PDA

View Full Version : Brandon Jenkins @ Penn



Las Olas
Dec. 30, 2009, 11:22 AM
I found this article while browsing the Paulick Report. Does anyone know if there were any disciplinary actions brought against him?

http://www.examiner.com/x-/x-25445-West-Palm-Beach-Horse-Rescue-Examiner~y2009m11d29-Thoroughbred-race-track-lacks-enforcing-zero-tolerance-policy-for-slaughter

ClassyRide
Dec. 30, 2009, 12:35 PM
I don't know about this particular incident, but I've been told that the zero tolerance policy doesn't apply if the owner sold the horse privately to someone promising to provide it with a good home. If he had sold the horse with good intentions, then he would be off the hook as far as that policy is concerned.

I've heard of that happening recently to some of the trainers at Penn, which is why I even mention it here. Someone comes along the backside, promising to give a good home to the horse they're selling. Then, that person turns around and auctions it, or takes it directly to slaughter. From the article, it sounds like Brandon is new to the area, so he may not yet know the faces of these people to stear clear of them.

However, if all of that is not the case in this situation, then I would imagine something would have been done by now. Anybody have any first-hand knowledge?

DickHertz
Dec. 30, 2009, 01:06 PM
I've heard of that happening recently to some of the trainers at Penn, which is why I even mention it here. Someone comes along the backside, promising to give a good home to the horse they're selling. Then, that person turns around and auctions it, or takes it directly to slaughter. From the article, it sounds like Brandon is new to the area, so he may not yet know the faces of these people to stear clear of them.



1.) Brandon Jenkins has been at Penn for almost a year. The slaughter notification was all over the overnight at least several DOZEN times earlier in the year. You'd have to be a complete moron to not know about the policy.

2.) Apparently, Jenkins doesn't know about the Clen Buterol rule either has he has had several positive drug tests in the past year including one recently after having a few quickly in May - to which he said he didn't understand the rule regarding Clen Buterol...what's the excuse for the positive recently?

3.) Give me a break about trainers at Penn getting snookered into giving the horse a good home. As someone who has successfully dealt with getting horses good homes, it's very easy to spot the phony buyers compared to the real buyers. It's much easier to say "i gave him to someone who was going to give him a good home (knowing it may not be)" than it is to keep feeding them.

Penn National could care less about these horses going to the killers. Their enforcement of this policy will never be like Suffolk - it was clearly a move to get some good PR and nothing more.

ClassyRide
Dec. 30, 2009, 03:08 PM
Dick - thanks for clearing all of that up. I didn't know he'd been at Penn for over a year (I may have read the article wrong, but I thought it sounded like he was pretty brand new here), and certainly had no idea about the posi drug tests! :no:

BeverlyAStrauss
Dec. 30, 2009, 03:23 PM
This isn't the first time Penn horses have been found and trainers' names publicized- and nothing gets done. A week after this "policy" was announced way back when, a trainer had two sold to slaughter- they were pulled by another rescue, and the track notified by that rescue. Friends of mine on the backside said the trainer was laughing about it all a week later......nothing was ever done.

This policy sounds good to the common racing fan but unless there is an alternative in place for these horses and repercussions for the "horsemen", they all go underground. Tracks need competitive horses on the backside filling races, non-competitive horses gone, and do not want to be in the horse ownership or horse rescue business.

Same old same old.

ETA-At least now Jenkins has horses listed on CANTER-PA

caffeinated
Dec. 30, 2009, 03:34 PM
Tracks need competitive horses on the backside filling races, non-competitive horses gone, and do not want to be in the horse ownership or horse rescue business.

And then when they tell people to get certain horses off the track, but those people don't have their own farms or what have you, what then?

These policies sound so good, but then there are few alternatives. Like... "DON'T SEND YOUR HORSE TO AN AUCTION... but by the way you have to get those two horses that haven't made any money all year off the track by next week"

It's been said before, but unless there are giveup barns and/or euth programs, and more funding for local retirement groups so that there are actually places for them to go on tight notice, it seems to me the no-slaughter policies are lip service at best.

DickHertz
Dec. 30, 2009, 03:38 PM
And Penn has given $0 to retirment programs. Not surprising. Their response is (sic) "the HBPA is getting more money than ever so it's their call on whether or not to provide funding to retirement programs."

Little Hound
Dec. 30, 2009, 03:51 PM
Just as an FYI, I have been in contact with Chris McErlean, Penn's VP, about the Brandon Jenkins situation. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail he sent to me:

"Penn National does not have any published "zero tolerence policy" regarding horse slaughter. I have no idea where that statement came from nor do I know who it can attributed to. We have debated various options but quite frankly, there is no feasible way to have one defined "policy" in this regard. Even those who state they have a policy on horse slaughter (Suffolk Downs for example) will tell you that there is no "one size fits all" solution in this matter.

I can tell you that Penn National, and Charles Town, have identified several shippers that would come on to the racetrack grounds and purchase horses with the intention of bringing them to New holland or other more well known "killer sales." We have in fact barred two individuals who were conduting this type of business from our grounds.

As noted before there is a very slippery slope as to the enforcement of a "zero tolerence policy." How long from when a horse races does it stay in effect - through how many owners - how many races at a track? Do you specify any sale or just specific ones?

I know this is not a popular stance but I do feel that owners and trainers abdicate a great deal of their responsibility in these matters. I think the horsemen and their "leadership groups" do a poor job in advising their members as to options available for horses that can no longer race and in providing assistance or logistics to match horsemen and such placement groups. In most cases the track where the horse last raced is identified and it is seen as the track, and no one elses responsibility, to handle the situation. I am not saying the tracks should be totally hands off but I do think that the court of public opinion in most of these matters focuses too much on the tracks and not enough on those individuals who have the day to day responsibility of the horses."

