tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4684463172854959042.post2615057510048127705..comments2024-02-27T17:43:37.207-05:00Comments on View From the Racetrack Grandstand: Exclusion: Good or Bad for the Sport?That Blog Guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15487597769210721585noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4684463172854959042.post-31283436798380018002012-01-02T16:23:24.175-05:002012-01-02T16:23:24.175-05:00Anon,
In the old days, you used to see in program...Anon,<br /><br />In the old days, you used to see in programs the local trainer and the main trainer (Tr - John Doe, St - John Smith). What should happen is if John Doe gets a positive, his employer gets suspended as well and all his trainers at all locations that work for him. Remember, an asst trainer is an agent for the trainer so it wouldn't be unheard of legally. Of course, there is a chance that the stables will just 'break up'.<br /><br />I think we are going to head to the day trainers and drivers are employees of tracks and if someone messes up, they get fired. Don't need a commission ruling, as employees they employed at will and may be fired at any time. <br /><br />The question is how do horses get assigned to the horses?That Blog Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15487597769210721585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4684463172854959042.post-64751287814891946992012-01-02T16:19:09.354-05:002012-01-02T16:19:09.354-05:00I think exclusion is good because so often racing ...I think exclusion is good because so often racing commissions have been either unwilling or unable to regulate racing by effectively punishing rule breakers. But does it do any good to exclude a trainer if he simply puts his horses into the name of an assistant or beard and goes on with business as usual?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4684463172854959042.post-82572171787874889602012-01-02T16:15:53.455-05:002012-01-02T16:15:53.455-05:00Unfortunately, sometimes exclusion happens due to ...Unfortunately, sometimes exclusion happens due to the 'smell test'. If such facts were made public, I suspect the tracks would face slander charges and a whole lot of trouble.<br /><br />In a way, it is like they suspect you have been stealing at work and they give you the option of getting fired and a bad report for future employers or resigning your job and not saying anything bad about you.That Blog Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15487597769210721585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4684463172854959042.post-6471166990067279642012-01-02T14:43:59.948-05:002012-01-02T14:43:59.948-05:00I agree with most points you make in your posts.
...I agree with most points you make in your posts.<br /><br />However, I take issue with your defense of not identifying the rule(s) that a person has violated causing their expulsion in this case. It is a copout and the tracks or whomever is making such decisions need to have the stomach to make public the details of what has happened. I am willing to bet dimes to donuts that track leadership, industry titans, etc. talk in the backrooms, hallways, etc (why should this industry be any different than any other, people are people????) and they all know what happened and why.<br /><br />As such I do not think the publication of the facts surrounding such a decision will impact anyone's ability to continue employment elsewhere (and that brings up the point that maybe it should, but I digress).<br /><br />And why should the public who lays their cash down at the window not be in on such pertinent facts? <br /><br />Do you think anyone who lays a wager would not want to know?<br /><br />Let us not lose sight of the goal. Here we are trying to increase the popularity of the sport and yet here we go again making the sport appear shady and dark, obscuring the facts and almost justifying all the negatives that everyone for years has had over betting on standard bred racing.<br /><br />IMHO we need to be the sport that polices itself and does so in a very public way. <br /><br />DagisanDagisannoreply@blogger.com