Dutrow Suspended for 14 Days(For Communicating with Barn)

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

Actually it is extremely difficult. A well known trainer risks far too much "sneaking" onto the backstretch, or even the frontside (to watch the races, workouts, etc.). Rick Dutrow would be picked out in a heartbeat.

Eric

I thought you said that they couldn't subpoena phone and bank records? You also said that the checks are still made out to the regular trainer and not the assistant. Wrong on both counts.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I thought you said that they couldn't subpoena phone and bank records?

My comment was about "sneaking" on to the backstretch. I've only seen a couple of orders of suspension, and the couple I've seen never said anything about no contact, phone calles, banking, etc. I've seen, first hand, trainers on suspension bill exactly as normal so I think each case would be specific. I think a few other people here said that legally the board couldn't do examine bank records, phoen calls, etc. I am not a practicing attorney so I wouldn't voice an opinion on that -- at least I don't think I did. I've never seen those conditions attached but in this case it's indisputable.

I wonder in this case, whether or not the board was exercising it's rights -- as I have never heard them doing so in other cases. Have they checked Pletcher yet? What about Assmusen (which was not in NY)? Any of the others?

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

My comment was about "sneaking" on to the backstretch. I've only seen a couple of orders of suspension, and the couple I've seen never said anything about no contact, phone calles, banking, etc. I've seen, first hand, trainers on suspension bill exactly as normal so I think each case would be specific. I think a few other people here said that legally the board couldn't do examine bank records, phoen calls, etc. I am not a practicing attorney so I wouldn't voice an opinion on that -- at least I don't think I did. I've never seen those conditions attached but in this case it's indisputable.

I wonder in this case, whether or not the board was exercising it's rights -- as I have never heard them doing so in other cases. Have they checked Pletcher yet? What about Assmusen (which was not in NY)? Any of the others?

Eric

I was referring to our exchange a couple of months where you argued with me for an hour, telling me that racing boards don't check phone or bank records.

[ELA]

That's what I am saying. Cases that I had heard about, saw, etc. they never did check bank records or phone records -- nor was it stated in the suspension. Actually, it was another poster who said the Board didn't have the legal right or something along those lines. I don't think I would have said that, but I did in fact say that my first habd experience was different. I've seen trainers on suspension talk to owners, bill as they normally would, etc. If those terms weren't part of the suspension, I don't see anything wrong with it.

In this case, it appears Dutrow didn't follow the terms.

Didn't a trainer here post the language from his suspension letter? I don't remember it saying anything about billing, phone calls, etc.

Eric

[blackthroatedwind]

So let me get this straight....a trainer is suspended for 45 days, over 12% of a year, and he severly violates the terms of his suspension, and yet receives only a further 14 day suspension? Huh? Sounds to me like he never served the initial suspension and should get a bare minimum of another 45 day suspension, and probably much more. But, this is racing, where nobody needs follow the rules because they never really get punished.

[Danzig]

just wondering why it's happening now for a rules violation in '05. i think that's one of my biggest beefs with racing violations-they take so long to resolve a situation.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

just wondering why it's happening now for a rules violation in '05. i think that's one of my biggest beefs with racing violations-they take so long to resolve a situation.

they must be following the lead of the American judiciary system.

anyways....I feel the same as BTW....if he was communicating with his assistants,etc...did he really ever serve the original suspension?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by T3B

they must be following the lead of the American judiciary system.

anyways....I feel the same as BTW....if he was communicating with his assistants,etc...did he really ever serve the original suspension?

good question.
on equidaily they have up some snippets of an interview he did at the time of his suspension--no wonder they dug deeper after reading his responses!

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

good question.
on equidaily they have up some snippets of an interview he did at the time of his suspension--no wonder they dug deeper after reading his responses!

Thanks Deb...will check out equidaily. Hope you are feeling better.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

good question.
on equidaily they have up some snippets of an interview he did at the time of his suspension--no wonder they dug deeper after reading his responses!

Interesting interview. Don't put me on the spot now, LOL.

