Ramsey Suspended and Fined
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
-
wilf
- Breeder's Cup Contender
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 10:50 am
- Location: Ocala, Florida.
As a trainer on the ground in America I agree with many of the members here that it was a ridiculous call. Firstly it was NOT really a bribe to affect the outcome of a race.My reason is that once the field for a race is finalised then you make your pick and places your bet. The press as usual make a big deal out of this because Ramsay is a very big fish.The stewards are the usual knee jerk blind mice showing no understanding of gravity per offence and I consider the fine to be way high. It is pathetic; the dummy trainer who squealed should have just said "no thanks" or at worst told them to go sit on a chile. Now if you want to bitch about animal abuse then I am your man as it is a national disgrace concerning owners just as high profile as Ramsey and their greed to gain national awards by spending money to win races at the cost of many horses lives just because no one will stand up and say "enough" , that includes the stewards and the state commissions.However this nonsense is just an embarrassement that came to the light of day and should blow away by nightfall. Also I reckon that the stewards action of actually scratching Ramseys horse after it had legally drawn in to the body of the race was just as shameful.What do you hangmen think of that?
As I stated, no one really got hurt here. You are correct, the betting public wasn't hurt. The sport shouldn't be all about money. So a trainer should just shut up and take the money? What if you're a small time person and are on the also eligible list? You'd like to be in the race to, right? So it's all about who offers the most money to scratch horses? Is it okay to pay the trainers of favorites in the race to scratch so you have a better chance of winning? I'm just saying owner like Ramsey (or anyone for that matter) should use better judgement. Even though this may be a relatively small thing and may be done all the time, it shouldn't be accepted. Accepting small improprieties just leads to accepting bigger ones. Making the sport more reputable needs to begin with the small things too.
hi guys
I suggest that the appearance (or perception) of an impropriety can sometimes be as bad or worse than the impropriety.
In this case there was apparently an impropriety (days and a fine...however small)...and right or wrong...like it or not...arguably the industry has been damaged (at least to some degree...whether real or perceived).
To what extent we don't know for sure...but as we have seen...such negative events and reports (at least sometimes) seem to take on a life of their own.
In this case...a high-profile owner is involved...so the shelf-life of the story may be affected and yet another negative story may get some legs.
Like it or not...it seems that (often) in this game such news gets amplified...sometimes out of proportion.
I suggest that a blackeye (however big or small) has once again been tagged on the industry...and it might be fair to say that an owner whose integrity might never have been questioned has placed himself squarely under a cloud of suspicion...as a result of a selfish act that backfired.
I suggest that what occured was not the small thing that some may imply.
Respectfully
I suggest that the appearance (or perception) of an impropriety can sometimes be as bad or worse than the impropriety.
In this case there was apparently an impropriety (days and a fine...however small)...and right or wrong...like it or not...arguably the industry has been damaged (at least to some degree...whether real or perceived).
To what extent we don't know for sure...but as we have seen...such negative events and reports (at least sometimes) seem to take on a life of their own.
In this case...a high-profile owner is involved...so the shelf-life of the story may be affected and yet another negative story may get some legs.
Like it or not...it seems that (often) in this game such news gets amplified...sometimes out of proportion.
I suggest that a blackeye (however big or small) has once again been tagged on the industry...and it might be fair to say that an owner whose integrity might never have been questioned has placed himself squarely under a cloud of suspicion...as a result of a selfish act that backfired.
I suggest that what occured was not the small thing that some may imply.
Respectfully
To FOS,
I always respect your opinion,but I have asked how it affected horseracing in this particular case and no one has answered it.What do you IYO feel it has done to give horseracing a black eye?
Best Always,
Ryeno
I always respect your opinion,but I have asked how it affected horseracing in this particular case and no one has answered it.What do you IYO feel it has done to give horseracing a black eye?
Best Always,
Ryeno
"The easiest way to end up with a million dollars in the horseracing business is to start with 3 million!"
-
st. louis kid
- Maiden Special Weight
- Posts: 192
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 8:56 pm
what a joke, all he did was try to buy his way into the race. If I was a steward I would have suspended the rat trainer. Ken Ramsey has done more good for the sport than all of us on this board combined. There are probably a hundred horses a day in America that are entered with no intention of running, just to fill the race for another entry. This country is becoming so goody two shoes, bunch of hypocrites if anybody asks me.
-
roving boy
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:18 pm
- Location: Kentucky
While the actual harm done was virtually nil, those people that are sometime fans probably do not understand that.
And as good as "Smilin' Ken" looks in the winners circle and photos, he is not a great guy. Just ask his former trainers, farriers, vets, etc. how promptly he paid their bills - or if he has!
And as good as "Smilin' Ken" looks in the winners circle and photos, he is not a great guy. Just ask his former trainers, farriers, vets, etc. how promptly he paid their bills - or if he has!
Roving Boy
hi st louis kid
You wrote "what a joke, all he did was try to buy his way into the race."
What if this happened with the Ky Derby and his horse was #21 on the list of probables (and only 20 could run)? Would it be okay for him to offer cash to any of the other horses' trainer(s) so that at least one would step aside so his horse would get in? hmmm.
I suggest that whether it's a case of a cheap claimer or Ky Derby hopeful...NO ONE (no matter how big or small) is entitled to a free pass when it comes to breaking the rules and/or undermining the integrity of an industry that is so important to many of us.
Furthermore...I suggest that racing is a sport that is greatly affected by not only public opinion...but also public perception. Arguably the opinion is often shaped by the perception.
Without Real AND Perceived integrity (and swift and appropriate action when necessary) is it unreasonable to suggest that the future of thoroughbred racing (and the industry in general...which many of us love so much) would be significantly compromised.
