March 20, 2025 • 21 mins
Presenting this week on our Harness Racing Alumni Show, Andy Cohen takes the lead. He discusses with special guest Murray Brown, along with hosts, Freddie and Bob, the details behind the USTA'S investigation that led to sanctions of 6 of its members…., along with a farm for concealment of business dealings with former trainer/owner Nick Surick. Surick is currently serving a five year two months Federal prison sentence for his role in the drugging of racehorses. All on this week's broadcast.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm Freddie Hudson and I'm here today with Trade Martin,
Bob Marx, Andy Cohen, and Mary Brown the Hunt Is
Racing Alumni Show with your host, Freddie Hudson and Trade Martin.
On this week's show, Andy is going to lead us
in a discussion of the recent sanctions imposed by the
(00:21):
USTA on six individuals and one farm after their investigation
by the Standardbred Investigative Fund. The sr IF found them
having business relationships with convicted former trainer and owner Nick Surr,
who is now serving times in a federal prison. Andy,
it's your show.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Thanks, Reddie.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
It's an honor to be on the show with Murray
and Bob. You know, Bob and I and you we
do it often, but Dad Murray is quite a treat.
I wrote my Keeping Faith column at Pollack Report, which
is posted yesterday, on the investigation.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
I was able to.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Tok through some of the documents that had not been
made public. I was able to look at some of
the specific allegations against am Bowden and Diamond Creek and
the folks who were named, and you know, at the
end of the day, and as I wrote, I think
that the USTA had good intentions I think that these
sorts of arrangements, these sorts of secret negotiations that go
(01:26):
on with Nick Curich, should be made public at some point.
There should be ramifications and accountability for it.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
But I think the way the USKA.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Went about the mission really raises some red flags about
how fair it was, who sat in judgment, on the
people who were judged, why some people who had contact
with Turik were punished and others were not.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
So Overall, I think.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
You know, good intentions, bad execution, and I'm not surprised
that the way it went down and the way it
was announced is rank of.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
A few people.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
But I'm interested in, for example, knowing what you think. Murray,
You've been around a long time and you've seen a
lot of things, and I'm sure you've seen a lot
of USPA investigations.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
What did you think of what you know of what happened?
Speaker 5 (02:14):
Well, actually, I haven't seen many USTA investigations. I think
the fact that they're doing this and have done this
is a point in their favor. I do think though
the investigation was incomplete in many areas. Firstly, insofar as
(02:36):
the release of the news, most people had no idea
this was an area of concern. Most people weren't publicly
advised to, for lack of a better term, to stay
away from Nick Surrich. You know, it certainly makes great
sense to do so, but nobody that I'm aware or
(03:00):
knew that there would be repercussions from doing so.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Yeah, I mean, that's that's one of the points that
I raised in the column, and I think it's a
really good point.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
One of the positive aspects of.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
All of this is that.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
And this is something that the lawyer for the fun
told me in an email and which is public record
now in the USTA meetings that took.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Place earlier this month.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
They've actually moved to change the bylaws to make it
more clear when somebody is kicked out of harness racing,
for lack of a better word, that there's notice of it,
and that people inside the sport are made aware more
fully that hey, this is you know, this is a
no fly zone.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
This is somebody you should not be doing business with.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
This is somebody who should not cannot own standard breds,
cannot use a foil to own standard breds. So the
notice that they're going to give somehow is going to
be a lot more profound than it was, So that's
a good thing.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
I think moving forward, there's going to be a lesson
learned from this.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
But I mean, come on, you know, people should have
known not to touch Nick Surrik in twenty twenty when
the allegations came out, or when.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
He was kicked out and.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
When he pleaded guilty and when he went away to jail.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
I mean, you know, I think needs the USDA to
make a grand announcement they stay away from this guy.
People should have stayed away from him, and I think
that's why some people got in trouble.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
I think that some of the contacts that they had,
you know, the.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
USDA felt were beyond the normal forcement business.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Bob, what do you think of this?
Speaker 4 (04:39):
You've been around a long time, and.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
You've been in the broodmare business like Murray.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
I think one of the things that I learned in
investigating it last week is that people understand better that
they can't own racehorses, but that the broodmare ownership is
a little bit murkier because Brudner's obviously they never race
and they sort of go into farms and they produced,
but they're sort of.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Out of the limelight. What's your perspective on it, Bob.
