Man who bet on Sweet Catomine files lawsuit [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

Doc

04-19-2005, 07:41 PM

The following is an Associated Press story which appeared today:

By JOHN NADEL
AP Sports Writer

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A lawsuit filed by a man who bet on Sweet Catomine in the Santa Anita Derby alleges the track, the filly's owner and trainer and others committed fraud by not disclosing the horse's health problems before the race.

Sweet Catomine entered the race April 9 as an even-money favorite but finished fifth.

In the suit filed Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Arthur Mota seeks unspecified damages. The suit follows several allegations brought by the California Horse Racing Board against Catomine's handlers. The suit also seeks to represent others who wagered on the horse and could turn into a class-action.

Sweet Catomine brought a five-race winning streak into the Santa Anita Derby, a major prep for next month's Kentucky Derby. But after the disappointing outcome, questions arose concerning her condition.

Owner Martin Wygod said he almost scratched Sweet Catomine from the $750,000 race for 3-year-olds, but was reluctant because Santa Anita had focused the race's publicity campaign around the filly who was competing against males.

Julio Canani, fired last week as Sweet Catomine's trainer, was accused Saturday by the CHRB of committing conduct detrimental to racing and violating the trainer-insurer rule, which makes a trainer accountable for his horse.

Canani was the latest to be cited by the CHRB after investigators determined that Sweet Catomine, who bled during a final workout before the race, was falsely identified as a "pony" to a stable gate guard when she left Santa Anita five days earlier for special medical treatment.

The board previously filed complaints against Wygod and Dean Kerkhoff, a racehorse transport driver. A hearing for Wygod and Kerkhoff is scheduled for Saturday at Hollywood Park. Canani's hearing is set for May 1.

Canani, Wygod and his wife, and Kerkhoff were cited in the lawsuit. A phone message was left for Wygod's attorney.

"Wygod, his trainer and Santa Anita, we allege, knew that Sweet Catomine had a number of problems, including bleeding, ovulating, and a problem with her hoof," Mota's attorney, Stephen Bernard, said Tuesday. "All of this information was not communicated to the betting public. Of course, had this information been disseminated before the race, nobody would have bet on her and she wouldn't have been the race favorite."

Frank DeMarco, the general counsel for Los Angeles Turf Club Inc., which owns Santa Anita said he had not yet seen the lawsuit.

"When we see what we're talking about, we'll react at that time," he said.

Secretariat

04-19-2005, 07:43 PM

I lost a little on Sweet Catomine. Hope he wins. Perhaps if they are hit in the pocketbook there might be more attention to this kind of baloney.

PaceAdvantage

04-19-2005, 09:09 PM

e_r

04-19-2005, 09:51 PM

I''m with the bossman on this one ;)

Smokers suing tobacco companies

Fatties suing fast food joints

Opinionless betters suing the track, the owner, and the trainer

What's next, suing your hooker for lack of passion?

P.S.

I don't see all those who actually liked NNY in the Wood looking to sue; and that was an even worse opinion.

LARRY GEORGE

04-19-2005, 10:12 PM

I'M WITH THE THE PACEADVANTAGE MAN I DID'NT SPEND TEN SECONDS LOOKING AT SWEET CANTOMINE SHE MIGHT NOT COME BACK RUNNING
GOOD AFTER THIS FIASCO :ThmbDown:

Tom

04-19-2005, 10:12 PM

Maybe Mullins was right!

Steve 'StatMan'

04-19-2005, 10:39 PM

The connections of the horse should be sanctioned. But its up to the people to decide if they want to place a bet, and for how much. Anyone who wants to sue over losing a bet deserves to lose a second time. If this wouldn't cost the track money, then I'd hope this jerk loses more money in his lawsuit than he did on his original, misguided, wager. People who want to be pricks by suing when they lose a bet shouldn't come to the track, let alone to be allowed to come back. They sure as hell aren't going to give any winnings back if they'd bet on a different horse in this same race!

PaceAdvantage

04-19-2005, 10:44 PM

Just to clarify, I'm all FOR full disclosure!! BUT, it isn't a requirement these days, as far as I know, so this lawsuit is a waste of time.

I'm not condoning what the Wygods and Julio Canani did with SC either.

ratpack

04-19-2005, 11:00 PM

I agree the lawsuit is probably not going to go anywhere but let the guy do what he wants.

Calling him a prick and a jerk is not very classy, bad enough we have to be called idiots by Mullins.

mikekk

04-19-2005, 11:38 PM

Has to just be wonderful for the racing publications. If I'm a trainer or owner all questions are going to be answered with a "No Comment".

Mikekk

PS I can hardly wait for the PP's for (say) MNR...each race complete with 20-30 pages of disclosure information

Steve 'StatMan'

04-20-2005, 12:48 AM

I agree the lawsuit is probably not going to go anywhere but let the guy do what he wants.

Calling him a prick and a jerk is not very classy, bad enough we have to be called idiots by Mullins.

I'm sorry Chris, and folks, perhaps I was unusally crass for myself in my earlier post. This person's actions regarding what he does after losing a bet are up to him. Our own opinions regarding those actions are, of course, up to us.

Yet so far I just can't think of any better words for someone who issues frivilous legal threats, and abuses the law to unnecessarily drag people into court and forces anyone, let alone the tracks and their state goverment, to spend time and money on a lawsuit they can't possibly win, because they are a sore, albeit possibly undeserving, loser of a legally placed wager on a horse race. Maybe "Sore Loser who is/has a Lawyer". I know I sure don't want this guy visiting my home, or walking down my sidewalk.

