Jamgotchian Puts Claiming Rule to the Test | BloodHorse.com

[andymays]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/63623/jamgotchian-puts-claiming-rule-to-the-test

Excerpt:

“This decision to allow my horse, Rochitta, to race in Pennsylvania once again confirms that these claiming rules are unconstitutional and should be suspended immediately,” Jamgotchian said in a statement. “Maybe now, the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission and other racing commissions will understand that the owner actually owns the claimed horse and can race it anywhere, without restriction. This is a major victory for horse owners’ rights and will soon spread to every state in the U.S.”

[FenceBored]

From At the Races (http://www.thoroughbredracingradionetwork.com/) on Thursday, bottom of the first hour:
One other thing that I was kind of watching, and I don't see whereby it came out. I’m going to check a couple of headlines, but … I got a email from Jerry Jamgotchian yesterday. He’s anticipating, I was watching for this yesterday. He was anticipating that news is going to come forward, a judgment is going to come forward from the Kentucky Attorney General’s office. He asked for a constitutional ruling regarding the legality and the constitutionality of the claiming laws, the claiming rules. And from his understanding the Attorney General’s office in Kentucky is going to come out saying that the jail program for claimers is not constitutional and that they are going to recommend that the rules go unenforced. So, there could very well be an interesting chain of events unfolding involving Jamgotchian’s challenging of the jail restrictions on claimers. And he also has received word from Penn National that they will allow the Pennsylvania bred that he claimed to race in Pennsylvania, so, without having to wait till the end of the Churchill meet. So there is some movement there apparently. We’ll see where things go from here.
-- http://thoroughbredracingradionetwork.com/images/stories/audio/061611a.mp3 (starting at 31:42)

[Brogan]

If a little guy (no not "The" little guy) tries this, I'm willing to bet there won't be a stall available when he tries to come back.

[Mineshaft]

If a little guy (no not "The" little guy) tries this, I'm willing to bet there won't be a stall available when he tries to come back.





Exactly and you can bet Jamgotchian trainer will be done the same as a small owner

[Mineshaft]

The race for Rochitta didnt fill imagine that.




Owner-"How many horses in that MSW for Pa Breds?"

Racing Secretary-"10"

Owner-"Cool that race should go"

Racing Secretary-"The race for MSW Pa Breds is now off we couldnt get to it"



You know thats what there doing. They will take the entry but not take the race therefore forcing Jamgo to now sue Penn National.

[andymays]

Just got this from Jerry.

[FenceBored]

Just got this from Jerry.

That's just bizarre. The opinion is from the Lockyear era (2003) and it took till 2009 for the CHRB to suspend a rule the AG had told them was unconstitutional? Inconceivable.

[CryingForTheHorses]

The race for Rochitta didnt fill imagine that.




Owner-"How many horses in that MSW for Pa Breds?"

Racing Secretary-"10"

Owner-"Cool that race should go"

Racing Secretary-"The race for MSW Pa Breds is now off we couldnt get to it"




You know thats what there doing. They will take the entry but not take the race therefore forcing Jamgo to now sue Penn National.

Looking at the overnite,I see they did carry the 3yo filly MSW race over.There are a lot of times where races with 10 or more are carried over.Im sure we havent heard the end of this yet..

[duncan04]

Just got this from Jerry.


That is laughable about the part refering to the Commonwealth. There are no other tracks running at the same time in Kentucky so for them to think that is what it meant is assinine!

[FenceBored]

That is laughable about the part refering to the Commonwealth. There are no other tracks running at the same time in Kentucky so for them to think that is what it meant is assinine!

Maybe the lawyers were trying to be polite.

[rastajenk]

I guess you could claim one at Turfway in September and run it and Ky Downs. Can't see any other interpretation.

I think J-Jam is just being a prick about this. Can't do anything but hurt the little player, seems to me. In the other thread about this, he was cast by some as being the little guy against the big bad racetrack monolith or something, but he ain't no little guy. How does this help the game vs. how does this help him? It's all about him.

[Mineshaft]

Looking at the overnite,I see they did carry the 3yo filly MSW race over.There are a lot of times where races with 10 or more are carried over.Im sure we havent heard the end of this yet..




They put it back on the overnite but im telling you they will make it hard on him for him to run his horse at Penn.

