View Full Version : GARY AND MARY WEST VS THE KY RACING COMMISSION
NY BRED
06-08-2019, 08:23 AM
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/report-wests-file-federal-lawsuit-over-derby-disqualification/
The above link is contained on The Paulick Report Website;
regardless of the chatter to date, both in the press and ,to some degree on this forum, there are many points contained in this litigation that many us missed.
While we all observed the reasons for the DQ many of us were unaware that owners and trainers relinquish their rights to appeal the decision of the stewards which, to my knowledge only exists at Churchill Downs.
The "win" for the"house" represents a "mother load" of profit via the DQ; based upon the allegations regarding the rules of racing , zero Dq's in 145 years etc might just favor the plaintiff.
Even if there is no reversal changes to these"unique" powers of the Stewards must be altered to protect the owners and fans who wager on this race.
burnsy
06-08-2019, 08:48 AM
I’m aware of it and stated they will probably lose because the judge is going to read that and recite it. Money is no object with these people, this is a jab at the Kentucky Racing Commission and an attempt to dirty up the Stewards which will not be hard to do if they are forced to talk. I said last month “winning” is not what they are looking for. I do agree though that the racing commission should not be “God” or the Wizard of Oz like they are.
FenceBored
06-08-2019, 10:06 AM
HA!
When War of Will wins today we'll all know who stole the Triple Crown from whom.
toddbowker
06-08-2019, 11:18 AM
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/report-wests-file-federal-lawsuit-over-derby-disqualification/
The above link is contained on The Paulick Report Website;
regardless of the chatter to date, both in the press and ,to some degree on this forum, there are many points contained in this litigation that many us missed.
While we all observed the reasons for the DQ many of us were unaware that owners and trainers relinquish their rights to appeal the decision of the stewards which, to my knowledge only exists at Churchill Downs.
The "win" for the"house" represents a "mother load" of profit via the DQ; based upon the allegations regarding the rules of racing , zero Dq's in 145 years etc might just favor the plaintiff.
Even if there is no reversal changes to these"unique" powers of the Stewards must be altered to protect the owners and fans who wager on this race.First of all, it's Mary West, not Marsha.
Second, not being able to appeal Steward's in-race decisions is the norm, not the exception. It's not a Kentucky thing (and Churchill doesn't even get to make that call regardless, the Commonwealth does).
For example, Indiana has the following .... 71 IAC 10-2-9 (f)A decision by the judges regarding a disqualification involving the running of the race that does not result in a ruling is final and may not be appealed.
You can argue that it should be changed, but it being "unique to Churchill" is not the argument, and precedent will likely kill this case. The Kentucky Court of Appeals has already decided on this issue in the case March v KHRC (2015). My guess is the Federal Judge will remand it back to Kentucky, as they normally do with gambling related cases.
Third, the house did not "win" anything as a result of the DQ. The exact same amount of money still got paid out, just to different people.
Third, the house did not "win" anything as a result of the DQ. The exact same amount of money still got paid out, just to different people.
Basically correct with the small exception that the track probably paid out a little more based on keeping less breakage with the longshot on top.
ctownraces@bp
06-08-2019, 04:19 PM
Basically correct with the small exception that the track probably paid out a little more based on keeping less breakage with the longshot on top.
but I bet they made it up plus some on uncashed tickets with the dq
Fager Fan
06-08-2019, 11:31 PM
First of all, it's Mary West, not Marsha.
Second, not being able to appeal Steward's in-race decisions is the norm, not the exception. It's not a Kentucky thing (and Churchill doesn't even get to make that call regardless, the Commonwealth does).
For example, Indiana has the following .... 71 IAC 10-2-9 (f)A decision by the judges regarding a disqualification involving the running of the race that does not result in a ruling is final and may not be appealed.
You can argue that it should be changed, but it being "unique to Churchill" is not the argument, and precedent will likely kill this case. The Kentucky Court of Appeals has already decided on this issue in the case March v KHRC (2015). My guess is the Federal Judge will remand it back to Kentucky, as they normally do with gambling related cases.
Third, the house did not "win" anything as a result of the DQ. The exact same amount of money still got paid out, just to different people.
Thanks for this. The initial post was a real head-scratcher.
dilanesp
06-09-2019, 12:33 PM
What Todd said for the most part (although it would be a dismissal, not a remand to state court).
More broadly, a lot of people who support the Wests in this litigation seem to have this fantasy where the Wests get to take far ranging discovery, deposing Tyler G and getting him to "concede" that War of Will ran up on MS's heels, deposing the stewards and getting them to "admit" that they didn't post the inquiry sign, making semi-clever arguments about how they didn't DQ in other roughly run Derbies, etc.
That's not how this works. Under Rule 12(b)(6), you have to state a claim for relief BEFORE you can get discovery in federal court, if the defendant can show a plausible ground for dismissal. You have to show that if the facts are as you say they are, you can win your suit.