There's a story about one racing executive, part of a family operation (there were 2 family operated tracks at that time, so I'm not saying who, I got the story second hand). A patron complained to one of the sons, who was an executive, complaining in very loud terms that they were cheated, robbed, etc. causing a big scene. The son/exec asked "How much did you bet?" The man replied something like "$100 Dollars". The executive opened his wallet, pulled out a $100 bill from a large pile, hands it to him and says "Here's your f****** money". Maybe this guy is just a crab manuvering to get his money back.

kenwoodallpromos

04-20-2005, 01:11 AM

What are the pdds that a gambler lousy enough to bet SC will be lucky enough to win a lawsuit?
What is his proof he bet?
If he has a lawyer it is not small claims court, so he must have bet over $5,000.00! :blush:

04-20-2005, 03:11 AM

I would think the best bet would be to sue Santa Anita because the horse was allowed to race only a few days after bleeding. Their lack of proper procedures for identifying horses leaving the grounds could put them at fault. Yes, they didn't know she bled, but they should have known.

chrisg

04-20-2005, 04:16 AM

Maybe Mullins was right!

Without question, Post of the Year.

:)

Valuist

04-20-2005, 09:21 AM

Agree 100% with Tom. The guy who's suing is a moron and the attorney(s) representing him are scumbags. Too many lawsuits in society.

JustMissed

04-20-2005, 09:25 AM

PaceAdvantage

04-20-2005, 09:45 AM

lots and lots of folks lapsed apparently...she was even money

SAL

04-20-2005, 10:22 AM

I can believe a player would have a laspe and bet on a mare running against boys in a graded stakes race...but what I can't believe is that they would admit it in public. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

JM :)

You guys puzzle me sometimes. People were on here chiming about how Azeri "belonged" in a race against males and how she deserved a chance to run against them. Now I didn't bet Sweet Catomine because she was overbet, but I DID believe she had a shot to win the race. If she were 100% I think she would have been a deserving favorite (though not at even money).

04-20-2005, 10:27 AM

I'm with SAL on this one. I didn't like SC at all, but I didn't bet the race, the field was HORRIBLE for a G1 major Derby prep. Run her in the Blue Grass, I'd have laughed and said no shot. But Buzzards Bay, come on, this field sucked. There is a reason she was even money. SC was certainly a contender if you didn't know about her recent troubles.

ratpack

04-20-2005, 10:34 AM

I don't mind the guy filing a lawsuit in this case. I think as much light as possible should be shown on this case because rules were most likely broken and the betting public was not given a second thought by Wygod, Canani, the Van Driver or even Santa Anita if they had been told.

Come on this suit is nothing like eating a dozen big mac's every day and then getting pissed because you get fat or my favorite sueing a casino because you down double shots of Jack Dainiels all night and loose your retirement at the Blackjack table.

Diamond K

04-20-2005, 10:38 AM

The implications on this matter are alarming to the industry.

If a suit of this nature is won, this would lead to the necessity of owners and trainers needing a form of errors and omissions insurance which will needlessly increase costs of ownership and training.

As owner of an insurance company which insured many of the top thoroughbreds in America, should this filly have broken down during the race we would have had to pay the claim for the circumstances didn't prevent the horse from performing, but "apparently" from just performing well. This judgement is based on the facts as I currently know them.

There is an underlying problem which will arise here: mainly is it a necessity for trainers and owners to inform the governing bodies and public when you are running a horse as a 'prep' and have informed the jock 'not to abuse the horse' for the race is no more than a good workout. Would this horse be excluded from betting? Dumb things like this can lead to distrust. You can use your imagination for many other scenarios.

This reminds me of the claim paid on a great filly Dark Mirage who had to be put down after a race. She was the first winner of the Triple Crown for filly's and was something special, but lucky for the company that she was underinsured in order to save a buck and also based on the supposed market value because she was a filly. She also had some problems similar to this which only prevented her from performing well.

The fact remains that the filly was being treated for her problems which is the most important fact. How and in what matter is in the hands of the owner, trainer and vet(s). The way she was moved and the time of day makes for media hype and appeals to those looking for 'suspense'.

Sanctions should be effected by the racing bodies in matters such as this and must act soon. It's a necessity to police your own industry and not put this in the hands of attorney's and a sore loser who sees a chance to get a great ROI.

The Judge

04-20-2005, 10:54 AM

What would be the law suit if she won? Would the guy hand back the money?
Unsound claimers run everyday at every track. Are they not horses too? The list of ailments would be so long they would be of no value.

Secretariat

04-20-2005, 11:19 AM

This is just silly. Until there is a law requiring owners or trainers to disclose fully everything that is going on with their horse, then it's just TOUGH LUCK. You lost. Move on.

I personally think the people who bet on Sweet Catomine, regardless of undisclosed info, should be sued for poor handicapping.

No offense to those on this message board who bet on her...I'm sure it was a temporary lapse of reason....;)

Bottom line PA is we will never truly know. Do all horses win that you pick, or are you occasionally wrong?

The issue here is not one of handicapping, it is of connections deliberately deceiving track management and the public. I certainly hope you are not condoning that this is precedent for behavior that other trainers should engage in. I admire the owners integrity for removing the trainer from the horse. In the same way that baseball players who use steroids should be punished, a trainer who risks injury to a horse, or flagrantly deceives management and the bettor's trust deserves to be disciplined.

headhawg

04-20-2005, 11:58 AM

Maybe Mullins was right!

I'm suing Tom because when I read his posts I just crack up and it hurts.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Ouch!

kenwoodallpromos

04-20-2005, 12:35 PM

"STEPHEN BERNARD [#56553], 53, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years, stayed, and placed on probation for three years with an actual six-month suspension and until he proves his rehabilitation and places $5,500 in an interest bearing account in trust for a former client. He also was ordered to take the MPRE and comply with rule 955. The order took effect Oct. 15, 1999.

Bernard misappropriated client funds and failed to maintain client funds in trust in a personal injury case. He settled the case and disbursed funds to a medical provider and his client. Before the client cashed the check, he allowed the balance of his trust account to fall below the required amount because he paid personal expenses from the account.

In another personal injury matter, Bernard committed the same violations. He again allowed the balance of his trust account to dip below the required amount by paying personal bills with client funds.