DickHertz
Dec. 30, 2009, 04:09 PM
I'm not surprised that Chris McEarlern doesn't read the overnights his own company puts out. So, I guess instead of

"Any trainer whose horses are found at local slaughter facility and sold for slaughter face the loss of their stalls and a possible managment exclusion"

to

"We really don't want you to send horses to slaughter because it's bad PR for horse racing when these rescue groups find our horses there."

BeverlyAStrauss
Dec. 30, 2009, 06:24 PM
Well said, DickHertz.........

It is certainly not the sole responsibility of the racetracks to provide an "out"- everyone who is involved with racing- EVERYONE- should have to contribute in one way or another to the welfare of our ex-racers.

That blurb on the bottom of the overnight causes far more horses to be lost than allowing them to go to New Holland. And those 'shifty undesirable truckers'? They work with us and call us about salvageable horses all the time- they are not the bad guys here. They are not the ones breeding them. They are not the ones breaking the horses down. They are not the ones tapping joints again and again and again. They are not the ones telling trainers to move the slow ones out. They are simply the cleanup guys.

foundationmare
Dec. 30, 2009, 07:06 PM
I was having a conversation with my daughter the other day and she mentioned "Brandon" who is in the same barn at Penn. I asked her if it was Brandon Jenkins and, of course, she said yes. I told her that there's been some bad press about him and she reiterated the oft-quoted opinion that one can't be responsible for a horse that has been given/sold to another person who intends to give the horse a new lease on life. Which is true, of course, but doesn't always pass the sniff test when a TB is moved off the track.

I doubt she knows about the bad tests. Why in the world is this guy still stabled there? He's had FOUR bad tests within a year's time? For cryingoutloud, what else does management need for ammunition? I'm not naive. Not by a long shot. I've seen it all. But, in case any of the powers the be care, they might open their eyes, put their asses on the line and take actions to get the bad guys out of Dodge.

TB racing is in big trouble. Everywhere. I maintain that cheating undermines the sport in every possible way and the horses pay the ultimate price. I know that the world revolves around the all-mighty dollar, but, from my humble, teeny-tiny perspective, the thrill of bringing along a "cheap" horse, without the high-priced breeding, without the big name trainer, and winning races....sometimes Stakes races....is the motivation to continue on, without cheating. Where is the thrill in that?

And, if racing is merely a business with a focus on the bottom-line, level the playing field. Throw out the bums. Monitor barns. Get commando about banning trainers with out-of-the-ballpark infractions that involve blocking, excessive tapping, snake-venom injections.

And, to get back on-track (pun intentional), every track should have a venue for posting horses for sale/adoption at the completion of their racing careers. It's not difficult, but it does involve dedicated people who are committed to finding homes for the ex-racers. They are NOT difficult to place: savvy horse people all over the country know that these horses are diamonds in the rough. OTTBs are more easily placed than many trainers may realize. To send them to auction is a product of sheer laziness, e.g. I need this stall empty now. Shame on them.

Geez, I got my goat up! Can't help it. NOT ONE SINGLE HORSE deserves to have the last ride on a double decker.

BeverlyAStrauss
Dec. 30, 2009, 10:13 PM
"And, if racing is merely a business with a focus on the bottom-line, level the playing field. Throw out the bums. Monitor barns. Get commando about banning trainers with out-of-the-ballpark infractions that involve blocking, excessive tapping, snake-venom injections. "

Agreed BUT tracks everywhere are facing short fields- they need horses to run races to keep the slots going and the few bettors left coming to the windows. IMHO the future holds many tracks shuttered or turned into straight casinos.......

DickHertz
Dec. 30, 2009, 10:27 PM
Agreed BUT tracks everywhere are facing short fields- they need horses to run races to keep the slots going and the few bettors left coming to the windows. IMHO the future holds many tracks shuttered or turned into straight casinos.......

Tracks do fear this, but I wonder when Horse Racing will realize how many owners turn sour on a daily basis because they lose races to known chemists. I truly believe if the game was cleaned up and the horseman would once again start winning races that a lot of former owners would come back eventually. Perhaps wishful thinking, but I know A LOT of people who left because the sport is a joke right now.

You need to look no further than the laughable situation at Philly Park. Jayne Cheater Vaders is given lifetime ban and Old Ed Auwater who has seen the winner's circle as much as Zippy Chippy, suddenly becomes a 20% trainer overnight. Why? because the man running the shedrow is still the same guy that was there when Vaders was the program trainer.

I for the life of me can not understand why people do not get more than just loss of purse for Class IV or higher infractions. And when situations like what is going on at Philly Park come up, why not just reassign the stalls to a completely different trainer instead of someone who hardly knows how to put on a tongue tie?

The reality is about half of the tracks in this country are owned by gaming companies, not racetrack companies. And for that reason, the sport is quickly going down the toilet. In two years, there will be no racing at Mountaineer Park. In five years, there will be no racing at Penn National. Don't know about others, but these two will definitely not be running horses after those time frames.

Does anyone reading this really think that the Jamie Ness' and Julio Cartagena's of the world are really better horseman than the Dicke Small's of the world...even though they have a percentage that is about twice as good as he? Today it's all about how much $$$ your owner has and a formula to win. Got a lot of money? Tap with depo/acid mix, shockwave them, block. All of a sudden, you got a winner's circle picture.

Meredith Clark
Dec. 30, 2009, 10:39 PM
Just in case any non-race track people are reading this thread I got 2 of my favorite horses from Penn! Diamonds in the rough :yes:

BeverlyAStrauss
Dec. 30, 2009, 10:39 PM
"Tracks do fear this, but I wonder when Horse Racing will realize how many owners turn sour on a daily basis because they lose races to known chemists."

That is the main reason why we don't race anymore- that and losing track of horses through the claim box and having them end up at slaughter in spite of our best efforts.....We always had a couple, from the 80's through early 00's, but no more, we are DONE.