Speaker 6 (05:10):
Basically, I remember Nick Sert very well. There's a lot
of allegations about him. I'm sure, I'm sure there's a
lot of truth to most of them. Personally, I never
really got along with him. I never really tried to.
(05:32):
I mean, I just knew him. I don't know anything
about the Diamond Greek people or whatever. I don't understand.
I really don't understand what these other guys are accused of.
That's what I don't understand. What did they buy a
horse that he may have owned or something to that ector.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
What they're accused of.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
And I'm glad you asked this question because it came
up even after my column. Nick Serk was not allowed
to own racesources. He was not allowed to own brood
mares or race sources or anything. He was supposed to
have no conduct inside the business. And what the USDA
found is that Curik's mother had broodmares, which the USKA
(06:15):
thought might be simply as a foil and Diamond Creek
and these others that are involved continue to do business
with Nick Surich after he was banned from the sports.
They continued to make arrangements for breedings and so on.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
There was a discussion about buying and selling horses, for example.
And the defendants, for lack of a better word, the
people who.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Were sanctioned, they say, listen, we thought we were dealing
with Nick Currik's mom, Debbie Surrs, and Nick may have
been acting with us, and he may have been in
contact with us, but he was acting on behalf of
his mother, and.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
So that's a you know, that's nothing that was litigated.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
But the allegations are that the people who dealt with
Nick out with him with.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
A Lincoln and nod.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Understanding that he was really doing business on his own
behalf and not on behalf of his mother.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Those are the day Andy fred here.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Were they doing business with him while he was in
prison or before he went to prison both.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
My understanding is that the contacts took place for quite
a while and after he was indicted, after he pleaded guilty.
Remember he didn't plead guilty. I mean the indictments, remember
came down in twenty twenty right five years ago, and.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
There was a superseding indictment and so on.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
I don't think he pleaded guilty until or I don't
think he was sentenced until twenty twenty three. So there
were several years there where he was operating. He's in
prison now. I don't know all of the details, but
my senses from what I know that they you know,
they did business with him. The concept was that it
(07:57):
was on behalf of the mom but Debbie was also sanctioned.
And to be fair to the people who were sanctioned,
and as I wrote in my column, they said, wait
a minute, if you guys were so concerned about Debbie Surik,
why didn't you suspend her until you didn't suspend her
until twenty twenty four exactly, And.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
So that was that was one of the.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
Defenses, excuse me, that came out in the course of
my investigation. So that may explain why some of the
sanctions were dropped at the end.
Speaker 4 (08:29):
You know, some people who initially were in trouble ended.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Up not being in trouble. I just don't know, and
I don't know that we're ever really going to know,
because the USKA and the Investigative Fund says it wants
to keep the details secret, and obviously the people involved
want to keep it secret too.
Speaker 5 (08:49):
And you've you've spoken with Adam Bowden, presumably in some depth.
I'm just wondering if this is the end of the
road for him. My understanding is, yes, they're gonna They're
going to or have paid these sanctions because they have
(09:11):
to do so in order to continue to doing be
doing business with U. S. T A. But is this
the end of the road to them for them? Do
they do they perhaps? Are they perhaps ready to bring
some legal action against U. S. T A for the
(09:33):
way in which this was handled and and any uh
improper or uh not fully known areas of these sanctions.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
That's a good question, Mary, I don't think though, I don't.
I did speak to Adam a couple of times last week,
and I think that, you know, he is ready to
just leave this behind. And basically he has paid that
defined there was no suspension for him. There's no suspension
for Sean, who is the right hand man there at
(10:12):
Diamond Creek, so they're obviously.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Allowed to do business.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
I don't think Adam was happy with how the process went, obviously,
but I don't think that he wants to, you know.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Linger with it or let us perpetuate. It'll be interesting
to me.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
There are other investigations ongoing that have to do with
this investigative. The SRI as this investigative branch, if you will,
of the USCA, and it will be interesting to see
how those investigations unfold with people who now know.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
What the investigations look like like.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
For example, Diamond Creek shared information, you know, they were
asked to share text messages and so on, and they did.
