Calif. OWNERS face fines

[karlskorner]

It's about time.

http://www.thehorse.com/Viewarticle.aspx?ID=9425

[bobphilo]

It's about time.

http://www.thehorse.com/Viewarticle.aspx?ID=9425

Amen to that. Owners can't keep claiming ignorance of what's happening to their horses. Anyone who continues to employ a trainer with repeated positives is part of the problem and must be held responsible at some point for their horses.
Claims that this will discourage owners is rubbish. What it will do is discourage owners from using "juicers".

Bob

[Kelso]

From the article:

“… somebody has to go first, noted the commissioners."

“… ‘owners have to take responsibility for their investment and know what their trainers are doing,’ chairman Richard Shapiro said."

“Added commissioner Marie Moretti, ‘If you always wait for someone else to make the first move, no one will do anything.’"

“Owners fines have the support of the California Thoroughbred Trainers, said CTT executive director Ed Halpern. ‘It's time for owners to take responsibility in our sport just like they do in all other professional sports ... We don't want trainers who may be pushing the envelope. We're not scaring owners away. We're telling people, in California, they don't allow cheats.’"



At long last, a California precedent worthy of emulation by other states. I think it is particularly telling that the trainers' group strongly supports the move; a solid indication that not all pressure for equine drug abuse originates within the barns.

[ELA]

I had heard about this when it was in the disucssion phase. While I don't race in CA, I have friends who do. While I think a "drastic" move is long overdue -- massive reform, uniform medication rules, standardized testing and penalties -- this might not be the most effective measure. Sure, on the surface it may appear to potentially accomplish a lot. However, that might be a myopic view.

In addition, this could be a very slippery slope. The "third strike" is a good standard, but I think we will see some problematic issues here. On a side note -- this rule may face some legal hurdles, or at least some opposition. It may not be an issue, but if it comes into play, it might not be until there is an infraction.

Anyway, I've never had a horse test positive, and I've been in the horse business for over 20 years. Regardless, I think there will be a spectrum of possibilities here. Opening up owners to liabilities -- which can be far greater than a suspension or financial -- can be a very dangerous thing.

Eric

[Greyfox]

Good luck.
I wish it could happen, but the idea is in "Never Neverland" territory.
Then again Disneyland (Anaheim) is there too isn't it.
The Cal Rac. Com can write the rules. They can threaten. But
try and implement them. We'll see who has the balls then.
They can't even seem to nail the Super Trainers there now.
The owners? Some could buy and sell that commission.
If I owned a horse and was fined for having an illegal enhancing substance in it, I'd tie the California Courts and the California Racing Commission up for years.
Why would I be to blame? I'd need Insurance to cover my hiring of the trainer.
This kite ain't gonna fly.
Looks good on paper. But :lol: take a guy like Merv Griffin to court because his trainer has "juiced" a horse.
Good luck.
He's got more money than the Commission.
And appeals.
The idea looks good on paper.
But I've tried a lot of times in wind to get kites to fly and this one won't fly.

[kenwoodallpromos]

TOC is against it; I have 1 word for owners who hate it- Goodbye!
My brother got into betting on racing in Ca because of early speed and being able to pick winners. He did not mind how. As the years went by he complained much about fixes, stiffs and such for the last 10 years.
What he really was seeing was a few cheating trainers, but mainly early speedsters running injured and slowing down too soon, and attempts through the condition books to equalize competition.
At any rate, this is a good thing among several good things Ca is trying.
IMO too many owners have no clue about anything about racing, just want to claim they are a race horse owner, so they allow anything to go on on the backside and foot the bill.
Anyone who owns racehorses needs to take responsibility enough to get involved.
I know of an absentee owner who was afraid of the trainer. She claimed a horse with major stomach ulcer and let her trainer race it after 18 days instead of waiting at least 1 month; The trainer, who promised not to run the horse sooner than 21 days, ran it sooner 3 of 4 races, then got upset with me when I suggested she make an inquiry.
An owner has to realize that makes them a business owner because the racer is in business for the owner.