[Mineshaft]

I guess you could claim one at Turfway in September and run it and Ky Downs. Can't see any other interpretation.

I think J-Jam is just being a prick about this. Can't do anything but hurt the little player, seems to me. In the other thread about this, he was cast by some as being the little guy against the big bad racetrack monolith or something, but he ain't no little guy. How does this help the game vs. how does this help him? It's all about him.





Hes out to prove a point and its all about him.

[FenceBored]

Hes out to prove a point and its all about him.

It always amazes me to see someone who isn't willing to let himself be taken advantage of called selfish.

[onefast99]

I have no issue with a 30 day in jail rule for every track. That would be an amicable solution to the problem.

[FenceBored]

I have no issue with a 30 day in jail rule for every track. That would be an amicable solution to the problem.

I have no issue with the monies received from having a horse claimed being treated like a gift card (money can only be used for claiming another horse at that track; not for paying stakes nomination/entry fees or any other purpose; no cash value, non-transferable to another track [except possibly one on the same circuit with approval from the racing office]). This would encourage people who've had a horse claimed to get right back into the game and claim another one.

[mountainman]

I've always thought that neither aspect of claiming jail could hold up if tested in court. It HAS to be illegal both to restrict where a claimed horse can run and to require a class raise. Penn is the party put in the middle here, because other tracks traditionally honor the rules of the jurisdiction a horse was claimed in. There's a third and less commonly known restriction put on claimed horses: they can't be sold for 30 days.That rule is probably illegal as well.

[rastajenk]

The resources used to litigate this issue could have been used to purchase the horse privately several times over, and then he could do with it whatever he wants to.

[Mineshaft]

I have no issue with a 30 day in jail rule for every track. That would be an amicable solution to the problem.





would not be good for horse population at some tracks.

[Mineshaft]

Rochitta race must not have ben used again today at Penn and was not brought back.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I have no issue with the monies received from having a horse claimed being treated like a gift card (money can only be used for claiming another horse at that track; not for paying stakes nomination/entry fees or any other purpose; no cash value, non-transferable to another track [except possibly one on the same circuit with approval from the racing office]). This would encourage people who've had a horse claimed to get right back into the game and claim another one.
You have to be joking. Are you a trainer?

[Irish Boy]

Maybe I'm really dense but I'm not seeing how this is illegal, much less a constitutional violation.

[andymays]

Maybe I'm really dense but I'm not seeing how this is illegal, much less a constitutional violation.

Commerce clause. It's open and shut. I'm not saying it's good or bad but Jamgotchian is right on the law. I spoke to him yesterday about this deal and he's very confident that he will win if he has to sue and be reimbursed for his legal fees. That's what happens in California in most cases.

[duncan04]

Commerce clause. It's open and shut. I'm not saying it's good or bad but Jamgotchian is right on the law. I spoke to him yesterday about this deal and he's very confident that he will win if he has to sue and be reimbursed for his legal fees. That's what happens in California in most cases.


Alot happens in California that is messed up so.......

[Brogan]

Commerce clause. It's open and shut. I'm not saying it's good or bad but Jamgotchian is right on the law. I spoke to him yesterday about this deal and he's very confident that he will win if he has to sue and be reimbursed for his legal fees. That's what happens in California in most cases.
I'm still mostly undecided on this issue, but the one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that in every condition book I've read, the claiming rules and regulations are clearly spelled out. In effect, if you make a claim under those conditions, you have agreed to abide by them.

[duncan04]

I'm still mostly undecided on this issue, but the one thing I haven't seen mentioned is that in every condition book I've read, the claiming rules and regulations are clearly spelled out. In effect, if you make a claim under those conditions, you have agreed to abide by them.


Exactly, you cant just make up your own rules. When he made the claim he should of known the rules he would have to abide by and if he didn't like it, he shouldn't of claimed the horse.

[Irish Boy]

Commerce clause. It's open and shut. I'm not saying it's good or bad but Jamgotchian is right on the law. I spoke to him yesterday about this deal and he's very confident that he will win if he has to sue and be reimbursed for his legal fees. That's what happens in California in most cases.
I'm assuming you mean dormant commerce clause, and the case isn't that open and shut if that's what he's talking about.

[Irish Boy]

Also, my Google tells me that Jamgotchian seems to be something of a vexacious litigant. There's nothing wrong with pressing your claims in court, but he doesn't have a very high batting average, and he has a lot of at bats. I'd Rule 11 Sanction his ass, but then again, I'm kind of sticklers about these things.

