Ramon Preciado - groom confesses tampering

[SG4]

Interesting development on this front:

http://www.drf.com/news/former-groom-blamed-preciados-clenbuterol-positives

[johnhannibalsmith]

I don't know how many horses he has and for how long a "long period of time is" ("...she administered clenbuterol to “all of” Preciado’s horses “over a long period of time.”").

But I do know that a bottle of clenbuterol isn't exactly cheap. And it doesn't go very far in normal twice daily doses for a sizable roster. Seems an odd combination of statements from someone who was allegedly doing this because she was mad at least in part about her paycheck.

[Donttellmeshowme]

I don't know how many horses he has and for how long a "long period of time is" ("...she administered clenbuterol to “all of” Preciado’s horses “over a long period of time.”").

But I do know that a bottle of clenbuterol isn't exactly cheap. And it doesn't go very far in normal twice daily doses for a sizable roster. Seems an odd combination of statements from someone who was allegedly doing this because she was mad at least in part about her paycheck.




Probably wasnt giving it twice daily to every horse.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Probably wasnt giving it twice daily to every horse.

Probably not. Lets go once. Let's just use 4mL instead of the typical 5. Let's be real conservative and assume every horse means he has 10. That's 40mL a day. I think the big bottle back when was 460 mL and cost around $300. A bottle would get her about ten days going once a day at 4mL.

Maybe ten days is "a long time". I wouldn't think so, but who knows. Maybe he only has ten horses and that is "all of his horses". I wouldn't think so, but I don't know.

Maybe she was giving them a trace amount. But under what would seem like something resembling the way you would administer it over "a long time" to "all of his horses" in order to hang him, you'd be spending a pretty penny.

It just begs the question why she didn't just wait until they hit the overnite and then treat them logically for someone with an axe to grind and presumably some financial limitations and one would think some difficulty obtaining it at will to administer the way she describes.

A few more details would go a ways since on the surface it's a little confusing what the hell she was doing and why.

[cj]

This smells awfully fishy and convienient for Preciado.

[v j stauffer]

This smells awfully fishy and convienient for Preciado.

Absolute Insurer

[cj]

Absolute Insurer

Sure...but racetrack rules don't always hold up in court.

[Redboard]

Preciado hired Marian Vega. Managers get fired all of the time in the business world for hiring bad/incompetent employees. The buck has to stop somewhere.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Probably not. Lets go once. Let's just use 4mL instead of the typical 5. Let's be real conservative and assume every horse means he has 10. That's 40mL a day. I think the big bottle back when was 460 mL and cost around $300. A bottle would get her about ten days going once a day at 4mL.

Maybe ten days is "a long time". I wouldn't think so, but who knows. Maybe he only has ten horses and that is "all of his horses". I wouldn't think so, but I don't know.

Maybe she was giving them a trace amount. But under what would seem like something resembling the way you would administer it over "a long time" to "all of his horses" in order to hang him, you'd be spending a pretty penny.

It just begs the question why she didn't just wait until they hit the overnite and then treat them logically for someone with an axe to grind and presumably some financial limitations and one would think some difficulty obtaining it at will to administer the way she describes.

A few more details would go a ways since on the surface it's a little confusing what the hell she was doing and why.




Most probably they were giving it 1-2 days out and at bridle time. Just a guess on my part.

[EMD4ME]

This just smells. Not buying it at all.

JHB, great point, as USUAL.

[johnhannibalsmith]

This just smells. Not buying it at all.

JHB, great point, as USUAL.

I don't know if it's a great point, but the narrative leaves a lot to be desired. They report that the horses in her care all tested high but then they offer her testimony that she allegedly gave it to all of his horses. The results of the tests on her horses don't really specify if was post-race testing or if they came down the barn and isolated the group that she cares for and tested them at the same time. If the latter, then unless they were all in, it would seem that this was a daily regimen and above and beyond what would be considered therapeutic use for horses not even entered. I guess. Then she says all of the horses. So we are to assume that had they tested all of his horses that every horse in the barn was being treated the same way? Nobody noticed her packing a dose syringe into a stall that wasn't one of hers day after day to the point that they would presumably test outside the scope of acceptable limits for therapeutic use? And financing this whole covert operation while mad that she wasn't getting paid? As a groom?

