Dutrow Suspended for 14 Days(For Communicating with Barn)

[Rupert Pupkin]

I guess they do have a rule that says suspended trainers may not have contact with their barn during suspensions. Dutrow just got fined $25,000 and suspended for 14 days for being in contact with his barn during a suspension over a year ago. They subpoenaed the phone records of some of his employees. That is how they caught him. They also discovered that he billed some owners while he was suspended.

I could have sworn that a few of you assured me that they could not subpoena your phone records.

http://drf.com/news/article/82518.html

[Gander]

What a great quote (In BOLD)...

"He was doing things he shouldn't have been doing," Donofrio said.

Dutrow slapped with 14-day suspension
By DAVID GRENING

http://www.drf.com/news/article/82518.html

[randallscott35]

I'm pretty sure the other guys who get suspended try to keep in contact also, but Rick got caught. This isn't like finding EPO in his horse. Not saying he's a saint but we need to put it in context.

[Gander]

I find it hard to believe that any trainers who get suspended just go off and not have any contact with their assistants. Anyone actually believe this? You know how easy it is to get a disguise and look like regular barn help?

[Gander]

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Gander

I find it hard to believe that any trainers who get suspended just go off and not have any contact with their assistants. Anyone actually believe this? You know how easy it is to get a disguise and look like regular barn help?

Actually it is extremely difficult. A well known trainer risks far too much "sneaking" onto the backstretch, or even the frontside (to watch the races, workouts, etc.). Rick Dutrow would be picked out in a heartbeat.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Gander

I find it hard to believe that any trainers who get suspended just go off and not have any contact with their assistants. Anyone actually believe this? You know how easy it is to get a disguise and look like regular barn help?

If they are resourceful enough to subpoena your phone records and bank records, I think they would be resourceful enough to find out if you were out at your barn wearing a disguise.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

Actually it is extremely difficult. A well known trainer risks far too much "sneaking" onto the backstretch, or even the frontside (to watch the races, workouts, etc.). Rick Dutrow would be picked out in a heartbeat.

Eric

I thought you said that they couldn't subpoena phone and bank records? You also said that the checks are still made out to the regular trainer and not the assistant. Wrong on both counts.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I thought you said that they couldn't subpoena phone and bank records?

My comment was about "sneaking" on to the backstretch. I've only seen a couple of orders of suspension, and the couple I've seen never said anything about no contact, phone calles, banking, etc. I've seen, first hand, trainers on suspension bill exactly as normal so I think each case would be specific. I think a few other people here said that legally the board couldn't do examine bank records, phoen calls, etc. I am not a practicing attorney so I wouldn't voice an opinion on that -- at least I don't think I did. I've never seen those conditions attached but in this case it's indisputable.

I wonder in this case, whether or not the board was exercising it's rights -- as I have never heard them doing so in other cases. Have they checked Pletcher yet? What about Assmusen (which was not in NY)? Any of the others?

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

My comment was about "sneaking" on to the backstretch. I've only seen a couple of orders of suspension, and the couple I've seen never said anything about no contact, phone calles, banking, etc. I've seen, first hand, trainers on suspension bill exactly as normal so I think each case would be specific. I think a few other people here said that legally the board couldn't do examine bank records, phoen calls, etc. I am not a practicing attorney so I wouldn't voice an opinion on that -- at least I don't think I did. I've never seen those conditions attached but in this case it's indisputable.

I wonder in this case, whether or not the board was exercising it's rights -- as I have never heard them doing so in other cases. Have they checked Pletcher yet? What about Assmusen (which was not in NY)? Any of the others?

Eric

I was referring to our exchange a couple of months where you argued with me for an hour, telling me that racing boards don't check phone or bank records.

[blackthroatedwind]

So let me get this straight....a trainer is suspended for 45 days, over 12% of a year, and he severly violates the terms of his suspension, and yet receives only a further 14 day suspension? Huh? Sounds to me like he never served the initial suspension and should get a bare minimum of another 45 day suspension, and probably much more. But, this is racing, where nobody needs follow the rules because they never really get punished.

[Danzig]

just wondering why it's happening now for a rules violation in '05. i think that's one of my biggest beefs with racing violations-they take so long to resolve a situation.

[ELA]

That's what I am saying. Cases that I had heard about, saw, etc. they never did check bank records or phone records -- nor was it stated in the suspension. Actually, it was another poster who said the Board didn't have the legal right or something along those lines. I don't think I would have said that, but I did in fact say that my first habd experience was different. I've seen trainers on suspension talk to owners, bill as they normally would, etc. If those terms weren't part of the suspension, I don't see anything wrong with it.

In this case, it appears Dutrow didn't follow the terms.

Didn't a trainer here post the language from his suspension letter? I don't remember it saying anything about billing, phone calls, etc.

Eric

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

just wondering why it's happening now for a rules violation in '05. i think that's one of my biggest beefs with racing violations-they take so long to resolve a situation.

they must be following the lead of the American judiciary system.

anyways....I feel the same as BTW....if he was communicating with his assistants,etc...did he really ever serve the original suspension?

[ELA]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So let me get this straight....a trainer is suspended for 45 days, over 12% of a year, and he severly violates the terms of his suspension, and yet receives only a further 14 day suspension? Huh? Sounds to me like he never served the initial suspension and should get a bare minimum of another 45 day suspension, and probably much more. But, this is racing, where nobody needs follow the rules because they never really get punished.

I don't know if this is a guideline or an arbitrary decision by the Board.

Eric

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by T3B

they must be following the lead of the American judiciary system.

anyways....I feel the same as BTW....if he was communicating with his assistants,etc...did he really ever serve the original suspension?

good question.
on equidaily they have up some snippets of an interview he did at the time of his suspension--no wonder they dug deeper after reading his responses!

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

good question.
on equidaily they have up some snippets of an interview he did at the time of his suspension--no wonder they dug deeper after reading his responses!

Thanks Deb...will check out equidaily. Hope you are feeling better.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So let me get this straight....a trainer is suspended for 45 days, over 12% of a year, and he severly violates the terms of his suspension, and yet receives only a further 14 day suspension? Huh? Sounds to me like he never served the initial suspension and should get a bare minimum of another 45 day suspension, and probably much more. But, this is racing, where nobody needs follow the rules because they never really get punished.

In addition to the 14 days, he got a $25,000 fine.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

In addition to the 14 days, he got a $25,000 fine.

Thanks. In my personal opinion it isn't even close to enough. The guy has only recently served a seven day ban. I'm probably wrong but it feels like he is laughing at the system.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

good question.
on equidaily they have up some snippets of an interview he did at the time of his suspension--no wonder they dug deeper after reading his responses!

Interesting interview. Don't put me on the spot now, LOL.

Eric