Jerry Hollendorfer Banned from Santa Anita

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The entire country of Russia was just suspended for four years from all international competitions, including Olympics and World Cup, for doping offenses.

Fager, numerous innocent Russian athletes are surely going to be hurt by this, just like your horse owners who you say (but who are actually not) innocent.

And yet, this is what was done, because Russia will now have an incentive to police doping. This is what serious sporting authorities do.

If horse racing were run by serious people, every owner who employed a cheating trainer, knowingly or unknowingly, would be out of the sport for awhile. Because I don't care if they are "innocent" (again, they aren't, but pretending they are)- I care that they have the right incentives to police their trainers.

Said by the guy without a nickel invested in the sport.

No one cares what you think either.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Said by the guy without a nickel invested in the sport.

No one cares what you think either.

So what?

The government can ban the races that offer return on your "investments" tomorrow. They really can.

All sorts of shady securities trading is banned. So are various real estate schemes.

If you invest in racehorses, you take huge risks. That's the deal. And one of those risks is that regulators may put your trainer out of business. And another one is you might get your license suspended.

Nobody should be putting money in this sport who doesn't understand these things. They exist for the protection of the public and the animals.

So no, I don't care who has "a nickel invested in the sport". Everyone understands that the rules can change.

And protecting the owners happens to also protect the cheating trainers and ensure that doping continues.

(And by the way, the ban on Russia is going to hurt a lot of "investors" too, including sponsors, owners of training facilities, shoe companies, coaches, and a whole bunch of other people. But again, when you are serious about doping, you do what you have to do to create the right incentives.)

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

"The government" is the commissions who impose $1k fines and overlooks horses sent to slaughter. I don't know what "government" you think is about to hold owners accountable for drug positives in animals not in their care or control. It's not going to happen. If they worry about lawsuits now, they'd be quaking out of their shoes at the thought of banning all of B Waynes Hughes' horses because one of Mandella's came up with an overage of Lasix.

No one's "shielding" the owners. The owners have no control over this. This is on the trainers and vets, the ones who actually have access to the horses.

Re: the bolded part of the above quote --

I see the exact opposite whenever I look at state regulatory bodies.

For example, in California, the owner's alphabet group (TOC) has a great deal of influence over the rules and policies enacted by the commissioners of the CHRB.

Not only that, the owner's alphabet group (TOC) has a great deal of influence over WHO gets to be a CHRB commissioner in the first place. Hint: the short list of names of potential CHRB commissioner appointees handed to the Governor is almost always one of their own.

One predictable result of this are penalties for trainers that amount to a 'slap on the wrist' with virtually zero accountability for owners.

In my opinion, this causes the game to suffer from an integrity standpoint.



-jp

.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Re: the bolded part of the above quote --

I see the exact opposite whenever I look at state regulatory bodies.

In my opinion, in California, the owner's alphabet group (TOC) has a great deal of influence over the rules and policies enacted by the commissioners of the CHRB.

Not only that, the owner's alphabet group (TOC) has a great deal of influence over WHO gets to be a CHRB commissioner in the first place. Hint: the short list of names of potential CHRB commissioner appointees handed to the Governor is almost always one of their own.

The result, in my opinion, is penalties that amount to a 'slap on the wrist' which in turn weakens the game from an integrity standpoint.

In short, the foxes are in charge of the henhouse.


-jp

.

Yep.

One thing that should be considered in terms of an ballot measure would be to reform the way the CHRB is selected. Decades ago Proposition 103 did this in the insurance industry- the Insurance Commissioner used to be some executive from an insurance company who was friends with the Governor, and as a result insurance regulation was nonexistent in California.

Replacing the CHRB with, say, a single commissioner with broad powers to ban people from the sport, chosen from the regulatory world rather than the horse racing world would be an excellent idea. This is also what baseball did when it appointed Judge Landis after the Black Sox scandal.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

So what?

The government can ban the races that offer return on your "investments" tomorrow. They really can.

All sorts of shady securities trading is banned. So are various real estate schemes.

If you invest in racehorses, you take huge risks. That's the deal. And one of those risks is that regulators may put your trainer out of business. And another one is you might get your license suspended.

Nobody should be putting money in this sport who doesn't understand these things. They exist for the protection of the public and the animals.

So no, I don't care who has "a nickel invested in the sport". Everyone understands that the rules can change.

And protecting the owners happens to also protect the cheating trainers and ensure that doping continues.

(And by the way, the ban on Russia is going to hurt a lot of "investors" too, including sponsors, owners of training facilities, shoe companies, coaches, and a whole bunch of other people. But again, when you are serious about doping, you do what you have to do to create the right incentives.)

The rules aren't changing. Most people have more common sense than to ban owner's horses for things out of their control.

But I'd be totally in favor of racing banning lawyers.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Re: the bolded part of the above quote --

I see the exact opposite whenever I look at state regulatory bodies.

For example, in California, the owner's alphabet group (TOC) has a great deal of influence over the rules and policies enacted by the commissioners of the CHRB.

Not only that, the owner's alphabet group (TOC) has a great deal of influence over WHO gets to be a CHRB commissioner in the first place. Hint: the short list of names of potential CHRB commissioner appointees handed to the Governor is almost always one of their own.

