An interesting challenge to the claiming rules!

[onefast99]

Kentucky regulators do not plan to rescind or waive a rule regarding when claimed horses can run in out-of-state races, despite the threat of a lawsuit from prominent owner Jerry Jamgotchian.

Jamgotchian, a Californian who races horses in Kentucky and other states, is challenging the rule after he was not permitted to enter the horse Rochitta in a race at Hollywood Casino at Penn National Race Course. A 3-year-old daughter of Arch, Rochitta was claimed by trainer Eric Reed on behalf of Jamgotchian for $40,000 when the filly finished second in a May 21 race at Churchill Downs.

The owner said officials at Penn National disallowed Rochitta’s entry in a June 4 race, citing a Kentucky rule that states a claimed horse cannot race at any track other than the one at which it was claimed until the track takes entries for the final race card of the meet in which the claim took place. The Churchill Downs meet ends in early July.

Saying the rule violates his constitutional rights, Jamgotchian fired off an email to KHRC executive director Lisa Underwood in which he said, “Unless my horse (Rochitta) is immediately allowed to enter and race at Penn National, I will file an action in the U.S. District Court against the KHRC, Churchill Downs and others to protect my constitutional right and invalidate this clearly illegal rule,”


Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/63351/kentucky-claiming-rule-to-be-challenged#ixzz1O83c8upp


Since Kentucky isn't the only track that has "in jail" rules and regulations regarding the claiming of horses if in the event this owner is successful in his action this may change the claiming game forever. I for one would like to see a change in the claiming rules where a horse may race at any other track the owner wishes it to after 21 days from the date of the claim.

[cj]

I don't think it is a bad rule. Why allow horses that fill your races to be claimed and shipped away?

[onefast99]

I don't think it is a bad rule. Why allow horses that fill your races to be claimed and shipped away?
It works both ways. There may be a certain condition run at Penn that CD didn't have, why not allow horses who were claimed to run at another track where the condition they are running for isn't offered at the track where the claim took place.

[Greyfox]

Good rule for the track. Bad rule for the new owner.
Jerry Jamgotchian is on solid ground saying that the rule is probably unconstitutional.

[cj]

It works both ways. There may be a certain condition run at Penn that CD didn't have, why not allow horses who were claimed to run at another track where the condition they are running for isn't offered at the track where the claim took place.

I can see that, but when you claim a horse in Kentucky you know the races they will most likely run. You also know the rule about not shipping.

[onefast99]

I can see that, but when you claim a horse in Kentucky you know the races they will most likely run. You also know the rule about not shipping.
I like the idea of allowing a horse to run at another track while still in jail only if a condition is offered at that track that isn't offered at your track that way you aren't forcing the horse to stay at your track and run in a condition that may be over his head.

[CryingForTheHorses]

I don't think it is a bad rule. Why allow horses that fill your races to be claimed and shipped away?


I agree with you CJ..If they allow this suit to go the owners way,You may see whole fields getting claimed just so they could race at another track.Tracks have to protect their horses.The thing I would like to see is where you can claim and drop the next race if you have to.A owner that claims horse should be able to start them where he wants,Whether it is below the price he claimed for.If a guy claims for 16k and wants to run in the next rce for 10k,Who cares,Its the owners horse.

[onefast99]

I agree with you CJ..If they allow this suit to go the owners way,You may see whole fields getting claimed just so they could race at another track.Tracks have to protect their horses.The thing I would like to see is where you can claim and drop the next race if you have to.A owner that claims horse should be able to start them where he wants,Whether it is below the price he claimed for.If a guy claims for 16k and wants to run in the next rce for 10k,Who cares,Its the owners horse.
I thought this would be good for a trainer like you, why? Lets say you claim one at GP, wouldn't it be nice to run him at Tampa where the competition is less? The premise of the action this owner is taking is solely based on his constitutional rights. That may be an issue for the KHRC as the case may end up going through the court system for quite a while and they may find a judge that allows temporary relief to the plaintiff until a final decision is rendered.

[lamboguy]

first of all churchill downs does not allow you to take a horse that trains on their grounds and bring the horse to run in another track unless its for a stake race or statebred race and let you bring the horse back on their grounds. what this guy with the lawsuit is doing is penalizing the guy that played by churchill rules and didn't bring the horse to penn national.

they now have the same rules in parx, if you go and run in a starter race in another track, don't bother to bring your horse back there.

in the midatlantic area you have plenty of trainers that stable and train in fairhill and they can take advantage of any spot in 5 different tracks without a penalty.

e reed trains in his own place too and he is able to move his horses around as he pleases. but this horse fit under the rules of claiming

[Storm Cadet]

I agree with you CJ..If they allow this suit to go the owners way,You may see whole fields getting claimed just so they could race at another track.Tracks have to protect their horses.The thing I would like to see is where you can claim and drop the next race if you have to.A owner that claims horse should be able to start them where he wants,Whether it is below the price he claimed for.If a guy claims for 16k and wants to run in the next rce for 10k,Who cares,Its the owners horse.

This particular owner claimed a PA bred from Kentucky and is being jailed from running BACK IN PA! I agree with the owner...it is NOT THE TRACKS horse...it is the owners. He is being prohibited from getting possible black type earnings and PA breeding money from another state? ABSURD rule...what right (constitutionally) does a racing organization have from to tell a horse owner where and when they can race their property? The owner was just on At The Races radio and he was VERY compelling as to his legal rights. He did mention that the wording in the KY law is very vague on where a jailed horse can and cant race. Does it cover a claimed horse running outside the USA? Does PA have the same jail rule for horses leaving their state? Without a NATIONAL rule (NTRA maybe) I can't see how KY wins in Federal Court which is where this case will be heard! And as he brings out, if KY called PA and they worked together to prohibit his horse from racing, after they origionally agreed and accepted the race entry, that begins the process of collusion and Federal restriction of trade laws!