Tracks must also worry about losing those pure at heart racing fans, they have gotten a lot smarter and care about the horses.

Las Olas
Dec. 31, 2009, 08:37 AM
Well, I didn't mean to spark this debate again...

I was just wondering if there had been any follow-through with this guy, as from my interpretation of the article, it was obvious that the trainer sent the horse to the auction directly, as stated from his personal note attached to the registration papers (and subsequently not showing up to retreive the horse). Since this didn't appear to be a situation where the trainer could pass-the-buck, I figured it would be a good indication of how Penn plans to handle these situations going forward.

Dick, it looks like Penn only keeps the current overnights up and neither of them have the zero-tolerance policy. If you see it again, let us know and maybe LittleHound can forward it to that wanker McErlean.

As for Clenbuterol, that could be it's own thread. They should've banned it along with the Winstrol.

Las Olas
Dec. 31, 2009, 08:45 AM
Agreed BUT tracks everywhere are facing short fields- they need horses to run races to keep the slots going and the few bettors left coming to the windows. IMHO the future holds many tracks shuttered or turned into straight casinos.......

Not all tracks. Try getting a horse in at Tampa. Their short week seems to work for them. Also, I hear field sizes are up at TP because MTR closed. I think tracks need to work with each other to create a better circuit, and maybe shorten their week a bit. They just need to find that balance between filling fields and offering enough races to satisfy the horse population.

Las Olas
Dec. 31, 2009, 08:57 AM
Tracks do fear this, but I wonder when Horse Racing will realize how many owners turn sour on a daily basis because they lose races to known chemists. I truly believe if the game was cleaned up and the horseman would once again start winning races that a lot of former owners would come back eventually. Perhaps wishful thinking, but I know A LOT of people who left because the sport is a joke right now.



Honestly, you know what pisses me off as an owner? The BS charges that show up every month. Like stall rent. At $70/day, stall rent should be included. $300/month for vitamins. I had one that came down with a lung infection at PID. $30/day for Baytril. Fine. Then the horse moves to Churchill and the vet bill is $50/day for the Baytril. My boyfriend is a racehorse Vet. I KNOW that the shot of Baytril cost that Vet $11.67. When I called the Vet (Dr. Lindquist at Churchill) to bitch about it, I told her that the guy at PID charged $30 and I thought that was a reasonable and fair mark-up. $50 is not. Her response was "well, the owners at PID can't afford to pay what the owners at Churchill can." WTF??? Until someone reins these people in, owners are going to get fed up and leave.

Honestly, I would love for my horse to pay his way, but I'm in this because I love it and I know I'm throwing the money away. I consider it's consumption value. However, it completely rankles me to know I'm getting screwed. That's the problem.

SleepyFox
Dec. 31, 2009, 10:35 AM
They are NOT difficult to place: savvy horse people all over the country know that these horses are diamonds in the rough. [/QUOTE

I beg to differ. It IS difficult to place a lot of OTTBs. The big, fancy ones that will resell for a lot of money - no. People are in line for those. But the rest of them are a challenge to place. Needing a stall isn't just about greed - it's about the ability to continue in this business. You have a finite number of stalls at the track and turning away a horse that can make you money in favor of one that you can't even give away is a bad business decision. And, to be honest, dealing with many of the buyers out there is an utter and complete headache. I cannot count the number of hours I have spent taking nitpicky photos of every joint on a horse, trying to get video that shows the horse's gaits off to his advantage, and explaining that they are more than welcome to vet the horse, take him on trial, whatever - but I do not have his entire life history because I only claimed him a little while ago and no, he has not been trained to jump/work cattle/babysit kids on the trail. I still do it and try my best to find homes for the horses, but I have friends who won't - for the reasons I just stated. A place to drop these horses off would be a BIG help.

[QUOTE]As noted before there is a very slippery slope as to the enforcement of a "zero tolerence policy." How long from when a horse races does it stay in effect - through how many owners - how many races at a track? Do you specify any sale or just specific ones?

I very much agree with McErlean's point. Once you transfer ownership of a horse, you can't control what the new person does with it, but that tattoo will always trace back to the last owner and trainer who raced it. That's a problem. Plus, as a trainer, you can't control what the horse's owner does with it.


Honestly, I would love for my horse to pay his way, but I'm in this because I love it and I know I'm throwing the money away. I consider it's consumption value. However, it completely rankles me to know I'm getting screwed. That's the problem.

I agree with Las Olas. This is what is driving owners out of the sport. It's hard enough to even break even in this business, but way too often owners are bled until dry from every possible angle. To add to LO's example - I had a young horse with a guy at the track getting ready to run. After I picked the horse up, I continued to get vet bills (and these vet bills were INSANE for a horse not yet racing - random joint injections no one could explain, 20 POUNDS of Thyrol-L per month, etc.). I called the vet clinic and was told that my account was on "auto-bill" and I - as owner and responsible party - was not authorized to change that. Only the trainer could make that change and until he did, I was responsible for paying all charges - all mythical, fraudulent charges for a horse that hadn't been in the barn for 6 weeks. I was floored - but that pretty much sums up the owner's role in this business - pay whatever bill is handed to you and keep your eyes and mouth shut. I'm not sure how that got to be the norm, but it gets old to a lot of people very quickly - especially when your horses aren't running well.

SEPowell
Dec. 31, 2009, 12:06 PM
I beg to differ. It IS difficult to place a lot of OTTBs. The big, fancy ones that will resell for a lot of money - no. People are in line for those. But the rest of them are a challenge to place.

And a challenge to resell, regardless of how nimble and honest they may be.


