Dutrow's License Revoked for 10 Years

[SuperPickle]

I was trying to make the point exclusion is not a cure all. In fact it's rarely effect and often not an option.

The statement the other poster made was "most if not all track can exclude" people they don't want. This is NOT True.

Here are some examples of exclusion...

Tampa Bay Down is privately owned. They were able to successfully exclude Jane Cibelli last meet because of this. Exclusion worked.

Delaware Park is also privately owned. They tried to exclude Juan Vasquez last meet. They were unable to do so. Even though they are privately owned they take money from the state of Delaware through slot subsidies. Therefore anyone who is licensed to race by the state has a right to compete for this money since it is technically the state's funding. So while they were unable to bar him from racing there they were able to bar him from stabling there since it is private property.

Penn National and Parx had the same issue with Burton Sipp in the 90's where the state forced them to let him enter and claim horses but he could not have stalls...

http://articles.philly.com/1993-07-2...iminal-charges

In addition NYRA can not exclude people because the track is owned by the state. That's why they fought for years for the commission to not give Jacobson a license because once he had it they had to let him race. Meadowlands and Monmouth could not exclude people when the NJSEA owned and operated them. They can now. Gural has thrown out some people. I'm not aware of Monmouth doing it.

So in short being privately owned does not mean you can exclude people. Depending on the state and their operating agreement with the state if they take money from the state they might be forced to let those licensed by the state race. Because more and more tracks rely on money coming from non-racing sources tracks are losing a lot of their autonomy in how they operate.

In a perfect world purses would all come from what goes through the windows and the tracks could pick and choose who got to compete. But now they take a lot of money from a lot of other places that comes with a lot of strings.

Exclusion is not a solution to keep bad guys out.
i

[rastajenk]

Excellent points. Especially your first sentence and the summary.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Respected racing writer John Pricci's articles from May of this year on the Rick Dutrow case.

Part 1
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/HRI-...ase-revisited/

Part 2
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/HRI-...om-the-start1/

I haven't looked at trainers ruled off tracks without an accompanying suspension, but in doing research for another article, I found that Charles Town refused to take entries from Julio Cartagena (now serving a suspension for nikethamide) and his daughter in 2008. His license was not suspended by West Virginia, and he was able to enter horses (whether or not this was legal) by running them under the different trainer's name. So he was essentially ruled off the track without being specifically ruled off the track. Cartagena was also ruled off the Florida tracks by the Florida Racing Commission through the use of a consent decree. I know trainers that have been ruled off the track after medication/drug positives but before they were convicted. So it may be the case that some jurisdictions can't arbitrarily rule a trainer off the track, but there may be ways to accomplish it.

The vast majority of Commission cases in every jurisdiction are plea bargained before a hearing is held. Most jurisdictions, like New York, will offer a trainer a deal that will give him a much smaller penalty in return for a guilty plea. In the case of a medication/drug positive, it is rare for a trainer not to take the plea bargain, especially since there are less than a handful of absolute insurer cases that went to court and were not won by the Commission. Commissions do pretty well in getting the last word.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Respected racing writer John Pricci's articles from May of this year on the Rick Dutrow case.

Part 1
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/HRI-...ase-revisited/

Part 2
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/HRI-...om-the-start1/

I haven't looked at trainers ruled off tracks without an accompanying suspension, but in doing research for another article, I found that Charles Town refused to take entries from Julio Cartagena (now serving a suspension for nikethamide) and his daughter in 2008. His license was not suspended by West Virginia, and he was able to enter horses (whether or not this was legal) by running them under the different trainer's name. So he was essentially ruled off the track without being specifically ruled off the track. Cartagena was also ruled off the Florida tracks by the Florida Racing Commission through the use of a consent decree. I know trainers that have been ruled off the track after medication/drug positives but before they were convicted. So it may be the case that some jurisdictions can't arbitrarily rule a trainer off the track, but there may be ways to accomplish it.

The vast majority of Commission cases in every jurisdiction are plea bargained before a hearing is held. Most jurisdictions, like New York, will offer a trainer a deal that will give him a much smaller penalty in return for a guilty plea. In the case of a medication/drug positive, it is rare for a trainer not to take the plea bargain, especially since there are less than a handful of absolute insurer cases that went to court and were not won by the Commission. Commissions do pretty well in getting the last word.

Honestly commissions do good work when they can. The deck is stacked against them but they do what they can.

I've always said if you want to clean up the sport then you support Biancone having a license. He's got a barn of 5-10 horses that almost no one else wants. His owners have abandoned him and it appears most good owners want nothing to do with him. I think its great that the whole backside has to watch him train 5-10 slow horses. It sends the message of "this is what happens when you get caught." I'd love to see him run one 40-1 shot in a Maiden $20K every week just as reminder.

I'm personally annoyed that a bunch of Durrow's owners continue to support his former assistants. It's got bad optics.

[cj]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Respected racing writer John Pricci's articles from May of this year on the Rick Dutrow case.

Part 1
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/HRI-...ase-revisited/

Part 2
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/HRI-...om-the-start1/

I haven't looked at trainers ruled off tracks without an accompanying suspension, but in doing research for another article, I found that Charles Town refused to take entries from Julio Cartagena (now serving a suspension for nikethamide) and his daughter in 2008. His license was not suspended by West Virginia, and he was able to enter horses (whether or not this was legal) by running them under the different trainer's name. So he was essentially ruled off the track without being specifically ruled off the track. Cartagena was also ruled off the Florida tracks by the Florida Racing Commission through the use of a consent decree. I know trainers that have been ruled off the track after medication/drug positives but before they were convicted. So it may be the case that some jurisdictions can't arbitrarily rule a trainer off the track, but there may be ways to accomplish it.

The vast majority of Commission cases in every jurisdiction are plea bargained before a hearing is held. Most jurisdictions, like New York, will offer a trainer a deal that will give him a much smaller penalty in return for a guilty plea. In the case of a medication/drug positive, it is rare for a trainer not to take the plea bargain, especially since there are less than a handful of absolute insurer cases that went to court and were not won by the Commission. Commissions do pretty well in getting the last word.

Cartagena should be in prison, not just banned.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

Honestly commissions do good work when they can. The deck is stacked against them but they do what they can.

I've always said if you want to clean up the sport then you support Biancone having a license. He's got a barn of 5-10 horses that almost no one else wants. His owners have abandoned him and it appears most good owners want nothing to do with him. I think its great that the whole backside has to watch him train 5-10 slow horses. It sends the message of "this is what happens when you get caught." I'd love to see him run one 40-1 shot in a Maiden $20K every week just as reminder.

I'm personally annoyed that a bunch of Durrow's owners continue to support his former assistants. It's got bad optics.

Good post Pickle.

There needs to be punishments to owners who support the bad apples of the game. Owners need to acquire 'demerits' when their trainer cheats, accrue enough demerits and some kind of punishment is levied, I'm thinking its not rocket science.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by cj

Cartagena should be in prison, not just banned.

I think you'd get a lot of support for that idea.

[nijinski]

The biggest case of lynching or use of a scapegoat in as far as I've followed the sport..
Dutrow. had a history of keeping lazy or sloppy records . He was not a cheater and his horses were in great condition . He opened his mouth on the use of steroids when it was in fact legal . Baffert was another who admitted . Most others hid that fact . Many used it but wimped out in public.

He does not have a history of using illegal enhancements or running broken down horses who's next stop is the slaughter auction .
Despite the most respected Vet in the business speaking on the good care his horses received ....the haters won out .
Enough time was served IMO , there a lot worse out there.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by nijinski

The biggest case of lynching or use of a scapegoat in as far as I've followed the sport..
Dutrow. had a history of keeping lazy or sloppy records . He was not a cheater and his horses were in great condition . He opened his mouth on the use of steroids when it was in fact legal . Baffert was another who admitted . Most others hid that fact . Many used it but wimped out in public.

He does not have a history of using illegal enhancements or running broken down horses who's next stop is the slaughter auction .
Despite the most respected Vet in the business speaking on the good care his horses received ....the haters won out .
Enough time was served IMO , there a lot worse out there.

This post is literally the biggest piece of crap on this board and that's saying a lot.

First, all you Dutrow apologists frame it like he only has procedural violations. Like it's all late to the paddock and foal paper b.s. It's not he has multiple medication violations.

But let's ignore that for a second.

Richard Dutrow Jr. was a central figure in using fraud to win Canada's biggest horse race. He really trained a horse raced under another person's name (Bobby Frankel.) He lied on paperwork about both the horse's health and works. He also lied about where he was stabled and filled out paperwork claiming he was a different horse. He and Daniel Borislow cashed huge. And let's not forget that Rudy Rod was the guy who actually saddled him that day in Toronto. So add him to the mix.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/a...p/t-21335.html

That's multi-state and international fraud to win over a million dollars in a betting contest. There's people in federal prison for far less.

Nice try

[westny]

Originally Posted by nijinski

The biggest case of lynching or use of a scapegoat in as far as I've followed the sport..
Dutrow. had a history of keeping lazy or sloppy records . He was not a cheater and his horses were in great condition . He opened his mouth on the use of steroids when it was in fact legal . Baffert was another who admitted . Most others hid that fact . Many used it but wimped out in public.

He does not have a history of using illegal enhancements or running broken down horses who's next stop is the slaughter auction .
Despite the most respected Vet in the business speaking on the good care his horses received ....the haters won out .
Enough time was served IMO , there a lot worse out there.

Speaking of a lot worse...no contest


he New York stewards have disqualified Box Office from his first-place finish in the fourth race Dec. 4 at Aqueduct and fined that horse’s owner-trainer Diane Balsamo, as well as trainer David Jacobson, for failure to disclose that Jacobson, who also ran a horse in that race, had a hidden financial interest in Box Office.
Winning horse paid $27.00+





http://www.drf.com/news/preview/bals...ncial-interest

[cj]

Originally Posted by westny

Speaking of a lot worse...no contest


he New York stewards have disqualified Box Office from his first-place finish in the fourth race Dec. 4 at Aqueduct and fined that horse’s owner-trainer Diane Balsamo, as well as trainer David Jacobson, for failure to disclose that Jacobson, who also ran a horse in that race, had a hidden financial interest in Box Office.
Winning horse paid $27.00+





http://www.drf.com/news/preview/bals...ncial-interest

I have no idea why any track would want a guy like Jacobson on the grounds.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

I have no idea why any track would want a guy like Jacobson on the grounds.

Don't let Pandy hear you say that.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by westny

Speaking of a lot worse...no contest


he New York stewards have disqualified Box Office from his first-place finish in the fourth race Dec. 4 at Aqueduct and fined that horse’s owner-trainer Diane Balsamo, as well as trainer David Jacobson, for failure to disclose that Jacobson, who also ran a horse in that race, had a hidden financial interest in Box Office.
Winning horse paid $27.00+





http://www.drf.com/news/preview/bals...ncial-interest

I wonder what's the story with that 'marvelous' horse who won a bunch of races for 'balsamo' at Saratoga, anyone remember the horse I'm talking about? S'mavelous or something like that, was Jacobson the owner of that horse too?

[SuperPickle]

Jacobson doesn't really "own" the horse. Apparently he has an arrangement with her where instead of paying him for feed, vet, exercise riding, etc she gives him half of any money the horse makes. It's a relatively common arrangement. Lots of trainers take a cut of winning instead of fees and the horses race under an "owners" name. Jacobson had the same deal with Winning Move when he trained for them.

Where its unKosher is he entering horses in the races where she enters her horses. You can't have an financial interest in any other horse you have a horse entered. This includes being able to bet other horses in the race.

I'm floored he wasn't suspended.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by cj

I have no idea why any track would want a guy like Jacobson on the grounds.

He's coming to California for the upcoming Santa Anita meet.