Owner's responsibility rule?

Owner's responsibility rule? - Gimme a break!

Harnesslink Admin 08:28 PM 21-Jun-2010 NZT

Courtesy Of The United States Trotting Association - Director's Biography page (CLICK TO VIEW)

Many times over the course of the years, I have been reminded of the words of George Morton Levy, the founder of nighttime pari-mutuel harness racing and Roosevelt Raceway. He used to describe the Trainer's Responsibility Rule as, 'a lazy man's way of doing his job.'

What Mr. Levy meant was that in cases where a positive test result is discovered and there is no evidence regarding who is indeed responsible, the rule simply tags the trainer without the need for any proof. The premise is that the trainer, charged with the care, custody and control of his horses, his barn and his employees, has to answer for the positive test, the lack of evidence of his active, knowing wrong doing notwithstanding. In these circumstances, the owner, who is usually completely remote from the barn and the events which led up to the trainer being held responsible, suffers the loss of any purse money earned.

What brought all of this to mind once again is the recently renewed talk of an owner's responsibility rule as a suggested remedy to curb the success of trainers who appear to be exceeding all expectations by purportedly winning too much. In these cases, those who champion the term "integrity" over objective truth concoct the crazy notion that owners are duty-bound to avoid overachieving trainers. Owners looking to be successful in this business, many of whom exude success in their normal business endeavors, are expected to shun trainers who are successful, despite the fact that they have not been charged with integrity violations. The logical extension of this reasoning is that owners should consider only those conditioners who exhibit mediocre statistics; in effect, just pick a non-performer. If there is little or no success, then there is no controversy and no problem.

This game is based upon competitive ability as measured by great stats for equine and human performers. Consider Muscle Hill, Lucky Jim, George Brennan or Brian Sears. Who in their right mind is not seeking the best horse, trainer or driver?

The frustration in our game, like the Olympics, the Tour de France and many other competitive endeavors is the inability to detect foreign substances that may not be in the American Pharmacopoeia of known drugs or are mixed concoctions that make detection difficult. Still, frustrated labs often call something that's just close to a known drug a positive, even though that kind of science doesn't do anyone or the industry any good. The trainer is tagged for something truthfully unidentified scientifically, and all participants in the sport are lulled into a sense that policing by these means is both honest and effective. Neither is true.

So what is the truth? What can be done to provide some of the integrity needed to give us all a comfort level and a fair playing field? How about good police work like that which was employed in discovering some serious wrongdoing in NJ not so many years ago? That worked without just saying, 'you're the trainer; tag, your it; do your days and come back and do it again and again until you become so much of an embarrassment that the game bars you forever.' How about detention barns with watchmen and cameras inside them, as well as in every stall (successfully utilized Down Under) and not simply one security person and a fence around the place?

One thing's for sure; the nonsense of penalizing an innocent owner who employs a super, over the top trainer, who hasn't been found to have done anything wrong is just an extension of the observation made by Mr. Levy years ago - it's just a lazy mans way of saying, 'I've done my job.' Now, the owner is being punished. Is that the solution for the problem? I don't think so. While it is difficult to prove wrongdoing, it is what we need to do. Such proof, via science or police work, will get us closer to achieving the goal of a level playing field.

Telling an innocent owner to stay away from a successful trainer is, to be kind, quite stupid. Punishing innocent people is stupid. How about throwing anyone and everyone who is proven to have violated the rules out of the game? How about some good old fashioned work to catch anyone who comes under scrutiny? But please stop with the nonsense that an owner of a successful trainer should know enough to stay away from him and that owner should also be penalized under the concept of guilt by association. If this is what is thought to be a solution, we are not making one bit of headway towards our goal. We just espouse solutions that sound good in our industry journals and are about as effective as throwing puffed rice at a tank in a war.

Do the work; do the job of catching those involved. Impossible you say? Yes, I agree; it is impossible if you don't try. Look what was done in a sting operation at Saratoga Raceway not so long ago, and guess what? Owners and trainers were caught. That's what's needed: Not an expansion of the lazy man's way of doing his job, which only keeps us frustrated and reaching for non-solutions.

If the state gives a trainer a license, it gives any and every owner license to use the trainer's services. If the state maintains the license status of a bad trainer, the responsibility lies with the state and the offending trainer, not with his owners. This knee-jerk owner's responsibility nonsense will, you guessed it, simply drive good, innocent owners out of the game. Many owners holding licenses in their other business endeavors can lose those credentials based on racing's new owner responsibility rule sanctions being imposed on them. When that happens to one high profile owner and is thus widely publicized, the only people who may be left in this sport are those seeking to draw salacious comments. Solutions not founded on actual fault will never lead to achieving the racing integrity we purportedly seek, as there will be no further need to do that then as, "we have solved the problem". We sure did; there will beno confidence in racing and maybe there just won't be any more racing. Some will rejoice and proclaim success. Gimme a break.

by Joseph A. Faraldo, Esq

Chairman of USTA District 8-A. A 20-plus-year member of the Board of the USTA.

