Norman gets six-month suspension

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Samm

The trainer gets 10% (the only way you do make money cause day rates don't cut it) then you have stable stakes ...which goes to the assist trainer, groom, gallop boy/girl and sometimes depending on the operation the hot walker may get some. I've often found that the help makes more than the trainer... I'm not kidding!!! Peanut Butter and Jelly are staples in a trainers home!!!

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Alright, I finally talked to my friend at the CHRB. I was totally wrong about the trainer not being able to communicate with the barn. I could have sworn that he told me that a couple of months ago, but I must have misunderstood him.

Here is what he told me about bank records: He said that the CHRB has invetigators and they will try to stay on top of the money trail and make sure the trainer is not getting paid. They don't actually subpoena the bank records. They ask the trainer to voluntarily turn them over. If the trainer refuses, then the Board can refuse to give him his license back. Then the trainer could take them to court if it got that far. But usually the trainers will cooperate and give the board their bank records for every month during the suspension.

With regard to the poster that said that the owners would still make their checks payable to the suspended trainer, even if he was serving a 6 months suspension, my friend told me that he highly doubts this. In the case of Asmussen, during the suspension the owners would be writing their checks every month to Blasi, not Asmussen.

[Scav]

I am sure Blasi and others (he has several contingents across the country) have check writing power as they are part of his business

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Alright, I finally talked to my friend at the CHRB. I was totally wrong about the trainer not being able to communicate with the barn. I could have sworn that he told me that a couple of months ago, but I must have misunderstood him.

Here is what he told me about bank records: He said that the CHRB has invetigators and they will try to stay on top of the money trail and make sure the trainer is not getting paid. They don't actually subpoena the bank records. They ask the trainer to voluntarily turn them over. If the trainer refuses, then the Board can refuse to give him his license back. Then the trainer could take them to court if it got that far. But usually the trainers will cooperate and give the board their bank records for every month during the suspension.

With regard to the poster that said that the owners would still make their checks payable to the suspended trainer, even if he was serving a 6 months suspension, my friend told me that he highly doubts this. In the case of Asmussen, during the suspension the owners would be writing their checks every month to Blasi, not Asmussen.

Richi,
No racing board has any right at all to go after bank or phone records of any trainer.
Violation of a suspension IS NOT a criminal offense, not by a long shot.
This is the United States, and racing boards do not have rights that supercede those guranteed to all citizens.
Lets put it this way, if someone attempted to pull you over, and said they were with the CHRB, LOL!!!, they would be breaking the law.
They are not boards with the powers of Federal powers like the SEC. They have no authority whatsoever off the racetrack, none. And any attempt to breach the privacy of citizens off he track by attempting to acess their personal records would be met with lawsuits or arrests of the indivuals who attempted to illegally gain acess.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Richi,
No racing board has any right at all to go after bank or phone records of any trainer.
Violation of a suspension IS NOT a criminal offense, not by a long shot.
This is the United States, and racing boards do not have rights that supercede those guranteed to all citizens.
Lets put it this way, if someone attempted to pull you over, and said they were with the CHRB, LOL!!!, they would be breaking the law.
They are not boards with the powers of Federal powers like the SEC. They have no authority whatsoever off the racetrack, none. And any attempt to breach the privacy of citizens off he track by attempting to acess their personal records would be met with lawsuits or arrests of the indivuals who attempted to illegally gain acess.

As I just said, sometimes they will ask you to voluntarily turn over your bank records. If you refuse, then they may refuse to re-license you. At that point, you could sue them if you wanted to and the courts would decide. It usually doesn't get that far. The trainers will usually cooperate and turn over their bank records. What I'm telling you is straight from the horse's mouth. My friend was on the CHRB and they used to do this. I just got off the phone with him an hour ago and we talked about this in detail.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As I just said, sometimes they will ask you to voluntarily turn over your bank records. If you refuse, then they may refuse to re-license you. At that point, you could sue them if you wanted to and the courts would decide. It usually doesn't get that far. The trainers will usually cooperate and turn over their bank records. What I'm telling you is straight from the horse's mouth. My friend was on the CHRB and they used to do this. I just got off the phone with him an hour ago and we talked about this in detail.

I have 7 bank accounts with 3 different banks. What would keep me from having owners send money to a different account?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I have 7 bank accounts with 3 different banks. What would keep me from having owners send money to a different account?

Furthermore I don't care what Richi says, hes dead wrong. Not one of those racing commissions has the power to acess your bank records. The most they coud do is report suspected criminal activity to the proper authorities, and violating a suspension is NOT criminal activity. The authorities wouldn't waste their time. These suspensions are enforcable by these boards, but they do not have powers that supercede the rights of citizens of this country.
They could indeed request bank records, but you would be under no obligation to give them bank records.

