Gural Gets it

[upthecreek]

http://horseracingbusiness.com

[RXB]

Racing needs about 100 Gurals. Unfortunately there's only one. At least he's doing what he can.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I expect that there will be an epidemic of career ending injuries for three year olds if Gural's idea is implemented.

While Mr. Gural may have good intentions, and while his idea to extend the careers of top three year olds may help elevate the enthusiasm of the fan base, using strongarm tactics is not likely to work out as cleanly as he might think. The obvious issue is that while a horse like American Pharoah can earn $8.65 million in a career that included a Triple Crown and a BC Classic victory, he may be worth somewhere north of $50 million in the breeding shed. Attempting to make his progeny valueless for Triple Crown races would result in a lawsuit that Mr. Gural might not only lose, but that would cost him enough money that he'd be out of the racetrack business.

In America, the "taking" of private property rights is only allowed in limited circumstances and not without proper compensation. If Mr. Gural wants to see superstars race at 4, he might be advised to come up with a purse scheme that would make it worth their while to keep racing. Although coming up with outrageous ideas that are unlikely does seem to fit with the current political season.

[Stillriledup]

I expect that there will be an epidemic of career ending injuries for three year olds if Gural's idea is implemented.

While Mr. Gural may have good intentions, and while his idea to extend the careers of top three year olds may help elevate the enthusiasm of the fan base, using strongarm tactics is not likely to work out as cleanly as he might think. The obvious issue is that while a horse like American Pharoah can earn $8.65 million in a career that included a Triple Crown and a BC Classic victory, he may be worth somewhere north of $50 million in the breeding shed. Attempting to make his progeny valueless for Triple Crown races would result in a lawsuit that Mr. Gural might not only lose, but that would cost him enough money that he'd be out of the racetrack business.

In America, the "taking" of private property rights is only allowed in limited circumstances and not without proper compensation. If Mr. Gural wants to see superstars race at 4, he might be advised to come up with a purse scheme that would make it worth their while to keep racing. Although coming up with outrageous ideas that are unlikely does seem to fit with the current political season.

Gural isn't forcing anyone to do anything as far as retiring or breeding, why do you think he's liable Legally? He makes his rules and if you don't like them, you don't have to race at any of his tracks. Is there something I'm missing ?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Gural isn't forcing anyone to do anything as far as retiring or breeding, why do you think he's liable Legally? He makes his rules and if you don't like them, you don't have to race at any of his tracks. Is there something I'm missing ?

The article said that if tracks adopted the Gural rule (say the CDI tracks), then the progeny of American Pharoah (to name one three year old that retired to the breeding shed) would be ineligible to run in races at CDI tracks, for example the Kentucky Derby. That would obviously drive AP's stud value substantially downward, not to mention the impact it would have on the value of his progeny. It somewhat smacks of economic blackmail. A wider adoption would make his progeny ineligible for pretty much every Grade 1 race in America, not to mention cheap claimers and allowance races. Admittedly, denying a horse the opportunity to race at Tioga Downs is unlikely to result in a huge outcry, and if CDI happened to implement the Gural rule they would be liable (not Gural) for any devaluation of AP's value associated with his progency being unable to race at CDI tracks, but hopefully you get the point. Good intentions can still result in a bad outcome.

[Stillriledup]

The article said that if tracks adopted the Gural rule (say the CDI tracks), then the progeny of American Pharoah (to name one three year old that retired to the breeding shed) would be ineligible to run in races at CDI tracks, for example the Kentucky Derby. That would obviously drive AP's stud value substantially downward, not to mention the impact it would have on the value of his progeny. It somewhat smacks of economic blackmail. A wider adoption would make his progeny ineligible for pretty much every Grade 1 race in America, not to mention cheap claimers and allowance races. Admittedly, denying a horse the opportunity to race at Tioga Downs is unlikely to result in a huge outcry, and if CDI happened to implement the Gural rule they would be liable (not Gural) for any devaluation of AP's value associated with his progency being unable to race at CDI tracks, but hopefully you get the point. Good intentions can still result in a bad outcome.

But why would CDI (in your example) be liable for any of that? I still don't understand why they're liable for the value of someone's horse, nobody's forcing anyone to race at CDI tracks.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

But why would CDI (in your example) be liable for any of that? I still don't understand why they're liable for the value of someone's horse, nobody's forcing anyone to race at CDI tracks.

CDI was the example in the article. The math is very simple. You make a rule that makes AP's progeny inelgible for key races, the value of AP as a stallion is reduced. Who pays top dollar to breed to a horse when the progeny may not be able to race everywhere? Who pays top dollar for foals that can't race in the premier race in America? It makes absolutely no difference if someone was or wasn't forcing an owner to race at CDI tracks. The rule clearly and unequivocally reduces the value of a horse like AP that retired to stud for monetary not medical reasons, and all his progeny. I suspect you need a much better reason for banning entry of a horse than his sire retired too soon.

Let me use a current example from automobile manufacturing. When Volkswagen put bad software in their diesel cars, they reduced the value of the cars, and if you reduce the value of property you can be sued and held liable for the reduction. Volkswagen recognizes this and is hoping to reimburse car owners for the lost value before the court forces them to. If the Government condemns your property, they are obligated to pay you the fair market value of the property. You make a horse worth a quarter as much because of your "rule" don't be surprised if you get sued.

[Stillriledup]

CDI was the example in the article. The math is very simple. You make a rule that makes AP's progeny inelgible for key races, the value of AP as a stallion is reduced. Who pays top dollar to breed to a horse when the progeny may not be able to race everywhere? Who pays top dollar for foals that can't race in the premier race in America? It makes absolutely no difference if someone was or wasn't forcing an owner to race at CDI tracks. The rule clearly and unequivocally reduces the value of a horse like AP that retired to stud for monetary not medical reasons, and all his progeny. I suspect you need a much better reason for banning entry of a horse than his sire retired too soon.

Let me use a current example from automobile manufacturing. When Volkswagen put bad software in their diesel cars, they reduced the value of the cars, and if you reduce the value of property you can be sued and held liable for the reduction. Volkswagen recognizes this and is hoping to reimburse car owners for the lost value before the court forces them to. If the Government condemns your property, they are obligated to pay you the fair market value of the property. You make a horse worth a quarter as much because of your "rule" don't be surprised if you get sued.

But the key is that you're not making a rule against AP specifically. Also, how can you tell a track that they're not allowed to change their rules to make their own business profitable ? It's not a right to run in 'key races' its a privilege, you may be right and people can sue, it seems far fetched to me that a track is not allowed to change their own rules because some customers might not like the changes.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

But the key is that you're not making a rule against AP specifically. Also, how can you tell a track that they're not allowed to change their rules to make their own business profitable ? It's not a right to run in 'key races' its a privilege, you may be right and people can sue, it seems far fetched to me that a track is not allowed to change their own rules because some customers might not like the changes.