[plainolebill]

I don't know what the outcome will be but I'm in favor of the proposal and I'm sure the majority of the trainers are behind it because they believe it will take some of the pressure off of them to 'keep up with the Mullins' ' (no offense Jeff).

[Tom]

I think, ultimately, the OWNER is the primary responsible party. He owns the horses, employes the trainer, the vets, etc. HE may want to sit fat and saasy ans claim ignorance, but He should be held repsonsible for whatever happens due too HIS putting the horse on the track.

[john del riccio]

I think, ultimately, the OWNER is the primary responsible party. He owns the horses, employes the trainer, the vets, etc. HE may want to sit fat and saasy ans claim ignorance, but He should be held repsonsible for whatever happens due too HIS putting the horse on the track.

tom,

the owners don't employ the vets, the trainer does, the owner just foots the bill. if this ever went into effect on the east coasr, i'd turn in my owners license because its a crock of %$!*.

this ain't the way the game is played. many owners never even SEE there horse until it strolls into the paddock on race day. how can they be held responsible ?

some owners change trainers more often than they change clothes, a falling out presents the trainer with the ability to "stick it to" the disgruntled owner prior to him leaving by going a little overboard with the vet work ?

i think this is a result of eating too much tofo out there.

john

[Tom]

The owner employes the trainers, who hires the vet. Extension of responsibility. Owners whould be repsonsible for thier trainers action, no?

[JPinMaryland]

sometimes legally an employer can be held responsible for an employees actions if they occurred in the course of employment and were foreseeable. Other times when they do something illegal, then "no." One would think it is already illegal, so extending responsibility to an owner is something like holding them responsible for a theft or a murder.

Major legal challenge here, I would think.

THis seeems likes a "feel good" measure with serious long terms effects.

Why not take away stall space from trainers? How about taking purses away from all of a traine's winners w/in a month prior to a positive?

THe current measure would just seem to encourage owners to move elsewhere.

[john del riccio]

The owner employes the trainers, who hires the vet. Extension of responsibility. Owners whould be repsonsible for thier trainers action, no?

tom,

true story. 2 years ago, i claimed a 5k claimer because she looked OK but her name had the nickname i call my daughter. i know, no reason to claim a horse but i thought if she won, i'd have a winners circle pic with the name and my daughter with me. as it turned out, she did win for me & paid 31.00 to win !
thats the good part, heres the bad part. she comes back lame, but the trainer works on her and we get her back to the races. the exercise boy was told by the previous owners they were claiming her back. he tells them she came out of the last race bad. they don't re-claim her, she never races again due to physical problems. the assistant trainer finds out what the exercise rider did and goes ballistic. he tells me & i an't too happy. financially, i break even because she won the purse and i cashed a nice bet. is the TRAINER responsible for what is in affect his EMPLOYEE breaching convidential information (similiar to inser trading regulated by the SEC) ?

john

[Tom]

Obviously he should have fired the big mouth.
As an owner whould do when his trainer repeatedly runs afould of the rule.
You can't hide from responsibilty.
YOUR trainer revealed comfidential business information to an employee, who used it to hurt you.
I would fire the tainer,as yes, I would hold him responsible for the incident.

[Greyfox]

Major legal challenge here, I would think.

.

Right on JPinMaryland.
I read a couple of years back that the California Horse Racing Board's budget is in the neighbourhood of $ 2.5 million dollars each year.
I tried to look it up on their site http://chrb.ca.gov/ but couldn't find it.
Bob Baffert alone had them tied up in court for years.
Even if their budget is say $ 5 million a year, a few owner's challenges in court could dent that pretty hard.
My thinking is that they'll have the rule on paper.
Chances are they won't ever employ it, except to some small time owner who is scapegoated as an example.

[Show Me the Wire]

Tom:

The exercise boy would have known the horse was lame after getting on it. The trainer would not have had to tell the exercise rider anything.

The question is did the exercise rider work exclusively for the trainer or a free lancer?

BTW this type of stuff goes on all the time on the backside.

