The CHRB has dropped its charges against Julio Canani in the Sweet Catomine affair as well as its charges against Jeff Mullins in the \"idiots and addicts\" case. The following explanation comes from the San Diego Union Tribune:
----------------
In the release, Ahern explained the withdrawal of charges:
\"In the cases involving Mr. Canani and Mr. Mullins, they have not violated any statute or regulation . . . Rule 1902 describes conduct detrimental to racing. The key word is conduct . . . The rule addresses things like associating with bookmakers and crimes involving moral turpitude. What these trainers said just doesn\'t fit . . . The rule doesn\'t say anything about misrepresentations and controversial statements to the press.\"
wow what a spineless organization.
alright thats it.
I pledge to wager no longer on california horseracing. not that i did that much wagering there anyway.
goodbye kalifornia
Just when you thought an episode couldn\'t become more absurd or overspun . . .
Let\'s remember one thing: Mr. Ahern represents the CHRB. The CHRB charged Marty Wygod with violating Rule 1902, and not for \"associating with bookmakers and crimes involving moral turpitude.\" In fact, the CHRB alleged Wygod violated Rule 1902 by making \"misrepresentations and controversial statements to the press\". The press release from the CHRB regarding the Wygod complaint alleged that Wygod violated Rule 1902 \"in connection with statements he made before and after Saturday\'s Santa Anita Derby (gr. I) concerning the health of Sweet Catomine, who finished fifth in the race as the even-money favorite. The owner was widely quoted in newspapers, magazines, and on Web sites as saying after the race that the filly had physical problems, such as internal bleeding after she exercised on April 3, and providing details that were not made public before the race.\" (April 11th Blood Horse) If, in fact, "[t]he key word is conduct," as Mr. Ahern says, why in the world was the complaint issued against Wygod in the first place?
The truth of the matter is that "conduct" can mean anything the board reasonably interprets it to mean.
Post Edited (04-28-05 13:27)
Carodoc
Conduct can certainly be language or omission when a duty to act is present. This organization is corrupt. It needs swept out. I will not wager on Kalifornia until Fermin and the whole batch are purged. I noticed the manager of Santa Anita suddenly stepped down. I dont want any part of risk upon that jurisdiction. My last bet there was the Santa Anita Derby. Unfortunately I leave losing.
Post Edited (04-28-05 13:39)
I think we\'re going to need Delmar Deb to find this out for us, but here\'s my question:
I believe that the investigator said he did not get to question Wygod before the hearing. I know Wygod was at the hearing, but was he even questioned there, and what did they ask him?
CTC-- that was a much better post about the Derby. That starts discussions, not arguments.
TGJB: According to the account of the hearing given in both the L. A. Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune, only three witnesses were called: the investigator, the van driver and Canani. The links to those articles are below.
Caradoc
http://www.latimes.com/sports/horseracing/la-sp-wygod24apr24,1,7827822.story?coll=la-headlines-sports-horse_raci
http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports/20050424-9999-1s24wygod.html
Post Edited (04-28-05 14:57)
Bill Finley takes a swipe.
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/columns/story?id=2046954
My understanding of the process is that the State (CHRB) presents it case and calls it witnesses, with the defendant (Wygod) or in this case his attorney being afforded the opportunity to ask questions of the State\'s witnesses.
The fact that the State failed to question Wygod in the investigation was probably the impetus for Wygod\'s lawyer asking (at the conclusion of the presentation of the State\'s case when it was revealed that they had never gone to Wygod)asking for dismissal before even presenting his case.
My understanding from two people who were present is that the State\'s case was so pathetic and inadequately presented as to make the defense lawyer\'s request the lesser of two evils. When the investigator admitted to not having interviewed Wygod and was questionned as to why he did not interview him, the response was, \"I can\'t say\"...giving more rise to the current speculation that Santa Anita/Magna was more involved in what happened than has been exposed.
In any event, it\'s pretty clear out here that whether it is the CHRB or the tracks themselves, the attitude is \"the public be dammed!\" There used to be over 30 tracks in the mid-atlantic and New England region until the public woke up to being fleeced and stopped going. The powers that be in California think that people out here will put up with anything...and so far they have been proven correct. But if you really want to see what\'s happened to local racetrack handle, compare in-state wagering of 3 years ago to that of today...and to the comparative handles of poker (Hollywood Park and Indian casinos)and out of state simulcast wagering by CA residents (on track and on-line).
That will tell you the real story...along with the fact that some of the best handicappers I know have deserted the SoCal tracks altogether - if they even play anymore. As long as the out-of-state money keeps the tracks here level, they will keep going, firm in their conviction that nothing is wrong with the game.
And look at the dearth of fan education out here - sure they want more people on-track, but only for the entertainment. If the tracks ever invested in an educated fan base, they might risk losing a lot of clientele!