered as part of the agreement.

Apparently, they are also holding the trainers accountable in that the suspended trainer cannot financially benefit or be payed by the new trainer. There is of course more to it. One of the problems I had, and I think the language was changed, was that the owner could be held responsible if the suspended trainer financially benefited or was paid in some fashion by the new trainer. That of course would not fly and I was told that the language was changed, shifting the liability from the owner to the (new and suspended) trainer.

Eric