I don't know that everyone's going to do that, And
I don't know what happens if the SRIF folks ask somebody,
you know, for emails and private conversations.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
If somebody says, forget it.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
I don't want to do it, you know, then you
have a legal showdown, and I don't know how that
gets resolved.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
That didn't happen here to my knowledge.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
I'm not one hundred percent sure, but I know that
there was a significant amount of cooperation that was coordinated
by Howard Taylor, who was involved here. He represented Adam Bowden,
he represented Bob Bonnie. I believe he represented some of
the other people who were involved. And there was cooperation.
To the credit of Diamond Creek. They they you know,
(11:43):
shared information, They allowed the investigators to investigate, and I'd
like to think that's going to continue.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
That sort of cooperation.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
I'm just not sure.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
I guess we'll know when the SRIF announces the findings
from its next investigation.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
And hopefully they have learned from this.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
Hopefully they announced it in a better way and they
are able to share more details at the public right away,
unlike what they did this time around.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Oh go ahead, Freddie Murray, I got a question for you. Now,
you were at Hanover for years. When you're breeding brood mares,
do you actually look to see if the owners are
suspended or something.
Speaker 5 (12:24):
What we did was we certainly took note of what
the ownership of the mayor was. But unless something just
jumped out that hey, this is a bad guy, we
don't need to be doing business with.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Him like that.
Speaker 5 (12:39):
One that pops into mind was David Brooks, so we
just refused to do business with him, both with Handover
shoe arms and with a sales company. But I don't
think that that a breeding farm or a stallion manager
(13:00):
sure or would would necessarily know who are the good
guys and who might be one or two of the
bad guys. So that brings a question, you know, how
are they to know that?
Speaker 6 (13:17):
Right?
Speaker 1 (13:18):
And if it's in his mother's name, also, she's not
she's not flagged.
Speaker 5 (13:23):
So yeah, and if in fact it wasn't his mother's name,
why was his mother licensed licensed to do business as
the owner of that mayor at that time? That doesn't
the USTA has some responsibility there.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
That's exactly what.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
That's exactly what the folks who were targeted said that,
you know, if there were if there was a problem,
you know, Debbie Circles suspended or investigated in twenty twenty
four or four years after the allegations against Nick Surik.
And again one of the positive things to come out
(14:07):
of it is that the USDA says it's going to
make these announcements, you know this person is than do
not do business with this person in a way that
makes it more clear, whether that's on pathway or some
other way, So that breeding farms are going to be
able more easily to see they're doing business with and
(14:28):
whether there's people they should not.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Be doing business with.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
It's going to put an onus on breeding farms like
I imagine think about Hanover and Viamon Creek and Hunterton
and all the people who own brood.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Mares and own a quarter or twenty percent of a
grood mare and.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
So on and so forth, that's a lot of work
to police all of that.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
The USDA is saying, we're going to notify you a
more effective way on who to avoid, but it's still
going to.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
Be up to individual people to look.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
At those lists and decide who they don't do business with.
And you know, I think there's going to be some
people who are going to take it more seriously than others.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Absolutely, I get the sense that Freddie wants us to
cut this.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
No, I didn't say that.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Okay, good, you know, usually I feel that the fifteen
minute mark, Freddie starts getting me a look out for me.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
But so, yeah, so I think I think this was
a good intention. I think that, you know, it raises
questions about how effectively.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
The USDA can police the sport.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
And you know, one of the things that I one
of the senses I got from the documents I read
is from Howard Taylor and others, is that there were
real concerns about due process and giving people the opportunity
to taste.
Speaker 4 (15:49):
Their accusers and so on, and giving.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
People an opportunity to challenge the people who actually made
the decisions. One of the things that happened here is
the USDA delegated a pipe person committee to basically act
as a bridge between the investigators and the USDA board
that have eventually recommended the sanctions. And there were a
lot of questions about who was put on that committee,
(16:13):
whether the people on the committee should have been on
the committee, whether they had the experienced in.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
Judgment on Diamond Creek and others, and so on.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
So those are issues that I think the USDA should
work on and improve if they.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Want to go forward with these kinds of investigations and
earn respect from within the industry, right, I mean, if
they're going to do this, they have to do this
in a way that people respect the process.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
And the results.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
And I'm not one hundred percent convinced that that happened here,
you know, even though people I think generally, you know,
are glad that there was some sort of investigation to
begin with.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
I don't know, what do you guys think?