The complaint is with the serious allegation and drip-drip of information that paints a totally confusing scenario. And then she gets charged criminally for the sort of thing that happens regularly. Was Preciado charged when it was assumed from the tests that it was "clearly administered ... beyond acceptable guidelines"? Are we trying to lean on this groom for a reason? Was she trying to pull a fast one on the betting public and rig the race or get even with her mean, cheapskate boss? By spending piles of money to win him races and then absolve him with her own statements?

Just a weird version of events.

[Robert Fischer]

thought this was just a 'fall guy'


am i missing something?

[castaway01]

thought this was just a 'fall guy'


am i missing something?

Depends on what you mean. If you mean a "fall guy" in that she's going to take the blame for this, then you're right. But since the attorney is saying the groom drugged the horses without Preciado's knowledge or approval, if that gets proven true (or "true") then the penalties against him would be dropped. That's pretty significant because it seemed like an open-and-shut case busting a supertrainer and he could end up escaping any penalties.

[SuperPickle]

Absolute Insurer

While I certainly don't buy this I think this gets Ramon off. I know everyone is citing the ultimate insurer clause on licensing but if my racetrack law 101 memory is correct ultimate insurer only covers your employees. Also I'm 99.9999% that any violations of the criminal code falls outside the scope of ultimate insurer. Ultimate Insurer doesn't cover third parties drugging your horses.

I'm no attorney but I think he's got a case.

Also I'm no chemist but I find it hard to believe bute is the "special sauce" he's using. If a big bottle of bute is the way to win 35% we're all doing something wrong.

[v j stauffer]

While I certainly don't buy this I think this gets Ramon off. I know everyone is citing the ultimate insurer clause on licensing but if my racetrack law 101 memory is correct ultimate insurer only covers your employees. Also I'm 99.9999% that any violations of the criminal code falls outside the scope of ultimate insurer. Ultimate Insurer doesn't cover third parties drugging your horses.

I'm no attorney but I think he's got a case.

Also I'm no chemist but I find it hard to believe bute is the "special sauce" he's using. If a big bottle of bute is the way to win 35% we're all doing something wrong.

Rule Title
1887 Trainer to Insure Condition of Horse.
Rule Text (a) The trainer is the absolute insurer of and responsible for the condition of the horses entered in a race, regardless of the acts of third parties, except as otherwise provided in this article. If the chemical or other analysis of urine or blood test samples or other tests, prove positive showing the presence of any prohibited drug substance defined in Rule 1843.1 of this division, the trainer of the horse may be fined, his/her license suspended or revoked, or be ruled off. In addition, the owner of the horse, foreman in charge of the horse, groom, and any other person shown to have had the care or attendance of the horse, may be fined, his/her license suspended, revoked, or be ruled off. The owner of a ship-in horse is the joint-absolute insurer of and is equally responsible for the condition of the horse entered in a race. (b) A ship-in horse is defined as any horse entered to race that has not been in the care of a Board-licensed trainer for seven consecutive calendar days prior to the day of the race for which it is entered. (c) Notwithstanding the above, if the Board or its agents fail to notify a trainer or the owner of a ship-in horse of a potential positive test within 21 calendar days from the date the sample was taken, the trainer or the owner of a ship-in horse shall not be deemed responsible under this rule unless it is shown by the preponderance of the evidence that the trainer or the owner of a ship-in horse administered the drug or other prohibited substance defined in Rule 1843.1 of this division, caused the administration or had knowledge of the administration. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 19440, 19580 and 19581, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Sections 19440, 19577, 19580 and 19581 Business and Professions Code. HISTORY: Amendment filed 7-9-92; effective 8-8-92. Amendment filed 10-25-94; effective 11-24-94. Amendment filed 12-6-99; effective 12-6-99. Amendment filed 8-8-05; effective 9-7-05. Amendment filed 12-29-15; effective 4-1-16.