I had a young horse with a guy at the track getting ready to run. After I picked the horse up, I continued to get vet bills (and these vet bills were INSANE for a horse not yet racing - random joint injections no one could explain, 20 POUNDS of Thyrol-L per month, etc.). I called the vet clinic and was told that my account was on "auto-bill" and I - as owner and responsible party - was not authorized to change that. Only the trainer could make that change and until he did, I was responsible for paying all charges - all mythical, fraudulent charges for a horse that hadn't been in the barn for 6 weeks. I was floored - but that pretty much sums up the owner's role in this business - pay whatever bill is handed to you and keep your eyes and mouth shut. I'm not sure how that got to be the norm, but it gets old to a lot of people very quickly - especially when your horses aren't running well.

Wow, just wow.

Beam Me Up
Dec. 31, 2009, 12:30 PM
I went up to Penn National this fall to horse shop.

I ended up getting 1 directly from the trainer, but I did look at a couple that were with a reseller who CANTER PA later contacted me about because one of those had been on CANTER's listings and ended up in a broker lot.

Apparently the reseller was working through a trainer there and posing as a forever home buyer, getting other trainers to give her retirees then selling them either to private people or brokers.

The trainer of this particular horse was angry and retrieved it, and CANTER was hoping that spreading the word about this seller would keep other trainers from giving her horses, but it makes me wonder if this was less of a scam and more of a service?

Slewdledo
Dec. 31, 2009, 10:39 PM
Not to completely derail this, but do they still put horses down at Penn (which break down in races) on the track without putting a tarp up?

DickHertz
Jan. 1, 2010, 04:05 PM
Not to completely derail this, but do they still put horses down at Penn (which break down in races) on the track without putting a tarp up?

THey put the tarp up when it's a breakdown between the quarter pole and 7F pole (IE in the stretch).

Neely
Jan. 1, 2010, 09:38 PM
[QUOTE=BeverlyAStrauss;4586849]Well said, DickHertz.........

It is certainly not the sole responsibility of the racetracks to provide an "out"- everyone who is involved with racing- EVERYONE- should have to contribute in one way or another to the welfare of our ex-racers.

Why is this concept rejected so much? It seems to me that so many in the industry are really offended by this sentiment and become extremely defensive. It escapes me how this is something that even needs to be said. I do not need lectures on the realities of doing "business", but to me it is a given that we have a responsibility to those animals that we produce. I really don't mean to be preachy, but in a business that produces so many animals that become unwanted, how is this not something that is just built in? Of course we should all be responsible for contributing to the welfare of our ex-racers!

Muleskick
Jan. 2, 2010, 12:03 AM
Very well said Sleepy Fox!!

sjdressage
Jan. 2, 2010, 07:41 AM
And now they are changing the eligibility rules at Penn in February so I am guessing there will be a ton of lower level claimers that will no longer have a job! The future criteria is posted on the back of the overnights....

NoBSshoer
Jan. 2, 2010, 08:00 AM
And now they are changing the eligibility rules at Penn in February so I am guessing there will be a ton of lower level claimers that will no longer have a job! The future criteria is posted on the back of the overnights....
On this you're correct. They made the same rule at Charles Town.

A thing I find even more annoying is that locals (Pennsylvanians) Who are running all PA breds at this time stand a much better chance of winning the lottery than they do of getting stalls.

Yet out of staters, Canadians, etc. etc. They manage to miraculously find stalls for no matter how lousy the rats are that they bring with them.

Hey Dickie, what's up with that?!

Little Hound
Jan. 2, 2010, 10:09 AM
They just did the same thing at Philly Park. Gave Doug O'Neill 30 stalls, and gave the boot to some very long-time trainers who supported the program for years. I would be surprised if O'Neill has even one Pa.-bred.

Nyminute09
Jan. 3, 2010, 09:43 AM
its a shame at philly park. they disposed on many small trainers who kept the track running before the slots came to make room for the "big stables". Despite the fact these small trainers were informed they would be taken care of- and to just bear with the track while they prepared for the slots law to be passed! what's even more of a shame is if you see many of Mr. O'neil's horses train- many are cripples! Add to that that in the short stint he has here in PA i have seen 4 horses break down in the afternoon at Philly! And this is the type of outfits they want! Such a shame!

NoBSshoer
Jan. 3, 2010, 10:38 AM
its a shame at philly park. they disposed on many small trainers who kept the track running before the slots came to make room for the "big stables". Despite the fact these small trainers were informed they would be taken care of- and to just bear with the track while they prepared for the slots law to be passed! what's even more of a shame is if you see many of Mr. O'neil's horses train- many are cripples! Add to that that in the short stint he has here in PA i have seen 4 horses break down in the afternoon at Philly! And this is the type of outfits they want! Such a shame!
It's really no secret that at Philly there were some guys who had entrenched themselves in there for years and years and years.

Track management has been looking for ways to dislodge some of these gyp outfits for a long long time. This is unfortunately a nasty side effect of year round racing.

Problem is this plan they seem to have come up with sucks.

Majority of these out of staters their prostrating themselves for are just as bad if not worse bums than those being replaced. Money they make is being taken out of Pennsylvania. PA breeders fund suffers. Is there even any incentive left to have PA Breds?

This hurts the entire horse industry of the state.

Now the politicians who looted the purse fund are crying for expanded gambling by legalizing table games. The governor is twisting arms and applying a lot of pressure.

I'd urge all horsemen to oppose any expansion of gambling and for those outside PA-look what happened here. Look at the broken promises after only a couple short years. This was supposed to be the answer to racing's prayers and we're worse off than ever.

Oppose any and all slots proposals anywhere. Expansion of gambling is the problem not the solution. Jumping into bed with the enemy will only get you eaten.

Las Olas
Jan. 3, 2010, 02:17 PM
Is there even any incentive left to have PA Breds?



