As we are seeing from the current actions at the Meadowlands, exclusion is turning into a tool to get those people management feels counters their best business interests out of the way. Of course, the problem is there is nothing to keep those people from racing at any other site.
First of all, you will never hear the reason why a person is asked to leave. You see (saw) the battle with Lou Pena and the Meadowlands over the right to exclude; that is the exception. Could you see what would happen if the Saginaw Raceway sent John Doe or anyone else a letter saying we will not accept any further entries from you because of your alleged drugging of race horses? You will be seeing that track in court real quick for defamation of character. I guess you can say we are denying you privileges of racing at The Track due to the number of infractions on your record but then when you are in court, you better be able to show that the number of infractions of the remaining participants have less infractions than the person you excluded. So by nature, you need to say 'thanks, but we think it would be best for all if you didn't race here".
Typically, that person will be showing up at another racetrack to ply their trade. You may ask how they could have that person racing at their track when they were excluded at another track? First of all, unless the excluded person makes a point of making it public, you may guess but will never know for sure that a person has been excluded. First of all, the person will already have made a point of racing elsewhere along with a story of how they decided to shift their operations. If the grapevine suggests a person has been excluded, try to find out from the track he/she has been racing at why they were excluded.
Ever go look for another job and try to get an official recommendation from the company? Most likely all your old company will tell them is you worked for them from X to Y and your ending salary was Z. If you were terminated from your past employer due to a cause, they may play the game "Is Tom eligible for re-hiring?", the other company may answer "Yes" or "No"; with 'No' being the code word for this person is toxic. If Tom ever finds out that a company foolishly told your potential employer why you were fired, even if for theft, there is a good chance your old employer will be expecting a visit to court for defamation of character. With racing, the track may even deny the exclusion, but if another track told them you were excluded, you can rest assured they would never tell them why you were excluded.
So exclusion really is a way for one track to get rid of a person, but it merely passes the person on to another track. That's the problem with exclusion. However, because we don't have any national regulatory agency, exclusion is the best tool available to get a problem individual of your race grounds. A simple letter, saying we will no longer accept entries from you as of a certain date, is a lot easier than waiting for your racing commission to revoke a license of individual it being a state agency must go through a much longer legal process, which admittedly, many racing commissions rather not handle.
Forget about a commissioner. Unless the racing states sign a compact to form a national racing regulatory organization to regulate the sport, exclusion is the best way to handle the problem.
8 comments:
Why should there need to be any compact?
All tracks privately owned can exclude based on their own personal business decisions.
This is not a "best interest of harness racing" argument.
The essential question we would all like answered---why is the person excluded?--actually would put the argument on a level playing field. What we have now are cases where some past offenders are allowed to participate and others are not.
PJFraley takes over the Kesmodel barn due to his current suspension. Instead of calling a beard a beard we are introduced to this "new " trainer as someone who "decided" to go on his own!!!!
Shouldn't this story or alleged connection be at least represented accurately to the betting public?
I it is very coincidental for Fraley to go independent when Kesmodel got suspended. I suspect he got called in an had a chat to convince management he was not just bearding for Kesmodel; perhaps that was the prompting he needed to go independent. Perhaps he is bearding.
The fact there is no regulatory agency that can realistically find out the truth.
If there was a compact and there was a national regulatory agency, some rules could be put in place so the need to exclude would not be needed; a person can out and out be tossed. Right now, with each state making their own rulings you can't.
Are you really comfortable that someone who "technically" hasn't broken any current laws should be banished for suspicion?
Convince management? Are you serious? Within one day the man has a 40 horse stable and NO contact with Kesmodel. Somehow these horses remain in the same form.
If he fooled management he hasn't fooled gamblers who have bet this virtual unknown as if he WAS Kesmodel.
Thought with a new sheriff in town this kind of fraud would not be perpetrated?
I can't speak for track management on Fraley. The only thing I can imagine is this industry is used to asst trainers taking over and they assume they will play fairly; the assumption the trainer in charge (this case Kesmodel) made the decision to cheat. When Fraley took over the stable (and yes, he did the assumption is there is no talk with the original trainer.
Is that the way it works? I recall a case in Canada when the beard talked to the original trainer and both were hung out to dry with hefty fines and suspensions. Now do they look for that in the states, or does it have to fall in their lap to do something.
Two things which should be stated. Fraley was the asst trainer of Kesmodel so he knows the training routine.
The other thing is the medication rule that Kesmodel got nailed for is a class 4 medication. A class 4 medication is one that may or may not have an effect on racing performance so without that medication, the horses can be maintaining their form.
Why do you believe this isn't Kesmodel?
This is not a trainer change.
Handicappers are mislead by the Big M press release which never mentioned Kesmodel, and gives the impression that Fraley is on his own with NEW horses and not the same he has already been assisting with before.
The point is let us not be quick to pontificate about integrity, then conveniently leave out the clear connection between the assistant becoming the chief without any horses or people moving an inch.
I know Fraley used to be an assistant trainer with Kesmodel. The question is if Kesmodel is talking to Fraley.
If you are talking about my posting on the Standardbred Press Release site the Meadowlands' press release about it, that's their story I don't challenge them on that website.
I will check on the rules about this, transfering to an employee. I assume that is correct. From what you and others are saying, is the assumption that Kesmodel is in contact with Fraley. I gather that assumption is made for any trainer who gets suspended and the stable is turned over to an assistant.
Do you have inside information or do you assume Fraley is in contact with Kesmodel?
For the record, if you recall I have called for an official licensing of an assistant trainer so they get suspsended when the main trainer gets suspended. When I did that, I was told how can you punish someone who is innocent. You can't seem to win.
Pretty easy call for me. They should tell Fraley that if/when Kesmodel is allowed back that his horses stay with him (or at least a reasonable amount do) or he himself won't be allowed back. They should enact that rule with all the new beards that pop-up.
Post a Comment