President and chief executive officer of the Standardbred Owner's Association of New York since 1980.

Started in harness racing in 1966 as an owner. Long an advocate of horsemen's rights in the courts.

Argued the only harness racing case ever heard in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Twice honored as SOA "Man of the Year." He helped the passage of slot legislation in New York which created a renaissance in New York racing.

Founder and director of the North American Amateur Driver's Association. National Amateur Driver in 1997, he was the U.S. representative to the World Amateur Driver's Championships in 1998.

He is a two-time Billings amateur driving champ. He successfully conducted the World Cup for Amateurs once again in the USA in 2008, with the cooperation of track managements at Balmoral, Maywood, Freehold, Yonkers, Monticello and the Meadowlands.

In 1994, he was selected as HHI's "Man of the Year," and in 2001 received that organization's Appreciation Award.

In 2003, he received the Lifetime Achievement Award, presented by the Monticello-Goshen Chapter of the U.S. Harness Writers Association.

Was recently a nominee for USHWA's Proximity Award and received that organization's 2007 President's Award.

Served as USTA chairman of the board from 2003-2007.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

125-10 Queens Blvd, Suite #12

Kew Gardens,NY11415

Phone:718-544-6800 - Fax:718-544-0033

faral@thorn.net

TERM EXPIRES: 2013 (Membership Director)

Print this article

Email this article to friends

Share this article

Read More News About...

See All Categories | What is this?

(27) | Post a comment

Allan at 11:04 PM 21-Jun-2010 NZT

Oh, you are so wrong.

No one is suggesting an owner be kept away from a successful trainer; that is the far from what we are talking about. Is it too much to ask an owner to know who you are dealing with? Owners right now are in the position of "Don't tell me and I won't ask". You do what you want and I won't ask you what you are doing.

No one is (or should be) suggesting an owner be penalized if another horse in the trainer's barn comes up positive. However, if one of your horses come up positive, you need to sufffer a penalty; and losing the purse is not a sufficient penalty. Owner's know how in-effective testing is; there is a good chance of getting by without getting detected; assuming your horse is even selected for testing. So they get caught once; how many times don't they get caught?

An owner hires a trainer. The owner should have no liability when their agent get's caught violating the rules? Owners need to be held responsible for their selection of a trainer. That being said, we need to provide them information which is easy to digest. When a trainer gets hit with a medication violation, it should be reported as an over/under dosage of a permitted medicine, withdrawal violation, prohibited substance violation. Have a summary available which shows the number of violations this year, last three years, career so the owner can make an informed decision and not have to hire an expert to tell them what each medication and ruling is.

As a lawyer, you should no how hard it is to ban someone for life. Yes, NJ did great work with the Ledford case thanks to the state police. Unfortuantely that police unit has been disbanded due to budget concerns. Are states going to spend the money to fund these initiatives? No; racing is not that important to them when the choice is school aid or monitoring racing.

Let's put camera's in every stall; while we are at it, let's give out ID cards which people will need to scan to get in and out of barns so we can make sure people are where they belong. That costs money. Do you expect racinos to spend that type of money to ensure a level playing field? Are horsemen willing to part with some of their slot-infused purse account to pay for these improvements and staffing required? Probably not. But even getting around that, what good is it when so many horses ship-in to race from farms and training centers? What about tracks like Freehold and Chester that don't even have backstretches? What about them?

Wasn't one of the reasons detention barns have fallen out of favor for overnight races due to complaints from horsemen about the cost of hiring extra people to take care of the horses in detention? Are horsemen going to now step up to the plate and absorb that cost? How many owners will we lose when their training bills go up to pay for these rules? What about medications that can be given before a horse enters detention? Out of testing competition? Not in New York; didn't the horsemen appeal the rule from the NYSRWB?

Unfortunately, it boils down to knowing who you are doing business with. If your trainer gets caught with a medication violation with your horse, you need to suffer the consequences. I suggest then, owners will take a lot more care with who they do business with.

Bob Pandolfo at 12:27 AM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

With all due respect, Joe, you say it's stupid to penalize an "innocent" owner who employs a super over-the-top trainer who hasn't been found to have done anything wrong. Give me a break. The trainer we are talking about has had multiple drug positives, he HAS DONE SOMETHING WRONG, repeatedly! As have others. As for better detection methods, they won't work unless the punishment is more severe once you catch the cheats. There are so many ways these trainers get away with this. I remember when trainer Mickey Burke was suspended for 4 months after two drug positives. He turned his stable over to his son Ron and the owners just kept rolling under a different name. As you can see, if you don't have stricter penalties for the owners, they just go from one drug cheat to another. I wouldn't suspend an owner when one of his horses tests positive, but I do think that once an owner has several horses test positive over a period of time, even with separate trainers, yes, he should be severely punished and suspended from owning horses. With your reasoning, a "fence" who sells stolen cars that he bought cheap from a car thief who has several convictions for stealing cars, is not a criminal, only the car thief should be punished. You're a lawyer, you know that's not how it works in real life, the "fence" is considered a criminal too and he is arrested and prosecuted for selling stolen goods. I guess your defense of him would be, "judge, my client didn't know that the $40,000 Cadillac he bought for $5,000 was stolen, he is an innocent man."

