Monmouth Suspends Chloe Bradley, Former Employee Of Preciado, 45 Days

by | 09.26.2016 | 6:52pm
Trainer Ramon Preciado
Trainer Ramon Preciado

Chloe Bradley has served as an employee of trainer Ramon Preciado in the past, and last winter she took over training his horses in Florida while Preciado was serving a suspension. Monday, the board of stewards at Monmouth Park suspended Bradley 45 days for entering Lucy N Ethel in the Blue Sparkler Stakes on Aug. 14, reports the Daily Racing Form.

Lucy N Ethel started three times under Preciado, including her most recent win in the G3 Old Hat Stakes at Gulfstream in January. After that, the filly had an ankle chip removed, and the Blue Sparkler would have been her first start since then. Instead, Lucy N Ethel won the G2 Prioress at Saratoga on Sept. 4, with Bradley listed as trainer.

Stewards at Monmouth scratched Lucy N Ethel while trying to determine whether Bradley was actually her trainer. Frank Zanzuccki, executive director of the New Jersey Racing Commission, relayed that the board determined that Bradley did not have control of Lucy N Ethel at that time, hence the suspension. Bradley was also fined $1500.

Read more at drf.com.

  • AtTheRacesNoisemaker

    Clearly NYRA is more trusting (sarcasm)

  • john

    About time these tracks got serious on some issues…glad to see.

  • youcantmakeitup

    Where`s the beef? This will not satisfy the public.The real culprit remains at large.

    • McGov

      hahahaaha…..WHERE’S THE BEEF?…..LOVED that lady in that commercial…..haven’t heard that in a while…too funny

  • Bristling

    Alan Pincus is making a ton of money

  • Bubba

    How does this differ from big trainers who never see or interact with their horses and have an assistant train them but then run in the big trainers name? I’m not saying the big trainer thing is wrong, but technically how is this different?

    • SunnyD

      Because in this case the “real” trainer is suspended. In other situations the actual trainer is listed as the trainer for everyone to know and see, and the assistant is listed as an assistant so it’s known who is running the ship.
      Not at all the same.

      • Old Timer

        Never in my life have I seen who the Assistant Trainer is in any program or form, so that’s not correct by any means. The racing office and Stewards know, and maybe some of the horsemen on the track, but the betting public has no idea who it is.

        • SunnyD

          Sorry- I wasn’t referring to what is released to the betting public when I said “everyone”, I meant the stewards, owners, people on the backside of racing vs the front side.

          In a legit situation of trainer & assistant, the trainer pays the assistant to carry out the actions decided upon by the trainer. The assistant is a known and trusted part of a team- the people connected with the horse (vets, grooms, owners, gallop riders, jockey’s, stewards, racing commission etc) all know who the trainer is, and who the assistant is. There is a level of trust throughout. The trainer on record is the one actually calling the shots, and the one willing to take any liability, fines and ultimate responsibility if something bad happens. Assistant trainers have to be licensed, but don’t take ultimate responsibility for what happens in the barns or with staff, bill payments etc.

          In this situation, the person LISTED as the actual trainer (not on record as an assistant but taking full credit as trainer) is simply a front man, likely not truly calling any of the shots on the horses, nor are they likely paying the feed, vet farrier bills. Simply a person in the barn to run the operation of a trainer currently without access.

          To my mind (and we may differ in that as I only work on the backside of racing and am not a bettor), one situation is entirely above board and legit, while the other is underhanded and intentionally deceitful.

        • McGov

          I’ve seen an AT listed in a program once before. When Steve Curtis was AT in Fort Erie for a Woodbine based trainer ( can’t remember name at the moment). They put Steve’s name in program every time. But you’re right, extremely rare and I wonder if it had something to do with Steve’s win %….somewhere around 40%.

        • John Whiston

          In Standardbred Racing it is common practice to post “Second Trainers” in the program.

      • Ts

        The fact is the “real trainer” is not suspended. Don’t let the truth get in the way of your story!

        • Shea Stuart

          From my understanding, being a trainer at Monmouth Park, Preciado tried to enter the horse at Monmouth, and the Stewards refused the entry because of his pending bad tests at Parx. NYRA also refused his entry under his name. He then called in the entry to Monmouth himself and listed Chloe as the trainer, to which they refused the entry again. Then they entered in Chloe’s name in New York, which for some reason wasn’t refused.
          I believe Monmouth fined her because she falsified her license application by saying she had no business with Preciado.

  • Kristen

    Haha, suspension after meet is over. Give me a break

  • Carolyn Bauche

    For God sakes , there is lots & lots of bigger fish to fry……..come on people !!!!!!!!!!!

  • Kevin Callinan

    The beard is punished but the employer and owners who instructed her to sign the entry slip are blameless. Come’on man.

    • Hamish

      For some reason these connections are teflon coated? Who is really behind this blameless group of enablers?

Twitter Twitter
Paulick Report on Instagram