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Andy? My quick question here, was there any involvement with
the set federal government on this investigation, because I had
heard rumors that they were looking for a restitution and
that this might lent to this investigation.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Yeah, I don't think so.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
I didn't get any sense of that I didn't get
any sense of this that the FBI was involved, but
that doesn't mean it isn't true. But I didn't see
any evidence of that.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
I didn't see everything. I don't know everything.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
I'm not professing to know everything, so it's possible.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
But my sense was that there was This was sort
of an inasspite between or an argument you might say,
between the folks who were targeted the USTA and the
folks who were hired to investigate. And again, there was
a significant amount of cooperation.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
From the people who were tagged, and.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
That cooperation helped the investigators. But if there's a law
enforcement element to this.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
I'm just not aware of it.
Speaker 5 (17:54):
Okay, guys, this is Murray. I somehow got not dop.
I don't know what happened, but I'm now back on.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
So what I've missed, you missed, you missed Andy's explanations.
Speaker 5 (18:12):
Uh, one one question, one question that I do have. Uh.
We all know Nick Surik is far from the only
bad guy involved in what happened years ago. And uh,
it's only his name that comes up. I know that. Uh,
there there are there were others, one in particular who
(18:36):
had close ties to an executive of the United States
Trotting Association, or are any of these people involved in
future investigations.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
I don't know. It's a great question.
Speaker 4 (18:51):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
I think that there's and again I think Adam.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
Made that point and.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
A letter he wrote I think I included in my
column that basically Adam said, you know, yes, we were involved,
but there are other people involved who are not punished,
and there are other people involved in in these sources
of arrangements. I don't know, you know, I don't know.
And one of.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
The things that's troubling, it's something.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
That Adam, you know, I didn't mention, but other people
have mentioned to me the conflict of interest that exists
with Russell William's.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Role as the USPA.
Speaker 3 (19:35):
President or chairman and his running of Hannib Because in effect,
you have an organization here that was created by Russell
Williams that.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Punishes Simon Creek.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
So it's like Ford Motor Company having an investigation that
punishes Chrysler. And I just don't know how you get
around that conflict of interest. I think it's a problem.
I've written about it for years and years, and this investigation,
the way it went down, and the reaction to it,
I think, you know, continues to raise serious questions about that.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Dual role that he has.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
But I don't know what the other investigations are, and
I just felt that when they are released, we'll, you know,
have more information to work with and people will be
able to understand what happened. That's what I tried to
do in this column, just to figure out.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
What happened and explain it in a way as I could.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
Again, I didn't have all the information.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
Some of the information that it was given to me
was on background, but you know what, I tried to
piece it together as best I could.
Speaker 5 (20:42):
Uh, there's something I could bring up, uh if it
and I don't think it's proper that it be. Uh.
I'm a public broadcast, but that was mentioned to me.
If I meant, why don't you.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Not why don't you not do that?
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Mrie?
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Okay, let's let's yeah, let's end this broadcast and and
folk up the tape.
Speaker 4 (21:08):
And then we can talk about it privately. Is that
okay with you?
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Freddy?
Speaker 5 (21:11):
Sure?
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Yeah, it's okay. Okay, we're gonna end. I'll end the
show right now, Okay, uh Andy, thank you so much
for acting as a lead today and Murray. Thank you
for joining us today. That's a wrap for this week's show.
Thanks for listening, and please join us again next week
the hun Is Racing Alumni Show
I'm Freddie Hudson and I'm here today with Trade Martin,
Bob Marx, Andy Cohen, and Mary Brown the Hunt Is
Racing Alumni Show with your host, Freddie Hudson and Trade Martin.
On this week's show, Andy is going to lead us
in a discussion of the recent sanctions imposed by the
(00:21):
USTA on six individuals and one farm after their investigation
by the Standardbred Investigative Fund. The sr IF found them
having business relationships with convicted former trainer and owner Nick Surr,
who is now serving times in a federal prison. Andy,
it's your show.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Thanks, Reddie.
