Norman gets six-month suspension

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

Perhaps a trainer or someone involved with a governing body or something of the like can clarify this, however -- when a trainer gets suspended, besides being barred from the grounds, the racing commission or board can prohibit him/her from speaking with their assistant? I would want to see some site on that.

In addition, the same applies to financial side?

I am sure it doesn't happen, but are the rules clear on this?

Can anyone clarify this?

Eric

I just called my buddy from the CHRB. He wasn't home. I will talk to him in the next day or so and get some clarification. I did talk to him about this though a couple of months ago. I was asking him how big a deal it is when a trainer gets a long suspension and the horses are put in the assistant's name. I had assumed what many on this board assumed. I assumed that even though the horses are running under the assistant's name, that the main trainer was still getting the money and the main trainer was still calling the shots. He told me that the head trainer is not allowed to get any money and if he gets caught taking the money from the assistant that he would be in big trouble. He also told me that they can check bank records. I'm not as clear on what he told about communication between the assistant and the head trainer. I could have sworn that he told me that the head trainer is not allowed to be communicating with the assitant trainer and running the show. I thought he said that there was to be no communication between the trainer and the barn. I will get some clarification on this when I talk to him.

By the way, just to give you guys an idea of how far government agencies will go at times, I have a friend who bought just a small amount of stock in a company a few days before they got bought out. He didn't have a huge position by any means. He had bought about 300 shares of this $12 stock. Then a month later, he bought another 700 shares at about $15. The company got bought out for $18 a share a few days later. About a year or so later, my friend got a subpoena from the SEC. Not only did he have to go to their offices and answer questions for hours, but they checked his phone records, they checked all of his bank statements, they demanded he hand over his address book, etc. They thought that maybe he had gotten some inside information on the stock. Anyway, nothing ended up happening to my friend. There was no evidence that he had any inside information. But this just gives you an idea how powerful these government agencies are. By the way, this incident happened back in the early 1990s.

[outofthebox]

I'm sure that Asmussen and Norman haven't thrown their condition books away. I'm sure they are all marked with all the horses races picked out. And about no communication with the Asst's, that just isn't happening. Now how the money is handled, that i don't know.
I remember one summer at Saratoga a certain trainer serving days actually paid a house owner some $$$ to use his backyard on the backside of the Oklahoma track so he could train his horses. Nyra knew about it but couldnt do anything about it since he wasn't on their property...

[Scav]

as far as getting paid, come on people, please don't be nuive(?) enough to think that Assmussen isn't getting his due, it is called, as Randy Moss said, "Straight cash homie", and if it isn't that, like the owner can't give him a 'bonus' or Blasi couldn't 'loan' Assmussen some money.....Play the game, or get played, PLAYA......

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Scav

as far as getting paid, come on people, please don't be nuive(?) enough to think that Assmussen isn't getting his due, it is called, as Randy Moss said, "Straight cash homie", and if it isn't that, like the owner can't give him a 'bonus' or Blasi couldn't 'loan' Assmussen some money.....Play the game, or get played, PLAYA......

We're talking about serious money in this case. Asmussen horses will probably make around $4 million over 6 months. That means that Blasi gets $400,000. Asmussen can't force Blasi to give him the money back. I don't think that Asmussen would ask him for the money any way, but let's just say that he did. If Blasi refuses to give it to him, there's nothing Asmussen can do. What would you do if you were Blasi? Would you give him the money back? I doubt it. You would be better of walking away with the $400,000 and then going out on your own. Assistants usually go out on their own eventually any way. That would be a sure way to get a guy to quit if you tried to force him to give you $400,000 back.

All this talk is silly because I don't think that Asmussen is going to ask Blasi for the money.

I'm stunned that he didn't get more time!!! Meche was suspended for appox. 1 year for not going to the whip... WTH??? This guy is banned in Calf. already! Now he has 2 positives and he gets only 6 months??? He should be getting life!!!! He has laughed in the face of the racing commisions!!!

[Rupert Pupkin]

This actually reminds me of a story about a trainer who I will not name. I'm not going to go into any details because I don't want to say anything that might give away the trainer's identity. I don't want to get sued.