In mitigation, he has no record of discipline since his 1973 admission to the bar, he was engaged in a bitter divorce and child custody battle at the time of the misconduct, and he was using illegal drugs. He voluntarily sought treatment and currently undergoes therapy."
_______
You are welcome! :p

NoDayJob

04-20-2005, 01:40 PM

:lol: This idjut should be countersued for filing a specious lawsuit. Next we'll see some maroon attorney filing a class action suit on behalf of all race track losers. Better yet how about a gummit welfare bill to reimburse all race track losing tickets. I'm sure a bunch of posters here would welcome that. :lol:

NDJ

NoDayJob

04-20-2005, 02:43 PM

"STEPHEN BERNARD [#56553], 53, of Los Angeles was suspended for two years,
You are welcome! :p

Ha, ha! From ambulance chaser to horse chaser.

NDJ

PaceAdvantage

04-20-2005, 04:20 PM

I certainly hope you are not condoning that this is precedent for behavior that other trainers should engage in. I admire the owners integrity for removing the trainer from the horse. In the same way that baseball players who use steroids should be punished, a trainer who risks injury to a horse, or flagrantly deceives management and the bettor's trust deserves to be disciplined.

I guess you missed my followup post.....sigh....

PaceAdvantage

04-20-2005, 04:22 PM

You guys puzzle me sometimes. People were on here chiming about how Azeri "belonged" in a race against males and how she deserved a chance to run against them. Now I didn't bet Sweet Catomine because she was overbet, but I DID believe she had a shot to win the race. If she were 100% I think she would have been a deserving favorite (though not at even money).

Who said she didn't belong? She definitely deserved to be in the race, and had every right to run in the thing. But, looking at the race as a handicapper, I thought she was very beatable....even money was disgusting....

Of course, throwing her out did not help me land on the winner, but that's another story for another day....

andicap

04-20-2005, 05:13 PM

How come the owner 'fessed up to the horse's problem after the race?

Didn't he realize how arrogant he would sound by saying he ran the horse even though he knew it was somewhat unsound?

I presume he shot his mouth off in order to preserve the value of his horse -- "we had an excuse, she's not that bad" -- but it sure backfired on him. If he had kept quiet AFTER the race as well as before, would we even be having this discussion?

highnote

04-20-2005, 09:32 PM

If he had kept quiet AFTER the race as well as before, would we even be having this discussion?

No we would not be having this discussion. As bettors we assume everything is on the up and up. We know that sometimes it isn't, but we assume it is. As Sartin said, if you think racing is fixed then why do you bet it?

SC was even money. There was a certain percentage chance she would win. You can use your own estimate to gauge her chances. I used the public's win estimate to bet her to place and show because she was underbet relative to her win odds.

So I wasn't even expecting her to win, but I rated her chances of running second or third very good. When the race was over, I didn't even give her poor performance a second thought. I've lost a lot of races like this before with better win odds.

Now, when I hear there was lying and deception going on which includes lying to the track personnel, that is unacceptable behavior to me.

If the connections, who are involved at the highest level of the game, don't have respect for the track management, ( and obviously not the bettors) then they deserve whatever punishment the track throws at them and whatever lawsuits bettors wish to file.

They get no sympathy from me on this one.

For me, it's all about respect. Apparantly they feel fans and management are not worthy of their respect.

It's not about the money, it's about doing what is right. It's about the truth.

mikekk

04-20-2005, 10:23 PM

If I was the owner I would have said after the race that the track was cuppy.

Then I would have filed a suit against SA for having a cuppy track.

Mikekk

highnote

04-20-2005, 10:30 PM

Recently, Hank Greenburg had to step down as CEO of AIG -- one of largest U.S. insurance companies -- because he overstated earnings. Investors who were long AIG were betting the stock was a good buy based statements by AIG "connections". Turns out investors were being deceived.

This was unethical behavior and was not condoned by AIG's board of directors nor by the State of New York.

Lying and deception by Sweet Catomine's connections should not be condoned and if they are found guilty they should receive some kind of punishment -- probably fines and suspensions.

EQUIPACE

04-20-2005, 10:31 PM

Quoted In Docs Original Post...

"Wygod, his trainer and Santa Anita, we allege, knew that Sweet Catomine had a number of problems, including bleeding, ovulating, and a problem with her hoof"

OK...Lets add or subtract these new angle factors to our system...

Bleeding -----------------------------(-20) Points
Hoof Problem ------------------------(-20) Points
Ovulating ---------------------------(+40) Points
____________________________________________
Total Points -------------------------( 0 ) Points

Looks Like A Wash To Me!
John
~¿o

highnote

04-20-2005, 10:45 PM

What would be the law suit if she won? Would the guy hand back the money?

That is speculation and is does not get to the issue. The fact is the connections removed the horse from the grounds to recieve therapy and told the track personnel it was a pony.

I lost the biggest bet of my career on SC in the SA Derby and don't expect to get my money back. I'm not going to cry over it, but I would like to see justice.

Here's a hypothetical question for you: What if the connections had told the truth from the beginning?

What would have been so bad about that? What the hell is wrong with telling the truth?

It's one thing to drop a claimer in class and hope it gets claimed away. It's quite another to do what the connections of the SA Derby favorite did.

highnote

04-20-2005, 11:15 PM

Here's a quote from of a quote from a Stan Bergstein article:

Simers wrote, "Cerin ran a milkshake horse, too, and if that wasn't enough, he said the horse had surgery allowing it to breathe, and as a result the horse, a huge longshot, won on the day of a Pick 6 carryover that paid more than $200,000. Cerin said the public had no right to know about the throat surgery, and apparently the milkshake it got served. What else is he keeping secret?"

Why shouldn't surgery be denoted in the pps? Other surgeries are noted -- like gelding or ridgling. Blinkers on or off, shoes changes, medications, etc. are made public? Why shouldn't surgery be added to the list?

What does Cerin mean, the public has no right to know? I think we have every right to know and I think every trainer has a duty and obligation to make the public aware of significant changes. I know none of them do it, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

highnote

04-20-2005, 11:28 PM

Here is a very good link summing up the entire Sweet Catomine incident:

http://www2.als.edu/glc/wagering/wygod.pdf

What I find very interesting is how much money Wygod, the owner of SC, donated to Grey Davis' recall campaign.

ratpack

04-20-2005, 11:50 PM

What does Cerin mean, the public has no right to know? I think we have every right to know and I think every trainer has a duty and obligation to make the public aware of significant changes. I know none of them do it, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.[/QUOTE]

I remember an old saying "a horses form is the property of the trainer" and I can buy that to a point after all that is what handicapping is about. However when you start talking about surgery and illegal drugs well that is a different story.