The rule as Gural applies it generally covers every three year old who retires for monetary reasons rather than medical reasons. AP is just the obvious example. Obviously every racetrack is limited by the rules that govern the license granted by the state, and by the laws of the state. Like any business, they are not free to do certain things. That is the nature of a license. There are a list of things on which businesses are not allowed to discriminate for example. You can agree or disagree, but the law determines what is or isn't allowable. No, it is not a privilege to run. It is again governed by the rules of the jurisdiction, and unless a track has cause under those rules to ban a horse, then any owner/trainer in good standing can enter a horse in any race for which he is eligible. Tracks can limit the number of starters based on racing rules, but there is a protocol for doing it. In the case of something like the Derby or the Breeders Cup the number of STARTERS can be limited on some other reasonable basis, say money won or perhaps even safety. But the rules are well known well ahead of time and are in conformity with the jurisdictional rules of racing. Tracks are not independent entities with the ability to adopt rules not in conformity with the jurisdictional rules of racing. Perhaps in Gural's case the jurisdictions were silent on something like whether a track can ban entries by horses sired by a stallion that retired at age 3, but I'd be surprised if the rule wasn't eventually challenged either in court or at the racing commission once it bans a horse from a key race. This isn't like a track determining how much to charge for a Coke. Far fetched would be a believing a state licensed entity could act with the impunity of a middle eastern potentate.

[Jeff P]

Suppose for the sake of argument track management at [insert name of track here] were to publish their 2016 condition book. And for one of their better 3 year old stakes the conditions read something like this:

9 Furlongs (Dirt) [insert name of race here] Purse $750,000.00 OPEN TO THREE YEAR OLDS WHOSE SIRE OR DAM RACED AT THE AGE OF FOUR OR OLDER.

Suppose for the sake of argument the first year the race only attracts a field of five. But further suppose the racing secretary stays the course and writes the same race and identical conditions over the next several years.

Were that to happen my guess is that - if nothing else through word of mouth - at least a few horsemen get in the habit of keeping an eye open for that rare well bred three year old whose sire or dam raced beyond the age of three - and point to that race if they can.

Who's to say the idea doesn't eventually catch on?




-jp

.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Suppose for the sake of argument track management at [insert name of track here] were to publish their 2016 condition book. And for one of their better 3 year old stakes the conditions read something like this:

9 Furlongs (Dirt) [insert name of race here] Purse $750,000.00 OPEN TO THREE YEAR OLDS WHOSE SIRE OR DAM RACED AT THE AGE OF FOUR OR OLDER.

Suppose for the sake of argument the first year the race only attracts a field of five. But further suppose the racing secretary stays the course and writes the same race and identical conditions over the next several years.

Were that to happen my guess is that - if nothing else through word of mouth - at least a few horsemen get in the habit of keeping an eye open for that rare well bred three year old whose sire or dam raced beyond the age of three - and point to that race if they can.

Who's to say the idea doesn't eventually catch on?




-jp

.

That might actually be ok and an interesting thing to do, but there is a big difference between writing a race and applying it to every race at the meet. And a bigger difference if that race was the Kentucky Detby, a race that is critical in determining the stud value of a horse.

[foregoforever]

Who's to say the idea doesn't eventually catch on?


But who's to say that Gulfstream wouldn't start carding some open races in the first week of January so that stallions could come in to "race at the age of four or older" before heading to the breeding shed?

Anything that Gural, or any other track owner, implements will simply be worked around by another track.

[castaway01]

But who's to say that Gulfstream wouldn't start carding some open races in the first week of January so that stallions could come in to "race at the age of four or older" before heading to the breeding shed?

Anything that Gural, or any other track owner, implements will simply be worked around by another track.

That's exactly what would happen.

It's a cute idea, but there are plenty of ways around it, and horses retiring early is about 748th on the list of racing's problems anyway.

[bello]

Recognize one thing...those of us who looked at Gural as a savior of harness racing gets virtually no support from the horsemen. While Pa, Del and Ohio and YR tracks are bursting at the seams with horseflesh, Big M races twice a week and has trouble filling cards. It will get better temporarily as the Easter PA tracks close for the winter, but horsemen ( juicers and fixers) stay away or are not welcome at the Big M. Tough to be a good guy in harness racing.

[Stillriledup]

Recognize one thing...those of us who looked at Gural as a savior of harness racing gets virtually no support from the horsemen. While Pa, Del and Ohio and YR tracks are bursting at the seams with horseflesh, Big M races twice a week and has trouble filling cards. It will get better temporarily as the Easter PA tracks close for the winter, but horsemen ( juicers and fixers) stay away or are not welcome at the Big M. Tough to be a good guy in harness racing.
They're bursting due to slots, not due to Gural not being there.

[bello]

They're bursting due to slots, not due to Gural not being there.

Of course, slots infuse purses which brings horses to race. And tonight the Big M is bursting at the seams with PA horses.

But the big m non slot purses are ok and should be able to draw more horses than they do with PA in particular running. Horsemen just typically do not want to support the guy unless they have no where else to race,

And in reality, welfare racinos like Pocono and Harrahs whose handles sometimes are lower than the purse should not exist. But that is for another thread.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I have always been critical of Gural. Having been at the big m since the 80s and seeing him come in, I have always viewed him as a bully of sorts. I get it, he owns the track and can make whatever rules he wants. The way he goes off on a whim and suspends drivers drives me buts, Sears in particular. I just dont see how you can dictate how often an owner must race his horse. Clearly if you have a problem with it dont race there, he has the bigger races in his favor, but with big purses surrounding him at neighboring tracks, why put up with his BS when it is more profitable to race elsewhere?

[Stillriledup]

Of course, slots infuse purses which brings horses to race. And tonight the Big M is bursting at the seams with PA horses.

But the big m non slot purses are ok and should be able to draw more horses than they do with PA in particular running. Horsemen just typically do not want to support the guy unless they have no where else to race,

And in reality, welfare racinos like Pocono and Harrahs whose handles sometimes are lower than the purse should not exist. But that is for another thread.

So you're saying that some horse owners would otherwise race at Big M if Gural was a 'nicer guy' or if he let the inmates run the asylum? I can't imagine too many harness horses are racing elsewhere just due to the connections 'not liking' the track owner.

[Stillriledup]

I have always been critical of Gural. Having been at the big m since the 80s and seeing him come in, I have always viewed him as a bully of sorts. I get it, he owns the track and can make whatever rules he wants. The way he goes off on a whim and suspends drivers drives me buts, Sears in particular. I just dont see how you can dictate how often an owner must race his horse. Clearly if you have a problem with it dont race there, he has the bigger races in his favor, but with big purses surrounding him at neighboring tracks, why put up with his BS when it is more profitable to race elsewhere?

If trainers wouldn't cheat, he wouldn't have to be heavy handed. Seems to me that the only people who have a problem with him are those who want to cheat. If you're an honest horseman, why would you not love an owner who actually cares?

[bello]

So you're saying that some horse owners would otherwise race at Big M if Gural was a 'nicer guy' or if he let the inmates run the asylum? I can't imagine too many harness horses are racing elsewhere just due to the connections 'not liking' the track owner.
Nicer guy, no.....Inmates running the asylum....absolutely yes. That is the way it has been for decades and the way it is in Pocono and Harrahs. Beyond a doubt. Inmates run the asylum.

Proof is in the handle. Serious players will not touch PA tracks. On;y losers and horsemen bet there. Big M handle huge in comparison, as one at least gets an inkling that all is on the level.

[Stillriledup]

Nicer guy, no.....Inmates running the asylum....absolutely yes. That is the way it has been for decades and the way it is in Pocono and Harrahs. Beyond a doubt. Inmates run the asylum.