Bill Cullen at 04:11 AM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

"the only people who may be left in this sport are those seeking to draw salacious comments. Solutions not founded on actual fault will never lead to achieving the racing integrity we purportedly seek, as there will be no further need to do that then as, "we have solved the problem". - Joe Faraldo

of course, Joe. its a shame that you had to even print this in response to the mischief being caused by guys like Andy Cohen, Bob Pandoofus, Joke Valdez and J. Aren't. Many of Pena's owners are outstanding people with long histories in the game and who LIVE IN CALIFORNIA!!! How they could be held responsible for owning horses racing in New Jersey is beyond reasonable. Maybe one of the naysayers might tell us if Lloyd Arnold should be suspended in the event one of his horses were to come up positive. What the heck would he have to do with that?? It's just more nonsense from people who have only their own jealously and resentment to show for all this hysteria.

Bob Pandolfo at 05:39 AM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

One of the things that's missing in these articles and comments is the severity of doping horses. When a horse is racing with an illegal substance, the trainer is actually tampering with a sporting contest which is a criminal act. Luckily for these trainers who have multiple drug violations, the authorites rarely prosecute. But this is serous stuff. Let's say that an owner buys a horse for $20,000, gives it to a trainer who has never had a positive, puts the horse in a race and bets $2,000 to win on it. The horse is 9-1 but finishes 2nd to a horse that eventually tests positive. The owner of the drugged horse has to give the purse money back. But the innocent guy who ran 2nd doesn't get the purse money and doesn't get the $20,000 he would have won on his win bet. He just lost about $30,000 in income, which was essentially stolen from him. All of the people who bet on his horse also got screwed, as did any of the other honest horsemen in the race. On top of that, the illegal drug that was administered to the winning horse could have an extremely negative impact on the horse's health. I could go on and on, because there are many more reprecussions that come from this illegal activiity. When a doped horse wins, the race was not on the up and up, it was essentially a fixed race, in favor of the owner and trainer of the doped horse. This is a horrible thing for racing. It is blatant corruption, it is criminal activity.

Bill Cullen at 06:42 AM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

"When a horse is racing with an illegal substance, the trainer is actually tampering with a sporting contest which is a criminal act. " - Bob Pandoofus

I don't disagree. But you've been flapping your gums along with Cohen about the violations Pena had in California in 2002 forward. These were not "illegal substances". These were legal, therapeutic drugs which were over the allowed threshold. Banamine, for example. If you and your fellow naysayers think that Pena is winning these races because he is giving his horses too much Banamine, you're as nuts as you are jealous and resentful. That would have blown the urine and blood tests sky high. So, when you try to make your nonsense stick, use the proper terminology and stop trying to be provocative by using the phrase "illegal substance" when that is not the case. Morphine is an illegal substance. Banamine is not.

Allan at 09:04 AM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

Let's get away from Pena for a moment. To concentrate on Pena alone is a disservice to Mr. Faraldo and to everyone else. No rule should ever be known as "The Pena Rule". The question here is should owners be held responsible for the actions of their trainers.

No one should be talking about suspending an owner if a trainer gets a violation for something like an overdose//under dose of something like lasix or bute. We shouldn't be threatening an owner with a suspension for a trainer who missed the withdrawal period (especially when states have different rules). We should be talking about violations with prohibited/illegal substances like EPO, etc; those are the violations which should be of our concern.

In fact, we shouldn't be talking about an all encompasing suspension of an owner. What we should be talking about is suspending horses which were trained by the offending trainer for the owner at the time of the violation through the time a trainer is suspended and it should only involve the owners whose horse came up positive. No transfer to another trainer, no selling your interest in the horse; the horse in effect is 'put in jail'. By doing this, no owner should be at risk for losing their professional license for their regular job.

The problem is not with an owner who gives a trainer who had medication violations ten years ago another chance. To suspend an owner for employing a trainer like this would be wrong. If the trainer comes up positive in this case, the owner should get a free ride this time and be given the opportunity to decide whether to retain the trainer or not. Should the trainer then come up positive again, it would be a different story.

We need to be concerned with the owner who decides to send a horse to a trainer who has a recent violation (say, three years ago and more recent). Why are owners hiring a person to be their agent when they wouldn't hire someone like that trainer if the owner ran a different business? That is the question.

The fact is unless owners are held responsible, there will be some owners who "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", hoping whatever magic a trainer is using will be used on their horse(s). That is what we need to put an end to. No one is trying to keep an owner away from a successful trainer who plays by the rules.

OWNER at 09:53 AM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

Respect Joe Faraldo i voted for him he's done alot for New York racing but he's wrong on this one.Less than 5% of owners these days are as you say innocent , blind or naive they just look the other way. You own horses why not move them to these 25-30% trainers ; i'll answer for you. You know whats going on and kudos to you for not participating in it. To think that any owner who uses the trainer who is in the news lately is innocent ,blind or naive to whats going on well like you wrote is just plain STUPID. If a horse you own comes up positive the OWNER should have a problem on there hands and I promise you
this will do two things. 1.put these guys out of biz. 2. the owner wont look the other way anymore!!!!!!!