A certain trainer decided that he no longer wanted horses running in his name for financial reasons. He did not want to show the income. I'm not going to say why. Anyway, all the horses started running under the name of a close associate of this trainer. They had a deal where the associate would eventually give the trainer the money back. So the horses ran in the associate's name for at least a year or two. To make a long story short, the trainer and the associate had a huge falling out and the associate refused to give the trainer any of the money. There was nothing the trainer could do. He had no recourse. They had a secret agreement that was not legal, so he didn't get paid a dime.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We're talking about serious money in this case. Asmussen horses will probably make around $4 million over 6 months. That means that Blasi gets $400,000. Asmussen can't force Blasi to give him the money back. I don't think that Asmussen would ask him for the money any way, but let's just say that he did. If Blasi refuses to give it to him, there's nothing Asmussen can do. What would you do if you were Blasi? Would you give him the money back? I doubt it. You would be better of walking away with the $400,000 and then going out on your own. Assistants usually go out on their own eventually any way. That would be a sure way to get a guy to quit if you tried to force him to give you $400,000 back.

All this talk is silly because I don't think that Asmussen is going to ask Blasi for the money.

In all due respect, you are way off here; on many levels.

Eric

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by ELA

In all due respect, you are way off here; on many levels.

Eric

What am I getting wrong? Please fill me in.

[ELA]

I wouldn't even know where to start. Just for starters -- it was and still is Steve Assmusen's barn, as a business. It's his business, his operation, his equiptment, his toothbrush that they use to apply hoof dressing -- everything is his. He got suspended. He still owns the business. He was the one who put Blasi there and gave him the "job" so to speak. Also, it's not 10% period. Ask any trainer if they are "keeping" the entire 10%. Especially in an operation this size.

So, who do you think the owners are paying their bills to? Prior to the suspension let's say the owners were paying their bills to the "Steve Assmusen Stable" or some corporate business name (I don't know because I don't have horses with him). So all of a sudden -- Scott Blasi opens up a new business and is geared up, 100% ready to hit the ground running -- payroll, workers comp insurance, liability insurance, health insurance, and the so many more things that a multi-million dollar business needs. I have paid training bills to suspended trainers. The bills are paid to the very same entity at the very same address and the very same person (stamp) endorsed the check when it was deposited.

Your example is very different.

Eric

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I just called my buddy from the CHRB. He wasn't home. I will talk to him in the next day or so and get some clarification. I did talk to him about this though a couple of months ago. I was asking him how big a deal it is when a trainer gets a long suspension and the horses are put in the assistant's name. I had assumed what many on this board assumed. I assumed that even though the horses are running under the assistant's name, that the main trainer was still getting the money and the main trainer was still calling the shots. He told me that the head trainer is not allowed to get any money and if he gets caught taking the money from the assistant that he would be in big trouble. He also told me that they can check bank records. I'm not as clear on what he told about communication between the assistant and the head trainer. I could have sworn that he told me that the head trainer is not allowed to be communicating with the assitant trainer and running the show. I thought he said that there was to be no communication between the trainer and the barn. I will get some clarification on this when I talk to him.

By the way, just to give you guys an idea of how far government agencies will go at times, I have a friend who bought just a small amount of stock in a company a few days before they got bought out. He didn't have a huge position by any means. He had bought about 300 shares of this $12 stock. Then a month later, he bought another 700 shares at about $15. The company got bought out for $18 a share a few days later. About a year or so later, my friend got a subpoena from the SEC. Not only did he have to go to their offices and answer questions for hours, but they checked his phone records, they checked all of his bank statements, they demanded he hand over his address book, etc. They thought that maybe he had gotten some inside information on the stock. Anyway, nothing ended up happening to my friend. There was no evidence that he had any inside information. But this just gives you an idea how powerful these government agencies are. By the way, this incident happened back in the early 1990s.

Richi,
No state racing regulatory agency has powers that supercede the rights of citizens of United States.
I find it extremely unlikely that they can tell people who they may and may not call. As a matter of fact, if they were to attempt to acess the phone records or bank records of someone, that would be illegal and actionable.
Only police or givernemnet agencies have the power to do that, and even they have to obtain a warrant from a judge to do so.
They can say that there shall be no communication all they want, but an attempt to enforce that outside of the racetrack would be a violation of the rights if these people.
Furthermore, since it would only be an enforcement of a racing edict, and constitute no crime for these people to speak, how exactly are they going to obtain warrants? They don't even have the power to do that.
Were they to obtain this information unlawfully, which would seem to be the only way to do it, it would be the racing agency who was in hot water, not the trainer or asst trainer.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Richi,
No state racing regulatory agency has powers that supercede the rights of citizens of United States.
I find it extremely unlikely that they can tell people who they may and may not call. As a matter of fact, if they were to attempt to acess the phone records or bank records of someone, that would be illegal and actionable.
Only police or givernemnet agencies have the power to do that, and even they have to obtain a warrant from a judge to do so.
They can say that there shall be no communication all they want, but an attempt to enforce that outside of the racetrack would be a violation of the rights if these people.
Furthermore, since it would only be an enforcement of a racing edict, and constitute no crime for these people to speak, how exactly are they going to obtain warrants? They don't even have the power to do that.
Were they to obtain this information unlawfully, which would seem to be the only way to do it, it would be the racing agency who was in hot water, not the trainer or asst trainer.