I know it will cost some money but maybe its time to talk about a database that will have some information about major condition or surgery of horses.

Just a thought.

kenwoodallpromos

04-21-2005, 02:07 AM

More information only does good mif you use it. Some nationwide bettors ignored the fact that Gill had surgery done on all his claims. I hope you all make the best use of any info you get!

The Judge

04-21-2005, 11:17 AM

Swetyjohn, I talking about a loosing horse player filing a law suit. The race track has enough regulatory power to punish trainers and owners who lie to them, and call a race horse a "pony'. I wouldn't trust a trainers running down his horse the same as I don't trust a trainer hyping his horse. I can here it now "he strained his neck last week , had a slight fever the week before but he is fit a fiddle today, ready to run." What else can they say if the horse isn't fit to run why is he in the race. I bet cheap claimers I know there something wrong with them all of them I don't need to know their temperture before the race and I wouldn't trust the trianer telling the temperture anyway. I know in England and France they devote a lot of time to these things and the trainers tell the public about the condition of the hosres in the "big races " on T.V. I don't know a "gaskins" from "fetlock" a "stifle joint" from a "scapula" a "hock" from a "pastern" . If it will help your handicapping or if it's the right thing to do more power to you maybe it'll happen . Me I want a lowrer track take. Good luck to us both.

kenwoodallpromos

04-21-2005, 03:05 PM

I thought the track was told the horse had a treated foot problem, and the track oked the horse to run in spite of bleeding.
I thought the only official trouble anyone was in was misidentifying the horse, which the driver is taking the fall for and I assume will be hansomely rewarded with a job at Wygod's Santa Barbara County breeding farm; and failure to tell the bettors that the horse had corrected physical problems and that no one should bet a female in the SA Derby against a BC Juvenile Champ and against a recently disciplined doper trainer (Mullins) who won the last few years with longshots, at even odds.
Maybe Cananni and Wygod will have Mullins testify at their hearings as to what the rules and customs are as to what the bettors normally are informed about prior to races.
Then we will see if Wygod (the guy who helped make the way for the current Gov. to win the election) will get in trouble with the state board.
I understand Davis picked John Harris on the CHRB so who knows.
The most trouble Wygod can get into as I see it is if SC was already bred (or will be soon) to Wygod's Bertrando and they misidentify the foal as A P indy's! :confused:

JackS

04-21-2005, 04:42 PM

Evidently the horse went off at even-money (1-1). The public gave this horse a 50-50 shot at winning. This is a coin flip that this particular better lost.
The suit implies that he would have won the coin flip had the horse been phisically ready to run. A 100% profit for anyone betting on 1 to 1's, would also imply a loaded coin.

highnote

04-21-2005, 06:55 PM

Then we will see if Wygod (the guy who helped make the way for the current Gov. to win the election) will get in trouble with the state board.
I understand Davis picked John Harris on the CHRB so who knows.

Here is a quote from that University of Albany link I gave earlier:

The Los Angeles Times of October 13, 2002 noted that Wygod had given Governor Grey Davis $279,000 since 1999. After that date, the California Secretary of State’s office shows two additional donations to Davis. There was a $25,000 donation to Davis’ gubernatorial campaign on November 1, 2002 and a $100,000 donation to Davis’ fund to stop his recall on September 12, 2003. Thus, it looks like Mary Wygod gave $404,000 to
Grey Davis’ campaigns.

Wygod has long been close to former California Horse Racing Board chairman Roger Licht. Licht is regularly described as a business associate of Wygods and Wygod’s general attorney. The Daily Racing Form of April 6, 2005 called Licht a confidante of the Wygods. Licht served as a director of corporations controlled by Wygod, such as Synetic and Medco Containment. Licht served on the California Horse Racing Board until the fall of 2004. He was replaced as chairman early in 2004 after the election of Governor Schwarzenegger.

so.cal.fan

04-21-2005, 07:23 PM

Why did Marty go talk to the press after the race?
Unbelievable error in judgement by a very, very smart man.....Marty? What were you thinking? :bang:

ratpack

04-21-2005, 09:12 PM

Why did Marty go talk to the press after the race?
Unbelievable error in judgement by a very, very smart man.....Marty? What were you thinking? :bang:

Well he had already given the Sports Illustrated reporter the story so it was going to come out regardless.

highnote

04-21-2005, 09:15 PM

Didn't he say he told SI and asked him not to report the story until after the race because he was afraid that it would be negative publicity for the SA Derby? Or was it for some other reason?

ratpack

04-21-2005, 09:23 PM

Didn't he say he told SI and asked him not to report the story until after the race because he was afraid that it would be negative publicity for the SA Derby? Or was it for some other reason?

Yes, I was responding to Socalfans post, my point was that the cat was going to be out of the bag regardless of what Wygod told the reporters in the pressbox after the SA Derby because of what he told SI.

kenwoodallpromos

04-21-2005, 09:40 PM

for the Gov. info. Sounds like he will skate by.

WJ47

04-22-2005, 03:09 AM

I was suprised to see Sweet Catomine at those low odds. There was no way that I was going to take those odds on a filly going against colts. She didn't look so hot in the post parade either. I tried to beat her by boxing some longshots with Wilko for the trifecta, unfortunately, I picked the wrong longshots and I ended up with nothing!

I'll bet half of the horses that we bet on have some sort of problem. I've owned riding and Quarter horses all of my life, and they are actually very prone to alot of problems. I'm also for full disclosure. I think that the vets should be required to report all problems that a horse has been treated for.

I'm not sure how the lawsuit is going to work out, I wonder how much money this guy bet on SC.