George Valdez at 10:08 AM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

Here's what you need to do.

If a horse comes up positive and the trainer gets a 30 day suspension, the horse also gets 'suspended' for 30 days. This way, owners get hurt in the pocketbook for employing a cheat.

We have seen time and time again where owners will NOT leave a trainer who is cheating. They 'stick by their man' because they know they are reaping financial benefits from that trainer's drug use.

Owners love to just look the other way as long as they are winning, but i would love to see the drugged up horse be forced to sit on the sidelines for 1 month (and then be forced to qualify, which would make them miss 5 weeks of racing) .

Bill Cullen at 10:34 AM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

"No one is trying to keep an owner away from a successful trainer who plays by the rules." - Allan Cohen

That's total B.S., Al. Up to now, there is no proof whatsoever that Pena is not playing by the rules. In fact, the way the NJRC has been following him, his help, his horses, his vans, etc., you would think that you and your evil twin, Andy Cohen, and your buddies, Bob Pandoofus, Joke Valdez, and J.Aren't would be asking the NJRC for the latest scoop. Don't you think we would have heard something by now?? But in answer to your statement, the accumulated weight of the accusations against Pena have certainly worked to keep owners away from him...........that is, green owners who were swayed by all the evil and jealous attacks. Savvy, experienced owners, on the other hand, like Lloyd Arnold, Eddie Davis, Jay Sears and others don't waste their time with you guys.

In all fairness, I understood your post to be related to EPO and that level of illegal drug. However, there are already rules in place for "owner responsibility" and long term disqualification of an EPO horse, and unless, in my opinion, you have evidence that an owner was DIRECTLY involved in trying to drug a horse, you and your jealous, inexperienced, 5-year, legal analyst sidekick are barking up the wrong tree.

Joe Faraldo is 10000000% right, but to anyone in the business who knows and cares.........ho, hum.

Bill Cullen at 10:49 AM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

"To think that any owner who uses the trainer who is in the news lately is innocent, blind or naive to whats going on well like you wrote is just plain STUPID." - Boner

You're the stupid one, Boner. Or you know something NOBODY else does, including the NJRC. You and Joke Valdez are getting waaaaaaaaaaay ahead of yourselves with all this talk about suspending the horse and owner (btw, Joke, there are already rules in place for that but since you've been in the game for only 5 years just like your evil sidekick, Andy Cohen, you wouldnt know that) when there has been nothing improper done by Pena. Eddie Davis is as no-nonsense a guy as you will find. Why not ask him why he has horses with Pena? Ask him if he is turning a blind eye to something? You and all the naysayers are just a bunch of attention-starving, rumor mongers. Stop it.

Allan at 10:59 AM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

Bill,

Don't know why I got the "Cohen" tag. Perhaps you didn't read my comment close enough.

I have tried to be fair minded through out this whole debate. Perhaps you didn't notice that I specifically said forget about Pena when I commented last. I also commented that someone should not be penalized for hiring a trainer who was last suspended for a serious medication violation ten years ago. I was talking about someone who hired a trainer who got a recent violation. Clearly I was not focusing on Pena whose last violation was relatively long ago. Under my proposal, no one would get penalized for giving Mr. Pena a horse.

That being said, I do appreciate the fact you did recognize I am not trying to penalize anyone for something which could be an honest mistake. Mistakes do happen, the current system works good enough in those cases.

Bob Pandolfo at 11:17 AM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

Joe’s argument is that the owner’s should NOT be held responsible when their trainer gets caught doping. Unfortunately, if we don’t develop some sort of system to punish the owners, this will never stop. The ideas that Joe Faraldo has about policing the sport are too expensive and the tracks are not Scotland Yard. It will never happen. Even the detention barn is a waste of time and money and unfair to the honest horsemen.

The ideas that some of you have about a 30 day or longer suspension for the horse are good, hit the owner where it hurts, in the pocket book. My idea is, develop a point system, every time a horse tests positive, the trainer and the owners get points. Some instances, such as an overdose of a legal medication, may count as only 10 points. Others, such as an illegal substance, 25 points. Once they accrue a certain amount of points, let’s say 100, their license is suspended for one year. They can buy back in after a year for a $10,000 penalty, then they start again with a clean slate, but this time the threshold, or point cap, is only 50 points. If they get another 50 points, they are banned for life, they can’t own or train horses.

We also must have a new rule, the owner's name MUST BE ON THE PPS, no stable names unless the actual names of the owners are next to it. This way we can keep track of the owners record and they can't hide behind a stable name.

This is simple. The only way to stop these crimes is severe punishment, and unfortunately, the owner has to be included because the trainer will simply change names, as we see all the time when a trainer is suspended but his barn, horses, and owners continue to function under a different name.