Proof is in the handle. Serious players will not touch PA tracks. On;y losers and horsemen bet there. Big M handle huge in comparison, as one at least gets an inkling that all is on the level.

No doubt, I look at the 'training colony' at Pocono, that colony would make Al Capone blush :blush:

[SuperPickle]

If trainers wouldn't cheat, he wouldn't have to be heavy handed. Seems to me that the only people who have a problem with him are those who want to cheat. If you're an honest horseman, why would you not love an owner who actually cares?

His heavy handedness FAR exceeds "stopping cheaters."

In the last year or so he's...

Told owners if they don't race their 4 year-olds he won't let their offsprings race in his stakes.

Told Brian Sears he won't let him drive there because Sears chose to drive at Yonkers when they both raced so Gural banned him totally at ALL his tracks at any days.

Banned George Brennan for voicing support for his primary trainer Gilbert Gracia while Garcia was banned from the Meadowlands. Yeah he banned a driver for giving an interview.

NONE of three things have anything to do with integrity of racing and none of the three things make racing cleaner or more honest. It's just a child taking taking his ball and going home.

Nothing upsets me more than dumb people saying "Gural is great he tossed out the cheaters." Get passed and that tell me the value of the other stuff he's done.

The last thing the sport need is another track owner bullying around owners and horseman.

[Stillriledup]

His heavy handedness FAR exceeds "stopping cheaters."

In the last year or so he's...

Told owners if they don't race their 4 year-olds he won't let their offsprings race in his stakes.

Told Brian Sears he won't let him drive there because Sears chose to drive at Yonkers when they both raced so Gural banned him totally at ALL his tracks at any days.

Banned George Brennan for voicing support for his primary trainer Gilbert Gracia while Garcia was banned from the Meadowlands. Yeah he banned a driver for giving an interview.

NONE of three things have anything to do with integrity of racing and none of the three things make racing cleaner or more honest. It's just a child taking taking his ball and going home.

Nothing upsets me more than dumb people saying "Gural is great he tossed out the cheaters." Get passed and that tell me the value of the other stuff he's done.

The last thing the sport need is another track owner bullying around owners and horseman.

I like the offspring rule, I'm fine with that, other tracks should adopt that rule too.

I didnt like his handling of Sears, I disagreed with suspending him for his drive on that trotter recently.

With the Brennan thing, George needs to not verbally support cheats, Gural isn't telling him what to say, but if Brennan thinks cheating is ok, that sends a bad message. Perception is pretty important in this sport.

When the sport closes up shop for good, who will you blame? It won't be Gurals fault, bettors won't stop betting the sport because Jeff ruffles feathers and occasionally goes too far. If I was betting harness racing I would bet Meadowlands ahead of Pocono, I won't take Gurals attitude and approach personally, I just want clean races to bet and I don't care who gets run over on the way to a clean product.

[no breathalyzer]

They're bursting due to slots, not due to Gural not being there.

Both. and is why harness is a shit hole to bet nowadays

[SuperPickle]

I like the offspring rule, I'm fine with that, other tracks should adopt that rule too.

I didnt like his handling of Sears, I disagreed with suspending him for his drive on that trotter recently.

With the Brennan thing, George needs to not verbally support cheats, Gural isn't telling him what to say, but if Brennan thinks cheating is ok, that sends a bad message. Perception is pretty important in this sport.

When the sport closes up shop for good, who will you blame? It won't be Gurals fault, bettors won't stop betting the sport because Jeff ruffles feathers and occasionally goes too far. If I was betting harness racing I would bet Meadowlands ahead of Pocono, I won't take Gurals attitude and approach personally, I just want clean races to bet and I don't care who gets run over on the way to a clean product.


So you think its ok if an owner spends 10,20, 30 years in the sports and millions buying horses and get a once in a lifetime horse its ok for Jeff Gural to decide his stud value and when he can retire them. That's a good rule?

I'd love to year Lamboguy's thoughts on that one.

Second, I know you're not dumb enough to think "if we just run clean races all the problems of the sport will magically disappears." The sports has lots of huge problems and issues. Is drugs at the top of the list? Yes. But throwing everything out to get rid of them isn't going to solve the decline in the sport. You're idea of running over anything and anyone to get clean races would end the sport even quicker than its current pace.

The problem with the sport is it take a coalition of track owners, horsemen, driver/jockeys, horse owners and oversight authorities to produce horse racing. Where things go to shit is when one of those groups digs in and refuses to budge. That's the reason racing in Virginia died. That's the reason we can't have exchange wagering. That's the reason we had the mid-atlantic dispute last winter. That's the reason New England racing died. One group put on a suicide vest and told the others "I get my way on this issue or I'll blow up everything."

Bottomline if you think the way to save horse racing is for one strong man to dictate terms and make them bow to his wishes you simply don't understand the issues.

[Stillriledup]

So you think its ok if an owner spends 10,20, 30 years in the sports and millions buying horses and get a once in a lifetime horse its ok for Jeff Gural to decide his stud value and when he can retire them. That's a good rule?

I'd love to year Lamboguy's thoughts on that one.

Second, I know you're not dumb enough to think "if we just run clean races all the problems of the sport will magically disappears." The sports has lots of huge problems and issues. Is drugs at the top of the list? Yes. But throwing everything out to get rid of them isn't going to solve the decline in the sport. You're idea of running over anything and anyone to get clean races would end the sport even quicker than its current pace.

The problem with the sport is it take a coalition of track owners, horsemen, driver/jockeys, horse owners and oversight authorities to produce horse racing. Where things go to shit is when one of those groups digs in and refuses to budge. That's the reason racing in Virginia died. That's the reason we can't have exchange wagering. That's the reason we had the mid-atlantic dispute last winter. That's the reason New England racing died. One group put on a suicide vest and told the others "I get my way on this issue or I'll blow up everything."

Bottomline if you think the way to save horse racing is for one strong man to dictate terms and make them bow to his wishes you simply don't understand the issues.

Jeff Gural isn't deciding anything, if you don't like his rules, don't race at his tracks, nobody is twisting anyone's arm. Nothing is promised either, those people who have spent decades in the game, what about all the owners who got run out of the sport because they couldn't keep up with "mr 1700" and other guys like him? I guess out of sight out of mind, right?

I never said anything magically disappears if races are Clean, but you have to start somewhere, right? Why not start with cleaning up the game.

Exchange wagering is squashed by horsemen.

[thespaah]

I expect that there will be an epidemic of career ending injuries for three year olds if Gural's idea is implemented.

While Mr. Gural may have good intentions, and while his idea to extend the careers of top three year olds may help elevate the enthusiasm of the fan base, using strongarm tactics is not likely to work out as cleanly as he might think. The obvious issue is that while a horse like American Pharoah can earn $8.65 million in a career that included a Triple Crown and a BC Classic victory, he may be worth somewhere north of $50 million in the breeding shed. Attempting to make his progeny valueless for Triple Crown races would result in a lawsuit that Mr. Gural might not only lose, but that would cost him enough money that he'd be out of the racetrack business.

In America, the "taking" of private property rights is only allowed in limited circumstances and not without proper compensation. If Mr. Gural wants to see superstars race at 4, he might be advised to come up with a purse scheme that would make it worth their while to keep racing. Although coming up with outrageous ideas that are unlikely does seem to fit with the current political season.
I beg to differ. Gural's decision does NOT prevent the progeny of 3 yo retirees from racing at all. Just at the tracks HE owns/operates....The outfits of those horses are free to race elsewhere. They have choices.
Also, there is no "right" to race a race horse. There just isn't....Any kind of suit would be expensive and most likely a loser for the plaintiffs.