The racing board is a government agency just like the SEC is a goverment agency. The SEC is the enforcemnt body when it comes to anything involving the stock market. The racing board is the enforcement body when it comes to anything involving racing. A racing board can get a search warrant and check phone and bank records just as easily as the SEC can.

With regards to preventing communication between the trainer and the assistant, I'm going to have to get clarification from my buddy who was on the CHRB. I could have sworn he told me that the trainer can't be communicating with the assistant. Maybe he just meant that the board will not allow the trainer to be in constant communication with the barn and still calling the shots. Maybe a phone call once in a while is alright. I will ask him for clarification when I talk to him.

It may be similar to what happened with Steinbrenner a few years back when he was forced to relinquish control of the Yankees for a few years. I don't remember what the exact details were in that case. I don't remeber if he was to have zero contact or if maybe he was allowed to check in once in a while. I do remeber that he was not allowed to be involved in running the team in any way.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The racing board is a government agency just like the SEC is a goverment agency. The SEC is the enforcemnt body when it comes to anything involving the stock market. The racing board is the enforcement body when it comes to anything involving racing. A racing board can get a search warrant and check phone and bank records just as easily as the SEC can.

With regards to preventing communication between the trainer and the assistant, I'm going to have to get clarification from my buddy who was on the CHRB. I could have sworn he told me that the trainer can't be communicating with the assistant. Maybe he just meant that the board will not allow the trainer to be in constant communication with the barn and still calling the shots. Maybe a phone call once in a while is alright. I will ask him for clarification when I talk to him.

It may be similar to what happened with Steinbrenner a few years back when he was forced to relinquish control of the Yankees for a few years. I don't remember what the exact details were in that case. I don't remeber if he was to have zero contact or if maybe he was allowed to check in once in a while. I do remeber that he was not allowed to be involved in running the team in any way.

Rich I just asked my friend(a lawyer) and he said in a place like NY, the racing and wagering board would have nowhere near the power of a goverment agency like the SEC.
My friend said that if the State Racing and wagering Board wanted to get someone's phone records or bank records that under no circumstances could they just go and get them. They would have to contact a police agency and convince them that a crime was committed and then it would be up to the police to take that action if they deemed it necessary.
He said it would have to be a criminal action, and he said that talking on the telephone in itself would not be a crime, simply a violation of a civil matter between the trainer and the racing and wagering board. Same with the money.
Perhaps its different out there in Cali, but this guys a pretty good lawyer and he said that without a criminal action, that you can not just gain acess to bank and phone records.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by oracle80

Rich I just asked my friend(a lawyer) and he said in a place like NY, the racing and wagering board would have nowhere near the power of a goverment agency like the SEC.
My friend said that if the State Racing and wagering Board wanted to get someone's phone records or bank records that under no circumstances could they just go and get them. They would have to contact a police agency and convince them that a crime was committed and then it would be up to the police to take that action if they deemed it necessary.
He said it would have to be a criminal action, and he said that talking on the telephone in itself would not be a crime, simply a violation of a civil matter between the trainer and the racing and wagering board. Same with the money.
Perhaps its different out there in Cali, but this guys a pretty good lawyer and he said that without a criminal action, that you can not just gain acess to bank and phone records.

The racing board might not be able to get phone records and bank statements if they didn't have at least have some evidence that the trainer was disobeying the terms of his suspension. But if they had some evidence that the trainer was violating the terms of his suspension, I don't think the board would have a problem getting bank records and phone records.

These cases are very serious. I think that with all of these postive tests, the racing board turns their findings over to the attorney general's office. So law enforcement is somewhat involved. Since my buddy from the CHRB has not called me back yet, I was checking the CHRB website yesterday to see if I could get any more information on my own. I was reading about a trainer having a postive test and being suspended for two months and it said someting about the findings being turned over to the state attorney general's office, so I assume this is probably standard practice.