This idea of the racetracks and the industry turning into master crime busters is ridiculous. NYRA can't even afford the detention barn and is going to stop using it. In case you haven't noticed, harness racing is a dying sport. There's barely enough money to keep the sport going let alone increase the costs of policing it. The only thing that will work quickly and is easy to implement something that makes it tougher on owners who use these repeat offenders.

Bill Cullen at 11:26 AM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

"We need to be concerned with the owner who decides to send a horse to a trainer who has a recent violation (say, three years ago and more recent)." - Allan Cohen

Oh, I got your message loud and clear, Al. What types of recent violations are you referring to? Bute, banamine, cortisone, procaine???? Do you want to bury owners for those, too?? As I said there are already rules on the books for "owner responsibility" and EPO horses. EPO horses are put on the list for a long period of time. But NONE of this is at issue here. The issue remains how people like you and your jealous, and speculating sidekicks like your evil twin, Andy Cohen, Bob Pandoofus, Joke Valdez and J.Aren't get to stand on their soap box and pontificate about how to save the world WHEN NOTHING HAS HAPPENED!!! Please, please have Andy Cohen go to Eddie Davis or Lloyd Arnold and ask these insane questions. He will get exactly what he deserves.

George at 12:22 PM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

Since Bill Cullen seems to know more about racing than me, i'll defer to his 'expertise' and play along. Mr Cullen, where in my post did i mention the words Lou or Pena? I love it when people put words in my mouth. Go back and read my post and issue me an apology, i never once mentioned Lou Pena in my post, go back and re-read it before you start tossing stones.

Bill Cullen at 01:04 PM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

"But, he wants us to possibly believe that Pena is DESTROYING his training competition on oats and hay, while these other nitwits are drugging and preracing and still getting crushed by an oats and hay guy?

Is it actually possible that a guy can be doing nothing wrong and using no illegal stuff and he's able to not only beat drug trainers, but destroy them in a manner than hasn't ever been seen before?

I don't know, it seems fishy to me that with all these cheaters running around horse racing, the the lone honest guy is the best guy, the guy who's making a mockery of the sport on oats and hay." - Joke Valdez

nice try, Joke. I can see you doing that moonwalk right now. Your postings offer nothing more than a glimpse into your inner jealousy and resentment. In short, they are a joke. You want to punish a horse for 30 days for what?? a high bute? a high banamine? Go back and read MY post. There are already rules in place for trainer, owner and horse. But since I have you here, please answer your own question, namely, in your opinion is it possible for someone to win a bunch of races on "oats and hay" (what a joke. anyone in the business knows thats its said as "hay and oats" not the reverse.)??? Of course, you will answer "No", even though you and your sidekicks, the Cohen brothers (Andy and Allan), Bob Pandoofus and J.Aren't have no idea what you're talking about. Go ask Doug Ackerman if its possible to win races, BIG races, on hay and oats.

lainey at 01:17 PM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

Thank God for Mr. Faraldo!! Someone with some sense. I hate talking about Lou Pena but the guy had positives years and years ago. Why should anyone be denied a second chance? Why does Bob Pandol-fool assume Mr. Pena is cheating? His horses get tested when they finish 6th. Its truly about time they start celebrating Lou Pena's accomplishments. Its a shame the USTA does not mention Lou Pena on there website as the top trainer in the country. Thank God for the Meadowlands announcers, Hollywood Heyden, Sam Mckee and Ken Warkenten. They do heap some praise on Mr. Pena.

The question I have for Andy Blownen and Bob Pandol-fool is what would have to happen for you idiots to celebrate Mr Pena's accomplishments.

What's going to happen when Real Joke wins the Breeders Crown and The Haughton?

One thing I can say about trainers who cheat, if they test positives throw them out for life.

Owners can not be held accountable for a trainers actions. Do you really think a trainer would tell any owner "Hey Andy, dont tell anyone but Share the Delight is on the juice tonight"? You guys are tat stupid if you think any trainer (Linda Toscano) would tell anyone if there juicing.

Mr Cullen, thank you for having a voice of reason.

Allan at 11:01 PM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

Bill,

My last comment on the subject.

What medicines would cause a problem? Medicines which are explicitly banned from being used in a horse at all times by the regulators. Things like EPO, Snake Venom, drugs not approved for use in the United States, etc. Drugs like Bute which are clearly theraputic but not allowed so many days before a race would not be grounds for any type of problem. The specific drugs to be included? I would leave it up to the RMTC to determine those; I certainly am not experienced enough to make that determination.

One more thing. John Smith has a horse with trainer John Doe. My horse comes up positive for snake venom. This is the first time this trainer ever had a positive for this type of medication/drug. Does John Smith get into trouble other than losing the purse money? Under my proposal, no. However, John Smith has to make a decision. Move his horses away from John Doe (something he probably should be doing) or stick with the trainer realizing if one his horses comes up with a similar type violation while being trained by John Doe, he would find his horses being put in jail for say, ninety days? What an unreasonable proposal this is!

