Jerry Hollendorfer Banned from Santa Anita

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Which of course is BS. Racing has to stop allowing assistants and family members to carry on for owners and trainers who are in trouble/suspended/revoked. The BC thing was ridiculous. As if transferring ownership of that mare to his wife makes a single difference, yet they allowed it, and under Ward's name.

This guy has thirty five violations on his record since 2005, Time to run him out Dodge for the good of racing going forward.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by sammy the sage

Yet you crucify another with-out due process....Baffert ACTUALLY got his and SKATED....

I don't think we can be privy to everything that happens at a race track, and certainly not if racing isn't clean and more drug free.

You left out this incident, but I also don't know if the CHRB accidentally throws away samples of blood for other trainers (like they did with Baffert's Nautical Look in 2000 for morphine, rendering it impossible to test a split sample) and which was originally claimed to be environmental contamination because yes, the amount was very small.

I remember during the SDS deaths of baffert's horses, one vet said that the practice of routinely administering Thyro-L was not unusual. So I guess that has been used quite a lot, too and he is surely not the only one.

At this point, unless we can achieve more drug free racing we'll be picking off trainers one-by-one right?


Did you see Asmussen just got nabbed again (fined, suspended) for drug overages (Ace). The purses for the horses were also forfeited.

Do big name award winning trainers inject all their horses with Ace to keep them relaxed, then lasix on race day in addition to whatever else?

My blood pressure is going up again, thinking and wondering about all this, and I try to keep an open mind as much as possible; other days I think it's time to walk away from U.S. racing for a while and come back after they make some changes.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

As if transferring ownership of that mare to his wife makes a single difference, yet they allowed it, and under Ward's name.

I was inclined to agree with you, until I read other opinions in similar topics, which pointed out that owners shouldn't suffer the consequences of trainer suspensions.

One could argue they should be more careful about who they send horses to, but still.....how much back-story do you need to know in order to do that?

I am still in the soup on this issue.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by clicknow

I was inclined to agree with you, until I read other opinions in similar topics, which pointed out that owners shouldn't suffer the consequences of trainer suspensions.

One could argue they should be more careful about who they send horses to, but still.....how much back-story do you need to know in order to do that?

I am still in the soup on this issue.

I've heard that one, but have to disagree. The owners will be ok. They already do suffer the consequences of trainers' actions (for example, they can be out of purse money or have to wait on purse money for months or years due to drug violations). Owners will just have to move their horses to a new trainer. The greater good is served this way.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by clicknow

I was inclined to agree with you, until I read other opinions in similar topics, which pointed out that owners shouldn't suffer the consequences of trainer suspensions.

One could argue they should be more careful about who they send horses to, but still.....how much back-story do you need to know in order to do that?

I am still in the soup on this issue.

I do not feel sorry for the owners at all. They pay the bills and know what drugs are going into their horses. If the owners get "hurt" by using a trainer that gets a drug violation, may be they will be more careful of who and how their horses are being trained in the future. By making it easy for them to name the assistant the trainer, and carry on, the drug violation is voided, and the only penalty is the fines. Makes a mockery of the whole system. Like Assmussen at CD, he will run his horses under his assistants name for 30 days. His assistant was the one that oversaw the administration of the drugs in the first place, and in all probability, was the one that consulted with the vet in the first place to get the drugs. Now he gets to profit from the whole thing. With a system like this, is there any wonder why there is a drug problem?

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by jay68802

I do not feel sorry for the owners at all. They pay the bills and know what drugs are going into their horses. If the owners get "hurt" by using a trainer that gets a drug violation, may be they will be more careful of who and how their horses are being trained in the future. By making it easy for them to name the assistant the trainer, and carry on, the drug violation is voided, and the only penalty is the fines. Makes a mockery of the whole system. Like Assmussen at CD, he will run his horses under his assistants name for 30 days. His assistant was the one that oversaw the administration of the drugs in the first place, and in all probability, was the one that consulted with the vet in the first place to get the drugs. Now he gets to profit from the whole thing. With a system like this, is there any wonder why there is a drug problem?

Listening to Chuck Simon on ATR a couple days ago talking about the state of the industry, I’d theorize some owners DON’T know what’s going into their horses because they’re NOT getting the bills.

1) Some trainers still charge a day rate that doesn’t include vet bills. (This is what I was used to as an owner.)
2) Others charge an all-encompassing (including “normal” vet bills) day rate
3) Others are on a deal, where the trainer is on the hook for all the charges - in return, the trainer gets a much larger percentage of purses won as payment.

