Delaware stiffens stable rule

[takeout]

http://horseracing.sportsline.com/cbs/headlines/showarticle.aspx?articleId=17396

First Indiana and now Delaware. Good stuff!

[ELA]

I saw this and took notice immediately. I haven't seen the document yet, but without question my legal counsel will look this over before I sign it. I have no problem signing -- I think it's a great idea and will put a great deal of bite in the bark. Enforcement is always a problem, and this is a very good move.

However, I would have a very big problem signing a document that exposes me to liability vis a vis something I have no control over. Sure, I'll sign that to the best of my knowledge the new trainer has no financial ties to the suspended trainer. I will sign stating that I won't pay the suspended trainer. I'll sign to many things. However, if the suspended trainer is getting paid by the new trainer, and I don't know anything about it, well, that's another story. The liability should be limited to the new and suspended trainers.

Eric

[Show Me the Wire]

you are correct ELA. The trainer should sign an affidavit saying there is not financial arrangement between him and the suspended trainer. The owner needs to swear he is not directly paying the suspended trainer.

[ELA]

I have no problem with that. If they make the trainer sign a document that he has no financial involvement with the new trainer, that's great. That will bind the new trainer and the suspended one. If they break the agreement, and the owner has no knowledge or involvement, the owner should have no liability whatsoever.

I am fine with holding the owner to the same standard. If the owner pays the suspended trainer and signed a document that he/she wouldn't, they should be held accountable and have liability. But there needs to be absolute clarification has to who was involved and who did and did not abide by the agreement.

Eric

[NY BRED]

this article is bizarre.

any affadavit relative to a new trainer substituting for a suspended
trainer should be dealt between the commission and the new trainer,
not the owner and commission.

How could any owner know if trainers had secret relationships with each other and be able to provide an affadavit confirming no relationships? This
affadavit of owners underscores the inability of a commission
to deal with their inefficiencies and places an owner at risk(including the horse) rather than the "police"/commission.

The obvious responsibility rests with the commission to place severe fines on
those trainers caught drugging their horses, with even stiffer penalties in
placing substitute trainers to continue receiving income, including identical
penalties to the "subs".

Owners not willing to deal with this exposure do have the option to switch barns and move to trainers with a clean history, although, under this ruling, owners could still place themselves in jeopardy were the "clean" trainer found
to have a relationship with the suspended trainer.