What does this have to do with jealousy about any one trainer's success? Nothing. It has more to do with punishing those owners who want to win at all cost; sticking with trainers who clearly are trying to cheat the system, not getting caught up in an honest mistake. In fact, in my system, the benefit of doubt regarding the intentions are favoring the trainer/owner.

You seem to lump anyone who thinks owners need to take some responsibility as part of this cabal jealous of a trainer for being successful. I don't recall ever calling any trainer a cheat. I will say it once again, my proposal has nothing to do with Pena specifically (though admittedly Mr. Faraldo would not have written this column if not for the Pena debate), which you insist it does. I may have suspicions about certain trainers, but until it is proven, I try to give them the benefit of doubt and I would not criticize anyone for using that trainer until something is proven.

Here's a novel thought. Maybe someone who disagrees with you on this subject just has the best interests of harness racing at heart, no hidden agenda. Is my idea perfect? Probably not; but it was meant to be a starting point for discussion.

Here is one thing i do know. Do you see people flocking to the track anymore and betting like they used to? I don't. Clearly, business as usual is not working. Maybe holding owners to some level of responsibility when it comes to hiring a trainer is part of the solution; maybe not. It is at least worth discussing.

Bob Pandolfo at 11:32 PM 22-Jun-2010 NZT

It can be done, Harness Racing can clean up its act. Baseball, scared by congressional hearings and threats of jailtime for its players did the right thing and stopped the use of illegal steroids cold. The NFL followed suit. Of course MLB and the NFL are well organized, Harness Racing isn't. But this can be stopped, all that's needed is action. Doping is at an all-time high in the past few years with EPO, Aminorex, Licocaine, snake venom, etc. being found in use. Here is a quote from an article in Times Herald Record pertaining to severe drug problems at Monticello, which resulted in that track cracking down on EPO.

"It's great to hear, but the tests are easy to beat," said Dr. George Maylin, director of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board's Equine Drug Testing Program at Cornell University. "It's a long shot to catch someone using EPO. So how are they going to ban them if they can't catch them? But this is a step in the right direction."

As Dr. Maylin said, the tests are easy to beat. That's why when someone is caught using these substances the penalty must be severe.

Andrew Cohen at 12:46 AM 23-Jun-2010 NZT

The long list of credentials that horseman's attorney Joe Faraldo has achieved in harness racing over the years is impressive. However, his accomplishments as a leader within the industry would be far more impressive and meaningful today if the industry he has helped lead for the past few decades was successful, stable and full of promise. It is not. It is a disaster and he, like so many other of our current crop of "leaders," is partially to blame.

The first sentence of his third paragraph offers all you need to know about the self-defeating, paternal attitude which has brought the sport to its knees. Faraldo writes: "What brought all of this to mind once again is the recently renewed talk of an owner's responsibility rule as a suggested remedy to curb the success of trainers who appear to be exceeding all expectations by purportedly winning too much."

Instead of acknowleding a serious and growing concern within harness racing, Faraldo mocks the problem and those who have raised the issue. The charge, as Faraldo well knows, is not that any single trainer is "winning too much." The charge is that too many trainers are winning with horses and at speeds that beggar belief, raise suspicion, and harm honest players. Pretending that cheating trainers are merely "successful," as Faraldo does, is no way to stop the fraud. Nor is allowing owners to continue to get away with using such trainers and then conveniently washing their hands of the mess once it surfaces.

-Andrew Cohen

Bob Pandolfo at 01:40 AM 23-Jun-2010 NZT

I guess I have to be the one to stop this silly notion that illegal drugs are the only problem. As has been pointed out by Bill Cullen regarding past Pena positives: "These were not "illegal substances". These were legal, therapeutic drugs which were over the allowed threshold." Sorry Bill, I know that you are smarter than me and apparently know a lot more about harness racing, but some of these therapeutic drugs that you think are so wonderful can be used to mask other drugs. Plus, some therapeutic drugs, given in high doses, can temporarily improve a horse's performance. A few cups of coffee can improve a person's performance. Why do you think that Pena was overdosing his horses with this stuff when other trainers were using the proper doses? How naive are you? One thing we haven't addressed is lasix, which shoud be banned. Harness and thoroughbred racing in Europe is doing much better than it is here and they dont use lasix. Lasix is a huge part of this problem. As you know, Harness Racing once thrived and there was no lasix. Here is an excerpt from an article by veteran turf writer Bill Finley, who has written for the NY Times, Sports Illustrated, and USA Today:

"So, it appears that Lasix doesn't solve bleeding or keep horses in training longer. Then what does it do? According to the World Anti-Doping Agency, it masks other drugs. That's why it is on its list of banned drugs, which means athletes competing in the Olympics are not permitted to use it.

Lasix is a fraud. There is strong evidence that it is detrimental to the long-term well-being of the horse and some of the world's most respected scientists say it can mask other drugs. Its pervasive use adds to racing's image as an outlaw sport where drug use is rampant. Besides Canada, no other country in the world allows it. Yet, its usage here is out of control and no one seems to want to do anything about it. That needs to change."