I just checked the entries at Penn and there's an allowance with a $36,000 purse (plus up to 40% PaBF). GP's running that same race with a $48,000 purse that includes $11,000 FOA, which would make it more lucrative to win with a PA bred at Penn than it would a FL bred at GP (depending on what "up to 40%" equates to). Tampa runs a similar race at $21,000 that includes $3,000 FOA. I'd take that PA race. Unless I'm not understanding PA Bred rules, that sounds like a heck of an incentive to me.

DickHertz
Jan. 3, 2010, 03:12 PM
I just checked the entries at Penn and there's an allowance with a $36,000 purse (plus up to 40% PaBF). GP's running that same race with a $48,000 purse that includes $11,000 FOA, which would make it more lucrative to win with a PA bred at Penn than it would a FL bred at GP (depending on what "up to 40%" equates to). Tampa runs a similar race at $21,000 that includes $3,000 FOA. I'd take that PA race. Unless I'm not understanding PA Bred rules, that sounds like a heck of an incentive to me.

But you rarely see a PA bred good enough to win that a other than and they don't write many state bred races like WV does. Neither track has paid out to the 40% for some time. At Penn it's only 20% bonus paid to the winner, but I heard that it's going back up.

Barbara L.
Jan. 3, 2010, 03:38 PM
"Money they make is being taken out of Pennsylvania. PA breeders fund suffers. Is there even any incentive left to have PA Breds?"

Now how does that even make sense? If the trainers are racing in PA, buying feed in PA, using PA vets, -- why do you say the $$ is leaving the state? They do not bring in their own feed, or their own vets, etc. People breed back to PA stallions--that $$ for boarding, foaling, etc., stays in the state--and our foal crop and # mares bred is larger than most states. Sounds to me like PA is benefitting from its breeding program.

If they invest in PA breds, the money stays here.
Re: the small outfits that have been "pushed out:" There are plenty of people here still thathave been long time supporters of the Pha program--and they have just received a great pension plan that was designed to support the long term supporters of our track. BUT if a smaller trainer races his horses at Penn, or does not make enough starts per stall, or had ineligible horses, why would any track think they should stay and take stalls that other people could use for runners?? The extra purse money from Act 71 has now been awarded for over 2 years. That money was meant to be able to help these smaller guys upgrade their stock so they could stay.

Obviously, the higher the purses, the more people will want to race here, with better and more competitive stock. It is good business to grow and reinvest your money so you can compete.

I am the last person who wants to see an old timer, or long time supporter leave here--I love this place. But it is a business, and as such, people have to get with the program a bit more. Every track has criteria for how many stalls a rainer is allotted, and it all has o do with #/starts/stall, and eligible horses.

NoBSshoer
Jan. 3, 2010, 03:45 PM
I just checked the entries at Penn and there's an allowance with a $36,000 purse (plus up to 40% PaBF). GP's running that same race with a $48,000 purse that includes $11,000 FOA, which would make it more lucrative to win with a PA bred at Penn than it would a FL bred at GP (depending on what "up to 40%" equates to). Tampa runs a similar race at $21,000 that includes $3,000 FOA. I'd take that PA race. Unless I'm not understanding PA Bred rules, that sounds like a heck of an incentive to me.


But you rarely see a PA bred good enough to win that a other than and they don't write many state bred races like WV does. Neither track has paid out to the 40% for some time. At Penn it's only 20% bonus paid to the winner, but I heard that it's going back up.
While you're both on your puters go over and look at Aqueduct's condition book. Check out how many races are written for NY Breds compared to how many PA writes for their state breds.

lily04
Jan. 3, 2010, 03:55 PM
But you rarely see a PA bred good enough to win that a other than and they don't write many state bred races like WV does. Neither track has paid out to the 40% for some time. At Penn it's only 20% bonus paid to the winner, but I heard that it's going back up. I have to disagree. I only have 6 horses an 4 have won the 1XOMCl in the past 2 years at Philly. All were Pa breds and all were by stallions that stood for less than $2500 in Pa. Winners share each time was about $37,000 plus 30% breeders bonus for the ones that I bred. The 2XOMCl is a different story, I can't even get a piece of that one.:no:

NoBSshoer
Jan. 3, 2010, 04:10 PM
"Money they make is being taken out of Pennsylvania. PA breeders fund suffers. Is there even any incentive left to have PA Breds?"

Now how does that even make sense? If the trainers are racing in PA, buying feed in PA, using PA vets, -- why do you say the $$ is leaving the state? By simple economics. Out of state people have no vested interest in a place. They don't buy farms, pay minimal taxes, have no interest in schools or other such community affairs. Money made here goes out to wherever they come from in much the same way as Wal-Mart sucks money out of a community.
They do not bring in their own feed, or their own vets, etc. Largely but not necessarily entirely correct. Just the same those ancillary businesses supported by racing always were and still could be supported by locals.

People breed back to PA stallions--that $$ for boarding, foaling, etc., stays in the state--and our foal crop and # mares bred is larger than most states. Sounds to me like PA is benefitting from its breeding program.
Now you're straying into another subject. I was talking about racing. Yes the Breeders awards have thusfar been good. It has helped fuel the growth of PAs Breeding industry. You'll see a change in this as well since that money has been looted and squandered. Was nice while it lasted.




Re: the small outfits that have been "pushed out:" There are plenty of people here still thathave been long time supporters of the Pha program--and they have just received a great pension plan that was designed to support the long term supporters of our track. BUT if a smaller trainer races his horses at Penn, or does not make enough starts per stall, or had ineligible horses, why would any track think they should stay and take stalls that other people could use for runners?? Agreed to a point. All I'm saying is there are plenty of locals who can't get stall at these tracks. Clearly there is favoritism being given to folks from out of state. It has nothing to do with size of their outfits either because plenty of them are small. Again Dickie, What's up with that?!
The extra purse money from Act 71 has now been awarded for over 2 years. That money was meant to be able to help these smaller guys upgrade their stock so they could stay. And again that money has just been looted.