This one will be fun to watch unfold---almost as good as watching Dutrow try and escape the wrath of NYSRWB here in NY!

[cj]

This particular owner claimed a PA bred from Kentucky and is being jailed from running BACK IN PA! I agree with the owner...it is NOT THE TRACKS horse...it is the owners. He is being prohibited from getting possible black type earnings and PA breeding money from another state? ABSURD rule...what right (constitutionally) does a racing organization have from to tell a horse owner where and when they can race their property? The owner was just on At The Races radio and he was VERY compelling as to his legal rights. He did mention that the wording in the KY law is very vague on where a jailed horse can and cant race. Does it cover a claimed horse running outside the USA? Does PA have the same jail rule for horses leaving their state? Without a NATIONAL rule (NTRA maybe) I can't see how KY wins in Federal Court which is where this case will be heard! And as he brings out, if KY called PA and they worked together to prohibit his horse from racing, after they origionally agreed and accepted the race entry, that begins the process of collusion and Federal restriction of trade laws!

This one will be fun to watch unfold---almost as good as watching Dutrow try and escape the wrath of NYSRWB here in NY!

It is true it is the owners horse, but without the track putting on the show he couldn't have claimed him in the first place. It is definitely a tricky situation and I can see both sides. It will be interesting to follow.

[Tom]

Seems that if a rule exists that says you may claim a horse under the agreement that you race it at that track for the rest of the meet if clearly legal. You know going in that that is the rule, part a a contract, if you will.
You agree to it when you drop the claim. No one forces anyone to claim a horse.

[rastajenk]

There are lots of rules in racing that control what an owner may or may not do with his "property" without a constitutionality issue. You can't just make some equipment changes at the last second by claiming that it's your horse, you'll do whatever you want. You can't make medication changes on a whim. If the claiming rules are undermined, why should anything else be enforceable.

Without knowing any details except what's been laid out here, I'm disappointed in JerryJam taking this approach. Seems like more harm could come out of this than good.

[Pell Mell]

If an owner has a horse stabled in KY, not one that he claimed there, is he allowed to ship it some where else for a race?

[andymays]

Got this from JJ a little while ago!


http://www.thoroughbredracingradionetwork.com/index.php?option=com_events&task=view_detail&agid=1007&year=2011&month=06&day=02&Itemid=35

Go to Hour 3 and halfway into the hour. Just move the cursor to the center and enjoy the 15 minute interview..

[onefast99]

If an owner has a horse stabled in KY, not one that he claimed there, is he allowed to ship it some where else for a race?
Yes he can ship anywhere in the world to run unless the horse was claimed during the meet. The claiming rules prohibit a horse who was claimed during the current meet to run anywhere else(unless it is a stakes race or statebred allowance race). As per the rule the horse may be entered at a different track once the final entries have been drawn for the last card of the meet.

[FenceBored]

I agree with you CJ..If they allow this suit to go the owners way,You may see whole fields getting claimed just so they could race at another track.Tracks have to protect their horses.The thing I would like to see is where you can claim and drop the next race if you have to.A owner that claims horse should be able to start them where he wants,Whether it is below the price he claimed for.If a guy claims for 16k and wants to run in the next rce for 10k,Who cares,Its the owners horse.

:confused: Isn't this what Jerry Jam is saying?

[Pell Mell]

Yes he can ship anywhere in the world to run unless the horse was claimed during the meet. The claiming rules prohibit a horse who was claimed during the current meet to run anywhere else(unless it is a stakes race or statebred allowance race). As per the rule the horse may be entered at a different track once the final entries have been drawn for the last card of the meet.

I would think a court would think this was discrimination based on the date of ownership.

[andymays]

:confused: Isn't this what Jerry Jam is saying?

Yes. The interview is worth listening to.

[onefast99]

I would think a court would think this was discrimination based on the date of ownership.
The rules of the claiming game may indeed be tested in court very soon. I would like to see data that shows where a track is hurt financially if they were to permit a recently claimed horse to go anywhere without restrictions.

[the little guy]

The rules of the claiming game may indeed be tested in court very soon. I would like to see data that shows where a track is hurt financially if they were to permit a recently claimed horse to go anywhere without restrictions.

You do realize it's been well established that field size directly affects handle....right?

[onefast99]

You do realize it's been well established that field size directly affects handle....right?
Yes, but it also would affect the field size at Penn just as well.

[the little guy]

Yes, but it also would affect the field size at Penn just as well.

This has to be a trick....because you can't possibly be this dense.

[onefast99]

This has to be a trick....because you can't possibly be this dense.
It works both ways but there is no data to show it unless you have some. And just think I was one of the four people on this forum who actually liked you!

[Tom]

Who are the other three? :D

Oh, uh, I mean two! :blush:

[onefast99]

Who are the other three? :D

Oh, uh, I mean two! :blush:
I think one was banned!

[cj]

Yes, but it also would affect the field size at Penn just as well.

I don't think Penn is involved in the suit, so that part wouldn't seem to matter.

[onefast99]

I don't think Penn is involved in the suit, so that part wouldn't seem to matter.
The owner said officials at Penn National disallowed Rochitta’s entry in a June 4 race, citing a Kentucky rule that states a claimed horse cannot race at any track other than the one at which it was claimed until the track takes entries for the final race card of the meet in which the claim took place. The Churchill Downs meet ends in early July.


Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/63351/kentucky-claiming-rule-to-be-challenged#ixzz1O9CAWrKh


I am sure Penn will be named also once the suit is filed.

[cj]

The owner said officials at Penn National disallowed Rochitta’s entry in a June 4 race, citing a Kentucky rule that states a claimed horse cannot race at any track other than the one at which it was claimed until the track takes entries for the final race card of the meet in which the claim took place. The Churchill Downs meet ends in early July.


Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/63351/kentucky-claiming-rule-to-be-challenged#ixzz1O9CAWrKh


I am sure Penn will be named also once the suit is filed. No one wants to see these types of lawsuits filed.



I am saying that the only way Penn would matter is if they joined the lawsuit with the owner, claiming it also hurts them. I doubt that is going to happen, thus it is not relevant. I've been wrong before though.

[Pell Mell]

As I recall reading about this 50 yrs ago was that the jailhouse rule was established to protect trainers and owners. A trainer spends a lot of time getting a horse in shape and it then gets claimed from him. Whoever claims the horse then reaps the benefits of all the work the previous trainer invested. That's why they made a rule requiring the horse to race for 25-30% higher than what it was claimed for. That rule makes sense and I have posted about that in the past. It would stop these hot trainers from claiming a horse for 10 and running it next week for 5. Those guys are killing the game and there's been plenty of discussion on this board about it. :bang:

[andymays]

Old article dealing with California.
---------------------------------------------------------

Drama Surrounds CHRB Rule Suspension | BloodHorse.com

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/49700/drama-surrounds-chrb-rule-suspension

Excerpt:

According to documents included in Jamgotchian’s lawsuit, the California Attorney General’s office in 2003 advised the CHRB that such a rule would be “unconstitutional, as a violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.”

[onefast99]

I am saying that the only way Penn would matter is if they joined the lawsuit with the owner, claiming it also hurts them. I doubt that is going to happen, thus it is relevant. I've been wrong before though.
Here is the race the horse would have been in. There are a lot of entries for this one!
5 Furlongs | Fillies and Mares | 3 Year Olds And Up | MAIDEN SPECIAL WEIGHT | Purse: $31,000Exacta / Trifecta /2nd Half Daily Double / Superfecta / Pick 3 (Races 2-3-4)
# PP HORSE JOCKEY TRAINER CLAIM $ EQUIP. MED. 1 1 Zealous Princess
ML: 6-1 W. Otero
118 Lbs D. Synnefias Blk-On FTL 2 2 Madolin Wind
ML: 4-1 E. Flores
118 Lbs F. Cifarelli - L 3 3 Do So
ML: 7-2 N. Mangalee
122 Lbs A. Goldberg - L 4 4 No Sax
ML: 10-1 L. Belmonte
118 Lbs L. Stickler, Jr. - L 5 5 Fo Fo Fo
ML: 6-1 E. Vaz
122 Lbs P. Aristone - FTL 6 6 Dixie's Comfort
ML: 3-1 M. Rispoli
113 Lbs K. Demasi - L 7 7 Disputed Miss
ML: 6-1 D. Cora
118 Lbs J. Rogers - FTL 8 8 Calliope
ML: 12-1 D. Whitney
118 Lbs C. Robinson - L 9 AE Malibu Mambo
ML: 5-1 A. Rodriguez
118 Lbs J. Samaniego - L 10 AE Ready to Bust
ML: 8-1 K. Frey
115 Lbs S. Rowan - L 11 AE Elite Humor
ML: 7-2 J. Pimentel
118 Lbs M. Trombetta - L 12 AE Chispa
ML: 50-1 A. Leon
122 Lbs M. Rodriguez - L

[JustRalph]

did he have to pay sales tax on the claim? If so, this could be very interesting. This is a property rights issue. If he accepted the rules when it came to paying the property tax, then he may be bound to accept the rules on the claim as part and parcel to the sale. It would be implied.

Is this a State Law, such as sales tax is? Or is this a rule handed down by a racing regulatory body?

[cj]

Here is the race the horse would have been in. There are a lot of entries for this one!


Excuse my mistake, was supposed to say NOT relevant. I did edit it now.

[onefast99]

did he have to pay sales tax on the claim? If so, this could be very interesting. This is a property rights issue. If he accepted the rules when it came to paying the property tax, then he may be bound to accept the rules on the claim as part and parcel to the sale. It would be implied.

Is this a State Law, such as sales tax is? Or is this a rule handed down by a racing regulatory body?
6% sales tax

[JohnGalt1]

This might be dumb question--If a horse is claimed at a track that runs a 12 month meet, is the the horse stuck racing there forever? :confused:

[cj]

This might be dumb question--If a horse is claimed at a track that runs a 12 month meet, is the the horse stuck racing there forever? :confused:

The rule is in Kentucky, and no tracks run year round. I think a horse should have to run back at least once at the same track before shipping, after that anything goes.

[Delawaretrainer]

There are lots of rules in racing that control what an owner may or may not do with his "property" without a constitutionality issue. You can't just make some equipment changes at the last second by claiming that it's your horse, you'll do whatever you want. You can't make medication changes on a whim. If the claiming rules are undermined, why should anything else be enforceable.

Without knowing any details except what's been laid out here, I'm disappointed in JerryJam taking this approach. Seems like more harm could come out of this than good.

Good point. We all know the rules. Why not just wait until the meet is over?

[5k-claim]

If he wins in court then good for him, I guess. Woo Hoo.

I am in Kentucky and do not have a problem with this being a rule attached to claiming a horse. There are other rules, as well.

.

[Marlin]

Most tracks also have a 60 day rule. This owner is bonkers. He knew the rule before he claimed the horse. The claiming rules are in every condition book at every track. Watch Churchill deny his entries from now on. After all, tracks can refuse entries at their discretion (see Mike Gill). This guy will dig a deeper hole for himself in the end.

[JustRalph]

Most tracks also have a 60 day rule. This owner is bonkers. He knew the rule before he claimed the horse.

Jerry Jam ? come on.........do you know his past ? :lol:

[thespaah]

Kentucky regulators do not plan to rescind or waive a rule regarding when claimed horses can run in out-of-state races, despite the threat of a lawsuit from prominent owner Jerry Jamgotchian.

