Linda Rice | Horse Racing Free Tips

Rice Emails Suggest Entry Information Did Not Necessarily Convert To Additional Wins

On the sixth day of a hearing examining her receipt of information from the New York Racing Association (NYRA) racing office, trainer Linda Rice said the emails provided to her by entry clerk Jose Morales had minimal impact on her decisions about which races to enter or the results of those races.

Rice continued her testimony started Wednesday before a hearing officer as part of the the proceedings, which will determine whether her actions were “inconsistent with and detrimental to the bests interests of racing generally” or were “improper acts and practices relating to racing” according to state rules. An investigation by the New York State Gaming Commission uncovered evidence that between 2011 and 2015, Rice received faxes and emails from former entry clerks Jose Morales and Matt Salvato, giving her the names and past performance records of horses prior to draw time. Senior racing office management has said the names of trainers and horses in a given race are not to be released until after a race is drawn (with stakes races being the exception).

On Thursday, Rice described the circumstances around her first getting this type of information from Morales. As the horse shortage in New York began to worsen, Rice remembered that racing office personnel became more aggressive about “hustling” races, or trying to convince trainers to enter their horses. She recalled being in the racing office several times when a clerk would print out current entries with horse names and past performance records and let her look at the sheet. She also said she witnessed this happening with other trainers.

Rice said she often asked NYRA stakes coordinator Andrew Byrnes to provide her lists of stakes nominations along with an idea of which horses were probables for a stakes race, which is not considered confidential information. She recalled one morning when Morales called to say he had faxed her this information on a stakes race she'd requested, along with entry and past performance information for a race she hadn't asked about, which he was tasked with hustling.

“I thought for a second, 'That's odd,'” she said. “But I'd already had him slide the races across the desk in the racing office and seen other racing clerks do it so I didn't think much of it.”

Rice is accused of receiving this information on an ongoing basis, both for races Morales was hustling and for races she requested to see. Morales initially faxed the information to Rice's office but switched to using email when the fax machine was out of order one morning. Fax transmission records are no longer kept from the period of time in question, so the commission's evidence focuses on copies of emails accessed by investigators.

Rice revealed that of 74 or 75 emails with race information, she entered horses in 23 of the races included in those emails. She won three of those races. Rice said there were around 80 races on the NYRA circuit she entered during the same period of time for which she did not receive any information from Morales. For the period of time covered by the emails, Rice said she won 16 percent of her races, a bit lower than her usual 20 percent.

There were many factors that determined whether or not Rice would enter a horse in one of the races for which Morales provided entry information. She said she typically points horses at races two or three weeks ahead of time and is not inclined to change the horse's program just because the office is hustling a race. She also bases some of those decisions on whether or not a preferred rider is available, in addition to the usual factors like a horse's performance in workouts, physical condition, etc.

Rice also addressed testimony from earlier in the hearing that she had a tendency to enter a race and then later swap out one horse for another. This wasn't due to any insider info from Morales, Rice said, but more likely because turf races would attract so many entries that the racing office would give preference to horses who had not yet run at the meet. If she learned a race was oversubscribed and her entry had already run at the meet, she might swap another horse in that was more likely to make the final cut.

Andrew Turro, Rice's attorney, completed questioning the trainer at the conclusion of Thursday's hearing. Thursday had originally been scheduled as the final day for the hearing, but commission counsel has not yet had a chance to cross examine her, or to present any rebuttal evidence. An additional two days have been blocked out to conclude the hearing Dec. 9 and 10. No timeframe has been provided as to when the hearing officer may make a decision in the case.

Read previous coverage of the Rice hearing here.

The post Rice Emails Suggest Entry Information Did Not Necessarily Convert To Additional Wins appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Rice Begins Testimony On Hearing’s Fifth Day, Characterizes Payments To Racing Office As Gifts

On the fifth day of a hearing into alleged rule violations by top New York trainer Linda Rice, Rice's attorney began laying the framework of his defense. Rice is accused of “actions inconsistent with and detrimental to the best interest of racing generally ad corrupt and improper acts and practices in relation to racing,” according to the New York State Gaming Commission. An investigation by the gaming commission determined that Rice received horse names and past performance information prior to draw time for a number of races between 2011 and 2015, and that she provided payments to members of the racing office staff in exchange for that information.

Attorney Andrew Turro, who represents Rice, reiterated his view that Rice did not violate a specific rule on the books at the time either with the New York Racing Association (NYRA) or the commission by taking the information, but also said Wednesday that Rice's payments to racing office staff weren't bribes.

“To use an overworked phrase, there's simply no quid pro quo,” said Turro in his opening statement for Rice's defense. “The evidence received today, and the evidence that will continue to be presented to this court will establish the undeniable truth — that the money Miss Rice gave to the racing office officials to the starting gate crew and virtually everyone who worked at the track were merely gestures of sincere appreciation and never an inducement to anything.”