[ELA]

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.

At $85 a day -- you have to be talking about a major circuit. I have a high % trainer in NY and he is charging $85 a day. There is so much more to this and it's an exercise in futility to attempt to have a holistic discussion. Even if you are correct, and I am not saying you are, because not every trainer in North America is running their business like you say they are, there is still a misnomer that the trainer gets to keep the entire 10%. Some may. No arguement there. However, due to operations and structure, some don't. Also, the alleged $50k in salary, yeah, that's the deal breaker -- in the NY/Metro area -- covers the mortgage, real estate taxes, (and maybe the nice car or a portion thereof) on the "decent" house where this hypothetical trainer lives and sends his hypothetical kids.

I think the entire discussion is taking place in this trainers home town -- "Fantasy Land". LOL.

Eric

[ELA]

In reality, this entire conversation comes down to a very simple issue -- the specific terms and conditions of a suspension. I am sure this differs between jurisdictions. If there is a criminal aspect to the suspension then I am sure it would take on an entirely different size and complexion.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

At $85 a day -- you have to be talking about a major circuit. I have a high % trainer in NY and he is charging $85 a day. There is so much more to this and it's an exercise in futility to attempt to have a holistic discussion. Even if you are correct, and I am not saying you are, because not every trainer in North America is running their business like you say they are, there is still a misnomer that the trainer gets to keep the entire 10%. Some may. No arguement there. However, due to operations and structure, some don't. Also, the alleged $50k in salary, yeah, that's the deal breaker -- in the NY/Metro area -- covers the mortgage, real estate taxes, (and maybe the nice car or a portion thereof) on the "decent" house where this hypothetical trainer lives and sends his hypothetical kids.

I think the entire discussion is taking place in this trainers home town -- "Fantasy Land". LOL.

Eric

I was talking about Southern California. I'm not sure what you are saying. There are plenty of trainers not only in Southern California, but on small circuits whose horses are making under $300,000 a year. Do you think these guys are making under $30,000 a year? If you think they get less than 10%, then you are confirming what I am saying. If they make less than 10% and they aren't taking a salary, then how do you think they make a living?

It is obviously more expensive to train out here than other places. We have three trainers out here right now, one charges $100 a day, one charges $90 a day, and the other charges $80 a day. The one who charges $100 a day has a night watchman, so his expenses are a little higher.

Anyway, I know several trainers out here and I know approximately how much money they make a year on average. The bottom line is that most of these guys make around $10 a day ( give or take a couple of dollars) per horse. That is where their salary comes from. So if a trainer out here has 40 horses, he's probably making around $140,000 a year($400 a day, 7 days a week) just on the day money. If his horses earn $1 million for the year, then he makes an additional $90,000-$100,000 for a grand total of somewhere between $230,000-$240,000 a year. My trainers charge between 12-13%, so the groom, assistant trainer, etc. get a piece of the purse and the trainer is still left with close to 10%. Since the exercise rider, foreman, etc. may get a piece of the purse, the trainer's share could drop down to around 9%.

[jpops757]

All of this talk proves that the key players in all the barns is a creative bookeeper.a underhanded lawyer, and a very shady Vet. Optional is the Cal goveners nutritionalist,,or maybe just go to the master Bonds and get the good stuff.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I was talking about Southern California. I'm not sure what you are saying. There are plenty of trainers not only in Southern California, but on small circuits whose horses are making under $300,000 a year. Do you think these guys are making under $30,000 a year? If you think they get less than 10%, then you are confirming what I am saying. If they make less than 10% and they aren't taking a salary, then how do you think they make a living?

It is obviously more expensive to train out here than other places. We have three trainers out here right now, one charges $100 a day, one charges $90 a day, and the other charges $80 a day. The one who charges $100 a day has a night watchman, so his expenses are a little higher.

Anyway, I know several trainers out here and I know approximately how much money they make a year on average. The bottom line is that most of these guys make around $10 a day ( give or take a couple of dollars) per horse. That is where their salary comes from. So if a trainer out here has 40 horses, he's probably making around $140,000 a year($400 a day, 7 days a week) just on the day money. If his horses earn $1 million for the year, then he makes an additional $90,000-$100,000 for a grand total of somewhere between $230,000-$240,000 a year. My trainers charge between 12-13%, so the groom, assistant trainer, etc. get a piece of the purse and the trainer is still left with close to 10%. Since the exercise rider, foreman, etc. may get a piece of the purse, the trainer's share could drop down to around 9%.

Interesting stuff, Rupert.

--Dunbar

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.

[ELA]

Rather than debate issues where we are counting other people's money, I for one would like to get some clarification on the "suspension" issue. The terms and conditions of the suspension will dictate how a person has to abide. As I said, this will vary from state to state.