Jamgotchian, a Californian who races horses in Kentucky and other states, is challenging the rule after he was not permitted to enter the horse Rochitta in a race at Hollywood Casino at Penn National Race Course. A 3-year-old daughter of Arch, Rochitta was claimed by trainer Eric Reed on behalf of Jamgotchian for $40,000 when the filly finished second in a May 21 race at Churchill Downs.

The owner said officials at Penn National disallowed Rochitta’s entry in a June 4 race, citing a Kentucky rule that states a claimed horse cannot race at any track other than the one at which it was claimed until the track takes entries for the final race card of the meet in which the claim took place. The Churchill Downs meet ends in early July.

Saying the rule violates his constitutional rights, Jamgotchian fired off an email to KHRC executive director Lisa Underwood in which he said, “Unless my horse (Rochitta) is immediately allowed to enter and race at Penn National, I will file an action in the U.S. District Court against the KHRC, Churchill Downs and others to protect my constitutional right and invalidate this clearly illegal rule,”


Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/63351/kentucky-claiming-rule-to-be-challenged#ixzz1O83c8upp


Since Kentucky isn't the only track that has "in jail" rules and regulations regarding the claiming of horses if in the event this owner is successful in his action this may change the claiming game forever. I for one would like to see a change in the claiming rules where a horse may race at any other track the owner wishes it to after 21 days from the date of the claim.
30 days is more reasonable. The Kentucky rule is too restrictive. Suppose the claim was made on opening day of the meet?.
However, this trainer knew the rules from the beginning. He hasn't a legal leg on which to stand.

[thespaah]

I agree with you CJ..If they allow this suit to go the owners way,You may see whole fields getting claimed just so they could race at another track.Tracks have to protect their horses.The thing I would like to see is where you can claim and drop the next race if you have to.A owner that claims horse should be able to start them where he wants,Whether it is below the price he claimed for.If a guy claims for 16k and wants to run in the next rce for 10k,Who cares,Its the owners horse.I think the next start should be for at least the same claiming price. Then the trainer can drop in price.

[thespaah]

This particular owner claimed a PA bred from Kentucky and is being jailed from running BACK IN PA! I agree with the owner...it is NOT THE TRACKS horse...it is the owners. He is being prohibited from getting possible black type earnings and PA breeding money from another state? ABSURD rule...what right (constitutionally) does a racing organization have from to tell a horse owner where and when they can race their property? The owner was just on At The Races radio and he was VERY compelling as to his legal rights. He did mention that the wording in the KY law is very vague on where a jailed horse can and cant race. Does it cover a claimed horse running outside the USA? Does PA have the same jail rule for horses leaving their state? Without a NATIONAL rule (NTRA maybe) I can't see how KY wins in Federal Court which is where this case will be heard! And as he brings out, if KY called PA and they worked together to prohibit his horse from racing, after they origionally agreed and accepted the race entry, that begins the process of collusion and Federal restriction of trade laws!

This one will be fun to watch unfold---almost as good as watching Dutrow try and escape the wrath of NYSRWB here in NY!
POint noted.
Rebuttal.....The issue is not whether the rule can stand up to a challenge in court. The issue is that the trainer had knowledge of the rules. When he agreed to stable and race at CD, he agreed to abide by the rules.
Perhaps the Tracks would be relaxing or eliminating these rules( Delaware Park is quite restrictive as well)if there were plenty of racing stock to go around.
There isn't . So racing jurisdictions have to figure out ways to keep filling cards.

[onefast99]

This might be dumb question--If a horse is claimed at a track that runs a 12 month meet, is the the horse stuck racing there forever? :confused:
There are breaks in the meet for tracks that run year round. Parx runs year round and they take a one month break in August.

[onefast99]

30 days is more reasonable. The Kentucky rule is too restrictive. Suppose the claim was made on opening day of the meet?.
However, this trainer knew the rules from the beginning. He hasn't a legal leg on which to stand.
The NTRA should adopt a 30 day in jail from the date of the claim rule. That is fair. The current CD rule is too harsh.

[Mineshaft]

I agree with you CJ..If they allow this suit to go the owners way,You may see whole fields getting claimed just so they could race at another track.Tracks have to protect their horses.The thing I would like to see is where you can claim and drop the next race if you have to.A owner that claims horse should be able to start them where he wants,Whether it is below the price he claimed for.If a guy claims for 16k and wants to run in the next rce for 10k,Who cares,Its the owners horse.






Bingo we have a winner...


I have no problem with jail time its the bump in class for 30 days or watever it is where u are at that sucks. Its my horse i should be able to run it at any price i want. If i claim for 15K and want to run it for 5K and take a 10K loss then thats what i want to do.

[Mineshaft]

If the owner knew the rule before he claimed the horse then shame on him.


If he didnt know the rule before he claimed the horse then shame on him.


Learn the rules or dont claim.


If he sues hes going to get black balled somewhere down the line. They will make him wish he never sued. If im Churchill im going to off every race he enters a horse in till the end of the meet.

[onefast99]

Bingo we have a winner...


I have no problem with jail time its the bump in class for 30 days or watever it is where u are at that sucks. Its my horse i should be able to run it at any price i want. If i claim for 15K and want to run it for 5K and take a 10K loss then thats what i want to do.
This rule exists at several tracks already. MP allowed the drops last year.

[Mineshaft]

The NTRA should adopt a 30 day in jail from the date of the claim rule. That is fair. The current CD rule is too harsh.




Different tracks have different rules.

I know Philly has a 60 day jail time and then you can run wherever.. Some tracks dont allow you to run anywhere else till the meet is over with. Depends on what track you claim at. The rule is in place to protect horse population at that track.

[Mineshaft]

This rule exists at several tracks already. MP allowed the drops last year.