Respectfully
You wrote "what a joke, all he did was try to buy his way into the race."
What if this happened with the Ky Derby and his horse was #21 on the list of probables (and only 20 could run)? Would it be okay for him to offer cash to any of the other horses' trainer(s) so that at least one would step aside so his horse would get in? hmmm.
I suggest that whether it's a case of a cheap claimer or Ky Derby hopeful...NO ONE (no matter how big or small) is entitled to a free pass when it comes to breaking the rules and/or undermining the integrity of an industry that is so important to many of us.
Furthermore...I suggest that racing is a sport that is greatly affected by not only public opinion...but also public perception. Arguably the opinion is often shaped by the perception.
Without Real AND Perceived integrity (and swift and appropriate action when necessary) is it unreasonable to suggest that the future of thoroughbred racing (and the industry in general...which many of us love so much) would be significantly compromised.
Respectfully
-
timex
- Maiden Special Weight
- Posts: 150
- Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:23 am
- Location: Saratoga Springs, NY
- Contact:
reenci wrote:all right i agree.............only if we fix the "other 2 gaziooion things" starting with..................... we sell horse's for MEAT in this country !
oh, please, don't get me started! my pet peeve is that we actually have so many excess horses that they get sold for meet. a mare breaks down, due (not always, but often) to bad conformation, not suitable for the track, so they BREED her, created MORE horses with bad conformation, which then break down. and if they're lucky, they can be bred. if not, they end up on the meat truck. i, for one, would love to see some EDUCATED, THOUGHTFUL breeding, which is severely lacking. i go to the yearling audtions, go to the track, and i see what is being produced, and it disgusts me. as a TB owner (2 mares - who i do not breed) and professional h/j trainer, i can't fathom why people breed so many mediocre animals. ok, off my soapbox, sorry if i offended anyone.
what do you wanna bet that this same thing has happened in the kentucky derby....or has happened this way.....remember rock hard ten did not make the cut off for the derby.....and then i seem to recall some horses scratched out after the draw for what ever reason. this goes on every day, ....to fill a race...then the racing sec.owe's you one for filling the race...then write's a race to fit your horses requirements......wake up people.FOS wrote:hi st louis kid
You wrote "what a joke, all he did was try to buy his way into the race."
What if this happened with the Ky Derby and his horse was #21 on the list of probables (and only 20 could run)? Would it be okay for him to offer cash to any of the other horses' trainer(s) so that at least one would step aside so his horse would get in? hmmm.
I suggest that whether it's a case of a cheap claimer or Ky Derby hopeful...NO ONE (no matter how big or small) is entitled to a free pass when it comes to breaking the rules and/or undermining the integrity of an industry that is so important to many of us.
Furthermore...I suggest that racing is a sport that is greatly affected by not only public opinion...but also public perception. Arguably the opinion is often shaped by the perception.
Without Real AND Perceived integrity (and swift and appropriate action when necessary) is it unreasonable to suggest that the future of thoroughbred racing (and the industry in general...which many of us love so much) would be significantly compromised.
Respectfully
This is a tough one.
On one hand, I agree that the sport doesn't need any more black eyes. However, Ryeno explained it in such a way that I can understand the reasoning behind Ramsey's actions, even if I don't agree with his methods. If there had been no money involved and he had merely tried to talk sense into the owner of the 30-1 longshot, then it would only be viewed as a business discussion and not a crime. But of course, the other owner isn't likely to cooperate without some....let's call it..."incentive". So there was bribery involved and that's what makes it punishable.
Up until this point, I have always heard the Ramseys spoken of in a very positive light (doesn't mean there weren't negatives, just that I had never heard them). It's unfortunate that a highly respected, high profile owner has now had his name, and the sport's, tainted. If it were me, I think I would have just tried to reason with the other owner, but let fate take its course. In my mind, nearly missing an Eclipse Award is not a disgrace, but gaining a bad reputation...and record, through doing something illegal, is.
On one hand, I agree that the sport doesn't need any more black eyes. However, Ryeno explained it in such a way that I can understand the reasoning behind Ramsey's actions, even if I don't agree with his methods. If there had been no money involved and he had merely tried to talk sense into the owner of the 30-1 longshot, then it would only be viewed as a business discussion and not a crime. But of course, the other owner isn't likely to cooperate without some....let's call it..."incentive". So there was bribery involved and that's what makes it punishable.
Up until this point, I have always heard the Ramseys spoken of in a very positive light (doesn't mean there weren't negatives, just that I had never heard them). It's unfortunate that a highly respected, high profile owner has now had his name, and the sport's, tainted. If it were me, I think I would have just tried to reason with the other owner, but let fate take its course. In my mind, nearly missing an Eclipse Award is not a disgrace, but gaining a bad reputation...and record, through doing something illegal, is.
So many pedigrees...so little time. (C)
-
wilf
- Breeder's Cup Contender
- Posts: 1882
- Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2004 10:50 am
- Location: Ocala, Florida.
I have already sounded off on this topic once and I stick by my assertions that there was a lot of overreaction in regards to the gravity of this offence , in fact the fine may have been $1500 in another jurisdiction . However two things have me shaking my head in astonishment here ; firstly the lack of uniformity in each states racing commissions" view of infringements , which probably should be no surprise considering how some states are just glad to have you i.e. WV...AZ....ONT-CAN, and some will drain you dry coming and going i.e. NY. . Secondly something just seems a little odd that an extremely high profile horseman would leave himself open to embarrassement like this. To be honest now that I think about this mess it will be interesting to hear how it all developed.