Speaker 3 (00:43):
It's an honor to be on the show with Murray
and Bob. You know, Bob and I and you we
do it often, but Dad Murray is quite a treat.
I wrote my Keeping Faith column at Pollack Report, which
is posted yesterday, on the investigation.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
I was able to.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
Tok through some of the documents that had not been
made public. I was able to look at some of
the specific allegations against am Bowden and Diamond Creek and
the folks who were named, and you know, at the
end of the day, and as I wrote, I think
that the USTA had good intentions I think that these
sorts of arrangements, these sorts of secret negotiations that go
(01:26):
on with Nick Curich, should be made public at some point.
There should be ramifications and accountability for it.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
But I think the way the USKA.
Speaker 3 (01:34):
Went about the mission really raises some red flags about
how fair it was, who sat in judgment, on the
people who were judged, why some people who had contact
with Turik were punished and others were not.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
So Overall, I think.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
You know, good intentions, bad execution, and I'm not surprised
that the way it went down and the way it
was announced is rank of.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
A few people.
Speaker 3 (02:01):
But I'm interested in, for example, knowing what you think. Murray,
You've been around a long time and you've seen a
lot of things, and I'm sure you've seen a lot
of USPA investigations.
Speaker 4 (02:11):
What did you think of what you know of what happened?
Speaker 5 (02:14):
Well, actually, I haven't seen many USTA investigations. I think
the fact that they're doing this and have done this
is a point in their favor. I do think though
the investigation was incomplete in many areas. Firstly, insofar as
(02:36):
the release of the news, most people had no idea
this was an area of concern. Most people weren't publicly
advised to, for lack of a better term, to stay
away from Nick Surrich. You know, it certainly makes great
sense to do so, but nobody that I'm aware or
(03:00):
knew that there would be repercussions from doing so.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
Yeah, I mean, that's that's one of the points that
I raised in the column, and I think it's a
really good point.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
One of the positive aspects of.
Speaker 4 (03:13):
All of this is that.
Speaker 3 (03:15):
And this is something that the lawyer for the fun
told me in an email and which is public record
now in the USTA meetings that took.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Place earlier this month.
Speaker 3 (03:28):
They've actually moved to change the bylaws to make it
more clear when somebody is kicked out of harness racing,
for lack of a better word, that there's notice of it,
and that people inside the sport are made aware more
fully that hey, this is you know, this is a
no fly zone.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
This is somebody you should not be doing business with.
Speaker 3 (03:50):
This is somebody who should not cannot own standard breds,
cannot use a foil to own standard breds. So the
notice that they're going to give somehow is going to
be a lot more profound than it was, So that's
a good thing.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
I think moving forward, there's going to be a lesson
learned from this.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
But I mean, come on, you know, people should have
known not to touch Nick Surrik in twenty twenty when
the allegations came out, or when.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
He was kicked out and.
Speaker 4 (04:16):
When he pleaded guilty and when he went away to jail.
Speaker 3 (04:19):
I mean, you know, I think needs the USDA to
make a grand announcement they stay away from this guy.
People should have stayed away from him, and I think
that's why some people got in trouble.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
I think that some of the contacts that they had,
you know, the.
Speaker 3 (04:34):
USDA felt were beyond the normal forcement business.
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Bob, what do you think of this?
Speaker 4 (04:39):
You've been around a long time, and.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
You've been in the broodmare business like Murray.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
I think one of the things that I learned in
investigating it last week is that people understand better that
they can't own racehorses, but that the broodmare ownership is
a little bit murkier because Brudner's obviously they never race
and they sort of go into farms and they produced,
but they're sort of.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
Out of the limelight. What's your perspective on it, Bob.
Speaker 6 (05:10):
Basically, I remember Nick Sert very well. There's a lot
of allegations about him. I'm sure, I'm sure there's a
lot of truth to most of them. Personally, I never
really got along with him. I never really tried to.
(05:32):
I mean, I just knew him. I don't know anything
about the Diamond Greek people or whatever. I don't understand.
I really don't understand what these other guys are accused of.