So u can claim at Monmouth and run at any price and not have to serve jail time?

[ukbro00]

If the owner knew the rule before he claimed the horse then shame on him.


If he didnt know the rule before he claimed the horse then shame on him.


Learn the rules or dont claim.


If he sues hes going to get black balled somewhere down the line. They will make him wish he never sued. If im Churchill im going to off every race he enters a horse in till the end of the meet.

He knew the rule, and knew that he wasn't allowed to enter in Penn. He wanted to enter, just so they could deny him, and then he would have a lawsuit. That was his motive from day 1. Classless.

[Stillriledup]

You guys keep using the word rule. What's a rule?

If i owned a grocery store and said that only people of a certain race or color are allowed to enter the store, would i be 'ok' if i just said ,"those are my rules"? Maybe if i post a sign on the front entrance of the store that says, "here are my rules" and i just make up a few rules along the way, ya know, shoot from the hip and just make stuff up that i think will help my business. Do you think that would fly?

I guess your 'rules' can be legit if they're legal. I'm pretty sure that if you're running a business in the USA, you can't just make stuff up as you go and say "those are my rules" , i would imagine that if your 'rule' is illegal in some fashion, you might have a legal problem.

Whether Churchill is doing something illegal and harming J Jam will be determined in due time. Lets hope their claiming 'rules' are legal. Should be interesting.

[PaceAdvantage]

If i owned a grocery store and said that only people of a certain race or color are allowed to enter the store, would i be 'ok' if i just said ,"those are my rules"?Are you trying to say you legally couldn't do this? Of course you could. A privately owned grocery store could ban anyone they wish from entering the store.

The publicity and picket lines in front of the store would be enough to most likely drive you quickly out of business, but LEGALLY, who is going to stop you?

[Stillriledup]

Are you trying to say you legally couldn't do this? Of course you could. A privately owned grocery store could ban anyone the y wish from entering the store.

The publicity and picket lines in front of the store would be enough to most likely drive you quickly out of business, but LEGALLY, who is going to stop you?

They could kick someone out of a store if that person is stealing, being a jackass, etc. But, i'm not sure they can prevent a person from coming into the store on a 'rule' that they made up that says "no person of X race or X color can enter the store, my store, my rules".

Im not sure if legally he's allowed to 'make his own rules' in that fashion.

Maybe our resident lawyers can chime in.

[PaceAdvantage]

They could kick someone out of a store if that person is stealing, being a jackass, etc. But, i'm not sure they can prevent a person from coming into the store on a 'rule' that they made up that says "no person of X race or X color can enter the store, my store, my rules".

Im not sure if legally he's allowed to 'make his own rules' in that fashion.

Maybe our resident lawyers can chime in.The Civil Rights act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate based on race. However, aren't there still privately owned clubs and whatnot that only have male members?

In any event, given your grocery store example, I stand corrected. A privately owned store can NOT legally keep people out of the store based on race...

[takeout]

$2 to win on Jerry Jam.

[Stillriledup]

The Civil Rights act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate based on race. However, aren't there still privately owned clubs and whatnot that only have male members?

In any event, given your grocery store example, I stand corrected. A privately owned store can NOT legally keep people out of the store based on race...

Wow, i come here to learn about horse racing and a civil rights discussion breaks out! :D

I guess there are privately owned clubs that have male members only, i can't imagine they're breaking any laws...or, maybe the right woman hasn't wanted to bother suing for entrance into the boys club.

Racing has lots of 'rules' and most of them are kept 'in house'. For example, if a jockey tests positive for drugs or they find drugs in his locker in the jocks room, that stuff will be 'dealt with' in house, the jock won't get arrested by outside authorities for drug possession, even if technically he's guilty of drug possession. Said jockey broke a real life law, but for some reason, the 'authorities' never found out about it, so his 'punishment' was meted out by his 'boss'.

Maybe there are more 'racing rules' that are actually illegal...maybe we need Jammer to file one lawsuit after another until racing starts playing by the law instead of their own made up rules.

[onefast99]

So u can claim at Monmouth and run at any price and not have to serve jail time?
Last year you could claim for 25k and drop to 5k if you so desired but you were in jail until the meet ended on September 6th 2010.

[rastajenk]

If the claiming rules are relaxed or eliminated, like some of you seem to be hoping for, what kind of effect would that have down the line? What are the unintended consequences?

It seems likely to favor those large national or regional operations that already enjoy advantages in scale over smaller outfits: more short-priced favorites winning purse monies that, if distributed otherwise, might keep more people in the game. I know that rubs the "track constrictionists" the wrong way, those who want a future of just a few tracks dominated by "name" players so as to help their handicapping agendas, I guess. But I'd argue that that's not a good goal to be shooting for. Why anyone would want fewer participants in our game is something I've never been able to figure out.

[Tom]

What about the guy who lost the horse to a claim? Should he not have a reasonable opportunity to claim it back?

Jerry Jam was on Byk's show Thursday, end of the third hour. Haven't listened yet.......FYI

[Mineshaft]

What exactly did Jerry Jam have to say?

Is this JJ first rodeo so to speak or has he been in the busin ess before?

[andymays]

Got this from JJ a little while ago!


http://www.thoroughbredracingradionetwork.com/index.php?option=com_events&task=view_detail&agid=1007&year=2011&month=06&day=02&Itemid=35

Go to Hour 3 and halfway into the hour. Just move the cursor to the center and enjoy the 15 minute interview..

Everyone should listen to the show. He knows what he's talking about and he usually wins these things.

[FenceBored]

Is this JJ first rodeo so to speak or has he been in the busin ess before?

We do the linking, so you can do the thinking.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/tag/jerry-jamgotchian

[Mineshaft]

We do the linking, so you can do the thinking.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/tag/jerry-jamgotchian






Wow this dude likes to sue people and it doesnt matter who he sues.