There's precious little chance that this case gets anywhere near discovery. What's very likely to happen is that the Defendants will move to dismiss, arguing that stewards' decisions are final and that there is no due process right to anything more than a stewards' deliberation in a horse race, and that's it, the Plaintiffs lose. And it is very likely that this argument will win, the case will be dismissed, and the dismissal will be affirmed on appeal.
PaceAdvantage
06-09-2019, 02:00 PM
Even though I really didn't want to, given the OPs history of messing up facts (lulz), I gave in to my proper instincts and corrected Marsha to Mary.
Still a hilarious fail if you ask me.
clicknow
06-09-2019, 05:32 PM
Even if there is no reversal changes to these"unique" powers of the Stewards must be altered to protect the owners and fans who wager on this race.
I'd settle for having transparency of information on the horses, like they do in Hong Kong, so I can have a veterinary history of the horses I am spending my hard earned $$ on. I can't count the number of times I've been "hood-winked" in this manner, finding out stuff about horses way way after the fact.
PuckLuck
06-09-2019, 07:25 PM
HA!
When War of Will wins today we'll all know who stole the Triple Crown from whom.
um... ya
toddbowker
06-10-2019, 10:33 AM
but I bet they made it up plus some on uncashed tickets with the dqOuts tickets in Kentucky used to revert to the Kentucky Racing Health and Welfare Fund after a period of time. Assuming they still do, Churchill wouldn't have profited itself.
As every jurisdiction is different, it's possible some guest sites may have benefited.
highnote
06-10-2019, 11:53 AM
HA!
When War of Will wins today we'll all know who stole the Triple Crown from whom.
It was not surprising to see WoW and Tacitus finish behind the winner in the Belmont. WoW did not have the stamina to finish well in the Derby and he was even less likely to win the Belmont after a hard campaign over the past couple of months.
Tacitus is by Tapit out of Pulpit. Neither of those could stay beyond 9 furlongs.
I saw Pulpit race a few times. Definitely a middle distance horse, not a classic distance horse, based on his physique and his record.
There is stamina in Tacitus' pedigree with A.P. Indy, Seattle Slew, Unbridled, and Unbridled's Song, but maybe the sprinter/middle distance genes from the Storm Cat pedigree on the dam's side is a little more dominant? Did Storm Bird ever win a major race beyond 7 furlongs?
Now if Tacitus was to be bred to a dam with stamina in her pedigree, like a My Flag-pedigreed filly, then maybe the offspring could win some classics.
Saratoga_Mike
06-10-2019, 12:14 PM
It was not surprising to see WoW and Tacitus finish behind the winner in the Belmont. WoW did not have the stamina to finish well in the Derby and he was even less likely to win the Belmont after a hard campaign over the past couple of months.
Tacitus is by Tapit out of Pulpit. Neither of those could stay beyond 9 furlongs.
I saw Pulpit race a few times. Definitely a middle distance horse, not a classic distance horse, based on his physique and his record.
There is stamina in Tacitus' pedigree with A.P. Indy, Seattle Slew, Unbridled, and Unbridled's Song, but maybe the sprinter/middle distance genes from the Storm Cat pedigree on the dam's side is a little more dominant? Did Storm Bird ever win a major race beyond 7 furlongs?
Now if Tacitus was to be bred to a dam with stamina in her pedigree, like a My Flag-pedigreed filly, then maybe the offspring could win some classics.
Marconi, a Tapit, won a Grade II at 1 1/2 on the Belmont card.
highnote
06-10-2019, 12:21 PM
Marconi, a Tapit, won a Grade II at 1 1/2 on the Belmont card.
Yes. I see that Tapit has now sire at least 3 Belmont winners. I had stopped following U.S. racing for several years and missed that.
I wonder if the Tapit colts got their stamina from Tapit via the grand sires like A.P. Indy and Seattle Slew, or from the dam side?
I'd like to the speed Belmont speed figures of his colts that won.
dilanesp
06-10-2019, 12:34 PM
Yes. I see that Tapit has now sire at least 3 Belmont winners. I had stopped following U.S. racing for several years and missed that.
I wonder if the Tapit colts got their stamina from Tapit via the grand sires like A.P. Indy and Seattle Slew, or from the dam side?
I'd like to the speed Belmont speed figures of his colts that won.
Direct tracing of bloodlines, i.e., the approach behind Dosage, is not useless (I think you can argue that Commissioner's second place finish to Tonalist in the Belmont had something to do with his breeding, as did Jazil's victory in the race), but it isn't talismanic either.
Plenty of horses run beyond their breeding. If you had seen Imbros and Fleet Diver run, you wouldn't expect their offspring to get 1 1/4 miles, but in fact, Native Diver won the Hollywood Gold Cup three years in a row. Creme Fraiche was an excellent 1 1/2 mile horse who was really bred to be a miler. Snow Chief wasn't bred to go beyond 7 furlongs but won a couple of graded stakes at 1 1/4 miles as well as the Preakness at 1 3/16 miles.
Tapit, whatever his own distance limitations, obviously throws enough stamina to produce multiple winners at 1 1/2 miles. Once you see that, it really doesn't matter if you can't figure out where the influence came from.
