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.