Bill said...

So, now the ORC suddenly determines that its suspension should be enforced immediately (see Standardbred Canada for the link) - that wouldn't have anything to do with all of the negative publicity surrounding their decision and their hope that by prohibiting Elliot from racing this will quell any potential appeal of their order now would it.

posted at 5:10 PM on Jun 26th 2008

steve t said...

So what Mr. Lennox is purposing is that it is a good plan to hire people with questionable character to work for you as long as they only cheat others? And I infer that with this support you believe that this person will not cheat you his/her employer at anytime in the future.

That is really a classic, you would have us believe that you understand they cheat others i.e. their competitors to put money in the pockets of their employer, but that this person will never cheat the employer. I want to meet the character that can draw such a fine line. Perhaps the truth is you don't care that they cheat you the employer some as long as the reward out weighs the loss. Lose a little but if the gain is big enough who cares? Interesting way to conduct business.

posted at 11:40 PM on Jun 25th 2008

doug gillies said...

One of the O'brien awards had to be revoked because of a positive test!, i feel ashamed and i dont even live there.

posted at 4:51 PM on Jun 25th 2008

Eli Solomon said...

Andrew:

An important point needs to be made, reiterated, and stressed in this debate about a racetrack's (absolute) "Right of Exclusion". The courts, in the U.S. at least, have always upheld the Private Property Rights of a racetrack that is a privately owned entity (as opposed to one that is publicly owned). By doing so, they have repeatedly, consistently, and universally confirmed that the Right of Exclusion from a racetrack is granted to the Management of that racetrack and remains under its sole purview.

Although David's post alluded only to drivers and owners, it ought to be mentioned that it also does apply to trainers, and patrons as well, i.e., anyone who elects to be on the grounds of that racetrack.

In upholding a racetrack's Right of Exclusion, the (apparent) belief, posture, and outlook of the court is that a racetrack's Management has acted responsibly, and not capriciously in excluding an individual (i.e., it has not based its decision upon, race, religion, color, age, sex, or sexual preference).

A consequence of that posture of the court, is that for an excluded person to reverse or overturn the decision of a racetrack to exclude her or him through a legal challenge, that person would have to prove, in a court of law, that the exclusion was capriciously based upon any one or more of the attributes I cited above, that are essentially protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Now, the question that some might logically ask from all this is, "Does that mean that a person, so excluded, is guilty until proven innocent?" And the answer to that question is clearly “Yes”, even if nobody is willing to concede that exclusion is tantamount to guilt.

Finally, to protect their Private Property Rights and their Right of Exclusion, a (private) racetrack, when issuing a Notice of Exclusion to an individual, has always recognized the prudence of not providing a reason for the exclusion. Rather, the Notice of Exclusion might simply reassert the track's Private Property Rights and inform the individual, tactfully, that that person is "persona non grata."

That in a nutshell is a treatise on the subject. That's the way it is, that's the way it always has been, and I might add, that's the way it undoubtedly will always be.

posted at 2:31 PM on Jun 25th 2008

Bob Marks said...

Just asking!

Do the fans have any rights here or are they just incidental afterthoughts?

posted at 12:27 PM on Jun 25th 2008

David said...

If a company is allowed to do business with whomever it pleases, does that mean that they can exclude drivers or owners based on their religion, color, age, etc. etc.?

From Andrew: That's an analogy that just doesn't ring true in fact or in law, David. A track suspending horses based upon information or suspicion about conduct is completely different from a track barring entry of someone based upon who they are or what their religion is. Now, you can argue over the factual support for WEG's exclusion but surely it has the right to do business only with people it believes act according to a set of rules or guidelines.

And a private entity CAN choose to exclude certain people for certain reasons that would never be legally acceptable if done by a public entity. At least that's how it works in the States.

posted at 11:54 AM on Jun 25th 2008

Earl Lennox said...

Andrew:
If you want some very interesting and confidential information, please give me a call: 416-XXX-XXXX.

If you don't call, I'll understand your true interest in integrity.
Earl

From Andrew: Spare me the threat, Earl. I don't need to prove my interest in integrity to you.

posted at 11:49 AM on Jun 25th 2008

Earl Lennox said...

It is not a matter of doing business with whomever you like. Racetracks are granted exclusive contract rights and territories to race by the ORC. The heart of the matter in the case of at least two of those owners was that their Ontario Sires Stakes eligible horses were not going to be allowed to race at WEG tracks. The OSS is a provincial program managed by the ORC.
Your comments are way off with regard to suspicions of other owners horses having possibly received the same drug as the horse in question. The premise is as follows: First of all, ban the offending horse; Secondly, ban all other horses wholly or partly owned by the owner of the offending horse, whether trained by the offending trainer or by someone else; Thirdly, it has escalated to banning all horses of other owners' horses with the offending trainer.

The people who scream longest and loudest about integrity, usually are lacking, in fact in most cases, are lacking in integrity themselves.
Integrity is for someone else but not for them

posted at 11:47 AM on Jun 25th 2008

Lynne Magee said...

Bravo, Mr. Cohen for telling it like it is! The ORC is becoming the biggest joke in Ontario with their contant back-pedalling and ridiculous attemps to gain control over the drug problems. This latest feud with WEG is just one more joke.

WEG has taken a stand against not only the trainers but has also hit the owners (who, for the most part, are likely well-aware of their trainers' indiscretions) of horses that have no say in this whole mess. WEG has not backed down from the pressure that trainers and owners seem to have over the ORC in getting rulings reversed or watered down. What a change--until the ORC steps in and overrules a sensible decision!!

Thank you for your honest and insightful observations that everyone in the industry needs to think about. I truly hope that someone from the ORC takes the time to read your column. Unfortunately, they will like be far too busy trying to figure out how they can further infuriate the many thousands of innocent people who are desperately trying to compete in this very unfair game of racing and letting the guilty ones walk away with a slap on the wrist! No wonder we have no fans left in the stands.

posted at 10:38 AM on Jun 25th 2008

Earl Lennox said...

Andrew:

I find it hard to understand how or why I am responsible for the actions of others. I have had horses with over 20 different trainers over the years, including one with Bill Elliot. I have never suggested to or told a trainer what he should use on my horses in terms of pre races. Why then, if my horse had been with Bill Elliot (which it wasn't) when he had a positive test, is my non-positive testing horse guilty or am I guilty.

By the way, I have never had a positive-testing horse and never had a horse with any of the twenty + trainers when they had another horse with a positive test.

Are you responsible if your brother or friend commits murder or steals or drives drunk? Earl Lennox

From Andrew: Earl, you raise questions that go to the heart of the matter and I thank you for them. Remember, though, that the WEG is a private entity and that the owners who were banned there are free to take their horses to race anywhere else in Ontario (or the world for that matter). I understand your point about your brother and your friend but would you also agree with me that a company is entitled to do business with whomever it pleases?

posted at 9:17 AM on Jun 25th 2008

Allan said...

WEG is a private entity. They have the right to exclude anyone they want regardless of the reason. That should be enough reason to allow WEG's decision to stand.

posted at 7:57 AM on Jun 25th 2008

Peter Gerry said...

Andrew and Harness Racing Friends,

I have joined this website and webblog because it appears responsible.

I am an advocate of new and refreshing ideas. I, however, do not support bashing the leadership of the USTA as the USTA is not an authority with regulatory powers. There is no such national organization in our sport. We need to create one.

I am a an advocate of this websitge. I believe Andrew Cohen to be an exceptional resource and an advanced thinker to bring new ideas and perspectives to our sport.

Now on with the dialogue about the key issues.

Peter G.

posted at 11:32 PM on Jun 24th 2008