harnessracing.com

Good Tuesday morning.

You know those controversial newspaper ads that some law enforcement agencies take out from time to time, the ones that show mug shots of prostitution "customers"? Those displays of public shame are designed to create, shall we say, disincentives to engage in the conduct. Well, what if harness racing employed such a tactic when it comes to suspicious trainer changes? Stay with me.

Let's say Trainer A gets a positive and appeals a suspension. Some tracks will not allow that trainer to enter horses in his or her name but will allow the appellee to transfer his horses to Trainer B. Problem is, some of those transfers aren't really transfers at all: Trainer A retains control over the horse's training tactics. And it is very hard for most tracks to police this-- they have too little enforcement powers and resources as it is.

Moreover, the poor bettor doesn't know very much of this at all. Trainer B may be listed on the program but unless Trainer A really has the time and energy to dig deeper he or she may not know that Trainer A still calls the shots on the horse. It's a mess-- and certainly not something that fosters confidence in the integrity of the game.

So here is my idea. On each program page where such a situation exists, tracks should put an asterix by the horse's name and print the following (or something like it) at the bottom of the page:

"Trainer A was required by track rule and state regulation to transfer control of Horse X to Trainer B as the result of a positive test for (fill in the blank) which resulted in a suspension. Trainer A has appealed the suspension. The appeal is pending. While track officials and state regulators have attempted to confirm that this transfer has occurred and is effective, it cannot guarantee it."

What do you think? Too much? Not enough? Let's talk about it.

News and notes: I like how Standardbred Canada tracks those horses eligible for the North America Cup. This morning the news is about Anderlecht and Egyptian Artist, two horses I had not yet heard of. This sort of dogged promotion might work well Stateside, too, either with the Little Brown Jug or the Meadowlands Pace.

Comments

Allan Schott said...

Here is one way to eliminate the beards. If a trainer is suspended why not require the horse to be stabled on the grounds of the racetrack at least for 90 days or the period of the original trainer's suspension, whichever is shorter? This way you know the original trainer can't be training the horse. If a horse is racing at a track without stabling on the grounds (like Freehold), require the horse to be stabled at another track in your juristriction (Meadowlands in this case). Also, the horse should be put in jail as in the old days with claiming, the horse can not race in another juristriction during the 90 days or the period the the original suspension, whichever is shorter.

Also, as a side note, why aren't tracks required to list suspensions in their programs? However, to be fair, make the tracks list all decisions including when the licensee is exonerated.

posted at 6:07 PM on Apr 22nd 2008

Andrew Cohen said...

Good post, Paul.

On the promotion point, I know that the USTA and the Hambletonian Society do things to promote the big events. But why wait until the eve of them? The Meadowlands Pace is only one month after the NA Cup and yet you hear nary a word. Part of good promotion is the creation of build-up and storylines, something our Canadian friends do much better than us.

posted at 5:47 PM on Apr 22nd 2008

Paul Siegel said...

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. Of course the system we have in place for dealing with cheaters is horrible, and is in desperate need of change, but why not put a statement in bold print on page 1 of the program that informs the bettors that the situation is totally out of control, we really don't know who is training the horses you may be betting on, so you're a damn fool for coming out to the track. That way we can be sure we will never get a new customer.

Let's face it, the vast majority of money wagered comes from regular bettors who know who the "beards" are. The information is of little or no use to anyone else. Does someone who goes to the track once in a blue moon really care that Ronnie Burke is Mickey Burke's son?

Speaking of which, I think the tracks that insist on using a "beard" as programmed trainer for someone who is in the process of appealing a suspension are doing the public a great disservice. The "real" trainer should be listed at all times. Harrah's Chester insisted on not allowing Mickey Burke's name on the program all last year (apparently they are allowing his name now). Shouldn't the casual bettor know the name of the actual trainer?

Instead, tracks should take Indiana's approach. A couple of years ago they refused to allow a couple of Noel Daley-trained horses to race in stakes at Hoosier. They didn't just look the other way and allow a beard to be trainer-of-record. They refused the entries. The owner then sued the state and lost! It would be nice if other states grew a spine too.

PS...Andrew...the type of publicity you mention for the NA Cup is done in the US. The Meadowlands has had its Road To The Hambletonian and Road To The Meadowlands Pace for years. The Jug does something similar. Let's remember the NA Cup is significantly earlier than the Meadowlands Pace, Hambletonian and Jug.

posted at 4:36 PM on Apr 22nd 2008

Stuart said...

Your "trainer transfers" suggestion sounds reasonable. Here are some other ideas to consider to improve things:

* All claimed horses must race out of detention for 3 starts (I couldn't count the # of times a horse gets claimed and miraculously wins 2 seconds faster than their historical lines would suggest).

* Horses winning a claimer race one week race out of detention the following race

* All states agree on a basic agreement concerning testing procedures and what is allowed and what is not

* Detention barns for all stakes with a total purse > $100K

posted at 2:41 PM on Apr 22nd 2008

Andrew Cohen said...

Good post, Rayferg. That's always the problem with these sorts of things. Of course, right now, suspended trainers use the existing appeals rules to make a mockery of suspensions. For example, I was just told the other day that Mickey Burke's hearing for a 2006 suspension MAY take place next month.

posted at 2:31 PM on Apr 22nd 2008

John Buonomo said...

I agree with the language that should be in the program. ALL penalties/suspensions should be made public. What really irks me is that "Secret Code of Conduct" that tracks like the Meadowlands have put into effect with trainers like Ken Rucker...Why can't the public know what watchful eye is on him????

posted at 1:46 PM on Apr 22nd 2008

mike steffens said...

Or how about trainer A never using his name in the first place and listing his horses in an assistant trainers name. The when they are caught the assistant trainer gets nailed and the trainer continues on his merry way. We need to get rid of the criminals or it will be very difficult to have any credance with the betting public!

posted at 10:39 AM on Apr 22nd 2008

john zimich said...

Good morning Andrew: I certainly agree with you. Until everyone is on the same page we are going to have a trainer under suspension switching to another name. I know one isn't guilty until proven but too many times in Pennsylvania an appeal is made and it takes quite a long time before case is adjudicated. Meanwhile, a "guilty one" continues to race. We like Canada's rule that once one is suspended he or she can't race until the case is determined.
Too often we have horses in names of trainers in name only. Those listed aren't really the trainers. Don't know how we could stop that. But you're on the right track. Keep up the good work. JZ

posted at 10:29 AM on Apr 22nd 2008

rayferg said...

I agree with your comments and these scenarios are definitely in play. My only concern is that of the "innocent" trainer who has been charged with some violation, appeals it, and the charge is dropped due to an erroneous reading/etc. With the asterisk in the program, the public will blacklist the stated culprit and may not have any knowing that the ruling has been reversed at a later date.

I am all for getting these "cheating" trainers some needed negative exposure, just do not want to lump the occassional innocent trainer with them.
Just my two cents ...

posted at 9:35 AM on Apr 22nd 2008

Trainer Transfers Need Some Public Disclosure

Comments

Post A Comment