[Tom]

Point taken.
I just assumed integrity would preclude the boy from revealing inforamation about a horse owned by somebody else who paid him to ride it.
I guess I was assuming too much!:rolleyes:

[DJofSD]

More like $10 million. (http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/general_govt/gen_16_8550_anl06.html)

[Greyfox]

More like $10 million. (http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2006/general_govt/gen_16_8550_anl06.html)

Thanks DJofSD.
Hope they've budgeted for legal challenges if they try to charge any well-heeled owners. Wonder how they'd handle Stronach if any of his came up juiced?:lol:

[plainolebill]

Ask the former CEO of Qwest or Ken Lay if you can dig him up...these guys aren't immune from the law, they just think they are.

[plainolebill]

BTW California seems to have gotten the 'supertrainers' toned down a bit. The win percentages have dropped to the believable level and I'm not seeing the huge turnarounds after a claim.

Mullins is ~20% and Mitchell 16% or thereabouts. That's a far cry from what they were doing a few years ago.

[JustRalph]

they don't have the balls to do it.............

[kenwoodallpromos]

I just pay the bills, but no not employ them?
I have heard of many absentee business and tenement owners who claim no responsibility also because they are not hands on.
Who deducts the vet bills from their taxes?
Why should anyone invest even $5k into a business and not have a say in it? might as well just buy into Team Valor.

[john del riccio]

I just pay the bills, but no not employ them?
I have heard of many absentee business and tenement owners who claim no responsibility also because they are not hands on.
Who deducts the vet bills from their taxes?
Why should anyone invest even $5k into a business and not have a say in it? might as well just buy into Team Valor.

That is not what I am saying. Getting to the barn to watch your horse train,
and talk to the vet yourself, for each horse you own is an impossibility if you have a life.

John

[Indulto]

BTW California seems to have gotten the 'supertrainers' toned down a bit. The win percentages have dropped to the believable level and I'm not seeing the huge turnarounds after a claim.

Mullins is ~20% and Mitchell 16% or thereabouts. That's a far cry from what they were doing a few years ago.I'm still waiting for O'Neil's out-of-state numbers to echo his Thor-like CA record. Interesting that the BC Sprint winner's winning ways deserted him in the desert without his former trainer to maintain the form the Sheikh thought was chic.

That said, I am a big fan of O'Neil, not just because he fields winners even I can predict, but because he makes himself accessible to the media and is forthright about his horses chances in his frequent appearances on ATRAB.

[kenwoodallpromos]

I'm not replying based on your intent- just on your words.
"if this ever went into effect on the east coasr, i'd turn in my owners license because its a crock of %$!*.

"Owners would not be fined until a third offense in major drug categories."
That may be your opinion, but this new rule allows 2 dirty tests PRIOR to the owner facing problems. If you want to keep employing trainers that have already lost you 2 purses, you take your chances in Ca now, or keep allowing your trainer to cheat on the east coast.
If your attitude is to keep having the same person running your operation after 2 dirty violations, remind me not to eat in any restaurants you own!!lol!!

[Indulto]

... 2 years ago, i claimed a 5k claimer because she looked OK but her name had the nickname i call my daughter. i know, no reason to claim a horse but i thought if she won, i'd have a winners circle pic with the name and my daughter with me. as it turned out, she did win for me & paid 31.00 to win !
thats the good part, heres the bad part. she comes back lame, but the trainer works on her and we get her back to the races. the exercise boy was told by the previous owners they were claiming her back. he tells them she came out of the last race bad. they don't re-claim her, she never races again due to physical problems.JDR,
Is the rest of the story that the horse is now your daughter's pet, or pet food for someone else; assuming that as cheap as she was, the horse had no breeding potential? (Just curious ... not judgmental.)

[john del riccio]

I'm not replying based on your intent- just on your words.
"if this ever went into effect on the east coasr, i'd turn in my owners license because its a crock of %$!*.