[Irish Boy]

Also also, he didn't win his earlier case against California. They settled and California rescinded the rule. That's not really a legal victory, and the California law was a closer call (because it called for horses not to leave the state, rather than not leave the park, which is an important difference for dormant commerce clause purposes).

Also also also,
My position as an owner is that my horses are my property, and under the Constitution we can race them wherever we like
has absolutely nothing to do with the legal issues. I hope Kentucky tells him to pound sand.

[Relwob Owner]

Also also, he didn't win his earlier case against California. They settled and California rescinded the rule. That's not really a legal victory, and the California law was a closer call (because it called for horses not to leave the state, rather than not leave the park, which is an important difference for dormant commerce clause purposes).

Also also also,

has absolutely nothing to do with the legal issues. I hope Kentucky tells him to pound sand.



Question-could he have protested the rule without claiming that particular horse or did he have to get denied access to the race in order to sue? I ask because if not, it seems like he could have pursued the matter outside of claiming the horse, no?

[andymays]

This is an easy one. People may not like it but he is right on the law.

Now, a track may say that they can't give a guy who does this stalls and that's they're right but I don't think Jerry gives a damn about that. Maybe this will be better for racing and maybe it won't but it's gonna happen.

[Irish Boy]

Question-could he have protested the rule without claiming that particular horse or did he have to get denied access to the race in order to sue? I ask because if he not, it seems like he could have pursued the matter outside of claiming the horse, no?
That's a good question. I'm pretty sure he'd have standing to contest the rule without actually claiming a horse, but it would be a closer call.
This is an easy one. People may not like it but he is right on the law.
We will just have to agree to disagree then. I think this case is a loser, that the law is rational, and that it operates to protect the stock at a particular track for the duration of the meet rather than merely protecting state interests. And I think Jamgotchian is a little too quick to go to the litigation well.

[duncan04]

This is an easy one. People may not like it but he is right on the law.

Now, a track may say that they can't give a guy who does this stalls and that's they're right but I don't think Jerry gives a damn about that. Maybe this will be better for racing and maybe it won't but it's gonna happen.


I wouldn't say its gonna happen. I think there is a good chance that he will lose this one.

[andymays]

I wouldn't say its gonna happen. I think there is a good chance that he will lose this one.

Zero chance.

[FenceBored]

Exactly, you cant just make up your own rules. When he made the claim he should of known the rules he would have to abide by and if he didn't like it, he shouldn't of claimed the horse.

It's not just an issue of whether the rule is in the handbook. If the KHRC overstepped its authority in publishing a particular rule then regardless of whether that rule is clearly stated in the track's claiming procedures, the rule would be invalid. What if the rules were changed to say that a trainer making a claim couldn't employ a woman groom to care for the horse? I don't care how or where it's printed, if it gets challenged it's getting thrown out. Jamgotchian is betting that this will as well.

From the pdf (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7626) Andy posted from Jamgotchian:
The Court in Healy [v. Beer Institute (1989) 491 US 324] found a Connecticut statute requiring out-of-state shippers of beer to affirm that their posted prices for products sold to Connecticut whosalers are no higher than the prices at which those products are sold in specified bordering states. The statute was found to have the impermissible practical effect of controlling commercial activity wholly outside Connecticut. By virtue of the Connecticut statute's interaction with the regulatory schemes of the border-states, the statute required out-of-state shippers to take account of their Connecticut prices in setting their border-state prices and restricted their ability to offer promotional and volume discounts in the border States, thereby depriving them of whatever competitive advantages they may possess based the local market conditions in those States.
In this particular case Jamgotchian claimed a maiden PA bred filly who has never raced in PA. He saw her in entered for the first time for a tag and, here I'm speculating for the sake of argument, thought she'd have more luck in PA state bred competition, maybe even get some restricted blacktype. So, figuring this might be a good deal he claimed her in Kentucky with the intention of running her in Pennsylvania. Once Jamgotchian took possession of the horse he contends that Kentucky telling him under what conditions he can run the horse outside Kentucky is like the beer shippers in Healy. They're interfering in his ability to engage in commerce (a race) in a different state where he can get a better deal.