Obviously, the higher the purses, the more people will want to race here, with better and more competitive stock. It is good business to grow and reinvest your money so you can compete. It is also good business to build additional barns and buy additional land to do so in an effort to accomodate more horses and outfits instead of letting the backside continue to be a disgraceful eyesore and denying people much needed stalls in an area that is woefully inadequate in regards to training centers and such.


I am the last person who wants to see an old timer, or long time supporter leave here--I love this place. But it is a business, and as such, people have to get with the program a bit more. Sounds like you advocate track management's bad habit of arm twisting by threatening to pull stalls from people for almost any reason imaginable? This running horses that ought to be resting leads to much more trouble than inability to fill races. Besides most fields are pretty full these days so filling races isn't that much of a problem right now. In a couple more years it will be again though.
Every track has criteria for how many stalls a rainer is allotted, and it all has o do with #/starts/stall, and eligible horses. On paper perhaps, in reality if you believe that I got a bridge to sell you:rolleyes:

DickHertz
Jan. 3, 2010, 05:42 PM
I have to disagree. I only have 6 horses an 4 have won the 1XOMCl in the past 2 years at Philly. All were Pa breds and all were by stallions that stood for less than $2500 in Pa. Winners share each time was about $37,000 plus 30% breeders bonus for the ones that I bred. The 2XOMCl is a different story, I can't even get a piece of that one.:no:

I would surmise that about 1 out of 10 (maybe closer to 1 out of 15) a other than's are won by PA-breds. It's not the norm. Your success is NOT the norm.

Barbara L.
Jan. 3, 2010, 07:53 PM
You don't have to sell me a bridge, and believe me, I am not naive. I guess we just have to agree to disagree. No offense, but I stick to what I have said, and I have no blinkers on, no tongue tie, just report how I see it.

Little Hound
Jan. 3, 2010, 08:16 PM
Regarding the health and pension plans for trainers at Philly, I have two comments:

One, weren't these health and pension plans designed to help horsemen who are stabled ON THE PREMISES? Or can any trainer who makes 20 or more starts (or whatever the number is) qualify for these benefits, no matter if his horses are stabled at the track, on a farm, or at a training center? How about Doug O'Neill, does he qualify?

Two, why are trainers such a priviledged group that they are blessed with such benefits, and not grooms and hotwalkers? It just seems criminal to leave that segment of the backstretch out, with only a paltry $3,000 yearly stipend from the HBPA. A night in the hospital, for instance, can cost more than $10,000.

DickHertz
Jan. 3, 2010, 11:21 PM
Regarding the health and pension plans for trainers at Philly, I have two comments:

One, weren't these health and pension plans designed to help horsemen who are stabled ON THE PREMISES? Or can any trainer who makes 20 or more starts (or whatever the number is) qualify for these benefits, no matter if his horses are stabled at the track, on a farm, or at a training center? How about Doug O'Neill, does he qualify?

Two, why are trainers such a priviledged group that they are blessed with such benefits, and not grooms and hotwalkers? It just seems criminal to leave that segment of the backstretch out, with only a paltry $3,000 yearly stipend from the HBPA. A night in the hospital, for instance, can cost more than $10,000.

O'Neill would qualify.

I suppose their stance is that grooms come and go between tracks more often than Bin Laden goes between Pakistan and Afghanistan. At least that was one theory as to why grooms are not covered.

Little Hound
Jan. 4, 2010, 09:43 AM
At Philly, the majority of grooms on the backstretch have been there for years and years. The ones who come and go are generally the ones that work for outfits like O'Neill.

DickHertz
Jan. 4, 2010, 12:11 PM
But they generally jump from job to job on the backside as well. Not saying they don't deserve health care, but perhaps their concern is where do you draw the line...hot walkers, pony people, etc.

Barbara L.
Jan. 5, 2010, 12:30 PM
The pension is ONLY for trainers who are stabled at Phila. Park. Even if they have 100 starts here, but are stabled elsewhere, they are not entitled to the pension benefits.

I don't know where that erroneous info comes from! I guess it's because only 30 people turned out for the general membership meeting, and it was like a game of telephone (showing my age here). The word got passed on to others, and changed a bit every time!

Newsletter will be in the mail next week which will outline the entire plan....

lily04
Jan. 5, 2010, 12:53 PM
Hypothetical question. So does this mean if you are stabled at a PA recognized training (because track will not give you enough stalls) center and run 100+ horses at Philly (80% of starts) you are not eligeble for the program?

Nyminute09
Jan. 5, 2010, 01:55 PM
It is also good business to build additional barns and buy additional land to do so in an effort to accomodate more horses and outfits instead of letting the backside continue to be a disgraceful eyesore and denying people much needed stalls in an area that is woefully inadequate in regards to training centers and such.
Sounds like you advocate track management's bad habit of arm twisting by threatening to pull stalls from people for almost any reason imaginable? This running horses that ought to be resting leads to much more trouble than inability to fill races. Besides most fields are pretty full these days so filling races isn't that much of a problem right now. In a couple more years it will be again though. On paper perhaps, in reality if you believe that I got a bridge to sell you:rolleyes:

I was at the track this past weekend in the freezing cold looking at a couple horses to buy, and have to say I was absolutley blown away by the conditions of some of the stalls and horses I saw!

Someone mentioned they tried to get all the gyp. trainers out of the track- well I can tell you the horses and stalls I saw were atrocious! Some of the horses were on basically dirt and the bedding was the color of peat moss! The horses were skinny and very ratty looking! I dont even think they would bring $50 at New Holland!

Now, how can caring trainers who do right by their horses and give them the needed time/rest be booted, yet abusive trainers like the one's I saw be allowed to have stalls? Is it because they run horses? Somehow I highly doubt that these trainers have any success as it's hard to imagine an animal who lives in these deplorable conditions, can be that competitive!

