Does Freedom of Speech Pertain to Horsemen?

[andymays]

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/at-large-tom-lamarra/archive/2010/03/17/does-freedom-of-speech-pertain-to-horsemen.aspx

Excerpt:

There’s an interesting situation in South Florida, where a horseman who’s also an aspiring writer has been barred from a racetrack because his presence is considered “detrimental to the best interest of racing.”

Does “detrimental to the best interest of racing” sound familiar?

The latest case involves 40-year-old Terry Cullipher, who trains and drives Standardbreds and also has a couple of Web sites designed to educate horsemen on what’s happening in racing in Kentucky and Florida. Cullipher has a caustic sense of humor and has questioned and criticized the actions of racetracks and horsemen’s groups.

Excerpt:

Cullipher claims his First Amendment rights have been violated and that he has done nothing wrong.

“I make a living racing horses,” Cullipher said in a letter. “I am also a reporter/journalist. I understand that the Isle of Capri Casino Pompano Park can exclude anyone from its property. But what I don’t understand, and what I have a major concern with, is this—I haven’t done anything wrong. I have followed the rules of racing.

“However, I do believe there is proof of a reason, and it is crystal clear--because I write a column (a comical column that is based on truth), and for exercising my First Amendment right (of) freedom of speech.”

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/at-large-tom-lamarra/archive/2010/03/17/does-freedom-of-speech-pertain-to-horsemen.aspx

[Deepsix]

No it doesn't apply to horsemen. Similar to Augusta National (golf), for example. Its a private club and you get what they grant you. Freedom of speech, as I seem to recall, concerns an individual's rights being curtailed/infringed upon by The Government. Pressure can certainly be exerted by the masses in hopes of influencing/changing Race Track policy, BUT it is not a 1st Amendment violation. BUT I could be wrong.

[InTheRiver68]

Freedom of speech, as I seem to recall, concerns an individual's rights being curtailed/infringed upon by The Government.
This.

Mr. Cullipher is free to write (nearly) whatever he wants in the local paper, but he has no standing if the track chooses to trespass him. It's their sandbox, and if they don't like the way he plays, they can kick him out of it.

The local paper, for that matter, is free to refuse to run his column ... that isn't a freedom of speech matter, either. Now if the goverment were to place a call to the paper and tell them not to run Cullipher's column, *that's* a First Amendment violation.

-InTheRiver68

[andymays]

Are you guys saying that any Horseman who criticizes any Track can be banned?

So any time a Horseman is quoted in the newspaper and says something someone is management doesn't like they can be banned?

If it can be applied to Horsemen then why not Horseplayers?

[Dave Schwartz]

On the topic of "private clubs..."

Haven't there been numerous cases of women suing on the grounds of sexual discrimination to gain access to an exclusively male club environment?

[Deepsix]

More like "could be banned". Race track management/legal council gives great latitude and would seemingly only exercise their discretion to ban individuals on a case-by-case basis and only when the 'notorious speech' is deemed to be contrary/harmful to the track's greater interests. This happens on occasion BUT very infrequently.

[Greyfox]

On the topic of "private clubs..."

Haven't there been numerous cases of women suing on the grounds of sexual discrimination to gain access to an exclusively male club environment?

Are you implying he should change his sex?:D ;)

[andymays]

More like "could be banned". Race track management/legal council gives great latitude and would seemingly only exercise their discretion to ban individuals on a case-by-case basis and only when the 'notorious speech' is deemed to be contrary/harmful to the track's greater interests. This happens on occasion BUT very infrequently.


Most Trainers left Del Mar last year in a hurry and the quote was "couldn't wait to leave" from the North County Times. By most accounts the surface was inconsistent to say the least. Does that mean that any Trainer who criticized the surface is subject to being banned this upcoming meet?

Should Bill Casner be banned from Del Mar for making these comments last year?

http://www.nctimes.com/sports/equestrian/racing/article_76e60435-8242-51d3-9bc9-1a7debc5b864.html

Excerpt:

"Maintenance is the absolute critical thing," said Winstar Farm's Bill Casner, who owns Colonel John, the morning-line favorite in Del Mar's $1 million Pacific Classic on Sunday. "They have tightened up the Del Mar surface this year. The first year, it was slow but safe. It was pretty good last year. This year it sounds like a herd of buffalo down there on the track."