[Irish Boy]

It's not just an issue of whether the rule is in the handbook. If the KHRC overstepped its authority in publishing a particular rule then regardless of whether that rule is clearly stated in the track's claiming procedures, the rule would be invalid. What if the rules were changed to say that a trainer making a claim couldn't employ a woman groom to care for the horse? I don't care how or where it's printed, if it gets challenged it's getting thrown out. Jamgotchian is betting that this will as well.

From the pdf Andy posted from Jamgotchian:

The Court in Healy [v. Beer Institute (1989) 491 US 324] found a Connecticut statute requiring out-of-state shippers of beer to affirm that their posted prices for products sold to Connecticut whosalers are no higher than the prices at which those products are sold in specified bordering states. The statute was found to have the impermissible practical effect of controlling commercial activity wholly outside Connecticut. By virtue of the Connecticut statute's interaction with the regulatory schemes of the border-states, the statute required out-of-state shippers to take account of their Connecticut prices in setting their border-state prices and restricted their ability to offer promotional and volume discounts in the border States, thereby depriving them of whatever competitive advantages they may possess based the local market conditions in those States.
In this particular case Jamgotchian claimed a maiden PA bred filly who has never raced in PA. He saw her in entered for the first time for a tag and, here I'm speculating for the sake of argument, thought she'd have more luck in PA state bred competition, maybe even get some restricted blacktype. So, figuring this might be a good deal he claimed her in Kentucky with the intention of running her in Pennsylvania. Once Jamgotchian took possession of the horse he contends that Kentucky telling him under what conditions he can run the horse outside Kentucky is like the beer shippers in Healy. They're interfering in his ability to engage in commerce (a race) in a different state where he can get a better deal.
I don't think Healy is quite on point. In Healy, the state was trying to control out of state product (you can't offer discounts in surrounding states). Here, the rule is designed to protect horses from being shipped from the track during the meet. The rule insulates the track, but doesn't try to reach beyond state lines to influence other tracks. It is a subtle distinction but it is still there.

Now, the rule could still be unconstitutional. If the rule was "no claimed horse can be shipped out of state ever," it would definitely be unconstitutional. (Note that if Churchill had that rule--you could never ship a claimed horse from Churchill race courses--that would be totally fine, "my property" arguments aside. Private entities can set their house rules.)

The question is, is Kentucky trying to protect in state horsemen from out of state competition? Or, are they trying to bolster competition by not allowing stock to be depleted in the middle of a meet? Because it's a Kentucky Board rule it could be unconstitutional, but the rule 1.) doesn't say "don't ship out of state," but "don't leave the track," which could have in-state effects as well, such as when Keeneland and Turfway race, and 2.) they could argue that these rules are necessary for field size, to prevent owners from destroying a meet by removing horses without sufficient time for other owners to fill the void. If Kentucky argues that the rule extends only far enough to protect the track during the meet, operates regardless of whether horsemen want to ship in-state or out-of-state, and applies to both foreign (i.e., other state) owners and local owners, I'd feel more confident arguing that side than the other one.

[Mineshaft]

lets just challenge every freakin rule in horse racing-do you think that would fly?

lets just sue every track that has a rule that we dont agree with.

[Mineshaft]

I don't think Healy is quite on point. In Healy, the state was trying to control out of state product (you can't offer discounts in surrounding states). Here, the rule is designed to protect horses from being shipped from the track during the meet. The rule insulates the track, but doesn't try to reach beyond state lines to influence other tracks. It is a subtle distinction but it is still there.

Now, the rule could still be unconstitutional. If the rule was "no claimed horse can be shipped out of state ever," it would definitely be unconstitutional. (Note that if Churchill had that rule--you could never ship a claimed horse from Churchill race courses--that would be totally fine, "my property" arguments aside. Private entities can set their house rules.)

The question is, is Kentucky trying to protect in state horsemen from out of state competition? Or, are they trying to bolster competition by not allowing stock to be depleted in the middle of a meet? Because it's a Kentucky Board rule it could be unconstitutional, but the rule 1.) doesn't say "don't ship out of state," but "don't leave the track," which could have in-state effects as well, such as when Keeneland and Turfway race, and 2.) they could argue that these rules are necessary for field size, to prevent owners from destroying a meet by removing horses without sufficient time for other owners to fill the void. If Kentucky argues that the rule extends only far enough to protect the track during the meet, operates regardless of whether horsemen want to ship in-state or out-of-state, and applies to both foreign (i.e., other state) owners and local owners, I'd feel more confident arguing that side than the other one.






they are trying to keep there horse population intact without all the horses leaving which means short fields, which means nobody is betting these races and handle goes down and the tracks arent making the money that they should because of short fields, which means the general public is bitching about short fields.


every track has a claiming rule printed in the condition book. Fawk Jamgo if he cant follow the rules.