That's what I don't understand. What did they buy a
horse that he may have owned or something to that ector.
Speaker 4 (05:51):
What they're accused of.
Speaker 3 (05:53):
And I'm glad you asked this question because it came
up even after my column. Nick Serk was not allowed
to own racesources. He was not allowed to own brood
mares or race sources or anything. He was supposed to
have no conduct inside the business. And what the USDA
found is that Curik's mother had broodmares, which the USKA
(06:15):
thought might be simply as a foil and Diamond Creek
and these others that are involved continue to do business
with Nick Surich after he was banned from the sports.
They continued to make arrangements for breedings and so on.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
There was a discussion about buying and selling horses, for example.
And the defendants, for lack of a better word, the
people who.
Speaker 3 (06:39):
Were sanctioned, they say, listen, we thought we were dealing
with Nick Currik's mom, Debbie Surrs, and Nick may have
been acting with us, and he may have been in
contact with us, but he was acting on behalf of
his mother, and.
Speaker 4 (06:53):
So that's a you know, that's nothing that was litigated.
Speaker 2 (06:56):
But the allegations are that the people who dealt with
Nick out with him with.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
A Lincoln and nod.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
Understanding that he was really doing business on his own
behalf and not on behalf of his mother.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Those are the day Andy fred here.
Speaker 1 (07:10):
Were they doing business with him while he was in
prison or before he went to prison both.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
My understanding is that the contacts took place for quite
a while and after he was indicted, after he pleaded guilty.
Remember he didn't plead guilty. I mean the indictments, remember
came down in twenty twenty right five years ago, and.
Speaker 4 (07:34):
There was a superseding indictment and so on.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
I don't think he pleaded guilty until or I don't
think he was sentenced until twenty twenty three. So there
were several years there where he was operating. He's in
prison now. I don't know all of the details, but
my senses from what I know that they you know,
they did business with him. The concept was that it
(07:57):
was on behalf of the mom but Debbie was also sanctioned.
And to be fair to the people who were sanctioned,
and as I wrote in my column, they said, wait
a minute, if you guys were so concerned about Debbie Surik,
why didn't you suspend her until you didn't suspend her
until twenty twenty four exactly, And.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
So that was that was one of the.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
Defenses, excuse me, that came out in the course of
my investigation. So that may explain why some of the
sanctions were dropped at the end.
Speaker 4 (08:29):
You know, some people who initially were in trouble ended.
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Up not being in trouble. I just don't know, and
I don't know that we're ever really going to know,
because the USKA and the Investigative Fund says it wants
to keep the details secret, and obviously the people involved
want to keep it secret too.
Speaker 5 (08:49):
And you've you've spoken with Adam Bowden, presumably in some depth.
I'm just wondering if this is the end of the
road for him. My understanding is, yes, they're gonna They're
going to or have paid these sanctions because they have
(09:11):
to do so in order to continue to doing be
doing business with U. S. T A. But is this
the end of the road to them for them? Do
they do they perhaps? Are they perhaps ready to bring
some legal action against U. S. T A for the
(09:33):
way in which this was handled and and any uh
improper or uh not fully known areas of these sanctions.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
That's a good question, Mary, I don't think though, I don't.
I did speak to Adam a couple of times last week,
and I think that, you know, he is ready to
just leave this behind. And basically he has paid that
defined there was no suspension for him. There's no suspension
for Sean, who is the right hand man there at
(10:12):
Diamond Creek, so they're obviously.
Speaker 2 (10:14):
Allowed to do business.
Speaker 3 (10:17):
I don't think Adam was happy with how the process went, obviously,
but I don't think that he wants to, you know.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
Linger with it or let us perpetuate. It'll be interesting
to me.
Speaker 3 (10:31):
There are other investigations ongoing that have to do with
this investigative. The SRI as this investigative branch, if you will,
of the USCA, and it will be interesting to see
how those investigations unfold with people who now know.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
What the investigations look like like.
Speaker 3 (10:51):
For example, Diamond Creek shared information, you know, they were
asked to share text messages and so on, and they did.
I don't know that everyone's going to do that, And
I don't know what happens if the SRIF folks ask somebody,
you know, for emails and private conversations.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
If somebody says, forget it.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
I don't want to do it, you know, then you
have a legal showdown, and I don't know how that
gets resolved.