[thespaah]

The article said that if tracks adopted the Gural rule (say the CDI tracks), then the progeny of American Pharoah (to name one three year old that retired to the breeding shed) would be ineligible to run in races at CDI tracks, for example the Kentucky Derby. That would obviously drive AP's stud value substantially downward, not to mention the impact it would have on the value of his progeny. It somewhat smacks of economic blackmail. A wider adoption would make his progeny ineligible for pretty much every Grade 1 race in America, not to mention cheap claimers and allowance races. Admittedly, denying a horse the opportunity to race at Tioga Downs is unlikely to result in a huge outcry, and if CDI happened to implement the Gural rule they would be liable (not Gural) for any devaluation of AP's value associated with his progency being unable to race at CDI tracks, but hopefully you get the point. Good intentions can still result in a bad outcome.
The operative being "can"...In other words the suit angle is possible. Not probable.
Horse racing has enough issues without what could possibly be a damaging lawsuit, win or lose. Plus, it takes resources to hire a law firm willing to take such a case.

[thespaah]

The rule as Gural applies it generally covers every three year old who retires for monetary reasons rather than medical reasons. AP is just the obvious example. Obviously every racetrack is limited by the rules that govern the license granted by the state, and by the laws of the state. Like any business, they are not free to do certain things. That is the nature of a license. There are a list of things on which businesses are not allowed to discriminate for example. You can agree or disagree, but the law determines what is or isn't allowable. No, it is not a privilege to run. It is again governed by the rules of the jurisdiction, and unless a track has cause under those rules to ban a horse, then any owner/trainer in good standing can enter a horse in any race for which he is eligible. Tracks can limit the number of starters based on racing rules, but there is a protocol for doing it. In the case of something like the Derby or the Breeders Cup the number of STARTERS can be limited on some other reasonable basis, say money won or perhaps even safety. But the rules are well known well ahead of time and are in conformity with the jurisdictional rules of racing. Tracks are not independent entities with the ability to adopt rules not in conformity with the jurisdictional rules of racing. Perhaps in Gural's case the jurisdictions were silent on something like whether a track can ban entries by horses sired by a stallion that retired at age 3, but I'd be surprised if the rule wasn't eventually challenged either in court or at the racing commission once it bans a horse from a key race. This isn't like a track determining how much to charge for a Coke. Far fetched would be a believing a state licensed entity could act with the impunity of a middle eastern potentate.
Yes. Such laws, if they exist would do exactly what you state. However it does appear that in New York or New Jersey, no such laws exist.

[thespaah]

That's exactly what would happen.

It's a cute idea, but there are plenty of ways around it, and horses retiring early is about 748th on the list of racing's problems anyway.
Ahh...I think not. What are we discussing here?...The retiring of the best horses after the age of three I would argue has been a strong topic of discussion for many years.
It all started when outfits such as Robert Sangster and Sheik Mahktoum began paying Millions for royally bred yearlings and even larger sums for breeding stallions. Some purchases made BEFORE the colts had gotten through the first few months of their 3 year old season.....I can remember fans lamenting the retirement to stud many stars of the track at an early age.
It was back in the mid 80's at least for me, the term "racing to breed instead of breeding to race" was first mentioned.
As outside the box as Gural's thought process may be on this, I agree with the approach. Both racing breeds are in need of a serious shot in the arm.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I beg to differ. Gural's decision does NOT prevent the progeny of 3 yo retirees from racing at all. Just at the tracks HE owns/operates....The outfits of those horses are free to race elsewhere. They have choices.
Also, there is no "right" to race a race horse. There just isn't....Any kind of suit would be expensive and most likely a loser for the plaintiffs.

The article that started the string speculated about the Gural rule being adopted widely, and used the example of the CDI tracks and American Pharoah. I simply continued with that hypothetical. In light of that point most of your post is moot.

As for the right to race a horse, of course there is, subject to jurisdictional rules. If you believe tracks can deny licensees in good standing ability to enter eligible horses you neither understand the nature of the state racing license for the track or the racing license issued to individuals. As for the suit being a loser, I'll take the plaintiffs and give you 2-1.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The operative being "can"...In other words the suit angle is possible. Not probable.
Horse racing has enough issues without what could possibly be a damaging lawsuit, win or lose. Plus, it takes resources to hire a law firm willing to take such a case.

Yes, you're right. The people who own horses like American Pharoah or own the breeding rights for him and other three year olds who never raced at 4 are barely scraping by in the business and a lawsuit is well beyond their financial capabilities. They'd just accept the fact that their sire will just not have progeny eligible to run in the Ky Derby (if CDI adopted the Gural rule).

You ever watch TV and see comercials for lawyers that will take your case for damages on contingency? The cost of attorney's would be the shortest obstacle an owner/breeder would have to jump over.

As for racing having to fight a lawsuit, they can easily avoid it by not adopting an idiotic rule. Instead, make it economically attractive to keep a horse in training at four. Money talks and BS rules walk.

[Saratoga_Mike]

In America, the "taking" of private property rights is only allowed in limited circumstances and not without proper compensation.[B] If Mr. Gural wants to see superstars race at 4, he might be advised to come up with a purse scheme that would make it worth their while to keep racing. Although coming up with outrageous ideas that are unlikely does seem to fit with the current political season.

What in the world are you talking about? Unless a track is owned by a governmental or quasi-governmental entity, the track owner can decide what horses/trainers/owners/drivers race at their track.* It's Mr. Gural's track,** and this is well established case law. If anything, what you're suggesting/implying (i.e, his policy should be overturned by the courts) tramples all over Mr. Gural's property rights.

*as long as the bans are not based on a race, religion or gender

**if the NJSEA is still involved with the Meadowlands, a court challenge could prevail

[RXB]

Has anyone sued Churchill Downs for restricting the $2 million Ky Derby to 3YO's? Or any other race where there is a barrier to entry based on age or gender? So why can't Gural do it based on the age of the stallion? If he argues that early retirement to stud is bad for his bottom line over the long run and thus he will not support the practice at his tracks, who's to say that he can't?

The article that was linked didn't make it clear as to whether he was planning only to ban the first crop from a four-year-old stallion (which seems reasonable) or to ban the stallion's progeny entirely (which would seem a bit heavy-handed).

[HalvOnHorseracing]

What in the world are you talking about? Unless a track is owned by a governmental or quasi-governmental entity, the track owner can decide what horses/trainers/owners/drivers race at their track.* It's Mr. Gural's track,** and this is well established case law. If anything, what you're suggesting/implying (i.e, his policy should be overturned by the courts) tramples all over Mr. Gural's property rights.