[outofthebox]

Rule Title
1887 Trainer to Insure Condition of Horse.
Rule Text (a) The trainer is the absolute insurer of and responsible for the condition of the horses entered in a race, regardless of the acts of third parties, except as otherwise provided in this article. If the chemical or other analysis of urine or blood test samples or other tests, prove positive showing the presence of any prohibited drug substance defined in Rule 1843.1 of this division, the trainer of the horse may be fined, his/her license suspended or revoked, or be ruled off. In addition, the owner of the horse, foreman in charge of the horse, groom, and any other person shown to have had the care or attendance of the horse, may be fined, his/her license suspended, revoked, or be ruled off. The owner of a ship-in horse is the joint-absolute insurer of and is equally responsible for the condition of the horse entered in a race. (b) A ship-in horse is defined as any horse entered to race that has not been in the care of a Board-licensed trainer for seven consecutive calendar days prior to the day of the race for which it is entered. (c) Notwithstanding the above, if the Board or its agents fail to notify a trainer or the owner of a ship-in horse of a potential positive test within 21 calendar days from the date the sample was taken, the trainer or the owner of a ship-in horse shall not be deemed responsible under this rule unless it is shown by the preponderance of the evidence that the trainer or the owner of a ship-in horse administered the drug or other prohibited substance defined in Rule 1843.1 of this division, caused the administration or had knowledge of the administration. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 19440, 19580 and 19581, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Sections 19440, 19577, 19580 and 19581 Business and Professions Code. HISTORY: Amendment filed 7-9-92; effective 8-8-92. Amendment filed 10-25-94; effective 11-24-94. Amendment filed 12-6-99; effective 12-6-99. Amendment filed 8-8-05; effective 9-7-05. Amendment filed 12-29-15; effective 4-1-16.What about the case with Von Hemel who proved that the feed supplier caused the positives with contamination. How does this correlate with this ruling. Or is there another rule that covers accidental contamination?

[SuperPickle]

Rule Title
1887 Trainer to Insure Condition of Horse.
Rule Text (a) The trainer is the absolute insurer of and responsible for the condition of the horses entered in a race, regardless of the acts of third parties, except as otherwise provided in this article. If the chemical or other analysis of urine or blood test samples or other tests, prove positive showing the presence of any prohibited drug substance defined in Rule 1843.1 of this division, the trainer of the horse may be fined, his/her license suspended or revoked, or be ruled off. In addition, the owner of the horse, foreman in charge of the horse, groom, and any other person shown to have had the care or attendance of the horse, may be fined, his/her license suspended, revoked, or be ruled off. The owner of a ship-in horse is the joint-absolute insurer of and is equally responsible for the condition of the horse entered in a race. (b) A ship-in horse is defined as any horse entered to race that has not been in the care of a Board-licensed trainer for seven consecutive calendar days prior to the day of the race for which it is entered. (c) Notwithstanding the above, if the Board or its agents fail to notify a trainer or the owner of a ship-in horse of a potential positive test within 21 calendar days from the date the sample was taken, the trainer or the owner of a ship-in horse shall not be deemed responsible under this rule unless it is shown by the preponderance of the evidence that the trainer or the owner of a ship-in horse administered the drug or other prohibited substance defined in Rule 1843.1 of this division, caused the administration or had knowledge of the administration. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 19440, 19580 and 19581, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Sections 19440, 19577, 19580 and 19581 Business and Professions Code. HISTORY: Amendment filed 7-9-92; effective 8-8-92. Amendment filed 10-25-94; effective 11-24-94. Amendment filed 12-6-99; effective 12-6-99. Amendment filed 8-8-05; effective 9-7-05. Amendment filed 12-29-15; effective 4-1-16.

I think the "except as otherwise provided in this article" covers this. Also keep in mind it's a criminal case now so this kind of takes a backseat.

Here's most likely what it comes down to. If she administered drugs to horses while employed by him to horses she was authorized it's ultimate ensure. However if his attorney can prove she wasn't acting as an agent of his he'll win.

Again there's no way ultimate insurer covers unauthorized third parties drugging horses. The million dollar question here is was she an authorized agent of the ensurer or not.

Btw... What's interesting about the above is doesn't specify that all of a trainers help are covered under ultimate ensurer. Just the staff assigned to the specific horse. I always thought all your employees fell under this. So does this mean he could argue that even if he employed her she wasn't authorized?