Marsha, Mary....who gives a crap?
The side show is Gary, Gary, Gary!:p
NY BRED
06-10-2019, 06:14 PM
I believe the summons which I posted may just place a dent
on the authority of the stewards at CD in the near future.
If not, I would believe Owners may begin looking for alternative races
with smaller fields,one gate , more suitable distances for their
promising three year olds.
Hopefully, the attorneys will present 145 years of DRF or Equibase
Derby result charts including the commentary section.
I would have to believe there will be statements about bumping, taking lanes etc.. which never resulted in a DQ,.
In turn there will be at least 8 other races x 145 years in which d q's did occur.
It will be interesting to see how this scenario plays out in Federal Court.
BTW, I understand the take to CD on losing Derby tickets in all
wagering ptions was many millions of dollars.
that may diminish when people cash in their max payoffs of 10.00 pert ticket
as offered by CD
:bang::mad:
AskinHaskin
06-11-2019, 11:49 AM
I believe the summons which I posted may just place a dent
on the authority of the stewards at CD in the near future.
No chance.
If not, I would believe Owners may begin looking for alternative races
with smaller fields,one gate , more suitable distances for their
promising three year olds.
Again, no chance.
Hopefully, the attorneys will present 145 years of DRF or Equibase
Derby result charts including the commentary section.
Terrific, that amounts to barely more races than have ever been run at Century Mile, which opened April 28, 2019. Though unlike most of the Derbies, the races run to date at Century Mile are all preserved as evidence on quality video.
It will be interesting to see how this scenario plays out in Federal Court.
No chance
BTW, I understand the take to CD on losing Derby tickets in all
wagering ptions was many millions of dollars.
that may diminish when people cash in their max payoffs of 10.00 pert ticket
as offered by CD
:bang::mad:
You don’t understand at all.
The CD refund was no more than a controlled advertising gimmick, akin to being offered 3-to-1 on Winx IF ONLY you’d sign-up for Twin Spires.
In addition, the wagering public at large collectively received much more money after the DQ than they stood to receive had the original result stood.
Lastly, as Gary West has thus far proven himself to be too stupid to even identify which of his own runners was the best horse in the 2019 KY Derby, he is sure to win zero sympathy from the courts.
NY BRED
06-13-2019, 09:10 AM
I'm done after this post.
Presuming we know the facts, the decision made by stewards at Churchill Downs
can not be questioned or debated by owners.
Why isn't this rule in play throughout the Triple Crown or at any other track???
Does Churchill have this ruling for the balance of their races? If not,
WHY NOT??
Perhaps owners will think twice before entering this "prestigious" event,which by the way,at least in my opinion has now been tainted.
Take you best shot, only if you are an owner with a promising
two year old,pointing for the 2020 Triple Crown.
castaway01
06-13-2019, 09:58 AM
I'm done after this post.
Presuming we know the facts, the decision made by stewards at Churchill Downs
can not be questioned or debated by owners.
Why isn't this rule in play throughout the Triple Crown or at any other track???
Does Churchill have this ruling for the balance of their races? If not,
WHY NOT??
Perhaps owners will think twice before entering this "prestigious" event,which by the way,at least in my opinion has now been tainted.
Take you best shot, only if you are an owner with a promising
two year old,pointing for the 2020 Triple Crown.
Other than you being angry I'm not sure what you're saying. But haven't you seen a DQ before? Fouls and penalties (and reviews, as any sports fan can tell you) happen in every sport, and this one wasn't really anything out of the ordinary except it happened in the Derby. If anything, since owners have a 95% chance of finishing 2 through 20 and 5% of winning, it would give them more confidence that if their horse gets fouled, action would actually be taken. I mean, that's simplified, but makes a lot more sense than whatever you are trying to argue.
toddbowker
06-13-2019, 05:21 PM
I'm done after this post.
Presuming we know the facts, the decision made by stewards at Churchill Downs can not be questioned or debated by owners.If you are speaking about the disqualification in the Derby, the owners can certainly question or debate it, but they can't appeal the Steward's decision, as the Kentucky rule specifically states the Steward's decision is final in this particular situation.
Why isn't this rule in play throughout the Triple Crown or at any other track???From a quick review, unless I've missed something, it appears an owner may be able to appeal this type of decision in Maryland (Preakness) and New York (Belmont).
Having said that, in my previous post I cited the specific rule in Indiana which is basically the same as Kentucky's, and I have worked in several other States where you also can't appeal an in-race disqualification. It does happen at many other tracks.
Does Churchill have this ruling for the balance of their races? If not, WHY NOT?? Again, it's not just Churchill Downs with this rule in Kentucky. All of the Kentucky tracks have to follow the same rule. It wasn't just for the Derby. It's all tracks and every race in Kentucky, by order of the State.
Perhaps owners will think twice before entering this "prestigious" event,which by the way,at least in my opinion has now been tainted.
Take you best shot, only if you are an owner with a promising
two year old,pointing for the 2020 Triple Crown.If you honestly think an owner with a Derby horse is going to skip the Derby, then no one here can help you.
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.