Rice began her testimony Wednesday by going over her financial records from the time in question, showing a series of checks made out to individuals in the racing office, the starting gate crew, jockeys' valets, and chief examining veterinarian Dr. Anthony Verderosa which she wrote after winning the Saratoga meet title in 2009. Later, Rice said she gave checks and later cash to the entire racing office staff and starting gate crew via entry clerk Jose Morales. Morales has admitted to providing Rice with the information in question. Those payments were intended to be Christmas gifts, Rice said, and were typically $200 or a bit more, depending upon the number of people employed in each department at the time. Rice said she later learned there was a cap of $75 allowed as gratuity for NYRA employees after the gate crew were called before the stewards for taking larger tips from jockeys.

Also on Wednesday, Turro called trainers Jeremiah Englehart and James Ferraro to learn more about their experiences with the racing office, particularly during times when there was a shortage of horses available to fill races in New York. Previous testimony from senior racing office officials stated that entry clerks are not permitted to give out the name of a horse or name of a trainer when “hustling” entries for a race with a small field. They are permitted to divulge information about the expected pace or comparative talent of horses entered in a race pre-draw, even giving out specifics such as a rival's recent finish positions.

But Ferraro and Englehart say they have been given the names of trainers and horses pre-draw if a clerk is pushing to get a race filled. Englehart also said he uses a software program which helps him keep track of what conditions his horses are eligible for; the program also lets him review previous races with similar conditions, giving him a good idea which horses could be entered in a given allowance or claiming race. Englehart estimated that when entries are released for a race with eight horses, he will have correctly guessed the identities of five of them, on average.

Ferraro and Englehart also said they learn about the entries in an upcoming race from jockeys' agents, who may be aware of horses their clients are riding.

When questioned by counsel for Rice and the commission, Englehart seemed to have complex feelings about what Rice had done.

“I've competed against Linda for a long time and I have a lot of respect for how hard she works, how hard it is or might have been for her to rise to the place she's at right now,” he told Turro. “I think it's just not fair to think we're going to throw a career away because of a misjudgment. There's a lot of people out there that might not be good in the game and we need to focus on that.”

Under asked by commission attorney Rick Goodell whether Rice received an unfair advantage, Englehart also said this–

“If Linda was receiving emails when no one else was, and I'm not 100 percent sure no one else was, maybe it isn't a one-time happening … knowing it's frowned upon now I would say no it's not fair, but at the time I stand by what I said before and I don't know if I wouldn't have done the same thing.”

While Morales, a longtime acquaintance of Rice, characterized the gratuities and a couple of loans from Rice as consideration for the information he provided her, Turro depicted the relationship differently. Rice knew the Morales family many years and was close to them at a time several years ago when a car accident killed one of Jose's teenaged siblings.

“I knew his lifestyle was — he was having a lot of problems as far as drinking, driving, domestic issues with his wife and whatnot,” Rice said. “I felt sorry for him because his life was somewhat of a mess. I always thought I knew, possibly, why.”

Turro also laid the groundwork for his closing argument, which will be that the commission should not suspend or revoke Rice's license — both options on the table for the hearing officer according to the commission.

“I'll urge that justice be done and the nightmare my client has been living through can end,” he said. “I will urge the hearing officer to allow her to continue training without further interruption.”

The hearing will continue Thursday.

See previous coverage of the hearing here, here, and here.

The post Rice Begins Testimony On Hearing’s Fifth Day, Characterizes Payments To Racing Office As Gifts appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Rice Attorney’s Motion To Dismiss Denied, Hearing Moves Into Fifth Day

The New York State Gaming Commission rested its case against top trainer Linda Rice Tuesday after a fourth day of testimony reviewing details about the inside information Rice is alleged to have gotten from the racing office between late 2011 and 2015. At the conclusion of the commission's case, Rice counsel Andrew Turro moved to dismiss the commission's charge against her.

Turro argued that the commission failed to adequately prove Rice sought out the information provided to her by former racing office employees Jose Morales and Matt Salvato, and also that there was no specific NYSGC or New York Racing Association rule prohibiting racing office employees from providing trainers with the names of horses entered in a race prior to draw time.

Morales and Salvato have testified they provided, first through fax and later through email, horse names and past performance sheets of entries in races ahead of draw time — something senior racing office management testified is expressly forbidden. They also testified they were provided financial gifts by Rice, which they believed was in consideration for their providing her the information.

Rice is charged under state regulation language prohibiting “actions inconsistent with and detrimental to the best interest of racing generally ad corrupt and improper acts and practices in relation to racing.” During Tuesday's hearing, which consisted entirely of testimony and layers of cross-examination and redirect examination of NYSGC steward Braulio Baeza, Jr., Turro pointed out that NYRA and NYSGC codes do not specifically spell out what sharing of information is or isn't permissible by the racing office.

Rick Goodell, counsel for NYSGC, pointed out that language prohibiting licensees from failing to act “in the best interests of racing” may be broad, but is standard in many places and its legality has been upheld many times. Goodell also told the hearing officer that Rice herself acknowledged having loaned Morales money more than once and that she was not paid back for those loans. Morales and Salvato had indicated in previous testimony that Rice also sent cash or checks in envelopes to members of the racing office staff.

