Ramon Preciado - groom confesses tampering

[SG4]

Interesting development on this front:

http://www.drf.com/news/former-groom...erol-positives

[johnhannibalsmith]

I don't know how many horses he has and for how long a "long period of time is" ("...she administered clenbuterol to “all of” Preciado’s horses “over a long period of time.”").

But I do know that a bottle of clenbuterol isn't exactly cheap. And it doesn't go very far in normal twice daily doses for a sizable roster. Seems an odd combination of statements from someone who was allegedly doing this because she was mad at least in part about her paycheck.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I don't know how many horses he has and for how long a "long period of time is" ("...she administered clenbuterol to “all of” Preciado’s horses “over a long period of time.”").

But I do know that a bottle of clenbuterol isn't exactly cheap. And it doesn't go very far in normal twice daily doses for a sizable roster. Seems an odd combination of statements from someone who was allegedly doing this because she was mad at least in part about her paycheck.

Probably wasnt giving it twice daily to every horse.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Donttellmeshowme

Probably wasnt giving it twice daily to every horse.

Probably not. Lets go once. Let's just use 4mL instead of the typical 5. Let's be real conservative and assume every horse means he has 10. That's 40mL a day. I think the big bottle back when was 460 mL and cost around $300. A bottle would get her about ten days going once a day at 4mL.

Maybe ten days is "a long time". I wouldn't think so, but who knows. Maybe he only has ten horses and that is "all of his horses". I wouldn't think so, but I don't know.

Maybe she was giving them a trace amount. But under what would seem like something resembling the way you would administer it over "a long time" to "all of his horses" in order to hang him, you'd be spending a pretty penny.

It just begs the question why she didn't just wait until they hit the overnite and then treat them logically for someone with an axe to grind and presumably some financial limitations and one would think some difficulty obtaining it at will to administer the way she describes.

A few more details would go a ways since on the surface it's a little confusing what the hell she was doing and why.

[cj]

This smells awfully fishy and convienient for Preciado.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by cj

This smells awfully fishy and convienient for Preciado.

Absolute Insurer

[cj]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Absolute Insurer

Sure...but racetrack rules don't always hold up in court.

[Redboard]

Preciado hired Marian Vega. Managers get fired all of the time in the business world for hiring bad/incompetent employees. The buck has to stop somewhere.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Probably not. Lets go once. Let's just use 4mL instead of the typical 5. Let's be real conservative and assume every horse means he has 10. That's 40mL a day. I think the big bottle back when was 460 mL and cost around $300. A bottle would get her about ten days going once a day at 4mL.

Maybe ten days is "a long time". I wouldn't think so, but who knows. Maybe he only has ten horses and that is "all of his horses". I wouldn't think so, but I don't know.

Maybe she was giving them a trace amount. But under what would seem like something resembling the way you would administer it over "a long time" to "all of his horses" in order to hang him, you'd be spending a pretty penny.

It just begs the question why she didn't just wait until they hit the overnite and then treat them logically for someone with an axe to grind and presumably some financial limitations and one would think some difficulty obtaining it at will to administer the way she describes.

A few more details would go a ways since on the surface it's a little confusing what the hell she was doing and why.

Most probably they were giving it 1-2 days out and at bridle time. Just a guess on my part.

[EMD4ME]

This just smells. Not buying it at all.

JHB, great point, as USUAL.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by EMD4ME

This just smells. Not buying it at all.

JHB, great point, as USUAL.

I don't know if it's a great point, but the narrative leaves a lot to be desired. They report that the horses in her care all tested high but then they offer her testimony that she allegedly gave it to all of his horses. The results of the tests on her horses don't really specify if was post-race testing or if they came down the barn and isolated the group that she cares for and tested them at the same time. If the latter, then unless they were all in, it would seem that this was a daily regimen and above and beyond what would be considered therapeutic use for horses not even entered. I guess. Then she says all of the horses. So we are to assume that had they tested all of his horses that every horse in the barn was being treated the same way? Nobody noticed her packing a dose syringe into a stall that wasn't one of hers day after day to the point that they would presumably test outside the scope of acceptable limits for therapeutic use? And financing this whole covert operation while mad that she wasn't getting paid? As a groom?