[stuball]

He has sued the CHRB and made them back down because they know they were wrong......on this issue and on other issues....As he said he does not have to
race horses --he builds huge shopping malls to make money...obviously he does it very well..he races horses because he enjoys it so it puts him in a unique position of not having to be afraid of the (good ole boys) that run the establishment. He sees injustices in racing and steps forward to correct them.
He also mentions that the (good ole boys) should start listening to their customers which is us....What this does tothe industry should be obvious...
it will force tracks to improve their business model...if your track is run properly
there should be no or not very many reasons to leave....if you can't do that as
a track management you are failing...

Stuball

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I'm not sure of every jurisdiction, but in Ontario, if you claim a horse you can only run it in Ontario for 90 days or the end of the last thoroughbred racing date of the year (whichever comes first) unless it is for a Stake race with the permission of the Stewards.

However, if you buy a horse privately, you can ship it out the very same day.

[onefast99]

I'm not sure of every jurisdiction, but in Ontario, if you claim a horse you can only run it in Ontario for 90 days or the end of the last thoroughbred racing date of the year (whichever comes first) unless it is for a Stake race with the permission of the Stewards.

However, if you buy a horse privately, you can ship it out the very same day.
Private sales are pretty much the same at every track they can go anywhere to run and are not considered "in jail".

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Private sales are pretty much the same at every track they can go anywhere to run and are not considered "in jail".
This is why the "in jail" rule sort of strange. Why are claims treated differently?
BTW, if you can't sell a claimed horse for 30 days, and if that horse is bought between 30-90 days it can't be raced in another jurisdiction.

[onefast99]

This is why the "in jail" rule sort of strange. Why are claims treated differently?
BTW, if you can't sell a claimed horse for 30 days, and if that horse is bought between 30-90 days it can't be raced in another jurisdiction.
If you claim a horse at a current meet and you then sell that horse privately the person you sold that horse to must abide by the claiming rules in force at the time of the initial claim.

[Mineshaft]

If you claim a horse at a current meet and you then sell that horse privately the person you sold that horse to must abide by the claiming rules in force at the time of the initial claim.





thats correct.



But why is this man trying to buck the system? He knows the rules yet he wants to challenge the rule. Dont you think hes asking for trouble?

[FenceBored]

And how would people feel if Churchill Downs added a similar stipulation to the race conditions for the top 4 Derby finishers, that they can only race at CD until the end of the meet with no exceptions (approx 60 days)?

In the case of claimed horses, the new owner is paying money to acquire the horse and being told that he's paid for the privilege of having his options limited. The track is simply the venue for that transaction and is thus demanding exclusivity without compensation. In the case of the Derby, the track could claim to be paying the owners for both their finish in a $2m race and the 60 day exclusivity.

I picked the Derby for the example because it's the largest non-BC (i.e. permanent track location) purse in the US, not to pick on CDI particularly.

[rastajenk]

I don't get your line of logic at all. Go back to plagiarizing song lyrics.

:p

[Stillriledup]

thats correct.



But why is this man trying to buck the system? He knows the rules yet he wants to challenge the rule. Dont you think hes asking for trouble?

Buck the system? You're suggesting that we all 'fall into line' like good little soldiers and do what we're told to do by Big Bro?

:(

[Mineshaft]

Buck the system? You're suggesting that we all 'fall into line' like good little soldiers and do what we're told to do by Big Bro?

:(





When it comes to claiming horses yes. The rule is in place to protect the horse population at that particular track. This guy knows this and yet hes still going to sue Churchill. Its like the guy wants to start trouble even if hes wrong.

[onefast99]

And how would people feel if Churchill Downs added a similar stipulation to the race conditions for the top 4 Derby finishers, that they can only race at CD until the end of the meet with no exceptions (approx 60 days)?

In the case of claimed horses, the new owner is paying money to acquire the horse and being told that he's paid for the privilege of having his options limited. The track is simply the venue for that transaction and is thus demanding exclusivity without compensation. In the case of the Derby, the track could claim to be paying the owners for both their finish in a $2m race and the 60 day exclusivity.

I picked the Derby for the example because it's the largest non-BC (i.e. permanent track location) purse in the US, not to pick on CDI particularly.
Derby participants pay $50k each to enter, that equates to $1m of the $2.18m purse(20 horse field). JJ's contention is that the horse he claimed is his personal property and he should be able to take the horse anywhere he wishes. Penn is bound by the rules and regulations of the track where the horse came in from and thus the horse is deemed ineligible to participate. A simple solution to this problem would be a change to the current claiming rules allowing a horse to leave the track he was claimed at 30 days after the claim.

[duncan04]

Did he not read the claiming guidelines in the state of KY? It states clearly:

(6)(a) A horse claimed in a claiming race shall not be sold or transferred, wholly or in part, within thirty (30) days after the day it was claimed, except in another claiming race.

(b) Unless the stewards grant permission for a claimed horse to enter and start at an overlapping or conflicting meeting in Kentucky, a horse shall not race elsewhere until the close of entries of the meeting at which it was claimed.

from http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/810/001/015.htm

[onefast99]

Did he not read the claiming guidelines in the state of KY? It states clearly:

(6)(a) A horse claimed in a claiming race shall not be sold or transferred, wholly or in part, within thirty (30) days after the day it was claimed, except in another claiming race.

(b) Unless the stewards grant permission for a claimed horse to enter and start at an overlapping or conflicting meeting in Kentucky, a horse shall not race elsewhere until the close of entries of the meeting at which it was claimed.

from http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/810/001/015.htm
Based on his previous lawsuits I would imagine he and his attorney have read them over and over again. The claiming rule(s) in Kentucky are harsh, a 30 day in jail rule would be a possible cure all to this pending action.