Pace Cap'n

04-22-2005, 07:30 AM

I wonder how he can prove he bet anything on SC.

BillW

04-22-2005, 07:34 AM

If he didn't save his ticket, his lawsuit went from frivolous to futile.

Kreed

04-22-2005, 08:01 AM

How many of you saw these 5 women singing ... SWEET CATOMINE, MY CATOMINE before the race? SA wanted a BIG NAME horse & who could
blame them, but nowadays, the age of Man & His Horse is OVER. It's the
era of business accountability & don't be surprised to see many more lawsuits
by everyone against everyone: owners against trainers; fans against stewarts.
I think most everyone feels that if you lose gambling, well its your fault, but
not if you're cheated knowingly. When casinos put their best blackjack dealer
in to "draw" that 5 or 6 for 21, not many players can detect it or prove it, but
if an owner says "my horse bled days before the race", I think thats cheating.

Pace Cap'n

04-22-2005, 08:31 AM

If he didn't save his ticket, his lawsuit went from frivolous to futile.

How could he prove he bought the ticket?

Dave Schwartz

04-22-2005, 10:27 AM

Personally, I think this lawsuit has huge implications beyond those brought up by our resident isurance guy. (Which are not without merit.)

I think the real issue that could come of this (if the case is actually heard) is, "Do the track and/or the horsemen have a responsibility to disclose what they know of the horses' true condition that might affect the animal's chances of winning or racing?"

We, as the great horseplayer collective, are constantly complaining that trainers run their horses when the have no intention of even trying. The way I see it, the game would be better served if trainers could not bet at all but that won't happen.

We play a game where some of the competing bettors in the pools actually have an opportunity to influence the outcome of the game.

It would be "fair" if each trainer's bets had to be made public.

Do I expect this to happen? Of course not. And certainly not from this lawsuit.

If you purchase a house and the homeowner knows that the roof is about to fall in, laws in most states demand that he is responsible to disclose that before a sale is completed. To not do so can be considered fraud.

So, here we have a track that benefits financially if a horse who is known to be unhealthy runs. To me, the issue is not one of healthiness but one of knowledge.

And what if the horse had been a late scratch at a track with the "switch to favorites" rule in exotic betting? How would you feel if you made a large bet on a horse that the track knew wasn't even going to run but listed it anyway so people would bet only to have their money switched to another horse?

Back in the early '80s I used to get the condition books from the SoCal tracks as soon as they became available. Recall that back then many races had "also eligibles." At the distant bottom of the conditions (or in the front of the book - not sure which) there was fine print that said something like, "In case of also eligibles, trainers who draw in will be asked if they are 'trying' today."

Now, I am sure that an occasional horse won in spite of the trainer listing himself as "not trying" but isn't that information you would like to know?

Talk about better information - LOL - How'd you like to have that? Better than The Sheets, huh?

So, my opinion is that anything that might cause racing to become more honest is a good thing.

Just my opinion.

Dave Schwartz

Doc

04-22-2005, 10:32 AM

Those women singing "Sweet Catomine" nauseated me. :ThmbDown:

Valuist

04-22-2005, 10:52 AM

Re: the roof and house thing, the owner is not obligated to volunteer the information. However, if they are asked about it and then deny, its fraud and the owner as well as the agent are liable.

This whole lawsuit is ridiculous. Anyone who has owned horses knows that very few horses racing are 100% free of aches and pains. We are the ones choosing to bet on or against these animals. Don't get me wrong; I'm not taking Wygod's side; after all he tried to conceal the filly's identity which is more serious than running a horse who wasn't 100%. But simple handicapping says that when a 3YO is running declining figs and hasn't hit its 2YO peak, it should be played against.

rastajenk

04-22-2005, 10:53 AM

I was more embarassed to be a racing fan at that moment (the singing women) than at any other time, ever.

BillW

04-22-2005, 10:56 AM

How could he prove he bought the ticket?

If he can prove he was wronged by the connections, he should have no trouble with this one :)

BillW

04-22-2005, 11:03 AM

I think the real issue that could come of this (if the case is actually heard) is, "Do the track and/or the horsemen have a responsibility to disclose what they know of the horses' true condition that might affect the animal's chances of winning or racing?"

That would have a serious impact on the claiming game as we know it today.

JustRalph

04-22-2005, 12:09 PM

Re: the roof and house thing, the owner is not obligated to volunteer the information. However, if they are asked about it and then deny, its fraud and the owner as well as the agent are liable.

Not in Ohio........there is a form you fill out with your realtor. You get caught on it.....the state fines you and the realtor. Similiar form when I sold my place in California. You sign and list everything that you are "aware of"

I think this lawsuit is going to turn some heads. But the industry has a history of covering up so much stuff.......this one will be ignored somehow......

Valuist

04-22-2005, 12:32 PM

Wygod may get a fine but that's it. At what point do they draw the line? The problem is everyone thinks its a blameless society. Maybe the guy who is suing should say to himself, "I f-kd up. If I was better I wouldn't have made a stupid bet like that. I deserved to lose." Of course that will never happen.

kenwoodallpromos

04-22-2005, 01:14 PM

This thread is beginning to sound very funny the more people keep insisting so much be made public, even all vet's records.
Trainer's bets. No one mentioned disclosing owner's bets on other horses for 2nd on exactas, or horses having to weigh in in public like boxers.
Don't forget jockeys and full medical exams prior to racing since they hide injuries too.
How about feed records for horse and rider? Could affect their condition.
How about official track analysts who give lousy picks? Maybe what is needed is more layers of regulators of rules besides the NTRA; HBPA; TOBA; state TOBA; UTTA; Jockey Guild (CA now has a state one too!); USDA; state racing boards; local racing associations or corporate owner of track; Track officials; independent drug testers; Official track vets. Maybe racing needs the US Govt' or the animal rights people to monitor a few more things as to horses' health.
DRF can have a new 500 page form in which all that is reported.
Oh yea, and meanwhile racing can get fuller fields, slots to allow for lower takeouts, free parking and entrance, lower cost of food, form and program; a board listing all of the above information, and more rebates for losing tickets.
Then when the bettors pick losers by speed figures calculated at 40' per second and the track has variants fluctuating like crazy they can spend all the extra time they save handicapping to think up more excuses for losing! LOL! :ThmbUp:
Or they can just play the slots and let the rest of us bet on something that take a little brain power. I have little problem using pp's to be sure the horse is in shape to run, or to throw it out due to concerns on my part.