[bello]

At this point the authorities will likely give her a deal if she turns others in. That is is they were smart.

On the other hand, how much "pressure" will she have not to do "rat" anyone out. Combine that with the ultimate penalties she may face. If it is a slap on the wrist or a fine that will be paid by others anyways, she will stay silent. If it is pending incarceration, than who know.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I'm guessing that Vic's stuff comes from the CHRB since it looks like their wordy way of spelling things out.

For you two arguing that element of things, you might enjoy the section of Pennsylvania's code that tries to spell out the burden for trainers et al when it comes to safeguarding against illegal treatments:



§ 163.309. Responsibilities to guard against administration of drugs.

The owner, trainer, groom or other person who is charged with the responsibility of the horse shall protect the horse against the administration or attempted administration, either internally or externally, of a drug to the horse. If the stewards determine that an owner, trainer, groom or other person has failed to protect the horse they may immediately suspend the trainer, groom or other person and refer the matter to the Commission for final disposition.


Notes of Decisions
Since horse was left unattended for 2 or 3 daylight hours daily, the fact that horse trainer hired night watchman was insufficient to rebut presumption of negligence created under 58 Pa. Code § 163.303(b) when a prohibited foreign substance was found in a test sample Brown v. Horse Racing Commission, 499 A.2d 1132 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).

Horse trainers are specifically charged with the obligation to guard against the administration of any drug to his horse. Worthington v. Horse Racing Commission, 514 A.2d 311, 312 (Pa. Commw. 1986).
Cross References

This section cited in 58 Pa. Code § 163.302 (relating to foreign drugs, medications or substances); and 58 Pa. Code § 163.308 (relating to official laboratory).

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Sure...but racetrack rules don't always hold up in court.
You can count the number of times the absolute insurers rule hasn't held up on one hand with most of the fingers down. There are a litany of cases where the trainer lost based on the rule.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What about the case with Von Hemel who proved that the feed supplier caused the positives with contamination. How does this correlate with this ruling. Or is there another rule that covers accidental contamination?
Depends on the state. NY has modified the rule so that third parties outside the control of the trainer can make an affirmative defense. However, in most states, the trainer is responsible even if the feed supplier was the problem. The word "absolute" provides very little wiggle room. It means the trainer is responsible no matter what.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I think the "except as otherwise provided in this article" covers this. Also keep in mind it's a criminal case now so this kind of takes a backseat.

Here's most likely what it comes down to. If she administered drugs to horses while employed by him to horses she was authorized it's ultimate ensure. However if his attorney can prove she wasn't acting as an agent of his he'll win.

Again there's no way ultimate insurer covers unauthorized third parties drugging horses. The million dollar question here is was she an authorized agent of the ensurer or not.

Btw... What's interesting about the above is doesn't specify that all of a trainers help are covered under ultimate ensurer. Just the staff assigned to the specific horse. I always thought all your employees fell under this. So does this mean he could argue that even if he employed her she wasn't authorized?
If she administered the drugs to the horses while in his employ, whether she was authorized or not, the trainer is guilty. There is no defense that "she wasn't acting as an agent of his" that gets the trainer off the hook.

The absolute insurer rule makes no distinction for an unauthorized third drugging horses in almost all states. Regardless of how the horse tested positive, the point of the rule is that the trainer is responsible. There is no million dollar question - the only question is, did the horse test positive? If the answer is yes, the trainer gets suspended as Preciado did. Your question - was she an authorized agent - is irrelevant. She was employed by Preciado and that gives him no defense.

I've researched and published on a number of these cases, including cases where it was clear the trainer had nothing to do with administering the drug that caused the violation. I've done cases where the racing commission has even concluded that the trainer had nothing to do with the positive but was fined and suspended because of the absolute insurers rule. I can tell you about cases where the positive was completely accidental, and proved so, and the trainer still got fined. I can tell you about cases where the owner treated a horse on the farm, shipped the horse to the track, never told the trainer the horse was treated, and the trainer still got fined after the horse tested positive.