Speaker 2 (11:19):
That didn't happen here to my knowledge.
Speaker 3 (11:22):
I'm not one hundred percent sure, but I know that
there was a significant amount of cooperation that was coordinated
by Howard Taylor, who was involved here. He represented Adam Bowden,
he represented Bob Bonnie. I believe he represented some of
the other people who were involved. And there was cooperation.
To the credit of Diamond Creek. They they you know,
(11:43):
shared information, They allowed the investigators to investigate, and I'd
like to think that's going to continue.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
That sort of cooperation.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
I'm just not sure.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
I guess we'll know when the SRIF announces the findings
from its next investigation.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
And hopefully they have learned from this.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
Hopefully they announced it in a better way and they
are able to share more details at the public right away,
unlike what they did this time around.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
Oh go ahead, Freddie Murray, I got a question for you. Now,
you were at Hanover for years. When you're breeding brood mares,
do you actually look to see if the owners are
suspended or something.
Speaker 5 (12:24):
What we did was we certainly took note of what
the ownership of the mayor was. But unless something just
jumped out that hey, this is a bad guy, we
don't need to be doing business with.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Him like that.
Speaker 5 (12:39):
One that pops into mind was David Brooks, so we
just refused to do business with him, both with Handover
shoe arms and with a sales company. But I don't
think that that a breeding farm or a stallion manager
(13:00):
sure or would would necessarily know who are the good
guys and who might be one or two of the
bad guys. So that brings a question, you know, how
are they to know that?
Speaker 6 (13:17):
Right?
Speaker 1 (13:18):
And if it's in his mother's name, also, she's not
she's not flagged.
Speaker 5 (13:23):
So yeah, and if in fact it wasn't his mother's name,
why was his mother licensed licensed to do business as
the owner of that mayor at that time? That doesn't
the USTA has some responsibility there.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
That's exactly what.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
That's exactly what the folks who were targeted said that,
you know, if there were if there was a problem,
you know, Debbie Circles suspended or investigated in twenty twenty
four or four years after the allegations against Nick Surik.
And again one of the positive things to come out
(14:07):
of it is that the USDA says it's going to
make these announcements, you know this person is than do
not do business with this person in a way that
makes it more clear, whether that's on pathway or some
other way, So that breeding farms are going to be
able more easily to see they're doing business with and
(14:28):
whether there's people they should not.
Speaker 2 (14:30):
Be doing business with.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
It's going to put an onus on breeding farms like
I imagine think about Hanover and Viamon Creek and Hunterton
and all the people who own brood.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Mares and own a quarter or twenty percent of a
grood mare and.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
So on and so forth, that's a lot of work
to police all of that.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
The USDA is saying, we're going to notify you a
more effective way on who to avoid, but it's still
going to.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
Be up to individual people to look.
Speaker 3 (14:58):
At those lists and decide who they don't do business with.
And you know, I think there's going to be some
people who are going to take it more seriously than others.
Speaker 4 (15:09):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Absolutely, I get the sense that Freddie wants us to
cut this.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
No, I didn't say that.
Speaker 3 (15:17):
Okay, good, you know, usually I feel that the fifteen
minute mark, Freddie starts getting me a look out for me.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
But so, yeah, so I think I think this was
a good intention. I think that, you know, it raises
questions about how effectively.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
The USDA can police the sport.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
And you know, one of the things that I one
of the senses I got from the documents I read
is from Howard Taylor and others, is that there were
real concerns about due process and giving people the opportunity
to taste.
Speaker 4 (15:49):
Their accusers and so on, and giving.
Speaker 3 (15:52):
People an opportunity to challenge the people who actually made
the decisions. One of the things that happened here is
the USDA delegated a pipe person committee to basically act
as a bridge between the investigators and the USDA board
that have eventually recommended the sanctions. And there were a
lot of questions about who was put on that committee,
(16:13):
whether the people on the committee should have been on
the committee, whether they had the experienced in.
Speaker 4 (16:18):
Judgment on Diamond Creek and others, and so on.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
So those are issues that I think the USDA should
work on and improve if they.