GeTydOn

04-22-2005, 01:50 PM

kenwood = :lol:

great post!

NoDayJob

04-22-2005, 02:08 PM

I wonder how he can prove he bet anything on SC.

:D His attorney said, "I have the losing $2.00, (across the board), ticket in my fireproof safe." :D

NDJ

NoDayJob

04-22-2005, 02:26 PM

Then when the bettors pick losers by speed figures calculated at 40' per second

:D Gosh, I think the Busch Draft horses could run faster than that. :D

NDJ

delayjf

04-22-2005, 03:00 PM

I can't believe I'm saying this but I hope he goes through with the suit. don't get me wrong, I HATE LAW SUITS :mad: BUT, this incident seems so in your face that I think it demands something more than what the racing officials are going to handout. Really, how much was Mullins hurt by his milkshake incident. The punishment should at least negate any potiental gain.

I understand and appreciate the volital nature of horseracing and handicapping. I understand that horsemen have to protect themselves in the modern claiming game, so things are kept close to the vest. Nor do I think I should be told that such and such a horse didn't finish his feed the morning before the race or that he has a sudden case of the runs on the way to the track. There has always been and will always be a degree of uncertainty in handicapping. I accept that. But ask yourself how would you feel if you'd lost a big bet by a nose to an unbelieveable longshot and then the next day read in the paper about how the trainer admitted that he had stiffed the horse for several races and was training him privately away from the track clockers.

I guess in my case at least, it's best to keep ones mouth shut and be thought a crook than to open it and remove all doubt.

JPinMaryland

04-22-2005, 03:05 PM

How can anybody make a blanket statement like: "I hate lawsuits."

What's with that? do you have a better way to settle disputes?

ratpack

04-22-2005, 04:42 PM

I know it starting to get ridiculous on both ends.

Trainer Cerin on one side has basically said I can give my horse major throat surgery that will improve him by 20 lengths and you have no right to know that and others who what to know every time a horses temperature is taken.

I do think their is a happy medium someplace.

delayjf

04-22-2005, 05:53 PM

How can anybody make a blanket statement like: "I hate lawsuits."

In general I think too many people are trying to win the lottery through litigation. I decry the fact that often people or companies settle out of court not because they are in the wrong,but because its' cheaper to settle than to fight it out.

For example, the tobacco settlement in my opinion was BS. The merits of the case not withstanding, one of my major beefs was that the people who benefited the most in that suit were the lawyers NOT the supposed victims, many were paid and are still getting paid millions.

Needless to say I'm in favor of tort reform. Judging from the other posts on this board, I'd say I'm not alone.

kenwoodallpromos

04-22-2005, 06:15 PM

The happy medium is for the track officials to bar the horse if necessary. SA was informed and allowed her to run.
There is no happy medium for people who blame anyone else but themselves for betting and losing.
If you look at the pp's and there is a gap in the regularity of the individual horse's works or races, or they left the gate badly last race, or has been over 90 days since the last race, or the owner states on NBC there are "problems" as Wygod did, then the horse may not be at its physical peak.
As far as SC, I am told she imoproved her position from 7th to 5th after the 4f mark, then was blocked by traffic in the stretch.
That is why racing is considered a "game of Chance".
Build in 5% more profit to account for the odd bet on a horse that gets beat by dope, overwork, jockey schemes, injury, trip, track dymanics, interference, or birds, paper, mirrors or lasers in the eye, jumping shadows, or forgeting how to change leads and you will do fine. That is what I do.
I do not bet even or less against BC Juvie champs or milkshake trainers.
Since Cananni was punished for milkshaking, how do we know SC was not on the juice for some of her other wins?
I credit the horse for a good try but would never have bet her. :ThmbUp:

ratpack

04-22-2005, 09:30 PM

[QUOTE=kenwoodallpromos]The happy medium is for the track officials to bar the horse if necessary. SA was informed and allowed her to run.

Come on, SA was no disinterested party, if it was SA choice and SC has 3 leg she would have run that day.

JPinMaryland

04-23-2005, 04:07 AM

In general I think too many people are trying to win the lottery through litigation.

Do you have any experience to go on here, or are you just listening to people on TV? These pundits take one story out of hundreds of thousands and blow it up out of proportion.

More research would go a long way on this pt.

I decry the fact that often people or companies settle out of court not because they are in the wrong,but because its' cheaper to settle than to fight it out.

This can be a problem in the legal system; but I have to say, if you feel you are in the right, and you cave in. You get what you deserve.

You have to fight for your beliefs if you find yourself in the legal system. Whether you want to be there or not. But yes, legal fees are a source of concern especially if someone is small person going against large, impersonal entity.

This is the real problem with our legal system. THe assumption is made that companies and inviduals are treated on an equal footing. It is ridiculous. Large abstract entities, like companies, consortiums, political parties: THey have no conscience. They can easily waste time, file frivolous motions, etc. bcause being an abstraction they dont have a conscience.

For example, the tobacco settlement in my opinion was BS. .....one of my major beefs was that the people who benefited the most in that suit were the lawyers NOT the supposed victims, many were paid and are still getting paid millions.

The tobacco settlement was TOTAL BS. And you didnt have to be a genius to see this. Your statement is right on.

THe same thing happened in the airline price fixing case. Lawyers got millions, consumers got coupons. Coupons to go back on the same airlines that ripped them off!

Same thing happened with other price fixing cases. The problem here is not the system. It was the judges who let them get away with this. The logic should have been: if you are a lawyer and are charging a percentage, then you have to get a percentage of what your client gets. Be it coupons, or a free airline pass or whatever. NOT CASH.