So at least we know, in CA, the suspended trainer can communicate with whoever he wants. No phone record incriminations or anything of the like. I am sure if this positive test was elevated to a criminal matter then the circumstances would change. However, as one person pointed out, a positive test is not a criminal matter -- at least not initially. Anyway, I checked with local counsel and the same applies in NY and NJ.

I would think that the terms and conditions not only spell out what the trainer can and cannot do to in order to abide, but it would also spell out what the governing body can and cannot do.

Thanks in advance to anyone who is able to clarify some of these issues. Somewhat ironic -- we need someone who has been suspended to clarify this for us, LOL.

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Rather than debate issues where we are counting other people's money, I for one would like to get some clarification on the "suspension" issue. The terms and conditions of the suspension will dictate how a person has to abide. As I said, this will vary from state to state.

So at least we know, in CA, the suspended trainer can communicate with whoever he wants. No phone record incriminations or anything of the like. I am sure if this positive test was elevated to a criminal matter then the circumstances would change. However, as one person pointed out, a positive test is not a criminal matter -- at least not initially. Anyway, I checked with local counsel and the same applies in NY and NJ.


I would think that the terms and conditions not only spell out what the trainer can and cannot do to in order to abide, but it would also spell out what the governing body can and cannot do.

Thanks in advance to anyone who is able to clarify some of these issues. Somewhat ironic -- we need someone who has been suspended to clarify this for us, LOL.

Eric

I was suspended for 15 days once. The notice that I received from the stewards said only that I was denied access of the grounds of the racetracks in that state. Thats all. They told me that the suspension would be honored nationwide but said nothing about anything else.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I was suspended for 15 days once. The notice that I received from the stewards said only that I was denied access of the grounds of the racetracks in that state. Thats all. They told me that the suspension would be honored nationwide but said nothing about anything else.

Thank you very much for the clarification. So there we have it -- a qualified opinion -- thank you! At least in this one jurisdiction (whatever state it was) those were the terms and conditions of the suspension.

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by ELA

Rather than debate issues where we are counting other people's money, I for one would like to get some clarification on the "suspension" issue. The terms and conditions of the suspension will dictate how a person has to abide. As I said, this will vary from state to state.

So at least we know, in CA, the suspended trainer can communicate with whoever he wants. No phone record incriminations or anything of the like. I am sure if this positive test was elevated to a criminal matter then the circumstances would change. However, as one person pointed out, a positive test is not a criminal matter -- at least not initially. Anyway, I checked with local counsel and the same applies in NY and NJ.

Here is what he told me about bank records: He said that the CHRB has invetigators and they will try to stay on top of the money trail and make sure the trainer is not getting paid. They don't actually subpoena the bank records. They ask the trainer to voluntarily turn them over. If the trainer refuses, then the Board can refuse to give him his license back. Then the trainer could take them to court if it got that far. But usually the trainers will cooperate and give the board their bank records for every month during the suspension.

I would think that the terms and conditions not only spell out what the trainer can and cannot do to in order to abide, but it would also spell out what the governing body can and cannot do.

Thanks in advance to anyone who is able to clarify some of these issues. Somewhat ironic -- we need someone who has been suspended to clarify this for us, LOL.

Eric

Ladies and gentlemen --

I am quoting myself here to clarify something. The paragraph I have bolded and that starts out "Here is what he told me" IS NOT MY WORDS. I cut/pasted this from another poster so that I could answer the questions and I forgot to remove it. I apologize as those are not my words and I do not believe them to be true.

Thank you! And I will be removing the paragraph from my post. I say this because someone else already quoted me and it was a mistake.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

Ladies and gentlemen --

I am quoting myself here to clarify something. The paragraph I have bolded and that starts out "Here is what he told me" IS NOT MY WORDS. I cut/pasted this from another poster so that I could answer the questions and I forgot to remove it. I apologize as those are not my words and I do not believe them to be true.

Thank you! And I will be removing the paragraph from my post. I say this because someone else already quoted me and it was a mistake.

Eric

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.

[ELA]

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.

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

[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

You highlighted this quote from me:

"Here is what he told me about bank records: He said that the CHRB has invetigators and they will try to stay on top of the money trail and make sure the trainer is not getting paid. They don't actually subpoena the bank records. They ask the trainer to voluntarily turn them over. If the trainer refuses, then the Board can refuse to give him his license back. Then the trainer could take them to court if it got that far. But usually the trainers will cooperate and give the board their bank records for every month during the suspension."

Then you said, "I don't believe those words to be true".

If the words from my quote are not true, it can mean only one of two things. It would mean either I am lying or the guy from the CHRB is lying. If you don't think that either I or the guy from the CHRB is lying, then I don't know why you would say that you don't believe those words to be true. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If the words are not true, then that would mean that either I or the guy from the CHRB is lying.