The complaint is with the serious allegation and drip-drip of information that paints a totally confusing scenario. And then she gets charged criminally for the sort of thing that happens regularly. Was Preciado charged when it was assumed from the tests that it was "clearly administered ... beyond acceptable guidelines"? Are we trying to lean on this groom for a reason? Was she trying to pull a fast one on the betting public and rig the race or get even with her mean, cheapskate boss? By spending piles of money to win him races and then absolve him with her own statements?

Just a weird version of events.

[Robert Fischer]

thought this was just a 'fall guy'


am i missing something?

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

thought this was just a 'fall guy'


am i missing something?

Depends on what you mean. If you mean a "fall guy" in that she's going to take the blame for this, then you're right. But since the attorney is saying the groom drugged the horses without Preciado's knowledge or approval, if that gets proven true (or "true") then the penalties against him would be dropped. That's pretty significant because it seemed like an open-and-shut case busting a supertrainer and he could end up escaping any penalties.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Absolute Insurer

While I certainly don't buy this I think this gets Ramon off. I know everyone is citing the ultimate insurer clause on licensing but if my racetrack law 101 memory is correct ultimate insurer only covers your employees. Also I'm 99.9999% that any violations of the criminal code falls outside the scope of ultimate insurer. Ultimate Insurer doesn't cover third parties drugging your horses.

I'm no attorney but I think he's got a case.

Also I'm no chemist but I find it hard to believe bute is the "special sauce" he's using. If a big bottle of bute is the way to win 35% we're all doing something wrong.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

While I certainly don't buy this I think this gets Ramon off. I know everyone is citing the ultimate insurer clause on licensing but if my racetrack law 101 memory is correct ultimate insurer only covers your employees. Also I'm 99.9999% that any violations of the criminal code falls outside the scope of ultimate insurer. Ultimate Insurer doesn't cover third parties drugging your horses.

I'm no attorney but I think he's got a case.

Also I'm no chemist but I find it hard to believe bute is the "special sauce" he's using. If a big bottle of bute is the way to win 35% we're all doing something wrong.

Rule Title
1887 Trainer to Insure Condition of Horse.
Rule Text (a) The trainer is the absolute insurer of and responsible for the condition of the horses entered in a race, regardless of the acts of third parties, except as otherwise provided in this article. If the chemical or other analysis of urine or blood test samples or other tests, prove positive showing the presence of any prohibited drug substance defined in Rule 1843.1 of this division, the trainer of the horse may be fined, his/her license suspended or revoked, or be ruled off. In addition, the owner of the horse, foreman in charge of the horse, groom, and any other person shown to have had the care or attendance of the horse, may be fined, his/her license suspended, revoked, or be ruled off. The owner of a ship-in horse is the joint-absolute insurer of and is equally responsible for the condition of the horse entered in a race. (b) A ship-in horse is defined as any horse entered to race that has not been in the care of a Board-licensed trainer for seven consecutive calendar days prior to the day of the race for which it is entered. (c) Notwithstanding the above, if the Board or its agents fail to notify a trainer or the owner of a ship-in horse of a potential positive test within 21 calendar days from the date the sample was taken, the trainer or the owner of a ship-in horse shall not be deemed responsible under this rule unless it is shown by the preponderance of the evidence that the trainer or the owner of a ship-in horse administered the drug or other prohibited substance defined in Rule 1843.1 of this division, caused the administration or had knowledge of the administration. NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 19440, 19580 and 19581, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Sections 19440, 19577, 19580 and 19581 Business and Professions Code. HISTORY: Amendment filed 7-9-92; effective 8-8-92. Amendment filed 10-25-94; effective 11-24-94. Amendment filed 12-6-99; effective 12-6-99. Amendment filed 8-8-05; effective 9-7-05. Amendment filed 12-29-15; effective 4-1-16.