I felt bad for these horses, but find management responsible for this as they are the one's who allow these people to occupy stalls! It STINKS!!!!:cry:

NoBSshoer
Jan. 5, 2010, 02:33 PM
I was at the track this past weekend in the freezing cold looking at a couple horses to buy, and have to say I was absolutley blown away by the conditions of some of the stalls and horses I saw! Broken promises from slots revenue. Oppose it wherever you are. NO SLOTS ANYWHERE! Don't buy into a damned lie!


Someone mentioned they tried to get all the gyp. trainers out of the track- well I can tell you the horses and stalls I saw were atrocious! Some of the horses were on basically dirt and the bedding was the color of peat moss! The horses were skinny and very ratty looking! I dont even think they would bring $50 at New Holland! Yeah, ran a few gyps out but replaced them with more gyps from out of state instead of decent local people who needed the stalls.


Now, how can caring trainers who do right by their horses and give them the needed time/rest be booted, yet abusive trainers like the one's I saw be allowed to have stalls? Is it because they run horses? For the most part yes. Track management is interested in filling races. Unfortunate fact of life is to the suits in the front office a long healthy, happy life for the horse isn't a high priority unless humaniacs and the press are breathing down their necks.
Somehow I highly doubt that these trainers have any success as it's hard to imagine an animal who lives in these deplorable conditions, can be that competitive! On that point you're correct. Management before left much to be desired. Now since casino is all they seem to care about (just check out how small Penn Nat'l's name is on all their signs and advertisement) it promises to only get worse.


I felt bad for these horses, but find management responsible for this as they are the one's who allow these people to occupy stalls! It STINKS!!!!:cry:Amen to that!

DickHertz
Jan. 5, 2010, 03:10 PM
I was at the track this past weekend in the freezing cold looking at a couple horses to buy, and have to say I was absolutley blown away by the conditions of some of the stalls and horses I saw!

Someone mentioned they tried to get all the gyp. trainers out of the track- well I can tell you the horses and stalls I saw were atrocious! Some of the horses were on basically dirt and the bedding was the color of peat moss! The horses were skinny and very ratty looking! I dont even think they would bring $50 at New Holland!

Now, how can caring trainers who do right by their horses and give them the needed time/rest be booted, yet abusive trainers like the one's I saw be allowed to have stalls? Is it because they run horses? Somehow I highly doubt that these trainers have any success as it's hard to imagine an animal who lives in these deplorable conditions, can be that competitive!

I felt bad for these horses, but find management responsible for this as they are the one's who allow these people to occupy stalls! It STINKS!!!!:cry:


What you saw is not the norm on the backside.

P.S. The green bold lettering is annoying.

DickHertz
Jan. 5, 2010, 03:15 PM
NOBShoer,

What I think is hilarious about how Penn is regarded nationwide is they have an average of almost 10 horses per race which is unheard of and their handle is typically a laughable 1 million on average. Any track with that many horses should be doing 2 million easy - just look at Beulah Park. Penn has done NOTHING to improve the simulcast product other than put it on TVG where they ridicule poor John Bogar for not calling the 2nd and 3rd place finishers each race. I miss the days of an actual booth where they talked about the race for 4-5 minutes and recapped the previous race.

Little Hound
Jan. 5, 2010, 03:36 PM
Nyminute09 could have just as well been talking about the conditions at Philly Park. Matter of fact, I thought he was at first.

Getting back to the pension plan for trainers, I do believe Delaware Park has a plan for backstretch workers. Why can't Philly do this? It would be fairly easy to ascertain who the long-time grooms/hotwalkers are - they maintain a list of people in the dorms, and for those off the track, the ID card gets scanned every time they pass through the gate. I personally know of at least two dozen grooms who have spent more than 15 years working on that backstretch ... and they will have nothing to show for it once they are done working. There's enough slots money to go around ... how about if the head of the horsemen's group takes a smaller cut in 2010 and donates it to the guys who really work hard.

Nyminute09
Jan. 5, 2010, 03:38 PM
Nyminute09 could have just as well been talking about the conditions at Philly Park. Matter of fact, I thought he was at first.

It was my bad in that I didn't specify where I was at- But YES IT WAS PHILADELPHIA PARK- Not PENN... it was very sad!

Little Hound
Jan. 5, 2010, 03:41 PM
Bingo! Thanks for the clarification, Nyminute09. You were right-on with your description of the conditions back there.

NoBSshoer
Jan. 5, 2010, 04:44 PM
You don't have to sell me a bridge, and believe me, I am not naive. I guess we just have to agree to disagree. No offense, but I stick to what I have said, and I have no blinkers on, no tongue tie, just report how I see it.
What you think of this?
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/52908/pa-budget-approved-with-reduced-slots-revenue

Jessi P
Jan. 5, 2010, 07:20 PM
Just to comment on the Benefits and Pension deal...

Here at MNR a trainer who is stabled on the grounds AND makes at least 75% of your starts at MNR qualifies. This means that is Doug O'Neill wanted to apply for our pension/benefit package at least 75% of his starts in the US/world would have to be at MNR, obviously he would NOT qualify. Not sure if Philly/Penn are the same, but thats how it is here at MNR.

Barbara L.
Jan. 6, 2010, 02:41 PM
2/3 of his starts would have to be at Pha.

Re: backstretch conditions at Pha. Yes, it is true that many people do not bed their horses well, and I do not know what barn you were in, but most of the barns are NOT like that. Many are sloppy outside (nre rules are already in plac for manure disposal, etc.) They are all dark inside, though, and the ventilation is bad, but starting in the spring, the rest of the barn renovation will begin again.