Did you know Congress has now closed this loop hole? I think it came with the new Bankruptcy law.

kenwoodallpromos

04-23-2005, 05:39 AM

From the Ca toconline.com owner's handbook:
"The moral of the story: Secrecy is part of the game, just as bluffing is part of Poker. It takes a while before you will be able to separate truth from trash, but there´s never a way to be sure. Knowledge, therefore, is power."
The paragraph prior talks about using bandages to fake injury, and spreading rumors about the horse being lousy. Maybe Wygod and Cananni read the book!

hurrikane

04-23-2005, 07:41 AM

In Hong Kong they report vet info and horse suguries. I dont' see what the problem is and why there should be a question.

They sent a bunch of people to jail - Enron - WorldGate - Stewart - for defrauding the public. What is the difference here. The difference is that people that gamble on stocks are considered upper echelon and horse players are scum. I play the market and from now on I'm telling people I"m a stock speculator. That way i get to hang out with the upper eschelon scum. Then I"ll sneek off in the damp dark cellar and play the horses. At least that way I get to hang with the upper crusties.

And what about the horse? No word on putting an unfit animal on the ropes like that.

Interesting that the animal rights people haven't brought suit.

ratpack

04-23-2005, 09:21 AM

Interesting that the animal rights people haven't brought suit.[/QUOTE]

They have tried in the past but I think they have felt that their fight would be better served in the 3 rings.

Pace Cap'n

04-23-2005, 04:39 PM

Wygod cleared of any wrongdoing by CHHRB, per ESPN.

ratpack

04-23-2005, 04:58 PM

Wygod cleared of any wrongdoing by CHHRB, per ESPN.

Sounds like the Prison scandle in Baghdad all the top guys getting off and a few PFC's go to jail.

I guess Juilo and the van driver will get a slap on the wrist and the betting public will get an Anal probe.

kenwoodallpromos

04-24-2005, 02:54 AM

My earlier post:
Sounds like he will skate by.(Wygod).
Remember, my job is circulating official Ca state political petitions!LOL! I get paid seasonally for knowing state politica!
I do not remember if I said so but I thought maybe Cananni objected to some of that. I say now Cananni will skate but the driver will get fined or more.
Sorry- it is now official- public has no right to know about much and I never heard of a racing rule where the public has to be told anything other than official race information.
There goes the frivilous lawsuit. Fat chance maybe of frational teletiming coming into official use, or of Sam Houston recording any losers but Quarterhorses! :bang: :ThmbDown: :( :p

BIG RED

04-24-2005, 06:54 AM

I don't get it? The Hollywood Park Stewards are more powerful than the California Horse Racing Board? :confused:

highnote

04-24-2005, 09:59 AM

Sorry- it is now official- public has no right to know about much and I never heard of a racing rule where the public has to be told anything other than official race information.

Not only does the public not have the right to know, but they have to pay through the nose for the information that is available.

Maybe Mullins makes a good point -- anyone who bets on horses is either a gambler or an idiot.

kenwoodallpromos

04-24-2005, 02:32 PM

Simple:
SA did not scratch SC, but deferred to the connections' judgement; CHRB did not scratch Wygod, but deferred to the stewards' judgement.
Did you catch the part where part of the reason Wygod slid is because the CHRB investigator "forgot" to interview Wygod? Whoops!LOL! :D :lol: :liar: ;)

highnote

04-24-2005, 02:48 PM

The investigator, Loop, didn't interview the farm manager either. Loop said he was under pressure to get the report filed so he didn't have time to interview them. Despite that, Loop found them guilty.

Then SC is retired immediatly and bred to AP Indy.

When I heard Wygod and Canani's side of the story it seems a bit more plausible. Too bad the investigative reporters (and I use the term lightly) didn't conduct more thorough investigations themselves. That would have helped to lessen the confusion.

It might be the case that Wygod did the right thing by his filly by putting her in the hyperbaric chamber. The therapy gave her a better chance of winning. That therapy may have helped her perform better. Which means that the filly was "well meant".

I still think they should have told the public about her treatment. I don't think handle on the race would have decreased, but it might have been distributed differently. People were betting as if the filly was 100%. She may have been. However, the need for hyperbaric chamber therapy did add a level of uncertainty to her and that would have been reflected in the betting.

I think the betting public has a right to know this kind of information. This is a government regulated financial transaction between the track and the bettors to which owners benefit. The track and the bettors were not given enough notice -- IMHO.

I agree that it is nearly impossible to include all information. But I am bothered by the fact that Wygod did not want this information made public until after the race. What's the big secret? What's there to hide?

Dave Schwartz

04-24-2005, 04:59 PM

Sorry- it is now official- public has no right to know about much and I never heard of a racing rule where the public has to be told anything other than official race information.

... which is whatever currently is the "official racing information."

In my opinion, that needs to change if racing is to keep up in the new millenium.

Understand that I am not some whiny cry baby that screams, "I'm not winning because they are cheating."

Rather I am suggesting (as I have for years) that racing has always had a problem with integrity beyond that of other sports. In today's world, with communication the way it is, the integrity issue significantly affects the industry's image with new players.

I believe this needs to change.

End of soapboxing.

Dave Schwartz

highnote

04-24-2005, 05:24 PM

[QUOTE=Dave SchwartzRather I am suggesting (as I have for years) that racing has always had a problem with integrity beyond that of other sports.
Dave Schwartz[/QUOTE]

Dave,
I agree with you. Most other sports do not depend on legal betting for their well being. So if the Denver Bronco's hide some information about a quarterback's sprained throwing wrist - no one is affected financially.

If the favorite in the feature at the Big A had throat surgery to alleviate "roaring" then the public has a right know. If the horse wins because it can now breathe better and it's odds are 25-1 then I think the public has been cheated to some degree. Throat surgery is more relevant than a change in blinkers - IMHO.

If surgery is not important than why is the public told when a horse is gelded?
John

kenwoodallpromos

04-24-2005, 09:30 PM

ratpack

04-24-2005, 10:29 PM

Dave,
I agree with you. Most other sports do not depend on legal betting for their well being. So if the Denver Bronco's hide some information about a quarterback's sprained throwing wrist - no one is affected financially.