[Deepsix]

Lets get back to your issue--- does the Track have the authority to ban individuals? YES, under certain broad conditions, and until overturned by a court. That's why its done rarely and for cause.

[andymays]

Lets get back to your issue--- does the Track have the authority to ban individuals? YES, under certain broad conditions, and until overturned by a court. That's why its done rarely and for cause.


Let's take a guy like Roger Stein who has a radio show, is a Trainer, Owner, and Breeder.

Is he in jeopardy of losing access to the Track for being critical of a raise in takeout at Los Alamitos or any other Track?

[Tom]

I see it as a clear case of denying him his constitutional rights.
The track, by barring him, only prove he is probably right.
I hope he sues and "takes the track home with him."

The idea that this game has any integrity protect is hilarious!
The "best interest of racing" is ridiculous.

[rastajenk]

If you're asking if tracks will immediately embrace the Pompano ruling and use it to clean their own houses, I'd say, probably not.

Tom, does he have a constitutional right to be a trainer? 'Cause that's what the track is denying. They're not stopping him from updating his blog.

[Deepsix]

You would need to ask the track/organization that Roger might offend. You are obviously shifting the bar as you interject a radio host and comments/views expressed on his radio show. I suppose that IF a race track wanted to ban Roger, and IF they had what was viewed as just cause, they could ban him. Of course Roger would then have the ability to seek recourse. Maybe you should check with Jerry Jam (your friend as I recall) and obtain his thoughts.

[Tom]

Tom, does he have a constitutional right to be a trainer? 'Cause that's what the track is denying. They're not stopping him from updating his blog.

I would say yes.

[andymays]

You would need to ask the track/organization that Roger might offend. You are obviously shifting the bar as you interject a radio host and comments/views expressed on his radio show. I suppose that IF a race track wanted to ban Roger, and IF they had what was viewed as just cause, they could ban him. Of course Roger would then have the ability to seek recourse. Maybe you should check with Jerry Jam (your friend as I recall) and obtain his thoughts.


I'm not necessarily directing my questions at you. They are for everyone reading the thread. My friends or enemies shouldn't matter.

I think the guy who the article is about is claiming that he is also a journalist correct?

[Brogan]

If the facility is privately owned, the track owner has the absolute right to allow or deny access to anyone as they deem fit (of course keeping within applicable discrimination laws).

If it is governmentally owned (i.e. Monmouth Park, Meadowlands) the water gets a little murky.

[Deepsix]

And just offering my opinion, and recognizing that you are addressing this to everyone. There are stringent tests for journalists, too. To simply wrap oneself in a "journalist's flag" and expect some form of immunity is obviously not correct.... we just went through these issues during rather recent political cases and the journalist did not have immunity. There will be a "reasonable" test/hurdle that must be presented in a prima facia case to assert some "Freedom of the Press" defense, and generally it goes back to the Government unfairly persecuting the journalist.... not the private Race Track.

[andymays]

If the facility is privately owned, the track owner has the absolute right to allow or deny access to anyone as they deem fit (of course keeping within applicable discrimination laws).
If it is governmentally owned (i.e. Monmouth Park, Meadowlands) the water gets a little murky.


What did the guy mentioned in the article do to warrant being banned? Isn't that discriminating against him based upon his speech (opinion)?

[andymays]

And just offering my opinion, and recognizing that you are addressing this to everyone. There are stringent tests for journalists, too. To simply wrap oneself in a "journalist's flag" and expect some form of immunity is obviously not correct.... we just went through these issues during rather recent political cases and the journalist did not have immunity. There will be a "reasonable" test/hurdle that must be presented in a prima facia case to assert some "Freedom of the Press" defense, and generally it goes back to the Government unfairly presecuting the journalist.... not the private Race Track.


The problem with many jurisdictions in racing (little kingdoms) is that many of the people in charge have had longstanding relationships with one another. When a new guy comes in that they may not like for whaterver reason they can find a way to ban him. Slippery slope???

[Deepsix]

Same exact thing happens here @PaceAdvantage. Pace can pretty much do whatever he chooses as it relates to banning "us new guys". lol


(pardon the typos.... I'll try to proof before hitting the enter button)

[BillW]

Same exact thing happens here @PaceAdvantage. Pace can pretty much do whatever he chooses as it relates to banning "us new guys". lol


(pardon the typos.... I'll try to proof before hitting the enter button)

Exactly (or even some "not so new" guys ;) )

[DeanT]

Interesting stuff.

