view counter
 
view counter
 
 

RCI To Tackle Shadow Training?

Published: December 9, 2008 1:53 pm ET

Last Comment: December 9, 2008 3:36 pm ET | 1 Comment(s) | Jump to Comments

According to a report, the Racing Commissioners International Model Rules Committee this week discussed a possible model rule that would prevent suspended trainers from making any decisions related to horse they formerly trained.

In a Thoroughbred Times article posted yesterday, RCI president Ed Martin commented on the problem of suspended trainers simply passing horses in their care over to friends and relatives while they are under suspension.

Martin stated that the Committee did not reach any final decisions on a new rule during its meeting, but that the topic will be touched upon in a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, December 10.

“These horses are trained by someone else in name only while the suspended trainer continues to control how those horses are managed,” Martin was quoted as saying. “The owner needs to transfer horses to someone of his or her choosing and not of the trainer’s choosing.”

In addition to suspended trainer issue, whipping in both standardbred and thoroughbred racing is also a topic expected to be broached on Wednesday.

(With files from Thoroughbred Times)

December 9, 2008 - 3:36 pmI feel this approach may not

Anonymous (not verified) SAID...

I feel this approach may not be enough simply because i believe that the owners in question are not only aware of what has been going on with their horses but that they are part and parcel of the problem
I have not actively trained a race horse for over 20 years , therefore going back to my time, milkshaking and EPO had not yet become a problem. However, I have kept in touch with people in the business and am told that this EPO medicating is not a cheap procedure. So, it occurs to me that someone has to be paying for that. So it only follows that the owner had to be aware of a monster increase in training expense. From there, it also follows that ,by paying for this procedure , that the owner is also condoning ( or possibly even encouraging ) the use of this med.
It is probably time that someone asked the hard questions :
1) Why are certain owners associated with certain trainers after all, even when certain trainers have been identified as possible med abusers ?
2) If, as proposed, the onus would fall to the owner to name a substituting trainer, would that owner not just fall in line with the suspended trainer's suggestion anyway, in order to continue on the same program?
3) Ultimaately, suspension having been served, is that horse not going to return to the offending trainer's stable anyway?
4) In consideration of the answers to questions 1,2,3 what has all this accomplished?


view counter
 
 
 

© 2020 Standardbred Canada. All rights reserved. Use of this site signifies your agreement and compliance with the legal disclaimer and privacy policy.

Firefox 3 Best with IE 7 Built with Drupal