[andymays]

they are trying to keep there horse population intact without all the horses leaving which means short fields, which means nobody is betting these races and handle goes down and the tracks arent making the money that they should because of short fields, which means the general public is bitching about short fields.


every track has a claiming rule printed in the condition book. Fawk Jamgo if he cant follow the rules.
Bottom line is Jerry wins. End of story.

[Mineshaft]

Bottom line is Jerry wins. End of story.






hes an attention whore....

[Irish Boy]

Bottom line is Jerry wins. End of story.
You keep saying that. Care to make it interesting? If a court repeals the rule, I'll put up an avatar of your choosing for a month. If the rule is upheld, I'll get to choose one for you. Nothing profane or pornographic, of course.

Deal? If it settles one way or another we'll call it a draw.

[duncan04]

Bottom line is Jerry wins. End of story.

How are you so sure? I call bulls$*t

[InsideTheRaces.com]

Imagine a state where if you buy a car you can't register it in another state for 30-90 days. Do you think a court will uphold that?
What about if you buy a car for 5k you must sell it for 7.5k if you sell it within 30 days?
Do you think a court will uphold that?

Please
The Tracks are just the stadium where the event is held. The horse owners are the teams the betters are the fans.

Hey Tracks when are you going to understand your business model.

Retards

[nearco]

Imagine a state where if you buy a car you can't register it in another state for 30-90 days. Do you think a court will uphold that?
What about if you but a car for 5k you must sell it for 7.5k?
Do you think a court will uphold that?

Please
The Tracks are just the stadium where the event is held. The horse owners are the teams the betters are the fans.

Hey Tracks when are you going to understand your business model.

Retards

Bad analogy. You can buy a horse, privately, and run it wherever you want, just like a car.
Claiming a horse is a form of buying a horse at a set price through a model provided by the track, but you have to abide by the claiming rules of that track. You know the rules before you claim. If you want to buy in the old fashioned way you can approach the owner/trainer and do so.

[InsideTheRaces.com]

Bad analogy. You can buy a horse, privately, and run it wherever you want, just like a car.
Claiming a horse is a form of buying a horse at a set price through a model provided by the track, but you have to abide by the claiming rules of that track. You know the rules before you claim. If you want to buy in the old fashioned way you can approach the owner/trainer and do so.
Wrong
The track or anyone can't control interstate commerce. Bottom line my analogy is on target. What if the rules of the seller of a car were you can't register the car in another state for 30-90 days. Would that be upheld in court?

Hey nearco think before you run your lips

[duncan04]

Wrong
The track or anyone can't control interstate commerce. Bottom line my analogy is on target. What if the rules of the seller of a car were you can't register the car in another state for 30-90 days. Would that be upheld in court?

Hey nearco think before you run your lips


so why is it ok to change the rules just because you don't like em? If he should win this lawsuit it will just open a big can of worms. Where will it end?

[InsideTheRaces.com]

so why is it ok to change the rules just because you don't like em? If he should win this lawsuit it will just open a big can of worms. Where will it end?
What can of worms?
The tracks have been running a protectionist game.
If they can't keep good horses running at their track without their current claiming rules should they even be in the horse racing business. If tracks want to control horses why don't they just buy their own and run races.

[duncan04]

What can of worms?
The tracks have been running a protectionist game.
If they can't keep good horses running at their track without their current claiming rules should they even be in the horse racing business. If tracks want to control horses why don't they just buy their own and run races.

So what you are saying is let's do away with all claiming rules?

[Stillriledup]

So what you are saying is let's do away with all claiming rules?

Lets do away with claiming races period, you want to buy a horse, you have to do it privately or at a horse sale.

[takeout]

Discussed on the Stein show Saturday 06/18/2011 at about 27 minutes in.

http://www.rogerstein.com/radio/archive2.asp

[rastajenk]

Also, my Google tells me that Jamgotchian seems to be something of a vexacious litigant. I can tell you're paying attention. :ThmbUp:

Some of the others here, not so much.