*as long as the bans are not based on a race, religion or gender

**if the NJSEA is still involved with the Meadowlands, a court challenge could prevail

No, no. The suit would be for economic damages not to overturn the rule or for discrimination. And frankly proving economic damages wouldn't be very tricky. The suit is a civil suit brought by the individual who suffers the loss against Gural and the track.The track has essentially denied the owner a legitimate use of his property (the horse) under the conditions set out by the jurisdictional rules of racing. It has nothing to do with discrimination. I believe it has been well established that track owners cannot rule owners/trainers etc. off their track without due cause and a hearing. Cite me a case where a track owner said, I don't like you so you can't race here and it held up in court. The track ALWAYS at least a lame exuse of some sort for attempting to rule someone off the track.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Has anyone sued Churchill Downs for restricting the $2 million Ky Derby to 3YO's? Or any other race where there is a barrier to entry based on age or gender? So why can't Gural do it based on the age of the stallion? If he argues that early retirement to stud is bad for his bottom line over the long run and thus he will not support the practice at his tracks, who's to say that he can't?

The article that was linked didn't make it clear as to whether he was planning only to ban the first crop from a four-year-old stallion (which seems reasonable) or to ban the stallion's progeny entirely (which would seem a bit heavy-handed).

Oh for goodness sake. Instances of limitation based on age or gender abound in both humans and horses, and it is not considered discriminatory or unfair. Boys can't play on the girls basketball team for example (and whether a girl can play on a boys team is often decided by the courts.) Persons who are 20 can't play on the "under 18" team. The NBA requires draftees to be 19. There is no law or court precedent (as far as I knowa) that requires such foolishness, but it wouldn't shock me to see 18 year olds sue the NBA, which would be their right. Age and gender discrimination is defined in federal and state law. The point, ad nauseum, is that the banning of horses based on the age of the sire at retirement creates economic damage for the owners of the sire and the owners of any progeny and is likely legitimate as a cause for civil suit, whether you ban one crop or all of them.

Or, as the old saw goes, your right to throw a punch stops at my nose.

Look, Gural's point is very well taken. It would help racing for it's stars to race past three. But the first option for me would be to look for economic incentives to induce horses to race, not the Gural rule.

[Stillriledup]

Oh for goodness sake. Instances of limitation based on age or gender abound in both humans and horses, and it is not considered discriminatory or unfair. Boys can't play on the girls basketball team for example (and whether a girl can play on a boys team is often decided by the courts.) Persons who are 20 can't play on the "under 18" team. The NBA requires draftees to be 19. There is no law or court precedent (as far as I knowa) that requires such foolishness, but it wouldn't shock me to see 18 year olds sue the NBA, which would be their right. Age and gender discrimination is defined in federal and state law. The point, ad nauseum, is that the banning of horses based on the age of the sire at retirement creates economic damage for the owners of the sire and the owners of any progeny and is likely legitimate as a cause for civil suit, whether you ban one crop or all of them.

Or, as the old saw goes, your right to throw a punch stops at my nose.

Look, Gural's point is very well taken. It would help racing for it's stars to race past three. But the first option for me would be to look for economic incentives to induce horses to race, not the Gural rule.

Why do you think it would be economically better to NOT race at 4 if that actually hurts the industry? I'm not arguing the math supports early retirement, but the early retirement only helps the owner of the stallion, it doesn't help anyone else in the sport.

If 'early' retirement doesn't help the game, maybe there's another way track owners can skirt around the legalities to make owners of stallion prospects offers they can't refuse ? There are other ways legally (if what you are saying is in fact illegal) to make this stallion thing a reality without getting into trouble.

The same 'economic hardship' that owners might cry for the Gural stallion rule could also be claimed by track owners if great horses retire early.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Why do you think it would be economically better to NOT race at 4 if that actually hurts the industry? I'm not arguing the math supports early retirement, but the early retirement only helps the owner of the stallion, it doesn't help anyone else in the sport.

If 'early' retirement doesn't help the game, maybe there's another way track owners can skirt around the legalities to make owners of stallion prospects offers they can't refuse ? There are other ways legally (if what you are saying is in fact illegal) to make this stallion thing a reality without getting into trouble.

The same 'economic hardship' that owners might cry for the Gural stallion rule could also be claimed by track owners if great horses retire early.

AP, as an example, made $8.65 million in his career. As a stud his potential value is north of $50 million, depending on how well his progeny do. There is no series of races that would equal his value as a stud, although I would agree that a successful four year old season might increase his value even more. The question is whether the risk of life-ending injury (or flopping as a four year old) is worth taking the chance. Is $50 million in the hand worth another $10 million (or whatever) in the bush? I don't think California Chrome did much to help his value for example.

If someone can win a lawsuit against McDonalds for spilling coffee on themselves, it would be no shock to see either side sue for anything.

[RXB]

So a horse owner can look after his own economic interest and nobody else's, but Gural must look after the horse owner's economic interests in addition to his own? Good luck with convincing a judge on that one.

If the horse owner is free to run or not run his horse as he pleases, Gural is equally free to make his track available or not as he chooses. And if a horse owner decides to retire his horse in order to advance his own economic interest, I cannot see why Gural would be legally obligated to support those types of decisions if it runs counter to the interests of his tracks.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

So a horse owner can look after his own economic interest and nobody else's, but Gural must look after the horse owner's economic interests in addition to his own? Good luck with convincing a judge on that one.

If the horse owner is free to run or not run his horse as he pleases, Gural is equally free to make his track available or not as he chooses. And if a horse owner decides to retire his horse in order to advance his own economic interest, I cannot see why Gural would be legally obligated to support those types of decisions if it runs counter to the interests of his tracks.

It's your right as an American not to understand civil suits for economic damage, or the laws governing racing, although you might have noticed there are about a million lawyers on TV and billboards willing to sue on your behalf for anything, so there must be something to the idea. As I said, I'm laying 2/1 on the plaintiffs in that lawsuit.

I asked a friend who is a retired state supreme court justice about this. Basically he said, I hope Gural has a lot of money.

[RXB]

I'm quite confident that Gural has consulted his lawyer. And I'm still waiting for the reasons why he should be obligated to advance breeders' economic interests while they can ignore his. As long as Gural can make a reasonable business argument for the stipulation and it is not pursued in a discriminatory, vindictive or heavy-handed manner, my guess is it would stand up in court.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'm quite confident that Gural has consulted his lawyer. And I'm still waiting for the reasons why he should be obligated to advance breeders' economic interests while they can ignore his. As long as Gural can make a reasonable business argument for the stipulation and it is not pursued in a discriminatory, vindictive or heavy-handed manner, my guess is it would stand up in court.

Actually I think Gural could file suit because breeders/owners retire horses early, although I wouldn't put any money on it not getting chucked out of court. I'm pretty sure we've beaten this horse to death. The only way anyone will know they are right is if someone does actually file suit.

[RXB]

I don't think Gural would file that suit because he would almost certainly lose; he has no right to dictate when a horse is retired by its owner. He does have a right to set reasonable business terms regarding which horses race at his track. And yes, we won't know for sure unless/until he actually puts his idea into enforcement.

[Saratoga_Mike]

No, no. The suit would be for economic damages not to overturn the rule or for discrimination. And frankly proving economic damages wouldn't be very tricky. The suit is a civil suit brought by the individual who suffers the loss against Gural and the track.The track has essentially denied the owner a legitimate use of his property (the horse) under the conditions set out by the jurisdictional rules of racing. It has nothing to do with discrimination. I believe it has been well established that track owners cannot rule owners/trainers etc. off their track without due cause and a hearing. Cite me a case where a track owner said, I don't like you so you can't race here and it held up in court. The track ALWAYS at least a lame exuse of some sort for attempting to rule someone off the track.