Jay Bergman at 04:34 AM 23-Jun-2010 NZT

"What brought all of this to mind once again is the recently renewed talk of an owner's responsibility rule as a suggested remedy to curb the success of trainers who appear to be exceeding all expectations by purportedly winning too much. In these cases, those who champion the term "integrity" over objective truth concoct the crazy notion that owners are duty-bound to avoid overachieving trainers."
Joe Faraldo

Actually the suggestion wasn't that owners shouldn't find overachieving trainers. The suggestion was if these said overachievers turn into proven cheats, the owners should suffer the consequences.

I'm not as quick as Mr. Cohen to believe that the sudden recent success of just one individual or two or three depending which ones you are looking at, is putting any additional tarnish on the sport. I certainly applaud anyone with new ideas to improve the image of the sport. Mr. Faraldo's suggestion that "good police work" is the answer would be great if funds were actually available to hire more police. Since that is not currently, and probably won't be happening any time soon, I would suggest to Mr. Faraldo and leaders of other horsemen's groups to invest some of their own money so that more investigators could be hired. At least this might give horsemen and the public the idea that someone is watching. Then again if the horsemen as a whole are happy with the current state of affairs, or at least not totally unhappy, let's keep our heads in the sand and proceed.

highway at 04:53 AM 23-Jun-2010 NZT

Let's try to look at this question in a logical way. A horse trainer is a contractor, so contracted by a horse owner to race the animal for purposes of earning purse money. In order to enjoy the right to act as a professional contractor, the trainer must acquire a license, which includes a proof of qualifications and an understanding of the prevailing rules. In the case of horse trainers, we have two such licensing authorities- the national authority, The USTA and in addition the invividual state licensing authority. Both authorities must sanction an active and valid license in order for the contractor (trainer) to engage in his professional activities as a trainer.

It is the job and duty of the licensing authorities to revoke or suspend the licenses of individual who for whatever reason have been found to be be disqualified from the right to act as said contractor.

Now. Let's take an exact analogy. You are a real estate speculator who purchases distressed properties with the aim to rehab them and resell at a profit. To do this, you employ a contractor to effect improvements on the properties. Your job as a contractee is to determine that the contractor holds all valid licenses issued by empowered authorities which allow said contractor the right and priviledge to perform the required work. Fine. You do so. However, after the work has been completed, it is discovered that the contractor used illegal alien labor to perform the work. For this infraction, the contractor is fined and suspended.

The question now becomes, what do we do with the property owner? What sanction should he or she suffer? In this anology, the suggested remedy would be to disallow the property owner to resell for a period of time and/or lose the right for a period of time to continue buying and reselling.

Would such sanctions hold up in a court of law? Are you kidding me? The idea that there must exist a complicit culpability is ludicrous. In short: Faraldo is correct. This hysteria is going too far. Let's nip this nonsense in the bud.

George Valdez at 11:10 AM 23-Jun-2010 NZT

The problem is that the fines and suspensions for trainers breaking the rules are not strong enough. Until we prosecute a trainer for fixing a sporting contest and he comes away from this with an actual criminal record as a convicted felon and much heavier fines and the embarrassment of being led away in handcuffs and having to go thru the United States criminal court system, nothing is going to change, its going to be business as usual.

Breaing a 'racing rule' is different from breaking a real life law. If you are a trainer and you drug a horse, you are tampering with a sporting contest, yet, the racetracks permit trainers who are breaking real life laws to just be punished by them. If you go into wal mart and rob the place, the GM of walmart doesnt tell the police, "dont worry, we will handle the punishments". This doesnt happen in Wal mart, but it happens in our racetracks around the nation. We need the police and FBI to handle the punishments, not the tracks themselves.

Bob Pandolfo at 02:35 PM 23-Jun-2010 NZT

There are two separate issues here. Mr. Faraldo is talking about the racing industry creating an owner's responsibility rule, which he thinks is stupid. But the legal consequence is a different matter. Some of you may recall that when the Ledford barn was raided and found to be using EPO, the NJ state police arrested Eric Ledford and three other people affiliated with the stable and charged them with "conspiracy to fix a race,” which I believe is a felony. This was following an 18 month investigation. The Lieutenant who was in charge of the investigation was quoted as saying that they knew something was wrong because of the performances of the horses. The police are not as gullible as some people on this forum who think that horses can improve by three seconds with new shoes.

I could be wrong, but in this type of situation, where the state goes after the stable for race fixing, the owners are not protected and can not only be investigated and questioned, but could also arrested and charged for taking part in the conspiracy.

I get a kick out of the posts that say that Pena's owners are "savvy." Maybe they are, there's certainly money to be made. But let's make something clear. Owners have been charged with race fixing in the past, this is a fact. So don't think that for a second that an owner cannot be held responsible by law. Doping horses is tampering with a sporting contest.