Wink and a Nod- I always wondered why the NFL had injury reports

Steve 'StatMan'

04-24-2005, 10:43 PM

If surgery is not important than why is the public told when a horse is gelded?

In a lot of jurisdictions, gelding status isn't kept up very promptly or carefully. Sometimes a horse runs 2 or 3 times before they find out it was gelded. It is important in a claiming race to know a horse was gelded, since someone might be buying the horse via the claim, and has a need to know, depending on what they want to do with the horse. I know So. Cal. is good about it, but often in IL that info is late. So when they do announce that a horse is a gelding, one shouldn't necessarily presume this is the first race since being gelded - their announcement via the PA system is not specific. Plus the 'change' isn't listed as a change in the program. You'd have to remember if he was a 'h' or a 'g' since the last set of pps - if that's even up to date or accurate.

Lasix1

04-24-2005, 11:31 PM

I still think they should have told the public about her treatment. I don't think handle on the race would have decreased, but it might have been distributed differently. People were betting as if the filly was 100%. She may have been. However, the need for hyperbaric chamber therapy did add a level of uncertainty to her and that would have been reflected in the betting.

I think the betting public has a right to know this kind of information. This is a government regulated financial transaction between the track and the bettors to which owners benefit. The track and the bettors were not given enough notice -- IMHO.
I dunno guys. Mandating the dissemination of information about a horse's condition looks like a slippery slope to me. What would you add to the already over-loaded form? It now reports Lasix, Bute, wraps, and blinkers on and off. Track announcers dutifully report over-weights before the races start which usually mean nothing more than the jockey ate an extra bagel for breakfast. How many fans even pay attention to these announcements, much less use it in their handicapping?

Gelding, the so-called ultimate equipment change, must be reported in most jurisdictions, and like other rules this one is strictly enforced. As soon as the trainer and owner cash their tickets after the race they must, by law, go down to the track office and report the gelding. ;)

Most tracks report shoes. Remington Park even experimented a few years ago with reporting the horse's weight. (Yes, they weighed each and every animal the day before the race and put it in the program.) Should we now demand a column for feet, legs, bleeding history, visits to a hyperbaric chamber, quarter cracks, bowed tendons, cracked knees, and God knows what else? The column for older claimers would be so long it would be useless, for not a single one of them is ever 100%.

Besides, if all that we know now about Sweet Catomine were published before the Santa Anita Derby I'm not so sure she still wouldn't have gone off at 4/5.

ratpack

04-24-2005, 11:47 PM

I tend to agree with you but like I pointed out in some earlier posts their has to be a happy medium.

Two quick points.

First on the Sweet Catomine thing with Wygod telling the SI reporter and not the Daily print reportors, the whole thing just stunk and he would not be in this mess if he had just kept his mouth shut.

Second as far as the public right to know I think any major type of injury or surgery, like bucked shins or throat surgery any thing that would require a layoff of 45 or more days should be reported. My opinion only.

kenwoodallpromos

04-25-2005, 03:32 AM

Is there anytime a healthy horse has a layoff?

highnote

04-25-2005, 03:34 AM

Wink and a Nod- I always wondered why the NFL had injury reports

Good point. :D

On the other hand... I don't bet football, but if my favorite player is injured I may not watch the game. I was a fan of the Broncos because I liked to see Elway play. When he was hurt, I was less likely to watch the game. Now that he is retired I can't say that I've seen a whole Bronco game. So for me, the injury report is still useful informtion.

highnote

04-25-2005, 03:39 AM

In a lot of jurisdictions, gelding status isn't kept up very promptly or carefully. [.....] Plus the 'change' isn't listed as a change in the program. You'd have to remember if he was a 'h' or a 'g' since the last set of pps - if that's even up to date or accurate.

You're right. We raced a horse that was a gelding about 10 times before we sold him. He was always listed as a horse. I called the track to tell them but the change was never noted.

I hope no one thought about claiming him for stud duty!

highnote

04-25-2005, 03:50 AM

You jump 10 miles to the conclusion that just because the investigstor made a conplaint they are automatically guilty?
What is there to be afraid of? Bettors and the public who think like you do, that is who. Maybe Wygod was afraid the uninformed wuld scream for the horse to be scrstched unjustifiably.
As it was, a female going against equal quality males as a closer on a speed-favoring pars track could not gain in the stretch even if she could because CHRB has rules against forcing horses ahead of you to alter course.

Just because the stewards let Wygod off easy does not mean he had no guilt. He gave vital (IMHO) information to an SI reporter and told him not to print it until afte the race.

Just because the horse raced does not mean the horse should not have been scratched.

A hearing is still going to be conducted with the the trainer and van driver.

The van driver falsely signed the horse out of the stable area.

From what I read it sounds like some things were done improperly and to the detriment of racing.

However, that's what the hearing is for -- to get to the truth. It may turn out that things aren't as bad as the press made them out to be, but things seem to have been done that require closer examination. Maybe the connections just used poor judgement and will get a slap on the wrist. Maybe they tried to push the envelop. I've done the same thing in my car -- like drive too fast -- and have gotten speeding tickets. However, it's always hard for me to admit that I was wrong for speeding. Who knows -- maybe I actually was speeding on at least one occasion where I was caught and ticketed? :lol:

Of course, with a speeding ticket the only person who is harmed financially is me!!! :mad: :D

kenwoodallpromos

04-25-2005, 03:12 PM

I'm talking about the rulings as the law states now, not as they are wished for. Just like my state law petitions, if you want change work for the change. If you want to ensure injury-free horses in better condition work for a law to require pre-race exams by official track vets including looking over certain required information to be kept by trainer or their vet.
Also regulate workout and race shedules tighter.
I an doing my part by trying to get track crews to monitor their tracks' dynamics more closely.
I propose we start a new organization for making racehorses more healthly. We will call it "Less Injuries to Animals Racing" (LIAR). Maybe all the owners and trainers will join! :ThmbUp: