Norman gets six-month suspension

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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. Depening 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.

My point was not to debate you on how much trainers charge. Thank you for pointing out the blatantly obvious, LOL, it's good to know that trainers all over the country charge different rates.

I was in fact rebutting your claim where you were throwing out a number that some trainer somewhere is charging ($55 a day, and tying that to how the person is living -- call it whatever you want -- decent living, getting by, little money, a lot of money, whatever you want to call it; it doesn't matter) -- and that in your hypothewtical example the trainer was making (according to you) $6 a day. You ended up at some hypothetical $50k number. My point was that if this trainer is charging $55 a day, he is not living and working in the smallest town and is not really "making money" and as such when you say "getting by" at $50k per year -- in reality he is not!

Come on now -- you can't have it both ways. Getting by is not really making money. That is exactly what I said in my post. Enough of the semantic merry-go-'round.

Like I said, and I will say again -- "making money" is a very relative term. A trainer taking a salary doesn't mean that the trainer is "making money" per se on that salary. "Making money" and "getting by" are not the same thing to most people. If it is to you, no problem, so be it. I just don't think one person's semantics dictate another person's reality -- Period.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

My point was not to debate you on how much trainers charge. Thank you for pointing out the blatantly obvious, LOL, it's good to know that trainers all over the country charge different rates.

I was in fact rebutting your claim where you were throwing out a number that some trainer somewhere is charging ($55 a day, and tying that to how the person is living -- call it whatever you want -- decent living, getting by, little money, a lot of money, whatever you want to call it; it doesn't matter) -- and that in your hypothewtical example the trainer was making (according to you) $6 a day. You ended up at some hypothetical $50k number. My point was that if this trainer is charging $55 a day, he is not living and working in the smallest town and is not really "making money" and as such when you say "getting by" at $50k per year -- in reality he is not!

Come on now -- you can't have it both ways. Getting by is not really making money. That is exactly what I said in my post. Enough of the semantic merry-go-'round.

Like I said, and I will say again -- "making money" is a very relative term. A trainer taking a salary doesn't mean that the trainer is "making money" per se on that salary. "Making money" and "getting by" are not the same thing to most people. If it is to you, no problem, so be it. I just don't think one person's semantics dictate another person's reality -- Period.

Eric

I think I have been very clear with what I have said. The semantics are irrelevant. I totally agree with you that money is a relative thing and what is a large amount of money to one person may be a small amount to another. The posters on this board can decide if they think that $100,000 a year is "good money" or if $200,000 is good money or whatever. It obviously depends a lot on where you live. They did a segment a while ago on CNBC showing what you can get for your money in different cities. They showed a brand new $1 million house in Raleigh, North Carolina. It was a beautiful house. If this same house was in Beverly Hills, it would cost around $4 million.

[The Bid]

Ever been to Boston?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by The Bid

Ever been to Boston?

No, I have never been there. I always wanted to see a game at Fenway. I was always a huge Red Sox fan growing up. I was even a Celtic fan too. When I was a little kid, John Havlicek was my favorite player.