As I said, some states have modified the rule to provide a defense if the trainer can prove an unauthorized third party (and employees of the trainer don't fit that definition) administered the drug. Essentially, unless you have clear evidence someone snuck into your barn and spiked the horse, and that person had no connection to your operation, you are toast. And even if you can prove it, in most states you are still toast.

Think about it. If a trainer could contend, sure she worked for me but she was not authorized to administer clenbuterol, and get away with it, the entire point of the absolute insurers rule goes poof. If this is Preciado's defense, he's still toast.

[cj]

His license has been revoked at Parx.

From Linda Dougherty (@PaThoroughbred) on Twitter:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Czfr_RdWEAILKsv.jpg

[Elliott Sidewater]

License revoked, loses photo in 2nd race, gets taken down in 3rd at Parx. Momma said there'd be days like this......there'd be days like this Momma said.

But it's not over by any means, he will appeal the license revocation on the basis of employee sabotage and may have a makeable case in court. IMO opinion this could reduce the penalty from permanent barring to a lengthy suspension, but we'll see.

[EasyGoer89]

Hopefully other tracks will honor this ban

[HalvOnHorseracing]

License revoked, loses photo in 2nd race, gets taken down in 3rd at Parx. Momma said there'd be days like this......there'd be days like this Momma said.

But it's not over by any means, he will appeal the license revocation on the basis of employee sabotage and may have a makeable case in court. IMO opinion this could reduce the penalty from permanent barring to a lengthy suspension, but we'll see.
Read the other visible part stewards order other than the circled section. The violation cited occurred July 3, 2016, well after Vega was terminated. An appeal on the basis of "employee sabotage" (a term not covered in the state regulations) would seem irrelevant if you were thinking the employee was Vega.

However, in my experience writing about medication/drug issues, if the stewards believe the trainer had nothing to do with the violation, they are often inclined to reduce the fine/suspension.

[dilanesp]

Sure...but racetrack rules don't always hold up in court.

This one does, at least in California.

Hope Penn's the same.

[Redboard]

I wonder if Marian Vega bet on the horses she drugged?

[cj]

I see that he is still running horses at Parx.

[Delawaretrainer]

FYI Ramon has a total of 18 positives. Many were after Vega was gone. She was a hotwalker at Parx, not a groom. She also gave an affidavit stating what she did, I mean who does that? Heard she was bailed out. By who? Where is she now? Probably out of the country. Not one person believes he was sabotaged at Parx.

[EasyGoer89]

FYI Ramon has a total of 18 positives. Many were after Vega was gone. She was a hotwalker at Parx, not a groom. She also gave an affidavit stating what she did, I mean who does that? Heard she was bailed out. By who? Where is she now? Probably out of the country. Not one person believes he was sabotaged at Parx.

Maybe they paid her off to say she sabotaged, i'm sure it won't be hard to see if she has been spending some 'extra money' recently.

[upthecreek]

http://www.drf.com/news/parx-refusing-entries-ramon-preciado

[Redboard]

The Pennsylvania Racing Commission revoked Preciado's racing license, effective Thursday(today).

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/other_sports/20161222_Parx_trainer_Preciado_has_licensed_revoke d.html

[EasyGoer89]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/218653/preciado-to-accept-license-revocation-in-pennsylvania

I'm confused as to why he would accept a bad if he's just an honest guy who had someone tamper with his horses? Odd.

I like the comment from the person who posted at blood horse as the first to respond to this article. Thumbs up, lots of people feel the same way.

[MONEY]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/218653/preciado-to-accept-license-revocation-in-pennsylvania

I'm confused as to why he would accept a bad if he's just an honest guy who had someone tamper with his horses? Odd.


Because it's time to lay low so that he can avoid the same fate as his former employee.

In August, Vega was arrested on race-fixing charges tied to administration of clenbuterol in horses in Preciado's stable.

[SuperPickle]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/218653/preciado-to-accept-license-revocation-in-pennsylvania

I'm confused as to why he would accept a bad if he's just an honest guy who had someone tamper with his horses? Odd.

I like the comment from the person who posted at blood horse as the first to respond to this article. Thumbs up, lots of people feel the same way.

Given its Parx and PA I'll just assume his horses go to some beard and they beat goes on.