Bill Finley - Cheaters: Lock them up

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

IMHO, you raise some valid points.

Suppose for the sake of argument that I as a horse owner (or trainer) have to sign a "lease" for the stalls afforded me by the track? (Even if stall rent is $1.00 for a block of stalls for all of my horses for the entire meet?) What if, as a condition of being given free stall space there was a paragraph in my lease where I granted consent to track and/or state personnel access to my free stalls at any time?

Could that work?

My belief system tells me the vast majority of horsemen are honest, work hard, and might even welcome seeing the playing field leveled in the interest of giving them an honest shake at competing on it.

IMHO, there HAS to be a way to get there.


-jp

.

When you sing your driver's license, you authorize the state to administer a sobriety test if so ordered by sworn law enforcement officer.
The ability to use stall space at a racing facility MUST come with certain inescapable conditions.
Because there is dishonesty among the horsemen( I agree with the idea that most are probably honest people) they must be policed by track authority.
If I were in charge for a day my first order of business would be to ensure the penalties for using illegal drugs to enhance performance would be so draconian, that no one would dare THINK about it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

I do agree that the major tracks and jurisdictions need to 'come together' and take a leadership role in cleaning up the game.

The 64 dollar question is: What are they waiting for?

I have an idea what they're waiting for and what they're waiting for is some definitive proof that your ideas (or anyone else's ideas that make sense) will make them money. They're looking for an idea, any idea, that they can implement that will be a profitable business decision.

Now, we view this from a horseplayer standpoint and as players, we want clean and honest races and we could really care less how that gets done. One of the biggest problems that horseplayers currently face is that we keep betting races that are tainted. By continuing to bet these races, we're saying "we accept the way things are being run" our dollars speak louder than anything our mouths can say. Now, while some tracks have suffered some declines in betting, it seems that they havent suffered enough of a decline to make them take action.

Tracks dont view the 'drug problem' the same way as the horseplayer. Tracks know that running a much tighter ship will mean less and less horses will be able to race and many more horses will not pass the daily vet inspections. So, less horses mean less betting interests and there seems to be some pretty strong proof that larger fields create bigger betting pools.

So, if the tracks implement much tighter rules and get shorter fields because of that tightness, they're going to have to make that revenue up in some other way. I think if you can come up with something to convince the tracks that the revenue they lose by having shorter fields will be made up by more bettors betting more money because of the perception that the races are more honest, than i think tracks might listen.

Do you have any proof that what you are suggesting will entice horseplayers to raise the sizes of their normal bets? Sure, logically it makes sense that players will come back to the game if they see major progress in the cheating department, but unless you have actual proof, iron clad proof, something in writing, some kind of study, im not sure tracks are too interested in 'gambling' that your ideas might make them more money.

Your idea and other ideas that talk about how to clean up the game has a fatal assumption. It assumes that all track owners deeply care about the integrity of the actual sport of horse racing. I believe that most owners just care about money, and since they have a license to conduct horse races and have a license to offer gambling on those horse races, we assume that they care about the actual horse races themselves. We assume they deeply care about the sport as a sport, im not sure that's a good assumption.

I truly believe that if a person comes up with an idea that will make the track MONEY, those tracks will listen.

Cleaning up the sport is a noble challenge, but if there's no proof that implementing your plan (or anyone else's plan) will be profitable, why should tracks even consider it?

Most of what you are talking about in terms of regulation is handled by the jurisdiction itself, as in the state, not by the tracks. In many states, the biggest obstacle to "tightening the ship" has nothing to do with tracks and field size, but it is about money - budget money. There are things that tracks CAN do to improve things independent of regulators, and many probably would like to, but most of those suggestions that you are replying to are things that would need to be addressed at the regulatory level.

If you want to argue that tracks pull the strings, I guess that would be debatable depending upon the jurisdiction. But what Jeff proposes is something that, in my opinion, requires federal oversight and regulation, and presumably funding. My only beef at that point is that I have to assume that some tracks would still pull some strings and then they'd have considerably more power than before as they could then impact much more easily beyond the scope of their jurisdiction. But that's another discussion and we're already switching lanes enough in this thread.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

You don't get 'brownie points' from horseplayers, all they care about is the next horse you run comes up clean.

And they only care about that if they lose the bet...let's be honest here...