Under options 2 & 3, the owner isn’t going to know. And sadly, with option 3, there’s much more temptation for a trainer, especially a struggling one, to push the envelope.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by BarchCapper

Listening to Chuck Simon on ATR a couple days ago talking about the state of the industry, I’d theorize some owners DON’T know what’s going into their horses because they’re NOT getting the bills.

1) Some trainers still charge a day rate that doesn’t include vet bills. (This is what I was used to as an owner.)
2) Others charge an all-encompassing (including “normal” vet bills) day rate
3) Others are on a deal, where the trainer is on the hook for all the charges - in return, the trainer gets a much larger percentage of purses won as payment.

Under options 2 & 3, the owner isn’t going to know. And sadly, with option 3, there’s much more temptation for a trainer, especially a struggling one, to push the envelope.

I was different, I guess, as a owner. Anything that was done that we had to pay for, we approved before hand. May be change it so the owner has to be informed beforehand of any and all medications administered to their horses? Get rid of the excuses. The drug problem effects everyone differently, but remains a problem. With racing writing the rules with holes in them that are this big, it just allows for the continuation of the same cycle.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by jay68802

I was different, I guess, as a owner. Anything that was done that we had to pay for, we approved before hand. May be change it so the owner has to be informed beforehand of any and all medications administered to their horses? Get rid of the excuses. The drug problem effects everyone differently, but remains a problem. With racing writing the rules with holes in them that are this big, it just allows for the continuation of the same cycle.

It appears that 2 & 3 are somewhat recent developments. When we owned in the 90’s-00’s, we too were asked about anything extra vet-wise that wasn’t part of regular routine, but that regular stuff was detailed on the bills also.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by clicknow

I was inclined to agree with you, until I read other opinions in similar topics, which pointed out that owners shouldn't suffer the consequences of trainer suspensions.

One could argue they should be more careful about who they send horses to, but still.....how much back-story do you need to know in order to do that?

I am still in the soup on this issue.

Owners should be responsible. In tort law we call that the cheapest cost avoider. Owners are in the best position to stop trainers from cheating, and they will if they pay the price.

EDIT: By the way, owners in other sports do pay the price. If your team's star player gets suspended for PED's, it hurts your team and your attendance. And nobody says "that's unfair to the owner".

[Tom]

Seems to go without saying - the owner is ALWAYS the ultimate responsibility. You cannot delegate responsibility.

That is why I say when a horse is DQ for other than jockey antics, the OWNER should be suspended as well, - his entire stable.

I don't really care about what is fair to owners. I am only concerned with what is fair to the CUSTOMERS of the game - the bettors.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by Tom

Seems to go without saying - the owner is ALWAYS the ultimate responsibility. You cannot delegate responsibility.

That is why I say when a horse is DQ for other than jockey antics, the OWNER should be suspended as well, - his entire stable.

I don't really care about what is fair to owners. I am only concerned with what is fair to the CUSTOMERS of the game - the bettors.

One of the challenges with that in this day and age are all the owners with multiple trainers. Suspensions of owners could affect truly innocent trainers, some who might already be behind the 8 ball because they don’t cut any corners.

That’s been the oddest change for me in my return to the game. All the intertwined owner partnerships and owners who have 3-4 trainers on the same circuit.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by BarchCapper

One of the challenges with that in this day and age are all the owners with multiple trainers. Suspensions of owners could affect truly innocent trainers, some who might already be behind the 8 ball because they don’t cut any corners.

That’s been the oddest change for me in my return to the game. All the intertwined owner partnerships and owners who have 3-4 trainers on the same circuit.

Suspensions of star players in other sports harm innocent teammates too. They still do them.

It just seems to me that there's always a thousand excuses in horse racing for not doing what every other sport considers standard.

[Frost king]

If you suspend the ones paying the bills, and the horse has to sit in the barn not making any money, then the suspect trainers would have one of two options. Clean up their act or go out of business. By suspending owners, than the trainers become the cops, and they will make sure nothing gets into the horses under their control.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Tom

Seems to go without saying - the owner is ALWAYS the ultimate responsibility. You cannot delegate responsibility.

That is why I say when a horse is DQ for other than jockey antics, the OWNER should be suspended as well, - his entire stable.

I don't really care about what is fair to owners. I am only concerned with what is fair to the CUSTOMERS of the game - the bettors.

That goes way too far. And you better care about the owners else you have no sport to bet on. They’re bigger gamblers than you are.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Originally Posted by Frost king

If you suspend the ones paying the bills, and the horse has to sit in the barn not making any money, then the suspect trainers would have one of two options. Clean up their act or go out of business. By suspending owners, than the trainers become the cops, and they will make sure nothing gets into the horses under their control.

Or the owners ship out to another state that undoubtedly will not honor another state's suspension of the owner, then the owner ships back in when the suspension is up. Owners are the track's customers too