Case law has found that a track owner can ban any owner/trainer as long as said ban isn't based on a protected class (i.e., race, religion or gender). It's called the "right of exclusion."

Start with Dover Downs and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (2002).

If the track is operated by a governmental or quasi-governmental entity, then track management's recourse is more limited and would most likely follow the due-process path you suggested above.

If I try to enter a NY-bred in a WV-bred race, the entry will be refused. Do I have the right to sue Charles Town? Of course not. Mr. Gural's rule is no different than writing state-bred races. Instead of excluding certain states from races, he's excluding certain sires.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Case law has found that a track owner can ban any owner/trainer as long as said ban isn't based on a protected class (i.e., race, religion or gender). It's called the "right of exclusion."

Start with Dover Downs and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (2002).

If the track is operated by a governmental or quasi-governmental entity, then track management's recourse is more limited and would most likely follow the due-process path you suggested above.

If I try to enter a NY-bred in a WV-bred race, the entry will be refused. Do I have the right to sue Charles Town? Of course not. Mr. Gural's rule is no different than writing state-bred races. Instead of excluding certain states from races, he's excluding certain sires.

I'm not sure this is a great discussion for the board, although some may find it interesting. Actually, case law says that some businesses can ban patrons for any reason, although even in those cases the businesses will always have a reason. However, with trainers that may not be the case. Read this decision by NY

http://www.leagle.com/decision/197317733NY2d144_1161/JACOBSON%20v.%20N.%20Y.%20RACING%20ASSN.

It says. in part,

"At common law a person engaged in a public calling, such as an innkeeper or common carrier, was under a duty to serve without discrimination all who sought service. On the other hand, proprietors of private enterprises, such as places of amusement and resort, had no such obligation and were privileged to serve whomever they pleased. In Madden v. Queens County Jockey Club (296 N.Y. 249, supra), we recognized the common-law rule, as limited by the Civil Rights Law (§ 40), that the operator of a racetrack licensed by the State may, without reason or sufficient excuse, exclude a patron from the premises provided the exclusion is not based on race, creed, color or national origin.In our view, it does not follow from the Madden and Licata cases that NYRA may, with impunity, exclude a licensed owner and trainer when that action allegedly causes injury. NYRA has virtual monopoly power over thoroughbred racing in the State of New York. Exclusion from its tracks is tantamount to barring the plaintiff from virtually the only places in the State where he may ply his trade and, in practical effect, may infringe on the State's power to license horsemen. In contrast to a racetrack proprietor's common-law right to exclude undesirable patrons, it would not seem necessary to the protection of his legitimate interests that the proprietor have an absolute immunity from having to justify the exclusion of an owner and trainer whom the State has deemed fit to license. Accordingly, plaintiff should have his opportunity to prove his allegations in an action for damages and, by the same token, defendant its opportunity to refute them. In this regard, it will be plaintiff's heavy burden to prove that the denial of stall space was not a reasonable discretionary business judgment, but was actuated by motives other than those relating to the best interests of racing generally."

In other words, if the trainer shows it is NOT in the best interests of racing, the track loses. Of course, the burden rests with the plaintiff.

Most of this is moot to my main point, which is the aggrieved trainer/owner/breeder can bring suit against the track for economic damages by denying ability to enter horses in races for which the horses are historically eligible. It never occurred to me that trying to enter a NY bred in a WV bred race was in any way actionable, so we're in agreement there. However, I hope you'll see that denial of other things, like allowing licensed trainers stall space or denying entry to eligible horses can be actionable.

[ultracapper]

Another example of how a national, centralized administration of horse racing would be helpful. Instead of banning all horses sired by retirees at 3yo, Gural could write a series of races, at all levels, for horses sired by studs that ran as a 4yo. The series could be very extensive, and those horses would also be eligible for the open company. Every track in the nation could take this program up, making it very profitable for horses sired by studs that ran at 4yo.

There could be massive incentive built into the stars racing as 4yo by adding new conditions to the racing menu, rather than by restricting runners from the traditional races, of which fewer and fewer are even known by the general population anymore. How many 25 year old men west of the Mississippi even know what the JCGC is anymore? Start banning horses from the KD is an industry killer. It's stupid. CDI itself could run a series of very good races written for horses studded by 4 yo and up retirees that participated in the KD and the KD trial. They could write a very attractive series of races for that requirement, and make it worth the Zayats of the world trouble and time to race that star one or two more times, knowing he's just opened up a massive opportunity for the star's get in the future.

Edit: This is a perfect example of a power mongul. Instead of thinking of new opportunities, he's going to put his foot down, show who the boss is, and say NO to whoever doesn't play his way. The guy doesn't get it, he's a child.

[Stillriledup]

Another example of how a national, centralized administration of horse racing would be helpful. Instead of banning all horses sired by retirees at 3yo, Gural could write a series of races, at all levels, for horses sired by studs that ran as a 4yo. The series could be very extensive, and those horses would also be eligible for the open company. Every track in the nation could take this program up, making it very profitable for horses sired by studs that ran at 4yo.

There could be massive incentive built into the stars racing as 4yo by adding new conditions to the racing menu, rather than by restricting runners from the traditional races, of which fewer and fewer are even known by the general population anymore. How many 25 year old men west of the Mississippi even know what the JCGC is anymore? Start banning horses from the KD is an industry killer. It's stupid. CDI itself could run a series of very good races written for horses studded by 4 yo and up retirees that participated in the KD and the KD trial. They could write a very attractive series of races for that requirement, and make it worth the Zayats of the world trouble and time to race that star one or two more times, knowing he's just opened up a massive opportunity for the star's get in the future.

Edit: This is a perfect example of a power mongul. Instead of thinking of new opportunities, he's going to put his foot down, show who the boss is, and say NO to whoever doesn't play his way. The guy doesn't get it, he's a child.

When you are a feather ruffler, you tend to ruffle feathers, but at the end of the day, whether or not he's a 'power Mongul' or 'child', all that matters is if you, as a gambler, decide to bet Meadowlands harness races because you feel the owner cares about putting as honest of a product as he can on the field of play.

That's all that matters.

[ultracapper]

Don't see the connection, but thanks for the reply.

[Stillriledup]

Don't see the connection, but thanks for the reply.

Ya welcome.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Another example of how a national, centralized administration of horse racing would be helpful. Instead of banning all horses sired by retirees at 3yo, Gural could write a series of races, at all levels, for horses sired by studs that ran as a 4yo. The series could be very extensive, and those horses would also be eligible for the open company. Every track in the nation could take this program up, making it very profitable for horses sired by studs that ran at 4yo.

There could be massive incentive built into the stars racing as 4yo by adding new conditions to the racing menu, rather than by restricting runners from the traditional races, of which fewer and fewer are even known by the general population anymore. How many 25 year old men west of the Mississippi even know what the JCGC is anymore? Start banning horses from the KD is an industry killer. It's stupid. CDI itself could run a series of very good races written for horses studded by 4 yo and up retirees that participated in the KD and the KD trial. They could write a very attractive series of races for that requirement, and make it worth the Zayats of the world trouble and time to race that star one or two more times, knowing he's just opened up a massive opportunity for the star's get in the future.

Edit: This is a perfect example of a power mongul. Instead of thinking of new opportunities, he's going to put his foot down, show who the boss is, and say NO to whoever doesn't play his way. The guy doesn't get it, he's a child.