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Most of what you are talking about in terms of regulation is handled by the jurisdiction itself, as in the state, not by the tracks. In many states, the biggest obstacle to "tightening the ship" has nothing to do with tracks and field size, but it is about money - budget money. There are things that tracks CAN do to improve things independent of regulators, and many probably would like to, but most of those suggestions that you are replying to are things that would need to be addressed at the regulatory level.

If you want to argue that tracks pull the strings, I guess that would be debatable depending upon the jurisdiction. But what Jeff proposes is something that, in my opinion, requires federal oversight and regulation, and presumably funding. My only beef at that point is that I have to assume that some tracks would still pull some strings and then they'd have considerably more power than before as they could then impact much more easily beyond the scope of their jurisdiction. But that's another discussion and we're already switching lanes enough in this thread.

True, its not just the tracks, they have to deal with state government and whatnut, my point was that if someone came up with a plan in writing that had a suggestion to make the track more profitable, i'm sure they would at least listen to what that person had to say. You're right, money is a huge factor in how tracks (and their financial partners) decide if they want to clean up the game or not...its more of a money thing than a 'right thing to do' thing.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

And they only care about that if they lose the bet...let's be honest here...

If i bet on a winner that later comes up positive, im not going to give the money back, if that's what you mean.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

True, its not just the tracks, they have to deal with state government and whatnut, my point was that if someone came up with a plan in writing that had a suggestion to make the track more profitable, i'm sure they would at least listen to what that person had to say. You're right, money is a huge factor in how tracks (and their financial partners) decide if they want to clean up the game or not...its more of a money thing than a 'right thing to do' thing.

Here's what I'm trying to tell you - if you told the track that they could be more profitable by testing this way, or using that other, better lab, or having the state vet do this or that, or changing any rule - you are telling the tracks that they can be more profitable by using the state's money differently. I'm sure that they would listen to you, well maybe, but in the end, the best that they could do is possibly influence what the state does and you can bypass the track altogether if the idea is feasible. The problem is that most improvements that are going to profit the track are going to cost the state more money. That's what I meant by budgets - state budgets - something that is a real concern these days for "lesser" agencies like the DOR. Could a track offer to chip in and help out? Yeah, they could and eventually some bureaucrat might go through the motions if it wasn't going to the rock the boat too significantly, but then what invariably happens is that the potential increase in profits are realized in handle, which they then split with horsemen. So then the tracks invariably either want to renegotiate a split with horsemen to compensate their investment, which goes over about as well as when you bring up using horsemen's purse funds from slots to subsidize improvements at their end that also benefit the track without an equal contribution from them. I'm taking a few liberties with generalizations and conclusions, but my point is that so many things are entwined in realizing "track profits", particularly when you are trying to make changes to anything outside of beer sales, that every possible solution is met with what is portrayed as an insurmountable obstacle... especially when you try to change something at the legislative level that involves funding... and not a reduction to funding.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Here's what I'm trying to tell you - if you told the track that they could be more profitable by testing this way, or using that other, better lab, or having the state vet do this or that, or changing any rule - you are telling the tracks that they can be more profitable by using the state's money differently. I'm sure that they would listen to you, well maybe, but in the end, the best that they could do is possibly influence what the state does and you can bypass the track altogether if the idea is feasible. The problem is that most improvements that are going to profit the track are going to cost the state more money. That's what I meant by budgets - state budgets - something that is a real concern these days for "lesser" agencies like the DOR. Could a track offer to chip in and help out? Yeah, they could and eventually some bureaucrat might go through the motions if it wasn't going to the rock the boat too significantly, but then what invariably happens is that the potential increase in profits are realized in handle, which they then split with horsemen. So then the tracks invariably either want to renegotiate a split with horsemen to compensate their investment, which goes over about as well as when you bring up using horsemen's purse funds from slots to subsidize improvements at their end that also benefit the track without an equal contribution from them. I'm taking a few liberties with generalizations and conclusions, but my point is that so many things are entwined in realizing "track profits", particularly when you are trying to make changes to anything outside of beer sales, that every possible solution is met with what is portrayed as an insurmountable obstacle... especially when you try to change something at the legislative level that involves funding... and not a reduction to funding.

Couldnt agree more, great points.