"Owners would not be fined until a third offense in major drug categories."
That may be your opinion, but this new rule allows 2 dirty tests PRIOR to the owner facing problems. If you want to keep employing trainers that have already lost you 2 purses, you take your chances in Ca now, or keep allowing your trainer to cheat on the east coast.
If your attitude is to keep having the same person running your operation after 2 dirty violations, remind me not to eat in any restaurants you own!!lol!!

Ken,

I claim ignorance, I was unaware of the fines only on tyhe 3rd violation. That is then very reasonable in my opinion. I guess I should read the fine print !

John

[john del riccio]

JDR,
Is the rest of the story that the horse is now your daughter's pet, or pet food for someone else; assuming that as cheap as she was, the horse had no breeding potential? (Just curious ... not judgmental.)

She was given away as a pony.

John

[Indulto]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/84224.html (http://www.drf.com/news/article/84224.html)

Bill would send casino money to tracks By STEVE ANDERSEN

… The bill is designed to aid racetracks without allowing them to install slot machines. Racetracks last sought slot machines through a 2004 referendum, which was roundly defeated by state voters.

In addition to mandating a payment from Native American tribes, the bill will allow tracks to retain their license fees - estimated at $40 million annually - and redirect them toward purses, breeders' awards, marketing programs, and a health and welfare program for jockeys.Perhaps the owner penalty rules were necessary to get the casino money.

[Kelso]

THe current measure would just seem to encourage owners to move elsewhere.

As well, it should encourage RESPONSIBLE owners to move to REPUTABLE trainers.

If trainers who practice ... and/or owners who tolerate ... chemical cheating were to leave California, I don't think California racing would suffer at all for it. Wouldn't surprise me if the exodus eventually attracts handle to the state's tracks.

[kenwoodallpromos]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/84224.html (http://www.drf.com/news/article/84224.html)

Perhaps the owner penalty rules were necessary to get the casino money.[/color]
_______________
Nice idea- but Ca just passed a bill giving 22,500 more slots to the indians a few days ago. This is supposed to be a saver that WILL BE proposed, so good luck!

[Greyfox]

They're sending a message. The C.H.R.B. that is.
" This sends the message that the integrity of the game is protected."
Take a peak at Steve Andersen's presentation of the idea at
http://www.drf.com/news/article/84217.html

and note Richard Shapiro's comment (b.s. protectors needed).

"We do things better than other states. We have a higher standard out here. California has the most level playing field. (Yeah. The races are mostly downhill.)

:lol: :lol:

So the kite will always be on paper.
The "message sent" will be on paper.
But other than a bad luck owner-trainer named Joe Btfsplk,
the kite won't fly.
Never heard of Joe Btfsplk? :lol: Google him. Just go to google and type in
btfsplk. (Of course that might be me on a given day too.)

[Tom]

I guess the owners of that KFC in NYC was too busy to know his restaurant was hold rat dances in the windows every night too. :rolleyes::lol:

Ownership, of anything, involves responsiblility.
As Ken points out, i speak from the public's point of view....if I have to get screwed by cheaters three times, I have no sympathy for "busy" owners. I say, one strike and you get the full penalty of the rules thorwn at you. Maybe then you will find time to hire responsible people. I think a fair penalty would be 10 times the purse value of the race you cheat in. The only way to clean up cheating is to have zero tolerance for it. The fans do not hire cheating trainers...OWNERS do.

[Indulto]

_______________
Nice idea- but Ca just passed a bill giving 22,500 more slots to the indians a few days ago. This is supposed to be a saver that WILL BE proposed, so good luck!KW,
My feeling is that Shapiro and his supporters on the CHRB board are really trying to save racing in CA for the long-term whether or not slots are ever part of the equation. I think this decision re: owners, and the one not to grant BM a waiver, are consistent with that approach. In case some non-Californians aren't aware, most of the board members are owners.

With Dixon Downs out of the picture, I believe GG and the fairs will be able to take up the SF Bay area slack (especially with fewer races, if not dates). A synthetic surface at Sacramento could make nightly 6-race cards with low-minimum, full-field pick sixes available for off-track play and prime time viewing by the entire state. It could draw from Emerald Downs and Canada as well as NoCal. It's possible the Governor and the State Legislature will be more supportive of that track's operation.

