Michael Gill, Anthony Adamo sue Penn National jockeys over boycott

[andymays]

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/people/gill-adamo-sue-penn-national-jockeys-over-boycott/

Excerpt:

Eclipse Award-winning owner Michael Gill and one of his former trainers, Anthony Adamo, have filed a federal lawsuit against 31 jockeys at Penn National race course over the decision by the riders at the Grantville, Pa., track last January not to ride in races in which Gill's horses were entere

[takeout]

Should be interesting. New territory, I think.

[Greyfox]

Should be interesting. New territory, I think.

Yes. It could be interesting. On the one hand you have individual jockeys who are private contractors and they can choose who they will or will not ride for.
Hopefully they had solid stats pointing to the significant increase in peril that was probable when Gill's steeds were entered.
On the other hand there is evidence that they colluded together and shunned Gill. They may have even slandered him. Refusing to ride in races where he had horses entered is different than refusing to ride his horses. Legal beagles would know whether or not they were violating some type of Fair Competition Act or a Combines Act.
It may well turn out that the jock's were not getting the best of legal advice when they staged their boycott.
In the absence of knowing all of both sides cases, this could be an interesting court battle.

[takeout]

And a two parter yet. They’re also suing the racing commission.

I thought that was kind of odd at the time. The commission threw them out, not the track.

[JustRalph]

This is stupid. I dare Gill to go in front of a jury and allow a Jock to testify that he was afraid Gill's horses would break down. This will then be followed up by race videos of Gill's horses breaking down, and a jury or even a judge (sometimes an option) would have to sit through this and decide that the jocks weren't in danger. I don't think that's going to happen, but who the hell knows with these wingnuts

[Stillriledup]

This is stupid. I dare Gill to go in front of a jury and allow a Jock to testify that he was afraid Gill's horses would break down. This will then be followed up by race videos of Gill's horses breaking down, and a jury or even a judge (sometimes an option) would have to sit through this and decide that the jocks weren't in danger. I don't think that's going to happen, but who the hell knows with these wingnuts

I'd be surprised if Gill won any lawsuit about jocks not wanting to ride his horses, but, i guess anything is possible, we will know shortly if this suit has legs or its just a frivilous attempt.

[Mineshaft]

This is stupid. I dare Gill to go in front of a jury and allow a Jock to testify that he was afraid Gill's horses would break down. This will then be followed up by race videos of Gill's horses breaking down, and a jury or even a judge (sometimes an option) would have to sit through this and decide that the jocks weren't in danger. I don't think that's going to happen, but who the hell knows with these wingnuts





Exactly right..

[Zman179]

I believe that Gill/Adamo have a really good chance to win this suit; Greyfox explains it well. Courts aren't going to want to hear, "I felt his horses were unsafe." The jockeys/Commission are going to have to show viable proof that they were and I don't think they can do that.

[Zman179]

I'd be surprised if Gill won any lawsuit about jocks not wanting to ride his horses...

That's the thing. It wasn't about refusing to ride his horses, but refusing to ride on any of the competitors horses in which Gill took part. Big difference. That's called 'collusion'. Jockeys have the right to refuse to ride a specific horse because, as private contractors, they have the right to work for whomever they want. However, by doing what they did, it forces the business owner (i.e. Gill) to not be able to conduct business at that location and forces that business owner to either move or be forced out of business.

[BombsAway Bob]

I believe that Gill/Adamo have a really good chance to win this suit; Greyfox explains it well. Courts aren't going to want to hear, "I felt his horses were unsafe." The jockeys/Commission are going to have to show viable proof that they were and I don't think they can do that.

and Lawyers for the Jocks will introduce this video, & it will be OVER!
First Round KO!
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5140842&status=ok

[Zman179]

and Lawyers for the Jocks will introduce this video, & it will be OVER!
First Round KO!
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=5140842&status=ok

Yeah, sure it will. :rolleyes:

Good video though. As far as this so called "anonymous" employee, he's full of sh*t. Unless you are afraid of being harmed or potentially blacklisted, why not identify yourself? How do we know that this person wasn't fired with cause and is saying anything just to get revenge? I mean, if this person comes out what's the worst that could happen to him, Michael Gill will prevent him from getting a job in racing? :lol:

[Stillriledup]

That's the thing. It wasn't about refusing to ride his horses, but refusing to ride on any of the competitors horses in which Gill took part. Big difference. That's called 'collusion'. Jockeys have the right to refuse to ride a specific horse because, as private contractors, they have the right to work for whomever they want. However, by doing what they did, it forces the business owner (i.e. Gill) to not be able to conduct business at that location and forces that business owner to either move or be forced out of business.

Thank you Z.

[Maryland Owner]

What will favor Gill - though I am no lawyer and have no idea how much impact it will have - is the fact that jocks rode his horses at PHA and LRL with no complaints.

[lamboguy]

penn national has every right to bar gill. they don't need any reason in the world, penn national is private property. you don't have to allow anyone you don't want in the house you live in, and the casino in vegas can bar anyone from a casino that they don't want in the place.

what is interesting here is that gill knows he has a zero % chance to win this lawsuit. so far there has not been a counter suit filed. gill just might have something up his sleeve that has nothing to do with this frivolous lawsuit.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

penn national has every right to bar gill. they don't need any reason in the world, penn national is private property. you don't have to allow anyone you don't want in the house you live in, and the casino in vegas can bar anyone from a casino that they don't want in the place.

what is interesting here is that gill knows he has a zero % chance to win this lawsuit. so far there has not been a counter suit filed. gill just might have something up his sleeve that has nothing to do with this frivolous lawsuit.
The suit against Penn may not be successful for the points you make, however, the suit against the jockeys has a shot. He wasn't barred when the jockeys allegedly colluded and collectively refused to ride his horses.

[JustRalph]

collusion requires it to be done in secrecy, and it results in defrauding the offended party....... don't think that fits here

No chance in hell he wins.

If a Race Car driver was sued for not driving a dangerous race car, it would be the same.

It is very hard to win on a "negative" they opted to not ride. They didn't ride and commit an act of negligence etc.

[Zman179]

penn national has every right to bar gill. they don't need any reason in the world, penn national is private property. you don't have to allow anyone you don't want in the house you live in, and the casino in vegas can bar anyone from a casino that they don't want in the place.

That's the kicker, Penn National never barred him. It's the Racing Commission that ejected him off of the grounds, not the property owners.

[JAMES GILL]

you guys are all mumbling in the wind ,you should all stick to training if that is what you all do . we have had horses in our family a long time .this is a tough game with a lot of odds that you wont win , courts are the same its all a horse race have a nice day guys ps> we will win count on it

[Tom]

Ah, a TIP!