[andymays]

You keep saying that. Care to make it interesting? If a court repeals the rule, I'll put up an avatar of your choosing for a month. If the rule is upheld, I'll get to choose one for you. Nothing profane or pornographic, of course.

Deal? If it settles one way or another we'll call it a draw.

The tracks don't have a right to hold someones property. They do have a right to refuse stalls to a person if they don't like the way he does business.

Not interested in the bet. We'll just watch it play out.

[onefast99]

The tracks don't have a right to hold someones property. They do have a right to refuse stalls to a person if they don't like the way he does business.

Not interested in the bet. We'll just watch it play out.
Bingo, AM you got it right, the tracks have no right to hold someones property and JJ will drive that point home.

[Mineshaft]

The tracks don't have a right to hold someones property. They do have a right to refuse stalls to a person if they don't like the way he does business.

Not interested in the bet. We'll just watch it play out.





Does Jamgo know its going to be hard to run his horses after all this plays out? He better know they will "off" every race he enters a horse in. They will tell him to take his property and go play somewhere else.

[andymays]

Does Jamgo know its going to be hard to run his horses after all this plays out? He better know they will "off" every race he enters a horse in. They will tell him to take his property and go play somewhere else.
He doesn't care and he never lets up. He doesn't need the money.

[Mineshaft]

He doesn't care and he never lets up. He doesn't need the money.





Trust me he will care if he has a nice stakes horse one day and he cant run the horse.

[andymays]

Trust me he will care if he has a nice stakes horse one day and he cant run the horse.
Believe me he doesn't care.

[Mineshaft]

Believe me he doesn't care.




he must care hes suing Chuchill..

[Irish Boy]

Bingo, AM you got it right, the tracks have no right to hold someones property and JJ will drive that point home.
That isn't the issue at all. If this was a Churchill issue, he wouldn't have even the shadow of a viable claim. Churchill doesn't have to have claiming races, and if they do, they can attach whatever rules to them they want. Just like I can sell you a car but tell you that you can't have it until 60 days. If you agree to the contract, it is completely fine.

Even under Jamgotchian's theory, he's is not the "true" victim. His claim is that other states, such as Pennsylvania, are deprived of the right of having his horses run. That is the crux of his dormant commerce clause claim. He is just pressing the claim on behalf of those other states, and because he is also affected by the rule. But all the hokum about property rights matters not a whit.

But once again, this only matters because a state regulation is involved. If this were a track rule, he would be completely and utterly out of luck.

[Saratoga_Mike]

That isn't the issue at all. If this was a Churchill issue, he wouldn't have even the shadow of a viable claim. Churchill doesn't have to have claiming races, and if they do, they can attach whatever rules to them they want. Just like I can sell you a car but tell you that you can't have it until 60 days. If you agree to the contract, it is completely fine.

Even under Jamgotchian's theory, he's is not the "true" victim. His claim is that other states, such as Pennsylvania, are deprived of the right of having his horses run. That is the crux of his dormant commerce clause claim. He is just pressing the claim on behalf of those other states, and because he is also affected by the rule. But all the hokum about property rights matters not a whit.

But once again, this only matters because a state regulation is involved. If this were a track rule, he would be completely and utterly out of luck.

Very cogent post and good use of the word "hokum."

[Fager Fan]

I have no issue with the monies received from having a horse claimed being treated like a gift card (money can only be used for claiming another horse at that track; not for paying stakes nomination/entry fees or any other purpose; no cash value, non-transferable to another track [except possibly one on the same circuit with approval from the racing office]). This would encourage people who've had a horse claimed to get right back into the game and claim another one.

No cash value? Then no one would enter a horse in a claiming race if they don't get paid for the horse. Where did you hear this idea because it's one of the craziest I've ever heard?

[Fager Fan]

they are trying to keep there horse population intact without all the horses leaving which means short fields, which means nobody is betting these races and handle goes down and the tracks arent making the money that they should because of short fields, which means the general public is bitching about short fields.


every track has a claiming rule printed in the condition book. Fawk Jamgo if he cant follow the rules.

You realize that for every horse that goes from Ky to PA there could be one that goes from PA to Ky?

As Andy and a couple others have pointed out, JJ is correct and the tracks will lose this one. It won't be a bad thing to have all tracks drop their jail rules.

[duncan04]

You realize that for every horse that goes from Ky to PA there could be one that goes from PA to Ky?

As Andy and a couple others have pointed out, JJ is correct and the tracks will lose this one. It won't be a bad thing to have all tracks drop their jail rules.


Could but not likely. The slot infused purses are hard to go away from.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You realize that for every horse that goes from Ky to PA there could be one that goes from PA to Ky?

As Andy and a couple others have pointed out, JJ is correct and the tracks will lose this one. It won't be a bad thing to have all tracks drop their jail rules.

Based on what legal theory? Please be specific. Irish Boy's most recent post summarizes the situation perfectly.

[Fager Fan]

Could but not likely. The slot infused purses are hard to go away from.

That may be true, but that's Churchill's and other track's problem to deal with, being attractive to racing prospects instead of being protectionists.

[Fager Fan]

Based on what legal theory? Please be specific. Irish Boy's most recent post summarizes the situation perfectly.

I think Irish Boy is totally wrong. The track (or state) isn't a party to the contract -- they are neither seller or buyer. I can't see what right they have that supercedes the private property rights of the buyer. Perhaps you can tell me what legal right they have just as you're asking me to be specific as to what leg I think JJ has to stand on?

As others have noted, I think that the track can use their own property rights and not give him stalls or otherwise punish him for not doing what they want, but I don't see where they can say that a man can't take his private property to another track or state (or country or planet) and do with it as he pleases.

[duncan04]

That may be true, but that's Churchill's and other track's problem to deal with, being attractive to racing prospects instead of being protectionists.

But when you don't have slots and the purses arent fueled by them then you are at a disadvantage

[Irish Boy]

I think Irish Boy is totally wrong. The track (or state) isn't a party to the contract -- they are neither seller or buyer. I can't see what right they have that supercedes the private property rights of the buyer. Perhaps you can tell me what legal right they have just as you're asking me to be specific as to what leg I think JJ has to stand on?

As others have noted, I think that the track can use their own property rights and not give him stalls or otherwise punish him for not doing what they want, but I don't see where they can say that a man can't take his private property to another track or state (or country or planet) and do with it as he pleases.
Because they set the condition of the race. They could hold no claiming races whatsoever, so they can set conditions short of that. And note that they can't actually enforce the ban beyond counting on other tracks to honor the suspension. If Penn tells them to shove off, they wouldn't be able to do anything beyond banning from reappearing.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think Irish Boy is totally wrong. The track (or state) isn't a party to the contract -- they are neither seller or buyer. I can't see what right they have that supercedes the private property rights of the buyer. Perhaps you can tell me what legal right they have just as you're asking me to be specific as to what leg I think JJ has to stand on?

As others have noted, I think that the track can use their own property rights and not give him stalls or otherwise punish him for not doing what they want, but I don't see where they can say that a man can't take his private property to another track or state (or country or planet) and do with it as he pleases.

Before any party makes a claim, they agree to the rules laid out in the condition book. Those rules plainly state a horse may not be removed in XX number of days. If you don't agree to that stipulation, you don't make the claim. It's part of the contract you enter into when claiming a horse. From a contractual standpoint, I don't think there's a basis for this suit.

As for invoking the commerce clause, you have to give the guy points for ingenuity. Whether it works or not, we'll see. I doubt it, but the commerce clause is such a complicated area of constitutional law that I'm not qualified to debate it. If you're a consititutional lawyer, I'd love to hear your opinion on it.

Personally, I'd kind of like to see the guy prevail. As there are certain tracks I'd love to claim from and run the horse elsewhere immediately. That said, I think it would help quicken the demise of tracks without state-granted slots monopolies.

[Relwob Owner]

I think Irish Boy is totally wrong. The track (or state) isn't a party to the contract -- they are neither seller or buyer. I can't see what right they have that supercedes the private property rights of the buyer. Perhaps you can tell me what legal right they have just as you're asking me to be specific as to what leg I think JJ has to stand on?

As others have noted, I think that the track can use their own property rights and not give him stalls or otherwise punish him for not doing what they want, but I don't see where they can say that a man can't take his private property to another track or state (or country or planet) and do with it as he pleases.



Didnt he buy that "private property" subject to certain rules in this case?