Some industry jobs in Alameda County will have to relocate, and a few lost forever, but if BM is closing for certain, then the sooner the better (Harris' B-H opinion not withstanding).

What I don't see the CHRB doing currently is placing sufficient emphasis on increasing off-track handle, while staying committed to increasing on-track attendance. They gave lip service to it during the ADW licensing hearings, but then granted TVG a license without forcing them into an agreement with Expressbet to handle each other's content. The timing suggests the joint MEC-CDI effort began in earnest after that.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Pleasanton is about 25 miles from the GGF- it is less than 5 miles from the 580-680 exchange, less than 50 miles from all of the East Bay, San Jose, and Stockton. The 680 corridor is a very decent income are. The afternoon traffic flow is away from the bay area; Livermore, about 5 miles away, is still heavily horse-orientated.
Pleasanton has one of the oldest tracks and enough parking and stable space already, along with a separate OTB. It is in Alameda COunty as is GGF; is on the fairgrounds, so will never be privately held. The only thing is does not currently have is a 3/4 mile turf coures where the infield is now and polytrack.

[jotb]

[QUOTE=john del riccio]tom,

true story. 2 years ago, i claimed a 5k claimer because she looked OK but her name had the nickname i call my daughter. i know, no reason to claim a horse but i thought if she won, i'd have a winners circle pic with the name and my daughter with me. as it turned out, she did win for me & paid 31.00 to win !
thats the good part, heres the bad part. she comes back lame, but the trainer works on her and we get her back to the races. the exercise boy was told by the previous owners they were claiming her back. he tells them she came out of the last race bad. they don't re-claim her, she never races again due to physical problems. the assistant trainer finds out what the exercise rider did and goes ballistic. he tells me & i an't too happy. financially, i break even because she won the purse and i cashed a nice bet. is the TRAINER responsible for what is in affect his EMPLOYEE breaching convidential information (similiar to inser trading regulated by the SEC) ?

Hey John:

Who was your trainer at the time?

Thanks,
Joe

[kenwoodallpromos]

[QUOTE=john del riccio]tom,

true story. 2 years ago, i claimed a 5k claimer because she looked OK but her name had the nickname i call my daughter. i know, no reason to claim a horse but i thought if she won, i'd have a winners circle pic with the name and my daughter with me. as it turned out, she did win for me & paid 31.00 to win !
thats the good part, heres the bad part. she comes back lame, but the trainer works on her and we get her back to the races. the exercise boy was told by the previous owners they were claiming her back. he tells them she came out of the last race bad. they don't re-claim her, she never races again due to physical problems. the assistant trainer finds out what the exercise rider did and goes ballistic. he tells me & i an't too happy. financially, i break even because she won the purse and i cashed a nice bet. is the TRAINER responsible for what is in affect his EMPLOYEE breaching convidential information (similiar to inser trading regulated by the SEC) ?

Hey John:

Who was your trainer at the time?

Thanks,
Joe
______________________
The story is a good example, for better or worse, of the attitude that prevents medical records from following the horse. By coincidence horse was soon retired with injuries. I suspect the previous trainer may have had an idea what was wrong with the horse prior to John's claim.
IMO the result of the tradition of claiming always resulting in buying a pig in a poke and everyone keeping guessing what is wrong with racehorses is an artificially and uneccessarily low bottom claiming level, unfit horses, running back too soon, bad owner investment and overspending, and decreased wagering.
Of course, that is a general blanket opinion and each situation is different! I'm glad no money was lost by a PA member!!
John- just so I do not assume, why exactly were you not too happy about a possible claimant knowing the medical condition of the horse?