Clark Petschek, hearing officer for the case, denied Turro's motion to dismiss.

Although Turro has yet to make his opening statement in the case, he also seemed to question how beneficial the information was to Rice, pointing out instances where Rice lost races after getting pre-draw information from Morales. It's also true that since entries were still open at the time Morales and Salvato would send information to Rice, horses could come in or out of the race after she got preliminary entries but before draw time. Rick Goodell, counsel for NYSGC, also pointed out instances where Rice's horses had won or otherwise done well in races where Morales's emails showed he sent her information.

Two more days are allotted for the hearing on Nov. 18 and 19, allowing the defense to present its case. It remains unclear when after the conclusion of the hearings Petschek could issue a decision.

See previous coverage of the hearing here and here

The post Rice Attorney’s Motion To Dismiss Denied, Hearing Moves Into Fifth Day appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

As Linda Rice Hearings Progress, Questions Remain About What’s Normal In The Racing Office

The hearing of trainer Linda Rice wrapped its third day on Nov. 12 with more testimony from New York Racing Association (NYRA) employees about standard operating procedures in the racing office. The hearing is meant to determine what, if any, sanctions await Rice, who is accused of “corrupt and improper acts in relation to racing.” Rice could face suspension or revocation of her license, and fines of up to $25,000 per violation.

Former racing office employee Jose Morales testified last week he provided Rice with horses' names and past performance information via fax and email both for races he was trying to fill and races Rice expressed an interest in. The commission maintains Rice received an unfair advantage by having this information prior to the races being drawn when other trainers did ot, as she had the opportunity to add or remove horses from fields depending upon how the competition was shaping up.

Thursday's proceedings involved the completion of testimony from Martin Panza, senior vice president of racing operations at NYRA, who began testifying last week, and testimony from Chris Camac, assistant racing secretary at Aqueduct. Camac recalled Rice having a reputation for putting horses in races — particularly turf races — and later calling to swap one horse out for another just before draw time. Although other trainers may occasionally do the same, Camac said Rice did so more often than average and was known to turn in her entries somewhat later in the day than other trainers.

Not for the first time, senior racing office officials told a somewhat different story about what goes on in the racing office than employees further down the food chain. Morales and former colleague Matt Salvato said last week they had the impression it was routine in some situations to reveal the names of horses or trainers pre-draw during the process of “hustling” to generate entries for a race with few entries. They also alleged there wasn't an orientation program for new employees emphasizing what information was acceptable to give out and what wasn't, although Morales admitted to hiding his communications with Rice from others.

(Salvato was eventually fired from the racing office when the scheme was uncovered, but testified last week he would provide Rice information she requested if Morales was unavailable.)

Camac and Panza said that while was no formal training program for new racing office employees, employees were well-versed in what they could and couldn't say to trainers.

Camac and Panza were presented Thursday with sworn testimony from trainer David Donk which cast doubt on what information is commonly given out to trainers — even now. Donk was asked about whether trainers were provided with names of horses or trainers in entries pre-draw, and about whether trainers were shown entries after the draw to help them figure out which riders may be available.

Counsel for Rice read part of Donk's statement into the record.

“[Clerks] might show me the computer screen to show me the names of the entered horses but not the PPs … Whenever they hustle a race to try and get it to fill, they will often tell you about the horses in a race to try and make it fill,” the statement read in part. “It is no different today when they're hustling a race. They'll tell you who is in a race to help you make a decision.”

Camac disputed the apparent allegation by Donk that trainers are to this day given information he and Panza had described as confidential.

“I cannot speak for Mr. Donk but I can speak for myself and I tell you, this has not happened in 2019, 2020 for sure because I was here,” he said. “I never saw it. I don't believe it.”

And if he had overheard an employee providing that information?

“I would have taken them to the racing commission myself,” he said. “It's a thing called integrity.”

Panza had stipulated last week that trainers may be given information about what an anonymous competitor in a certain race has done during its last start, or how the pace is shaping up based on current entries, but the actual release of names is not permissible. Panza admitted many savvy trainers can probably guess which horses are likely candidates for a given race without getting confidential information, but said that knowing which were entered and which weren't could still be beneficial. Panza read Donk's statement as a reference to learning which riders were in a race after draw time, not which horses were there before draw time, and stated he was not aware of racing office employees divulging confidential information.

Camac was also confronted about a record produced by Rice's attorneys purporting to show a check made out to him by Rice, which attorney Andrew Turro said was accompanied by a thank you note from Rice. Camac said he had no memory of receiving or cashing such a check or a thank you note.

One witness for the commission, steward Braulio Baeza Jr., was not examined Thursday due to time constraints. He is expected to testify next week. Two days are allotted next week for Rice's attorneys to present their case, with an additional day allowed if needed. A timeline has not been given for a decision after the conclusion of the hearings.

The post As Linda Rice Hearings Progress, Questions Remain About What’s Normal In The Racing Office appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post