90 Days for Dutrow; ARCI calls for license revocation

[Kasept]

ARCI President Ed Martin calling for NY to further review Dutrow's overall viability as a licensee.

http://www.arci.com/nysrwbletter.pdf

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

good for him

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Kasept

ARCI President Ed Martin calling for NY to further review Dutrow's overall viability as a licensee.

http://www.arci.com/nysrwbletter.pdf

Chances Steve?

1%...or 2.

[randallscott35]

http://www.drf.com/news/racing-group...utrows-license

[GBBob]

In the late 1980s, when Dutrow first tried to go out on his own, the board ruled him off New York Racing Association tracks for five years after he tested positive for marijuana.

Five years for something that very likely won't affect the outcome of a race, but basically a wrist slap for drugging horses and cheating?

Oh..but that's right..they are out to get him

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Chances Steve?

1%...or 2.

If NYS RWB thought they could revoke licenses of recitivists without a protracted legal battle, they probably would. But as Chuck has previously pointed out, no state is going to be interested in costly court cases because the commission (or similar entity) does not have the necessary budget. And legal battles would result because as in this situation as an example, and as in so many of them, the medication in question has dual usage both positively as a medication and negatively as a performance enhancer.

It is to ARCI's credit that they are trying to draw a line in the sand, but as is the broad case in racing, they haven't the teeth with which to leave a mark on Dutrow's hide. ARCI isn't the entity that would be involved in the dispute that would result from an attempt by RWB to rule Dutrow off NY tracks. The best most jurisdictions can do is apply the maximum penalties/suspensions for the offenses and hope that at some point the taint of them would shame owners from wanting to be involved with the oft-penalized parties.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Kasept

If NYS RWB thought they could revoke licenses of recitivists without a protracted legal battle, they probably would. But as Chuck has previously pointed out, no state is going to be interested in costly court cases because the commission (or similar entity) does not have the necessary budget. And legal battles would result because as in this situation as an example, and as in so many of them, the medication in question has dual usage both positively as a medication and negatively as a performance enhancer.

It is to ARCI's credit that they are trying to draw a line in the sand, but as is the broad case in racing, they haven't the teeth with which to leave a mark on Dutrow's hide. ARCI isn't the entity that would be involved in the dispute that would result from an attempt by RWB to rule Dutrow off NY tracks. The best most jurisdictions can do is apply the maximum penalties/suspensions for the offenses and hope that at some point the taint of them would shame owners from wanting to be involved with the oft-penalized parties.

Steve what are your thoughts on banning all his horses currently under training from racing in the jurisdiction for the length of the suspension. This will cause owners to put pressure on trainers to play by the rules. Now its a farce as he will hand his string off to an assistant.

[randallscott35]

Interesting Steve, so mainly a legal bills hurdle among other things.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

Steve what are your thoughts on banning all his horses currently under training from racing in the jurisdiction for the length of the suspension. This will cause owners to put pressure on trainers to play by the rules. Now its a farce as he will hand his string off to an assistant.

For multiple repeat offenders this should be a valid option IMO.

[Duvalier]

Originally Posted by Kasept

The best most jurisdictions can do is apply the maximum penalties/suspensions for the offenses and hope that at some point the taint of them would shame owners from wanting to be involved with the oft-penalized parties.

How about what happened with Ziadie down at Calder? Why does it seem like that was an isolated case and no other race tracks look to do it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Duvalier

How about what happened with Ziadie down at Calder? Why does it seem like that was an isolated case and no other race tracks look to do it?

There was a lot of that story that was not made public. But needless to say most trainers wont be as bold or stupid as he was.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Kasept

If NYS RWB thought they could revoke licenses of recitivists without a protracted legal battle, they probably would. But as Chuck has previously pointed out, no state is going to be interested in costly court cases because the commission (or similar entity) does not have the necessary budget. And legal battles would result because as in this situation as an example, and as in so many of them, the medication in question has dual usage both positively as a medication and negatively as a performance enhancer.

It is to ARCI's credit that they are trying to draw a line in the sand, but as is the broad case in racing, they haven't the teeth with which to leave a mark on Dutrow's hide. ARCI isn't the entity that would be involved in the dispute that would result from an attempt by RWB to rule Dutrow off NY tracks. The best most jurisdictions can do is apply the maximum penalties/suspensions for the offenses and hope that at some point the taint of them would shame owners from wanting to be involved with the oft-penalized parties.

What the state could do is simply refuse to renew his license when it expires. There surely is grounds to do so and plenty of precedent. The state could easily argue its case using the plethora of examples from the Harness business that they have refused to license. While not every state would be required to reciprocate it would probably be more effective than the current situation.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What the state could do is simply refuse to renew his license when it expires. There surely is grounds to do so and plenty of precedent. The state could easily argue its case using the plethora of examples from the Harness business that they have refused to license. While not every state would be required to reciprocate it would probably be more effective than the current situation.

You refuse Dutrow then you had better be willing to refuse TAP and Assumussen because there playbook has just as my issues.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

You refuse Dutrow then you had better be willing to refuse TAP and Assumussen because there playbook has just as my issues.

Dutrow has a far more ...uh..."checkered" past with the NYSRWB.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dutrow has a far more ...uh..."checkered" past with the NYSRWB.

These are body of work issues from years of different violations. You are suggesting the death penalty for an offense that calls for a 60 day penalty. So if you set precident you had better make sure that you mean it and you are willing to defend it.

BTW I am not defending the guy but this is america

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What the state could do is simply refuse to renew his license when it expires. There surely is grounds to do so and plenty of precedent. The state could easily argue its case using the plethora of examples from the Harness business that they have refused to license. While not every state would be required to reciprocate it would probably be more effective than the current situation.

Would that really do any good though?

All he would need is a groom or hotwalker license and a program trainer. Remember how Cleveland Johnson was like a 40% trainer when Dutrow got 60 days and he filled in about 9 or 10 years ago? Cleveland Johnson went out on his own - and was like a low profile Jeff Odintz.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Would that really do any good though?

All he would need is a groom or hotwalker license and a program trainer. Remember how Cleveland Johnson was like a 40% trainer when Dutrow got 60 days and he filled in about 9 or 10 years ago? Cleveland Johnson went out on his own - and was like a low profile Jeff Odintz.

Losing your license means more than just transferring the horses to someone else. They can refuse to license him in any capacity. Plus after a period of time if you apply and receive a license many times it will be conditional on not getting any violations of any manner. When I worked at Yonkers for a few years there were plenty of people who were denied licenses. Can you work around it for a period of time? Sure but it makes things a whole lot more difficult.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Losing your license means more than just transferring the horses to someone else. They can refuse to license him in any capacity. Plus after a period of time if you apply and receive a license many times it will be conditional on not getting any violations of any manner. When I worked at Yonkers for a few years there were plenty of people who were denied licenses. Can you work around it for a period of time? Sure but it makes things a whole lot more difficult.

You don't think it will turn into something that happened at Philly Park when McCaslin had all of his problems ... and supposedly his operation started using laughable phony program trainers like Jayne Vaders and Ed Auwarter ... who both turned from 3% trainers into 30% Alchemist wonders overnight?