I totally agree, and that is one of the points I was trying to make. If Gural, or anyone, wants to see more horses race at 4, the first salvo should be an economic one, not a proclamation.

[thespaah]

The article that started the string speculated about the Gural rule being adopted widely, and used the example of the CDI tracks and American Pharoah. I simply continued with that hypothetical. In light of that point most of your post is moot.

As for the right to race a horse, of course there is, subject to jurisdictional rules. If you believe tracks can deny licensees in good standing ability to enter eligible horses you neither understand the nature of the state racing license for the track or the racing license issued to individuals. As for the suit being a loser, I'll take the plaintiffs and give you 2-1.
Well. You have certain beliefs. You "believe" there is a "right" to race a horse.
To clarify. When we speak of rights, I think the First Amendment. Stuff like that..
With that in mind, the laws and regulations permit licensed individuals and groups to race.
And yes, the ability to race at a certain facility is at the sole discretion of the management. For example. There are tracks that make their own rules regarding the use of stall space. If for example a trainer takes a horse off the grounds to race at another track and that horse is entered for conditions at the track at which the horse s stabled, the track management can bar that horse from the entry box for a certain period of time. Other tracks bar the "warehousing" of horses. This is when trainers request stalls for horses which they have no intention of racing during that particular meet.
Gural is just using his discretion.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'm not sure this is a great discussion for the board, although some may find it interesting. Actually, case law says that some businesses can ban patrons for any reason, although even in those cases the businesses will always have a reason. However, with trainers that may not be the case. Read this decision by NY


If you really want all the boring details on this matter, visit the Villanova law school website. Patrons and participants are different, as you mention, and I believe the Villanova white paper covers this issue. And a state can narrow exclusionary rights through common law, which I failed to mention yesterday.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I totally agree, and that is one of the points I was trying to make. If Gural, or anyone, wants to see more horses race at 4, the first salvo should be an economic one, not a proclamation[B].

There's no money to enhance purses for 4 and up horses. None. Should he reduce the purse structure for younger horses to supplement purses for older horses? That just creates a new problem (i.e., those races wouldn't fill).

Gural is in a terrible situation, as it is impossible for his track to compete with slots-subsidized tracks like Yonkers, Pocono et al. If Yonkers raced based on underlying handle, their purses would face a 80%+ cut. Of course, Gural knew this when he rebuilt the Big M. It was a huge gamble and so far it hasn't paid off.

We'll see if AC casino interests sign off on the new subsidy scheme proposed by the Big M/northern NJ players. Casinos subsidizing casinos. An outrage for another thread.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If you really want all the boring details on this matter, visit the Villanova law school website. Patrons and participants are different, as you mention, and I believe the Villanova white paper covers this issue. And a state can narrow exclusionary rights through common law, which I failed to mention yesterday.

Vernon Downs, which is in NY, would be covered by the Jacobson v. New York Racing Association case, which seems to be pertinent to denying a trainer stall space without reasonable cause. The upshot of the decision was only that Jacobson had the right to sue. Which, for the umpteenth time, was the only thing I've argued. I believe if Gural (or any track) denies stall space or entry in certain races to a horse whose sire raced at four, the owner/trainer/breeder would have cause to file suit for economic damages and I expect it would be heard. And yes, I believe the plaintiff would prevail, a point that is purely speculative until a case is actually filed.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

There's no money to enhance purses for 4 and up horses. None. Should he reduce the purse structure for younger horses to supplement purses for older horses? That just creates a new problem (i.e., those races wouldn't fill).

Gural is in a terrible situation, as it is impossible for his track to compete with slots-subsidized tracks like Yonkers, Pocono et al. If Yonkers raced based on underlying handle, their purses would face a 80%+ cut. Of course, Gural knew this when he rebuilt the Big M. It was a huge gamble and so far it hasn't paid off.

We'll see if AC casino interests sign off on the new subsidy scheme proposed by the Big M/northern NJ players. Casinos subsidizing casinos. An outrage for another thread.

Available purse money is an issue at a lot of tracks, but I would still hope that motivated minds would be less inclined to throw up their hands and suggest the only answer is fiat before at least making an effort at an economic incentive.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Available purse money is an issue at a lot of tracks, but I would still hope that motivated minds would be less inclined to throw up their hands and suggest the only answer is fiat before at least making an effort at an economic incentive.

Have you looked at the slot-subsidized purses at Yonkers lately? It's beyond absurd. Fiat? Yes, one invokes "fiat" when one is forced to compete with governmental fiat (i.e., slots subsidies at YR and other surrounding tracks). Gural owns the track. You have very little respect for his private-property rights. You think he should be sued. I get the picture. You seem very litigious.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Vernon Downs, which is in NY, would be covered by the Jacobson v. New York Racing Association case, which seems to be pertinent to denying a trainer stall space without reasonable cause. The upshot of the decision was only that Jacobson had the right to sue. Which, for the umpteenth time, was the only thing I've argued. I believe if Gural (or any track) denies stall space or entry in certain races to a horse whose sire raced at four, the owner/trainer/breeder would have cause to file suit for economic damages and I expect it would be heard. And yes, I believe the plaintiff would prevail, a point that is purely speculative until a case is actually filed.

Again, exclusionary rights extended to governmental or quasi-governmental entities are more limited. I posted this several times. NYRA is a quasi-governmental entity. Therefore, a case involving NYRA is not on point when addressing a privately owned facility, unless NY statute states otherwise.

There is no stall space at the Meadowlands beyond the receiving barn. I've already explained Gural's policy is no different than Charles Town not accepting a NY-bred in a WV-bred race.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Well. You have certain beliefs. You "believe" there is a "right" to race a horse.
To clarify. When we speak of rights, I think the First Amendment. Stuff like that..
With that in mind, the laws and regulations permit licensed individuals and groups to race.
And yes, the ability to race at a certain facility is at the sole discretion of the management. For example. There are tracks that make their own rules regarding the use of stall space. If for example a trainer takes a horse off the grounds to race at another track and that horse is entered for conditions at the track at which the horse s stabled, the track management can bar that horse from the entry box for a certain period of time. Other tracks bar the "warehousing" of horses. This is when trainers request stalls for horses which they have no intention of racing during that particular meet.
Gural is just using his discretion.

Think about a driver's license. If you are a license holder in good standing, that gives you the "right" to use public thoroughfares, subject to traffic laws. That is the right to which I refer. Yes, it isn't quite the same as the right to free speech, or those unalienable rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now imagine the state patrol told you you couldn't drive on the Northway because they think your driving is just not good enough for them. Do you think you would have the right to challenge that decision? Do you think you would lose because the state controls that road? Now that doesn't mean the state can't close the road temporarily due to weather or a serious accident.The issue at hand is not whether tracks can make reasonable rules regarding allotment of stall space, but whether they can ban trainers or their horses for any reason. The answer is maybe not, as the Jacobson v New York Racing Association case ruled. But even if the answer is ultimately yes, the trainer/owner/breeder has the ability to ask the court to make that ruling, or to sue for economic damages. If you've been following the blog the rights of business owners under common law to deny service is pretty much settled. Now really. This whole thing is getting tediously repetitive.