[Greyfox]

Did he not read the claiming guidelines in the state of KY? It states clearly:

(6)(a) A horse claimed in a claiming race shall not be sold or transferred, wholly or in part, within thirty (30) days after the day it was claimed, except in another claiming race.

(b) Unless the stewards grant permission for a claimed horse to enter and start at an overlapping or conflicting meeting in Kentucky, a horse shall not race elsewhere until the close of entries of the meeting at which it was claimed.

from http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/810/001/015.htm

And what are the penalties for disobeying those two rules?

JJam is well aware of the rules.
He's questioning their legality.
I'll bet on JJam too.
I think Stillriledup and others who share his views are right.

[duncan04]

Based on his previous lawsuits I would imagine he and his attorney have read them over and over again. The claiming rule(s) in Kentucky are harsh, a 30 day in jail rule would be a possible cure all to this pending action.

So if that is true if you don't like the conditions of claims in Kentucky, sue and hope they change the rule to benefit one person?

[onefast99]

So if that is true if you don't like the conditions of claims in Kentucky, sue and hope they change the rule to benefit one person?
He has been successful with lawsuits in the past, you never know!

[onefast99]

And what are the penalties for disobeying those two rules?

JJam is well aware of the rules.
He's questioning their legality.
I'll bet on JJam too.
I think Stillriledup and others who share his views are right.
I will put $50 on JJ to show, that is show up in court to take on the KHRC.

[Mineshaft]

He has been successful with lawsuits in the past, you never know!





Theres going to be one time that his lawsuit gets thrown out by a judge and then the person he sued will counter sue for throwing there name in the mud. This dude will get his day it will come.

[onefast99]

Theres going to be one time that his lawsuit gets thrown out by a judge and then the person he sued will counter sue for throwing there name in the mud. This dude will get his day it will come.
Maybe a judge will see it as just a frivolous action and throw it out, but he will take it to the next level as he seems like a very litigious type individual.

[Greyfox]

Maybe a judge will see it as just a frivolous action and throw it out, but he will take it to the next level as he seems like a very litigious type individual.

What's frivolous about it??

[Stillriledup]

When it comes to claiming horses yes. The rule is in place to protect the horse population at that particular track. This guy knows this and yet hes still going to sue Churchill. Its like the guy wants to start trouble even if hes wrong.

We will see if 'protecting the horse population' at the expense of telling an owner what to do is legal. Good thing for Jammer or else people would have just done what they're told and never questioned it.

If what Chuchill is doing is 100% legal, than i'm sure its no harm no foul.

[Stillriledup]

And what are the penalties for disobeying those two rules?

JJam is well aware of the rules.
He's questioning their legality.
I'll bet on JJam too.
I think Stillriledup and others who share his views are right.

I don't know who's right or who's wrong, but i'm glad we're getting to see this enter the actual legal system so we can find out.

Owners for many years just fell into line and did what they were told by the track who made up the 'rules'. I'll bet many owners are also curious to see the outcome of this litigation.

[onefast99]

What's frivolous about it??
I'm not the judge. He will have to find out what is frivolous about it as the defense will make that suggestion to the courts.

[FenceBored]

I don't get your line of logic at all. Go back to plagiarizing song lyrics.

:p

Not suprised.

[FenceBored]

Derby participants pay $50k each to enter, that equates to $1m of the $2.18m purse(20 horse field).


Yeah, that's how stakes race purses were historically funded; entrants put up some money and the winner gets the purse holding the funds. In this case there's still $1,000,000 that the track is getting a third party (YUM! Brands, who bring you KFC, Tack-o Bell, Long John's Silver's and Pizza Hut [where's poor A & W]).


JJ's contention is that the horse he claimed is his personal property and he should be able to take the horse anywhere he wishes. Penn is bound by the rules and regulations of the track where the horse came in from and thus the horse is deemed ineligible to participate.


As Mr. Jam said he said to the folks at Penn, "why is a Pennsylvania track bound by Kentucky rules?" Does anybody know if California would honor a "jail time" restriction from a non-CA track anymore?



A simple solution to this problem would be a change to the current claiming rules allowing a horse to leave the track he was claimed at 30 days after the claim.

No, the simple solution is to do away with the "jail time." Anything else is bureaucratic red tape.

[JohnGalt1]

There are breaks in the meet for tracks that run year round. Parx runs year round and they take a one month break in August.

Thanks.

That's what I was thinking of.

As mentioned earlier, maybe a trainer can take his horse after 60 days.

[LA Racing Lady]

When he claimed the horse, he (or his agent) signed the claim card agreeing to all rules associated with the claim. Don't see how he can argue that he didn't know what he was signing.

As far as for Penn going by Kentucky rules to deny entry, I think that is more of a case of Penn requiring the foal papers to be in their racing office, and I don't see Churchill releasing the papers until the horse is out of "jail"

[CryingForTheHorses]

When he claimed the horse, he (or his agent) signed the claim card agreeing to all rules associated with the claim. Don't see how he can argue that he didn't know what he was signing.

As far as for Penn going by Kentucky rules to deny entry, I think that is more of a case of Penn requiring the foal papers to be in their racing office, and I don't see Churchill releasing the papers until the horse is out of "jail"

The racing office can not hold the papers of a horse period!!..They belong to the horse. The papers can be taken by the owner at any time,This will make the horse lose his entry and racing date. The only time papers can be held is if there is a judgement on the owner of said horse,Then it becomes a stewards problem.After a horse has passed his required 30 day jail time the horse can be changed into another ownership..What isnt fair is the new owners are bound to the "House" claiming rules.A owner that buys a claimed horse after his jail time is up should be allowed to race anywhere he wants.

[onefast99]

When he claimed the horse, he (or his agent) signed the claim card agreeing to all rules associated with the claim. Don't see how he can argue that he didn't know what he was signing.