Speaker 3 (16:27):
Want to go forward with these kinds of investigations and
earn respect from within the industry, right, I mean, if
they're going to do this, they have to do this
in a way that people respect the process.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
And the results.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
And I'm not one hundred percent convinced that that happened here,
you know, even though people I think generally, you know,
are glad that there was some sort of investigation to
begin with.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
I don't know, what do you guys think?
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Andy? My quick question here, was there any involvement with
the set federal government on this investigation, because I had
heard rumors that they were looking for a restitution and
that this might lent to this investigation.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Yeah, I don't think so.
Speaker 3 (17:09):
I didn't get any sense of that I didn't get
any sense of this that the FBI was involved, but
that doesn't mean it isn't true. But I didn't see
any evidence of that.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
I didn't see everything. I don't know everything.
Speaker 4 (17:22):
I'm not professing to know everything, so it's possible.
Speaker 3 (17:25):
But my sense was that there was This was sort
of an inasspite between or an argument you might say,
between the folks who were targeted the USTA and the
folks who were hired to investigate. And again, there was
a significant amount of cooperation.
Speaker 2 (17:42):
From the people who were tagged, and.
Speaker 3 (17:45):
That cooperation helped the investigators. But if there's a law
enforcement element to this.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
I'm just not aware of it.
Speaker 5 (17:54):
Okay, guys, this is Murray. I somehow got not dop.
I don't know what happened, but I'm now back on.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
So what I've missed, you missed, you missed Andy's explanations.
Speaker 5 (18:12):
Uh, one one question, one question that I do have. Uh.
We all know Nick Surik is far from the only
bad guy involved in what happened years ago. And uh,
it's only his name that comes up. I know that. Uh,
there there are there were others, one in particular who
(18:36):
had close ties to an executive of the United States
Trotting Association, or are any of these people involved in
future investigations.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
I don't know. It's a great question.
Speaker 4 (18:51):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
I think that there's and again I think Adam.
Speaker 4 (18:57):
Made that point and.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
A letter he wrote I think I included in my
column that basically Adam said, you know, yes, we were involved,
but there are other people involved who are not punished,
and there are other people involved in in these sources
of arrangements. I don't know, you know, I don't know.
And one of.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
The things that's troubling, it's something.
Speaker 3 (19:20):
That Adam, you know, I didn't mention, but other people
have mentioned to me the conflict of interest that exists
with Russell William's.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Role as the USPA.
Speaker 3 (19:35):
President or chairman and his running of Hannib Because in effect,
you have an organization here that was created by Russell
Williams that.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
Punishes Simon Creek.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
So it's like Ford Motor Company having an investigation that
punishes Chrysler. And I just don't know how you get
around that conflict of interest. I think it's a problem.
I've written about it for years and years, and this investigation,
the way it went down, and the reaction to it,
I think, you know, continues to raise serious questions about that.
Speaker 2 (20:11):
Dual role that he has.
Speaker 3 (20:13):
But I don't know what the other investigations are, and
I just felt that when they are released, we'll, you know,
have more information to work with and people will be
able to understand what happened. That's what I tried to
do in this column, just to figure out.
Speaker 2 (20:29):
What happened and explain it in a way as I could.
Speaker 4 (20:32):
Again, I didn't have all the information.
Speaker 3 (20:34):
Some of the information that it was given to me
was on background, but you know what, I tried to
piece it together as best I could.
Speaker 5 (20:42):
Uh, there's something I could bring up, uh if it
and I don't think it's proper that it be. Uh.
I'm a public broadcast, but that was mentioned to me.
If I meant, why don't you.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
Not why don't you not do that?
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Mrie?
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Okay, let's let's yeah, let's end this broadcast and and
folk up the tape.
Speaker 4 (21:08):
And then we can talk about it privately. Is that
okay with you?
Speaker 2 (21:10):
Freddy?
Speaker 5 (21:11):
Sure?
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Yeah, it's okay. Okay, we're gonna end. I'll end the
show right now, Okay, uh Andy, thank you so much
for acting as a lead today and Murray. Thank you
for joining us today. That's a wrap for this week's show.
Thanks for listening, and please join us again next week
the hun Is Racing Alumni Show
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.