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So let me get this straight....a trainer is suspended for 45 days, over 12% of a year, and he severly violates the terms of his suspension, and yet receives only a further 14 day suspension? Huh? Sounds to me like he never served the initial suspension and should get a bare minimum of another 45 day suspension, and probably much more. But, this is racing, where nobody needs follow the rules because they never really get punished.

I don't know if this is a guideline or an arbitrary decision by the Board.

Eric

[SentToStud]

Maybe what Dutrow did is not uncommon. So perhaps that's why 'just' another 14 days. It's more intereting to me that he got fined $25,000 which is a pretty large fine. I think Pletcher and Assmussen got $3000-$5000 fines to go along with their suspensions.

California now allows for fines up to $50,000 for repeat offenses.

I think it's a good thing to see the higher fines. $25,000 or $50,000 is real money, even for very successful trainers. Hit 'em where it hurts.

[Thoroughbred Fan]

I think they should have doubling of suspension days. First offense is 7 days, second is 14 days, third is 28 days, etc....

It'll get rid of the guys like Dutrow who repeatedly break the rules. Eventually he'll be suspended for long periods of time. While the trainers who get the accidental medication violations would have to get caught three times to even get a month.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

Maybe what Dutrow did is not uncommon. So perhaps that's why 'just' another 14 days. It's more intereting to me that he got fined $25,000 which is a pretty large fine. I think Pletcher and Assmussen got $3000-$5000 fines to go along with their suspensions.

California now allows for fines up to $50,000 for repeat offenses.

I think it's a good thing to see the higher fines. $25,000 or $50,000 is real money, even for very successful trainers. Hit 'em where it hurts.

While I agree with you about the money, I think your first line is EXACTLY why the penalty should be severe. If breaking the rules in the manner Dutrow did is " not uncommon ", as you suggest, it feels like a message needs to be sent. They have shown that they can catch someone for having illegal contact and now they must show how they deal with it. In this case I don't believe they dealt with it harshly enough.....even with the relatively substantial fine. Frankly, for a trainer who's earnings have been as substantial as Mr. Dutrow's have been over the last several years that is an inconsequential amount of money. Only someone, in that situation, who squandered their money would be hurt by such a paltry sum.

[MisterB]

You actually think Trainers on suspension do not talk to the Barn. I am sure Mr. Pletcher, and Assman didn't.

They all do, and will. Seems foolish to me. And yes, the owners still have to pay their bills, so they will get a bill.

Dutow just doesn't know how to run the business behind close doors, he needs more practice.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

While I agree with you about the money, I think your first line is EXACTLY why the penalty should be severe. If breaking the rules in the manner Dutrow did is " not uncommon ", as you suggest, it feels like a message needs to be sent. They have shown that they can catch someone for having illegal contact and now they must show how they deal with it. In this case I don't believe they dealt with it harshly enough.....even with the relatively substantial fine. Frankly, for a trainer who's earnings have been as substantial as Mr. Dutrow's have been over the last several years that is an inconsequential amount of money. Only someone, in that situation, who squandered their money would be hurt by such a paltry sum.

Fair enough. But I do think that a fine of $25,000 plus the change in California (up to $50,000) compared to the laughably paltry sums Pletcher and Assmussen got very recently is meaningful, at least directionally within a fairly short time frame.

Judging by Dutrow's 'they did what they had to do' shrugging comments, I'd assume this was a negotiated deal, not to be followed by any appeal.

In any event, I'm glad to see increased fines becoming more a part of the process. And if $25k isn't enough to hurt, move the fines up.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So let me get this straight....a trainer is suspended for 45 days, over 12% of a year, and he severly violates the terms of his suspension, and yet receives only a further 14 day suspension? Huh? Sounds to me like he never served the initial suspension and should get a bare minimum of another 45 day suspension, and probably much more. But, this is racing, where nobody needs follow the rules because they never really get punished.

In addition to the 14 days, he got a $25,000 fine.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

In addition to the 14 days, he got a $25,000 fine.

Thanks. In my personal opinion it isn't even close to enough. The guy has only recently served a seven day ban. I'm probably wrong but it feels like he is laughing at the system.