One predictable result of this are penalties for trainers that amount to a 'slap on the wrist' with virtually zero accountability for owners.

In my opinion, this causes the game to suffer from an integrity standpoint.



-jp

.

Fine. Let's ban all the handicappers who bet on cheater's horses. After all, they're just promulgating the cheating.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Fine. Let's ban all the handicappers who bet on cheater's horses. After all, they're just promulgating the cheating.

You do have a point.

The money myself and others bet on this game DOES help promote the status quo.

On the other hand, does anybody seriously think the game as it is currently being managed (the status quo) have a snowball's chance of filling grandstands with the next generation of new (rabid) racing fans?

Here's a novel idea:

Instead of doing nothing and watching the game die, how 'bout we get owners on board with bringing some badly needed integrity to the game?


-jp

.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

The rules aren't changing. Most people have more common sense than to ban owner's horses for things out of their control.

But I'd be totally in favor of racing banning lawyers.

If it's such "common sense", how come EVERY SPORT THAT IS SERIOUS ABOUT DOPING SUSPENDS PEOPLE AND EVEN KICKS THEM OUT OF THE SPORT WITHOUT WORRYING ABOUT WHETHER IT MAY HARM INNOCENT PEOPLE AS WELL?

Deterrence is actually "common sense". Horse racing is run on the opposite of "common sense"- how to design a sport to ensure that doping gets protected.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Fine. Let's ban all the handicappers who bet on cheater's horses. After all, they're just promulgating the cheating.

That's not a good analogy.

What is a good analogy is that if a jockey is found to have been using a battery during the race, the horse gets disqualified. And that punishes the handicappers who bet on the horse and were totally innocent and had nothing to do with the cheating.

It also punishes the owners, who may have known nothing of the jockey's scheme to cheat.

Nonetheless, disqualifying the horse is considered crucial for deterrence.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

You do have a point.

The money myself and others bet on this game DOES help promote the status quo.

On the other hand, does anybody seriously think the game as it is currently being managed (the status quo) have a snowball's chance of filling grandstands with the next generation of new (rabid) racing fans?

Here's a novel idea:

Instead of doing nothing and watching the game die, how 'bout we get owners on board with bringing some badly needed integrity to the game?


-jp

.

I believe in doing a whole lot, just not this very bad idea. Owners should have the ethics to not hire who they think may be cheating or who they think is too hard on the horses, but thinking is subjective. I have my list of owners I would never hire because I think either of the above, but I know some good owners who don't believe that X is a cheater, just a very good trainer. We may find out one day which one of us is correct, or we may not.

In the meantime, even the squeakiest clean trainers have gotten positives. So despite someone hiring Motion or Mandella or Shug, they should have all their horses banned if one has an overage for a therapeutic drug? Or what if we find out that Motion's rep was a great front, and he's the biggest cheat out there?

I believe in swift and severe punishments, just not this one.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

That's not a good analogy.

What is a good analogy is that if a jockey is found to have been using a battery during the race, the horse gets disqualified. And that punishes the handicappers who bet on the horse and were totally innocent and had nothing to do with the cheating.

It also punishes the owners, who may have known nothing of the jockey's scheme to cheat.

Nonetheless, disqualifying the horse is considered crucial for deterrence.

So now you think a one-time DQ of a horse whose performance was enhanced is the same thing as banning ALL the owner's horses because some yahoo jock decided to shock one of his horses?

Some of the biggest names in riding have used batteries, and not in a too distant history. Just because I've heard the story of how Jockey X cheats doesn't mean that everyone has, or everyone believes, and Jockey X isn't admitting to it anytime soon. He likes his inclusion in the Hall of Fame too much.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

In the meantime, even the squeakiest clean trainers have gotten positives.

You should consider that maybe this means the opposite of what you think it means.

Since I am a lawyer, I'll put it this way. If even the lawyers with the "squeakiest clean" reputations had bar discipline records, I would not conclude that the legal profession was honest- I'd conclude that the legal profession had a real rot that went to the highest levels of the profession.

If the squeakiest clean trainers are getting positives, most likely that means everyone is doping (which is consistent with what happened in track and field, cycling, and baseball as well).

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

You should consider that maybe this means the opposite of what you think it means.

Since I am a lawyer, I'll put it this way. If even the lawyers with the "squeakiest clean" reputations had bar discipline records, I would not conclude that the legal profession was honest- I'd conclude that the legal profession had a real rot that went to the highest levels of the profession.

If the squeakiest clean trainers are getting positives, most likely that means everyone is doping (which is consistent with what happened in track and field, cycling, and baseball as well).

What it means is that you're totally ignorant on racehorse management.

Go buy a racehorse or work in a trainer's barn. Then maybe you'll understand that there is not one single trainer in the entire world who gives only hay, oats and water. Just like human athletes don't only take oatmeal and milk.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

What it means is that you're totally ignorant on racehorse management.

Go buy a racehorse or work in a trainer's barn. Then maybe you'll understand that there is not one single trainer in the entire world who gives only hay, oats and water. Just like human athletes don't only take oatmeal and milk.

The thing is, when human athletes stray into the fancy stuff, they get suspended and sometimes even banned from their sports.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The thing is, when human athletes stray into the fancy stuff, they get suspended and sometimes even banned from their sports.

Real suspensions too, not vacations in the Caribbean.