[Stillriledup]

Think about a driver's license. If you are a license holder in good standing, that gives you the "right" to use public thoroughfares, subject to traffic laws. That is the right to which I refer. Yes, it isn't quite the same as the right to free speech, or those unalienable rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now imagine the state patrol told you you couldn't drive on the Northway because they think your driving is just not good enough for them. Do you think you would have the right to challenge that decision? Do you think you would lose because the state controls that road? Now that doesn't mean the state can't close the road temporarily due to weather or a serious accident.The issue at hand is not whether tracks can make reasonable rules regarding allotment of stall space, but whether they can ban trainers or their horses for any reason. The answer is maybe not, as the Jacobson v New York Racing Association case ruled. But even if the answer is ultimately yes, the trainer/owner/breeder has the ability to ask the court to make that ruling, or to sue for economic damages. If you've been following the blog the rights of business owners under common law to deny service is pretty much settled. Now really. This whole thing is getting tediously repetitive.

But driving on roads is public property, tracks that are privately owned and managed are different I would imagine.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Think about a driver's license. If you are a license holder in good standing, that gives you the "right" to use public thoroughfares, subject to traffic laws. That is the right to which I refer. Yes, it isn't quite the same as the right to free speech, or those unalienable rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now imagine the state patrol told you you couldn't drive on the Northway because they think your driving is just not good enough for them. Do you think you would have the right to challenge that decision? Do you think you would lose because the state controls that road? Now that doesn't mean the state can't close the road temporarily due to weather or a serious accident.The issue at hand is not whether tracks can make reasonable rules regarding allotment of stall space, but whether they can ban trainers or their horses for any reason. The answer is maybe not, as the Jacobson v New York Racing Association case ruled. But even if the answer is ultimately yes, the trainer/owner/breeder has the ability to ask the court to make that ruling, or to sue for economic damages. If you've been following the blog the rights of business owners under common law to deny service is pretty much settled. Now really. This whole thing is getting tediously repetitive.

You're equating driving on a government road to entering a horse at a private racetrack? Now, I think you're putting me on. On Jacobson, see other post.

[Saratoga_Mike]

But driving on roads is public property, tracks that are privately owned and managed are different I would imagine.

Fairly obvious. HH is too smart not to see the difference.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You're equating driving on a government road to entering a horse at a private racetrack? Now, I think you're putting me on. On Jacobson, see other post.

Wow. All I said was that a driver's license confers a right of sorts and that was the type of "right" to which I was referring. And arbitrarily removing that right gives cause for action. In the same sense a trainer's license confers certain rights as well, and removal of those rights can give cause for action. The road and the track are only similar in that there are licensees and rules associated with both, not that the licenses and rules are equivalent. Your Villanova white paper is irrelevant in light of settled case law. In NY, a track cannot deny stall space without reasonable cause, and if it does it is subject to suit. Period. End of discussion. And just to make Spaah happy, fine, a privately owned track can do whatever the hell it wants as long as they are being reasonable. Can we move on now?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Wow. All I said was that a driver's license confers a right of sorts and that was the type of "right" to which I was referring. And arbitrarily removing that right gives cause for action. In the same sense a trainer's license confers certain rights as well, and removal of those rights can give cause for action. The road and the track are only similar in that there are licensees and rules associated with both, not that the licenses and rules are equivalent. Your Villanova white paper is irrelevant in light of settled case law. In NY, a track cannot deny stall space without reasonable cause, and if it does it is subject to suit. Period. End of discussion. And just to make Spaah happy, fine, a privately owned track can do whatever the hell it wants as long as they are being reasonable. Can we move on now?

It's a public highway versus a privately owned track. If the track is owned by the government or a quasi-governmental entity, your example would be relevant. If NY statute states private racetracks need to conform to NYRA's standards on this matter, it's relevant. I've already stated this.

I'm glad you didn't read the Villanova paper. It's only a 100-page paper reviewing statutory and case law on this matter back to the early 1900s. Some of it will actually bolster your case.

I'm neither happy nor sad with your position. I just think you're too smart not to see the difference between a publicly owned/run track and a privately owned track. But as you've intimated, we're beating a dead horse at this point.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I feel like this guy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

[johnhannibalsmith]

Really don't want in this thread now that I've read it, but for those interested...

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/arizona-racing-from-integrity/

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It's a public highway versus a privately owned track. If the track is owned by the government or a quasi-governmental entity, your example would be relevant. If NY statute states private racetracks need to conform to NYRA's standards on this matter, it's relevant. I've already stated this.

I'm glad you didn't read the Villanova paper. It's only a 100-page paper reviewing statutory and case law on this matter back to the early 1900s. Some of it will actually bolster your case.

I'm neither happy nor sad with your position. I just think you're too smart not to see the difference between a publicly owned/run track and a privately owned track. But as you've intimated, we're beating a dead horse at this point.
Of course the issue that started the thread was whether Gural could ban horses from studs that didn't start at four. I think if he does, he's subject to suit for economic damages, even though he is a private track owner. Suing for damages may be subltely different than suing for stable space or right to enter. And that is really the only position I'm stuck on. An owner/trainer/breeder could sue and the court would hear the case. That's it. I might want to believe the plantiff would win, but that is certainly speculative and off the cuff. If Gural won I wouldn't be shocked. The rest of the issues may be, as the sketch suggests, just arguing in our spare time.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If Gural won I wouldn't be shocked. The rest of the issues may be, as the sketch suggests, just arguing in our spare time.

Fair enough. You do admit Gural doesn't play on a level-playing field against YR? I think the Big M handles 4x YR, yet Yonkers purses are probably 2x or more higher.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Fair enough. You do admit Gural doesn't play on a level-playing field against YR? I think the Big M handles 4x YR, yet Yonkers purses are probably 2x or more higher.
Oh sure, I agree with that. And if NJ chooses to, it may get some help to the tracks.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Oh sure, I agree with that.

See, we end in agreement.

[thespaah]

Think about a driver's license. If you are a license holder in good standing, that gives you the "right" to use public thoroughfares, subject to traffic laws. That is the right to which I refer. Yes, it isn't quite the same as the right to free speech, or those unalienable rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now imagine the state patrol told you you couldn't drive on the Northway because they think your driving is just not good enough for them. Do you think you would have the right to challenge that decision? Do you think you would lose because the state controls that road? Now that doesn't mean the state can't close the road temporarily due to weather or a serious accident.The issue at hand is not whether tracks can make reasonable rules regarding allotment of stall space, but whether they can ban trainers or their horses for any reason. The answer is maybe not, as the Jacobson v New York Racing Association case ruled. But even if the answer is ultimately yes, the trainer/owner/breeder has the ability to ask the court to make that ruling, or to sue for economic damages. If you've been following the blog the rights of business owners under common law to deny service is pretty much settled. Now really. This whole thing is getting tediously repetitive.
Well.. Actually YES. A state CAN bar some drivers from using certain roadways, drive at certain times of the day( teen license). or under certain conditions ( requirement of corrective lenses or handicapped person devices/aids)..and no that right to challenge the use of certain roadways would not ( IMO) be subject to challenge unless the state acted arbitrarily or capriciously.
Gural's decision does not appear to be either.
As far as lawsuits are concerned, there lies the problem. Unfortunately the right to sue is virtually absolute. We are perhaps the most litigious society on the planet. We sue for anything. Worse yet companies would prefer to settle because it is cost effective to do so. Plaintiff's attorneys are aware of this and act like vultures.