[Ernie Dahlman]

[QUOTE=Tom][QUOTE=Ernie Dahlman]

Sorry, but you own them you are the ultimate responsible party. You cannot insulate yourself from your responsibility as an owner.[/QUOTE}

I think you're confusing your opinion with the rules of racing.

[Tom]

Then the rules of racing are wrong.
You own the horse, you hire the trainer, but then claim it is not your responsibility?

Sorry, but that makes no sense. And yes, that is my opinion of why cheaters never get stopped.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Tom

Then the rules of racing are wrong.
You own the horse, you hire the trainer, but then claim it is not your responsibility?

Sorry, but that makes no sense. And yes, that is my opinion of why cheaters never get stopped.

You have a kid. You hire a babysitter. Babysitter doesn't have any known problems, seems responsible enough, and is even licensed by the state in good standing. After years without any problems, the babysitter decides to get drunk and let your kid join in the fun and is subsequently arrested when your kid ends up getting its stomach pumped in the ER after too much booze... Wouldn't you at least take all of the facts into consideration before thinking that the parent should be held accountable for the actions of the babysitter?

[Tom]

Yes, and I said that.
But if you keep hiring the same sitter, and the problem happens again, isn't it time Momma and Poppa get hauled into court?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Tom

Yes, and I said that.
But if you keep hiring the same sitter, and the problem happens again, isn't it time Momma and Poppa get hauled into court?

Okay, then I think we agree, but I didn't get that sense from the previous posts. It sounded like you didn't think there was any room for subjectivity under a proposed rule. I probably misinterpreted. If you're a guy that can't seem to help but hire trainers that continually get serious medication violations, especially when they seem to routinely be on horses that you own, then yes, I think that at that point the regulators should be able to easily punish an owner without having to build some convoluted case for a generic "conduct detrimental to racing".

[Relwob Owner]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

You have a kid. You hire a babysitter. Babysitter doesn't have any known problems, seems responsible enough, and is even licensed by the state in good standing. After years without any problems, the babysitter decides to get drunk and let your kid join in the fun and is subsequently arrested when your kid ends up getting its stomach pumped in the ER after too much booze... Wouldn't you at least take all of the facts into consideration before thinking that the parent should be held accountable for the actions of the babysitter?

Interesting analogy and it has some merit. However, I think the percentage of parents who knowingly hire a babysitter they know will break the rules is far less(hopefully nil)than the amount of owners who hire trainers and know they cheat.

There is no percent solution but I have to agree with Tom in the sense that if anything is going to change in a positive way, the owners have to get punished as well. As a guy who owns horses, I can tell you that I would much rather run the very small risk of getting punished when one of the trainers I use blows a test than let all of the owners who use the cheaters get off without punishment when their trainer blows a test and they simply transfer the horse to a different trainer and suffer no consequences.

[CryingForTheHorses]

Originally Posted by Relwob Owner

Interesting analogy and it has some merit. However, I think the percentage of parents who knowingly hire a babysitter they know will break the rules is far less(hopefully nil)than the amount of owners who hire trainers and know they cheat.

There is no percent solution but I have to agree with Tom in the sense that if anything is going to change in a positive way, the owners have to get punished as well. As a guy who owns horses, I can tell you that I would much rather run the very small risk of getting punished when one of the trainers I use blows a test than let all of the owners who use the cheaters get off without punishment when their trainer blows a test and they simply transfer the horse to a different trainer and suffer no consequences.

I think the best thing is to give these trainers who have had positives "conditional licences" year by year.If they have any kind of positive tests during the year then revoke their licences. Look at trainer/owner patterns and see if the same owners stay with the cheating trainers,If this is the case then also give the owners who stay with these trainers conditional licences for the year.Myself as a owner/trainer I wouldnt stay with a guy who has had positives for fear of this happening to my horse.These owners that do stay with these trainers may be privy as to whats going on!.Any honest owner IMO would steer clear of these cheaters for fear of losing their purse money or end up being ruled off..

[Tom]

I think the best thing is to give these trainers who have had positives "conditional licences" year by year.If they have any kind of positive tests during the year then revoke their licences.

Good idea, Tom. (I like saying that!)
When on conditional status, every horse is tested, no matter where it finishes, and the trainer foots the bill for it all.