As far as for Penn going by Kentucky rules to deny entry, I think that is more of a case of Penn requiring the foal papers to be in their racing office, and I don't see Churchill releasing the papers until the horse is out of "jail"
Penn has to make sure the horse is eligible to run there and once the entry was made I am sure the racing office saw the horse was in fact just claimed at CD and cannot run there(or anywhere else) until the final entries are made for the last day of racing at the current CD meet.

[Mineshaft]

You dont have to have foal papers in the racing office to enter a horse.

Penn was just following the protocol set by Churchill and there claiming rules.

[cj]

The more I think about this, Penn is the one that denied him entry. Shouldn't they be his target as well?

[Stillriledup]

When he claimed the horse, he (or his agent) signed the claim card agreeing to all rules associated with the claim. Don't see how he can argue that he didn't know what he was signing.

As far as for Penn going by Kentucky rules to deny entry, I think that is more of a case of Penn requiring the foal papers to be in their racing office, and I don't see Churchill releasing the papers until the horse is out of "jail"

I think he's feels those 'rules' are illegal. Penn and CD are owned by 2 different companies, you might make the case that there was some sort of 'collusion' by these tracks to keep his entry out of the box. I think Jammer just wants to find out if one company can tell another company what they can and cannot do. CJ makes a good point, maybe we need to ask if Penn is also a culprit in entrygate.

[Stillriledup]

You dont have to have foal papers in the racing office to enter a horse.

Penn was just following the protocol set by Churchill and there claiming rules.

So, if a hospital kicks out a patient and that patient goes to the hospital down the street, you're saying its ok for the first hospital to call the 2nd hospital and 'suggest' that they deny healthcare for the said patient? I'm not sure if that's legal. Maybe it is, maybe it isnt. After all, the first hospital made up some 'rules' and set some 'protocol', so, it should be legal for them to do that, right?

[Mineshaft]

So, if a hospital kicks out a patient and that patient goes to the hospital down the street, you're saying its ok for the first hospital to call the 2nd hospital and 'suggest' that they deny healthcare for the said patient? I'm not sure if that's legal. Maybe it is, maybe it isnt. After all, the first hospital made up some 'rules' and set some 'protocol', so, it should be legal for them to do that, right?




your comparing hospitals to horses now. Tracks usually follow rules set by other tracks when it comes to claiming rules.

I guess the judge will decide if its legal or not. Im on the tracks side i dont think his suit will be any good but what do i know.

[JustRalph]

So, if a hospital kicks out a patient and that patient goes to the hospital down the street, you're saying its ok for the first hospital to call the 2nd hospital and 'suggest' that they deny healthcare for the said patient? I'm not sure if that's legal. Maybe it is, maybe it isnt. After all, the first hospital made up some 'rules' and set some 'protocol', so, it should be legal for them to do that, right?

oh yeah, that's germane.......where in the sam hell would even think that analogy would be even remotely applicable? I gotta admit. It made me laugh :lol:

[FenceBored]

oh yeah, that's germane.......where in the sam hell would even think that analogy would be even remotely applicable? I gotta admit. It made me laugh :lol:

Both the horses and hospitals start with the letter "h" and may involve drugs? :confused:

[Stillriledup]

oh yeah, that's germane.......where in the sam hell would even think that analogy would be even remotely applicable? I gotta admit. It made me laugh :lol:

Its applicable because one company is making up their own rules as they go along. Its also applicable because one company (churchill) is instructing Penn National to deny the entry even though those two companies are owned by different owners.

Its also applicable because i wanted to make you laugh! :D

[FenceBored]

Its applicable because one company is making up their own rules as they go along. Its also applicable because one company (churchill) is instructing Penn National to deny the entry even though those two companies are owned by different owners.

Its also applicable because i wanted to make you laugh! :D

It's not one company "making up their own rules as they go along," it's a state rule. Just as the rule in California that Jerry Jam got abolished was a state rule. The question remains whether the rule constitutes an unconstitutional interference with interstate trade. Jamgotchin seems to believe that Jerry Brown's backdown on the question in CA (when he was AG) indicates that it is, and he's proceeding accordingly.

[onefast99]

The more I think about this, Penn is the one that denied him entry. Shouldn't they be his target as well?
You can bet he will name Penn Nat'l as a co-defendant once he amends the lawsuit.

[Marlin]

Its applicable because one company is making up their own rules as they go along. Its also applicable because one company (churchill) is instructing Penn National to deny the entry even though those two companies are owned by different owners.

Its also applicable because i wanted to make you laugh! :DI guess using this logic Dutrow should be allowed to race anywhere except New York, because that is where his violations occured. Lets go further, if a jock gets days he can ride anywhere else except the track he was suspended at. Slyvester Carmouche should have just packed his tack after the fog race and moved to another state besides Louisiana. And yes entering a "jailed" horse in another jurisdiction is a violation.

[onefast99]

I think he's feels those 'rules' are illegal. Penn and CD are owned by 2 different companies, you might make the case that there was some sort of 'collusion' by these tracks to keep his entry out of the box. I think Jammer just wants to find out if one company can tell another company what they can and cannot do. CJ makes a good point, maybe we need to ask if Penn is also a culprit in entrygate.
It wouldn't matter who the other track was, they will all follow the same procedure on where the horse ran last and if indeed the horse is eligible to run at their facility.

[Stillriledup]

[QUOTE=onefast99]It wouldn't matter who the other track was, they will all follow the same procedure on where the horse ran last and if indeed the horse is eligible to run at their facility.

This is why Jammer is going to find out if this is legal. Maybe its legal for tracks to just hold an owner's horse 'hostage', we're going to find out shortly.

[Marlin]

One more thing to think about. Like takeout, rules of racing are often created by the state. Churchill officials might just be abiding by state law in this situation. Their hands might be tied.