They have done four new barns (and whether you like them or not, they are much brighter,, much better ventilated) but they have to now add wash stalls to the inside of the barns to be approved by the EPA--so they had to replan the rest of the barns so that there would be no loss of storage space, but could still have wash stalls added. Those are NEW rules, not in existence when they first started renovating. All of that stuff takes more bids. more blueprints, etc. Believe me, no one is happy with the slowdown in barn rebuilding at all, but management has agreed to invest the money -- over $25 million (which was three times more than had to) and are doing what they promised.

They cannot repave the roads and inbetween barns until the barns are done, so that is in a holding pattern.

And to Little Hound in particular: if you go to all of the gnrl membership meetings like you say, why don't you ask the powers that be the question you just asked re: pensions for all backstretch workers? I do not recall that questioned being asked by anyone at the meeting in December, unless you all asked these questions among yourselves.

BTW: there would not be such a pension plan for trainers if it weren't for the casino revenue, that money was fought for and negotiated for by the horsemen's organizations in PA, and a % of it designated especially for medical and pension it is a rule. Has anyone read Act 71? Not being snotty, but it may cut the length of some of these conversations down a bit.

Look, I do not think any backstretch is perfect. And I wish that simulcasting and casino revenue did not ever have to be involved in maintaining some sort of lifeline for horse racing. But these are the times in which we are dealing, sometimes there is give and take that needs to be done between politicians and horsemen. It is no longer supported by on-track wagering and attendance, people are in it just for the money in many cases, and it is real easy to sit in your chair, your barn, your car, your blacksmith shop or tack room and judge. But unless you get involved with the organizations who go to battle to save and improve what we have, and see the hours they spend, the people they have to deal with, and the balancing acts that have to be maintained -- it is hard to understand how you can be so critical.

Remember what I said in an earlier post? THIRTY people to the general membership meeting. The one we had before that--25 people. Where were all you guys then -- or the rest of the horsemen All too busy to get involved in their security and futures?

Little Hound
Jan. 7, 2010, 12:12 PM
BTW: there would not be such a pension plan for trainers if it weren't for the casino revenue, that money was fought for and negotiated for by the horsemen's organizations in PA, and a % of it designated especially for medical and pension it is a rule. Has anyone read Act 71? Not being snotty, but it may cut the length of some of these conversations down a bit.

What exactly is your point here? And yes, I have read Act 71 several times. Here are a couple of points from Part 7 of 9:

DISTRIBUTIONS TO LICENSED RACING ENTITIES FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA RACE HORSE DEVELOPMENT FUND SHALL BE ALLOCATED AS FOLLOWS ... FOUR PERCENT TO BE USED TO FUND HEALTH AND PENSION BENEFITS FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE HORSEMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING THE OWNERS AND TRAINERS AT THE RACETRACK AT WHICH THE LICENSED RACING ENTITY OPERATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ORGANIZATION'S MEMBERS, THEIR FAMILIES, EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORGANIZATION, AS APPROVED BY THE STATE HORSE RACING COMMISSION OR THE
STATE HARNESS RACING COMMISSION...(C) ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS.--FUNDS ALLOCATED TO THE HORSEMEN'S
ORGANIZATION UNDER THIS PART MUST BE USED TO BENEFIT ALL HORSEMEN.

I guess grooms and hotwalkers don't fall into any of these categories?

Appreciate your defense of Philadelphia Park, considering you are an employee.

NoBSshoer
Jan. 7, 2010, 01:17 PM
What exactly is your point here? And yes, I have read Act 71 several times. Here are a couple of points from Part 7 of 9:

DISTRIBUTIONS TO LICENSED RACING ENTITIES FROM THE PENNSYLVANIA RACE HORSE DEVELOPMENT FUND SHALL BE ALLOCATED AS FOLLOWS ... FOUR PERCENT TO BE USED TO FUND HEALTH AND PENSION BENEFITS FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE HORSEMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTING THE OWNERS AND TRAINERS AT THE RACETRACK AT WHICH THE LICENSED RACING ENTITY OPERATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ORGANIZATION'S MEMBERS, THEIR FAMILIES, EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORGANIZATION, AS APPROVED BY THE STATE HORSE RACING COMMISSION OR THE
STATE HARNESS RACING COMMISSION...(C) ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS.--FUNDS ALLOCATED TO THE HORSEMEN'S
ORGANIZATION UNDER THIS PART MUST BE USED TO BENEFIT ALL HORSEMEN.

I guess grooms and hotwalkers don't fall into any of these categories?

Appreciate your defense of Philadelphia Park, considering you are an employee.
Another point that shouldn't be overlooked is that the table gaming legislation is getting closer to passage. It's pretty much a done deal at this point. As I understand it absolutely NONE of that money will be going to the horsemen in any way shape or form.:(

DickHertz
Jan. 7, 2010, 01:44 PM
Another point that shouldn't be overlooked is that the table gaming legislation is getting closer to passage. It's pretty much a done deal at this point. As I understand it absolutely NONE of that money will be going to the horsemen in any way shape or form.:(

NoBShoer, haven't you seen the Table Games position of the PAHBPA

(sic) "We support table games because it contributes to the overall health and stability of the casino."


What a joke. It could be a soap opera with the leaders we have at Penn National (I do think there are good people on the HBPA Board, but I believe they don't get to push things all that much)

NoBSshoer
Jan. 7, 2010, 08:06 PM
NoBShoer, haven't you seen the Table Games position of our lovely HBPA Director, Todd Mostoller?

(sic) "We support table games because it contributes to the overall health and stability of the casino."

LMAO LMAO LMAO

What a joke. It could be a soap opera with the leaders we have at Penn National (I do think there are good people on the HBPA Board, but I believe they don't get to push things all that much)
Uh, matter of fact I did see that. We should all sleep much better knowing the esteemed HBPA director is deeply concerned about the health and well being of the casino:rolleyes: