Lezcano, Ortiz, Jr. and L. Saez suspended

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by jay68802

How about just enforce the rules. If a jockey is suspended, he or she does not ride. The jockey does not get to serve the suspension when it fits his or her schedule. If a trainer is suspended, all the horses in his care at the time of the infraction are not raced. The suspensions are for rules violations that affect the betting public, and in these cases, what happens with the owners, trainers, and jockeys is not, and should not be considered.

That's not accurate. If a trainer is suspended the horses that are already entered are allowed to run. The trainer cannot make entries starting with the 1st day of the suspension.

I have seen instances where the trainer of record can be changed and allowed to run with an announcement made to the public. Owners shouldn't be punished if a trainer is sanctioned for something that had nothing to do with their string of horses.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

That's not accurate. If a trainer is suspended the horses that are already entered are allowed to run. The trainer cannot make entries starting with the 1st day of the suspension.

I have seen instances where the trainer of record can be changed and allowed to run with an announcement made to the public. Owners shouldn't be punished if a trainer is sanctioned for something that had nothing to do with their string of horses.

This whole thing about not punishing owners is unique to horseracing.

The NBA Commissioner never says "I won't suspend that player, because it might hurt the team owner." Boxing regulators don't say they won't suspend a boxer because it might hurt his promoter.

This doesn't exist in any other sport, and it is seriously screwed up that racing officials think it is required that they mitigate punishments to ensure that owners- who, bear in mind, BENEFIT from cheating on their behalf- don't suffer any harm.

[Tom]

The owners own the horses and thr trainers work for them.
It is their ultimate responsibility.

Of course they should be fines/suspended.
Should only take one time until trainer gets read the riot act ar fired.

[AskinHaskin]

Originally Posted by MadVindication

Optional refund would be nice. For example, if a horse loses a rider and runs in front for half the damn race effecting the outcome, bettors should get a refund if they want. Yet if they win they can keep the winnings. Track is responsible to honor the pool. Customer is always right everywhere else.

ROFL

Why limit yourself???

Why don't you have "Optional Refund" on all of the horses you bet??

(screw everybody else)

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

That's not accurate. If a trainer is suspended the horses that are already entered are allowed to run. The trainer cannot make entries starting with the 1st day of the suspension.

I have seen instances where the trainer of record can be changed and allowed to run with an announcement made to the public. Owners shouldn't be punished if a trainer is sanctioned for something that had nothing to do with their string of horses.

What's not accurate? It is a opinion of what should happen. How many times have we seen a trainer get hit with multiple violations in a short period of time? By not allowing his horses to run, this is prevented. I you want the Owners protected, have their horses pass a drug test before the race. Protecting the betting public should be the first priority, not protecting the person that paid the trainer to cheat.

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by jay68802

What's not accurate? It is a opinion of what should happen. How many times have we seen a trainer get hit with multiple violations in a short period of time? By not allowing his horses to run, this is prevented. I you want the Owners protected, have their horses pass a drug test before the race. Protecting the betting public should be the first priority, not protecting the person that paid the trainer to cheat.

you have made a very valid point about the owner that pays the trainer. but you have only struck upon what has turned into the biggest problem in this game today. to few owners that own most of the horses that distribute them to very few trainers. this is America, but we need limits now.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by jay68802

What's not accurate? It is a opinion of what should happen. How many times have we seen a trainer get hit with multiple violations in a short period of time? By not allowing his horses to run, this is prevented. I you want the Owners protected, have their horses pass a drug test before the race. Protecting the betting public should be the first priority, not protecting the person that paid the trainer to cheat.

I was stating how the rule is currently written. If a trainer gets days he/she is allowed to run the horses which have already been entered.

No opinion involved there. Just sharing how the process works.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by jay68802

What's not accurate? It is a opinion of what should happen. How many times have we seen a trainer get hit with multiple violations in a short period of time? By not allowing his horses to run, this is prevented. I you want the Owners protected, have their horses pass a drug test before the race. Protecting the betting public should be the first priority, not protecting the person that paid the trainer to cheat.

So if I own a string of horses that I'm footing the bill on. And my trainer gets let's say a high bute. All of the horses I own shouldn't be allowed to compete while that trainer is under suspension?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

you have made a very valid point about the owner that pays the trainer. but you have only struck upon what has turned into the biggest problem in this game today. to few owners that own most of the horses that distribute them to very few trainers. this is America, but we need limits now.

One thing to remember about horse racing is that because it is a regulated sport, we can regulate it any way we want to. It's not like selling groceries or some other free market activity. Governments license all the actors-- the tracks, the officials, the riders, the trainers, the owners, the simulcast outlets, etc. Governments set all the rules.

I don't know if it would be a good idea or not, but if state regulators wanted to limit the number of horses that could be trained by one trainer, they definitely could do it. They can basically do anything, because nobody gets to race horses without the state's permission.

One of the big problems here is what scholars call "regulatory capture", where the regulators see their job as to protect the people that they are supposed to be policing. It happens in other industries too. For instance, the insurance commissioner is often someone from an insurance company background who sees his or her job as protecting insurance companies as well as consumers.

State governments can overrule regulators. In California, you can even put an initiative on the ballot. In any state, the legislature can change the rules. So people who care about the integrity of this sport should not treat the stewards and racing commissions as a fait accompli. Rather, start thinking about things that would make it harder for racing officials to protect the insiders, and take it over their heads.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

So if I own a string of horses that I'm footing the bill on. And my trainer gets let's say a high bute. All of the horses I own shouldn't be allowed to compete while that trainer is under suspension?

Have the horses pass a pre-race drug test, if they do, put them with a real trainer, and run them.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Have the horses pass a pre-race drug test, if they do, put them with a real trainer, and run them.

All horses are subject to pre-race testing. While it would be impossible to get results back quickly enough to scratch before the race. A horse can be disqualified for failing a pre-race drug screening.

[jay68802]

Can't get the results back quick enough? Then run for purse money only. Then publicly state that because of the circumstances, you are running the horse because you feel he has a good shot at winning, and are running for purse money only to protect our valued customer, the betting public.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Can't get the results back quick enough? Then run for purse money only. Then publicly state that because of the circumstances, you are running the horse because you feel he has a good shot at winning, and are running for purse money only to protect our valued customer, the betting public.

Every horse has blood drawn before every race.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Every horse has blood drawn before every race.

But not every horse is coming from a barn that just had a violation.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by jay68802

But not every horse is coming from a barn that just had a violation.

Oh. I see what you're saying. If a guy has a bad test and wants to run a horse that's already been entered that horse should run for purse money only.

That will never fly with the association.