[kenwoodallpromos]

"Musical chairs is a game played by a group of people (usually children), often in an informal setting purely for entertainment. The game starts with any number of players and a number of chairs one fewer than the number of players; the chairs are arranged in a circle... While the music is playing, the players in the circle walk in unison around the chairs. When the music controller suddenly shuts off the music, everyone must race to sit down in one of the chairs. The player who is left without a chair is eliminated from the game, and one chair is also removed to ensure that there will always be one fewer chair than there are players. The music resumes and the cycle repeats until there is only one player left in the game, who is the winner."

(Similar games are called "Time Bomb", "hot potato", and "racehorse claiming"!)LOL!!

[john del riccio]

[QUOTE=john del riccio]tom,

true story. 2 years ago, i claimed a 5k claimer because she looked OK but her name had the nickname i call my daughter. i know, no reason to claim a horse but i thought if she won, i'd have a winners circle pic with the name and my daughter with me. as it turned out, she did win for me & paid 31.00 to win !
thats the good part, heres the bad part. she comes back lame, but the trainer works on her and we get her back to the races. the exercise boy was told by the previous owners they were claiming her back. he tells them she came out of the last race bad. they don't re-claim her, she never races again due to physical problems. the assistant trainer finds out what the exercise rider did and goes ballistic. he tells me & i an't too happy. financially, i break even because she won the purse and i cashed a nice bet. is the TRAINER responsible for what is in affect his EMPLOYEE breaching convidential information (similiar to inser trading regulated by the SEC) ?

Hey John:

Who was your trainer at the time?

Thanks,
Joe

joe,

i think its best to keep that out of this discussion. i understand why you would ask but i have to exercise better judgement and refrain. suffice to say
that unless you have VERY deep pockets, it is best to tread lightly on the backstretch if you cannot be pro-active. my best years owning horses were when i was around the barn several times a week, i do NOT think its a coincidence. i have backed off claiming in a very big way of late and would love to get back involved because i have a very big edge with what i do.
part of my apprehensiveness is due to the soundness issues, the other part is because of the "backstretch blues". unfortunately, my schedule doesn't allow me to be as proactive as i once was because i am a single parent of two young children. the best i can say is that if you aren't pro-active owner, you will get hurt one way or another if the people handling your stock don't look out for YOUR interest; either by your lack of current knowledge or by your absentee-ism, bad things will surely happen. needless to say, i have a fire that burns for the claiming game and can do quite well when i am comfortable with whats going on on the backside. my record with identifying potential claims is quite good but in todays day and age, you need much more help in terms of which horses are crippled and which ones are not. without
that, its like liars poker cubed !

john

[jotb]

[QUOTE=jotb]

joe,

i think its best to keep that out of this discussion. i understand why you would ask but i have to exercise better judgement and refrain. suffice to say
that unless you have VERY deep pockets, it is best to tread lightly on the backstretch if you cannot be pro-active. my best years owning horses were when i was around the barn several times a week, i do NOT think its a coincidence. i have backed off claiming in a very big way of late and would love to get back involved because i have a very big edge with what i do.
part of my apprehensiveness is due to the soundness issues, the other part is because of the "backstretch blues". unfortunately, my schedule doesn't allow me to be as proactive as i once was because i am a single parent of two young children. the best i can say is that if you aren't pro-active owner, you will get hurt one way or another if the people handling your stock don't look out for YOUR interest; either by your lack of current knowledge or by your absentee-ism, bad things will surely happen. needless to say, i have a fire that burns for the claiming game and can do quite well when i am comfortable with whats going on on the backside. my record with identifying potential claims is quite good but in todays day and age, you need much more help in terms of which horses are crippled and which ones are not. without
that, its like liars poker cubed !

john


Hello John:

I was only asking who the trainer was because I thought I knew who the filly was until I read that you re-entered the filly and the previous connections didn't claim her back but on the the other hand you also said she never ran again. If it's the filly that I'm thinking of you had claimed her for 6,250 and then she won her next start for a nickle.

Best regards,
Joe

[ELA]

One thing I'll tell you about Joe -- he knows his game!

Eric

[john del riccio]

One thing I'll tell you about Joe -- he knows his game!

Eric

He nailed it....and he & I have some stuff in common outside of racing which makes this whole thing all the more cosmic!

John