Maybe what Dutrow did is not uncommon. So perhaps that's why 'just' another 14 days. It's more intereting to me that he got fined $25,000 which is a pretty large fine. I think Pletcher and Assmussen got $3000-$5000 fines to go along with their suspensions.

California now allows for fines up to $50,000 for repeat offenses.

I think it's a good thing to see the higher fines. $25,000 or $50,000 is real money, even for very successful trainers. Hit 'em where it hurts.

I think they should have doubling of suspension days. First offense is 7 days, second is 14 days, third is 28 days, etc....

It'll get rid of the guys like Dutrow who repeatedly break the rules. Eventually he'll be suspended for long periods of time. While the trainers who get the accidental medication violations would have to get caught three times to even get a month.

While I agree with you about the money, I think your first line is EXACTLY why the penalty should be severe. If breaking the rules in the manner Dutrow did is " not uncommon ", as you suggest, it feels like a message needs to be sent. They have shown that they can catch someone for having illegal contact and now they must show how they deal with it. In this case I don't believe they dealt with it harshly enough.....even with the relatively substantial fine. Frankly, for a trainer who's earnings have been as substantial as Mr. Dutrow's have been over the last several years that is an inconsequential amount of money. Only someone, in that situation, who squandered their money would be hurt by such a paltry sum.

You actually think Trainers on suspension do not talk to the Barn. I am sure Mr. Pletcher, and Assman didn't.:rolleyes:

They all do, and will. Seems foolish to me. And yes, the owners still have to pay their bills, so they will get a bill.

Dutow just doesn't know how to run the business behind close doors, he needs more practice.:D

Whether or not this is true, this is my point, if trainers knew they faced an additional year suspension for such a rules viloation they would certainly think more than twice about doing it. To effectively slap a person on the wrist for getting caught doing exactly what most of us believe they do sends the absolute wrong message.....yet again.

Just because Dutrow isn't smart enough to know how to communcate with his barn, you think others would be so stupid?

Maybe just toss out the Hammer on the 1st offense, that's the problem. They have way to many way's around this stuff. Richard will pay for his ignorance, others will learn from it.

Just like when he sent out that NY Bred Saturday against open company, and got the Locals to bet him down to 3/2. Got his behind handed to him

The $25k fine was for violating the terms of his suspension. The $3k to $5k fines levied against Pletcher and Assmusen were for the actual positives themselves.

I don't think $25k is that common of a fine.

Eric

Only common to the stupid ones
:D

several thoughts have occurred to me..

for one, apparently dutrow wasn't aware, or didn't care, that they could subpoena the records-else why chance it? or did the subsequent interview have something to do with them investigating further? how long have they had the power to do so much checking? is a newer rule in place that allowed them to go back and investigate? i'm asking those last couple since it's been over a year since the original suspension.

also, is this a good example of dutrows mindset? breaking rules, scoffing at them, etc...

also, should they have re-instated the original suspension, since he didn't follow the rules of that suspension?

Fair enough. But I do think that a fine of $25,000 plus the change in California (up to $50,000) compared to the laughably paltry sums Pletcher and Assmussen got very recently is meaningful, at least directionally within a fairly short time frame.

Judging by Dutrow's 'they did what they had to do' shrugging comments, I'd assume this was a negotiated deal, not to be followed by any appeal.

In any event, I'm glad to see increased fines becoming more a part of the process. And if $25k isn't enough to hurt, move the fines up.

I agree. I guess ELA pointed out that the other low fines were what was attached to the specific drug positives. I don't know about you but it feels to me those are the same fines they were giving out 30 years ago.

Perhaps the new theme song for racing, developed of course by the NTRA, could be a riff on " Let's do the Time Warp ".

perhaps fines should be figured %-wise. todd pletchers fine being 1k for example wouldn't hurt as much as a small trainer paying the same fine.

LOL.

You probably can't legally get into a selective prosecution.

Not that I would want to learn first hand, but I would think that every suspension has its own terms and conditions. I say this because I and others have seen different. A trainer here posted the language from his suspension and it said nothing about contact, billing, phone calls, etc. Maybe this is the case for all suspensions and it goes unsaid or maybe its the case for second, third, etc. offenses -- I don't know.

Eric

no, i'm not saying selective...i'm saying instead of a set amount, could they put that you would be fined in percentages of your total purses won, rather than a set amount?

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on television, but I doubt it would hold up.

i'm getting there....rotten flu i guess. just very tired now. thanks!

Rumor has it this peculiar person was seen around the Dutrow barn during his suspension...

disclaimer: I do not know what I am talking about...

but I was told by our lawyer when i ran my condo association that we would be better served legally if we made late penalties and fines a percentage of our dues...that way when dues were raised the fines would automatically go up as well...instead of having to revisit the fines schedule every time the dues went up...also they were less easy for a homeowner to challenge the amounts (don't ask me why)

I would think that the same could be true in racing...