And of course, prominent owners have to be aware that even if the charges are dropped, it could be quite an embarrassment, to say the least, not to mention the stress and potential high costs of legal fees. During the Ledford barn raid, a horse was actually found dead in the barn. Talk about bad press! And here’s something enlightening regarding the Ledford arrests, as was reported in the Jersey tabloids: the police froze the assets of the veterinarian who was arrested. His bank accounts and assets were valued at approximately $1 million. Holy cash-flow problems Batman!

Furthermore, there is your reputation to think of. Let’s suppose that I owned horses trained by Ledford at the time of the raid. As a longtime professional handicapper and journalist, would it not have made me look like a cheat? Would it not have destroyed my credibility? I’ve never been called savvy, but that’s fine with me. I’ve also never been called a felon.

Greg Gogoel at 05:51 PM 23-Jun-2010 NZT

As I look at the entries for the beginning of the 2 year old season at the Meadowlands I mysteriously find no entries from the great Lou Pena. How could it be that the greatest trainer in the history of the track doesn't have any 2year olds? Could it be that you actually have to train them ?

Allan at 10:39 PM 23-Jun-2010 NZT

Here is one problem with attempting to prosecute every medication violation, and I assume most of us would agree it would have to be serious violation to be defined by a respected committee such as the RMTC. The legal standard will not permit a conviction in 90% of the cases. How do you charge a trainer with conspiring to fix a race? Here are some of the defenses:

Someone snuck into the barn and injected my horse.
Did you see me inject the horse?
Sure I injected the horse but how do you know it was a prohibited substance? Do you have the syringe to test?

This is why most cases are not prosecuted and dealt with administratively with a lower standard of proof. It is a rare situation when the legal system gets involved. After all, do you think your state prosecuter is going to want to deal with every race fixing charge that comes accross his desk when there are murders, rapists, drug dealers ,etc. to deal with? Racing is low on the totem pole.

Wishing everyone got charged criminally is not realistic.

That being said, the only way to get this problem under control is to change the risk/reward ratio. The risk a person faces for getting caught needs to be so high that it just isn't worth it.

Highway, you came up with a great example I must confess. Though there is nothing to say a different legal standard can't be applied to the situation we are discussing. However, it is not an exact analogy. I would hope no one is suggesting penalizing, other than a purse surrender, an owner who gets caught up with a trainer who has no recent record of severe medication violations. Would the answer change if your analogy was changed to "...You decide to hire the contractor even though his licensing record shows he consistently uses illegal aliens to do the work." These are the people most rational people would suggest need to be sanctioned.

daniel wickson at 12:47 AM 24-Jun-2010 NZT

Especially for ALLAN: Glad you posted what you did.

1. Why do MOST LEADING trainers stable "off" the grounds . Confused

2. If the OWNER and TRAINER want the privacy of "STAYING" at their place of choice, then the OWNER and TRAINER take the risk of where they stay. It is called TRAINER RESPONSIBILITY .

3. If you as OWNER / TRAINER have BAD people working for you, that was YOUR choice, not the publics. If you stable in a BAD area, that was YOUR choice and YOU deal with YOUR choices. If you feel someone is TAMPERING with your horses, YOU as TRAINER / OWNER put the cameras in at YOUR choice of where you stable at to assure their PROPER care.

4. All TRAINERS / OWNERS must sign an agreement with the track. If or when caught with a CLASS I or II positive, you post a $3,500 bond for each horse owned or trained by those respective parties until the matter is resolved. The horses go in a 24 hour round the clock surveillance barn at the track in question. This lasts for 60 days. Any other positive, forfeits all of your bond money, and you as trainer and owner are DONE, good bye. You don't sign the agreement, YOU don't race. No beards, no phony transfers, the HORSES don't race.

5. For too long, the JUICE trainers have run and ruined the game. For too long there has been NO deterrent for cheating and doping. Loosing your license is a consequence, not a deterrent. Do you think Bill Robinson or Monte Gelrod ever quit training when they lost their license, GET REAL Confused

6. If you think the JUICE trainers only get caught with the "HOT test" in question, YOU are EXTREMELY foolish and EXTREMELY stupid.

7. A milkshake positive is 2 fold. One is the act itself, and the other is if you are over the limits. If you shake one, and are under the limits, does this mean you didn't SHAKE one . Confused

8. If the issue of racing isn't so important, why is it so IMPORTANT for Jersey to get slots Confused

9. Above you state and I quote, "How do you charge a trainer with conspiring to fix a race". The trainer is LOOKING to gain an edge. Something the wagering fan DOESN'T see in the program, until the FOLLOWING weeks charted line with that MONSTER MILE.

10. And then we see the EMPTY charted line on the following weeks performance as the wagering favorite and NOWHERE around.

11. The game will NEVER be perfect, but there is MUCH room for improvement from TOP to BOTTOM Wink

12. The line has been drawn in the sand, NEW parties need to be put in place that are NOT part of the good ole boy network and PUT forth STRICT rules. When the RULES are VIOLATED, the horseman know THEIR PUNISHMENT and also their CONSEQUENCES. They are entitled to their DUE process, not MANIPULATE the process.

What do you think?

Name: (required)

Email: (required, but will not be published)