I agree with everyone that they have the right to do it, however, it is a terrible move, imo. Tracks should not be suing/banning/whatever horsemen because they write an op ed piece, or whatever. They should be partners. It is terrible PR for the track (in my opinion).

It reminds me a bit of the record companies suing their customers back in the Kaaza days. Most business books look at that period as a sad period for music; all it did was alienate and embolden customers.

PS: Having said that, I dont think we know what this fella did or not do, so itis hard to assess blame one way or the other until we know more.

[Greyfox]

What did the guy mentioned in the article do to warrant being banned? Isn't that discriminating against him based upon his speech (opinion)?

What did the guy do?
That's the problem we don't know. Blood Horse and many here are speculating its a freedom of speech issue.
We don't know that for sure. There could be something else that we are not privy to.
We are missing the track's side of the story here.

[andicap]

On the topic of "private clubs..."

Haven't there been numerous cases of women suing on the grounds of sexual discrimination to gain access to an exclusively male club environment?

Only if the clubs get any sort of public monies -- any kind of government contracts or aid (even perhaps indirectly although that's a gray area for the courts to decide.)

Like someone here said, look at Augusta and women.

[andymays]

It appears the guy is just giving his opinion and his opinion happens to be critical of the jurisdiction banning him.

On a side note last year Jeff Nahill from the North County Times was critical of Del Mar at times and according to him on the Roger Stein show they threatened to ban the North County Times from the track. The San Diego Union on the other hand acted as a marketing arm of the track all year. What about that?

[BillW]

Interesting stuff.

I agree with everyone that they have the right to do it, however, it is a terrible move, imo. Tracks should not be suing/banning/whatever horsemen because they write an op ed piece, or whatever. They should be partners. It is terrible PR for the track (in my opinion).



Therein lies the penalty for bad judgment in a free society.

[FenceBored]

Why exactly didn't Lamarra link to this guy's site so people could judge the writing in context? I thought that's why we have this interweb netting thing nowdays.

[Greyfox]

Late Breaking News on Blood Horse


UPDATE, in the interest of fairness: Late the afternoon of March 17, Cullipher contacted The Blood-Horse to say he was told a few hours earlier his two-week ejection had been lifted. He said he had pleasant conversation with Yinger, who had called him to say he was "fully exonerated" and that the ejection wouldn't be on his record as a horseman.

[andymays]

Late Breaking News on Blood Horse


UPDATE, in the interest of fairness: Late the afternoon of March 17, Cullipher contacted The Blood-Horse to say he was told a few hours earlier his two-week ejection had been lifted. He said he had pleasant conversation with Yinger, who had called him to say he was "fully exonerated" and that the ejection wouldn't be on his record as a horseman.


I'll bet they were reading PA and thought better of the banning after Tom weighed in! :ThmbUp:

[Greyfox]

Why exactly didn't Lamarra link to this guy's site so people could judge the writing in context? I thought that's why we have this interweb netting thing nowdays.

The link cited in the article is:
http://www.kyharnessracing.com/

[andymays]

The link cited in the article is:
http://www.kyharnessracing.com/


Is this the correct link?

http://www.kyharnessracing.com/freedom31210.html

[Greyfox]

Is this the correct link?

http://www.kyharnessracing.com/freedom31210.html

:ThmbUp: Yup that's more direct.

[FenceBored]

The link cited in the article is:
http://www.kyharnessracing.com/

:blush: I was looking for the blue text while skimming.

[Stillriledup]

Even though some of these racetrack's are private property and can supposedly 'exclude' someone, those tracks are also given licenses by their state in order have legal gambling, i wonder what is said in the 'rules' that the track has to adhere to in order to gain a license. Does it say "here's your license to operate legal gambling, do whatever you want"

I can't imagine that's what it says. It would be nice to know what a racetrack is 'signing off on' in order to be allowed to accept bets on the races.

[Tom]

Not at all like that.
No one here is making their living post here ( except maybe PA!;))

[Deepsix]

Can a casino in Vegas ban someone, or anyone?

[Stillriledup]

Can a casino in Vegas ban someone, or anyone?

yes.

Vegas can do whatever they want and they usually do.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

This is exactly why I try to keep as private as possible.

In the last year, I've raced horses at 10 TB tracks and 11 harness tracks and as shown by the Pompano folks, the usual morons in charge of racetracks don't take criticism well and become defensively vindictive.