If he had such a hard time with the rules, why make a claim subject to those rules? If you take the CD claim on it's own merit, he made a commitment and is going back on it IMO. Yes, he can claim that the rules he was subjected to are not constitutional but he knew them and if he had such an issue with them, then why claim the horse?

[Stillriledup]

Before any party makes a claim, they agree to the rules laid out in the condition book. Those rules plainly state a horse may not be removed in XX number of days. If you don't agree to that stipulation, you don't make the claim. It's part of the contract you enter into when claiming a horse. From a contractual standpoint, I don't think there's a basis for this suit.

As for invoking the commerce clause, you have to give the guy points for ingenuity. Whether it works or not, we'll see. I doubt it, but the commerce clause is such a complicated area of constitutional law that I'm not qualified to debate it. If you're a consititutional lawyer, I'd love to hear your opinion on it.

Personally, I'd kind of like to see the guy prevail. As there are certain tracks I'd love to claim from and run the horse elsewhere immediately. That said, I think it would help quicken the demise of tracks without state-granted slots monopolies.

He agreed to the rules because if he didnt agree to the rules, he wouldnt have made the claim and thus, wouldnt be able to file a lawsuit. By making the claim and 'agreeing' to rules he thought to be unfair and illegal, he put himself in a position to sue.

If he doesnt make the claim, i don't think he has any basis for litigation.

[Saratoga_Mike]

He agreed to the rules because if he didnt agree to the rules, he wouldnt have made the claim and thus, wouldnt be able to file a lawsuit. By making the claim and 'agreeing' to rules he thought to be unfair and illegal, he put himself in a position to sue.

If he doesnt make the claim, i don't think he has any basis for litigation.

No, no, I understand he wouldn't have standing if he didn't make the claim. My point was he would not prevail based on overturning well established contract law, which another poster was claiming. He will need to invoke the commerce clause. I doubt he's successful, but I don't know enough to say for sure. Others on here seem certain of the outcome of this suit - maybe they're all experts in constitutional law.

[Mineshaft]

He agreed to the rules because if he didnt agree to the rules, he wouldnt have made the claim and thus, wouldnt be able to file a lawsuit. By making the claim and 'agreeing' to rules he thought to be unfair and illegal, he put himself in a position to sue.

If he doesnt make the claim, i don't think he has any basis for litigation.





and we have another winner my friends..........

[Stillriledup]

No, no, I understand he wouldn't have standing if he didn't make the claim. My point was he would not prevail based on overturning well established contract law, which another poster was claiming. He will need to invoke the commerce clause. I doubt he's successful, but I don't know enough to say for sure. Others on here seem certain of the outcome of this suit - maybe they're all experts in constitutional law.

Of course they're experts in constitutional law, this is Pace Advantage, we have all kinds of experts in here! :D

[Saratoga_Mike]

and we have another winner my friends..........

Standing isn't what I was questioning.

[Relwob Owner]

He agreed to the rules because if he didnt agree to the rules, he wouldnt have made the claim and thus, wouldnt be able to file a lawsuit. By making the claim and 'agreeing' to rules he thought to be unfair and illegal, he put himself in a position to sue.

If he doesnt make the claim, i don't think he has any basis for litigation.



I asked about that earlier in the thread. Irish Boy, who seems to be the one with the most actual substance to back up his assertions, opined that he didnt have to but was not positive. I wouldnt see why he couldnt sue to change the rules without claiming the horse. He is an owner and his basis could be that his future plans for purchases are hampered by the rules that he finds unconstitutional.

[Stillriledup]

[/B]



I asked about that earlier in the thread. Irish Boy, who seems to be the one with the most actual substance to back up his assertions, opined that he didnt have to but was not positive. I wouldnt see why he couldnt sue to change the rules without claiming the horse. He is an owner and his basis could be that his future plans for purchases are hampered by the rules that he finds unconstitutional.

Congrats on 3k, well done.


I think that he could theoretically sue without making the claim, but he might have a better shot if he's the one who's actually 'damaged'. Maybe he figured that if he just litigated without being an injured party, his claim would be taken less seriously.

[Saratoga_Mike]

[/B]



I asked about that earlier in the thread. Irish Boy, who seems to be the one with the most actual substance to back up his assertions, opined that he didnt have to but was not positive. I wouldnt see why he couldnt sue to change the rules without claiming the horse. He is an owner and his basis could be that his future plans for purchases are hampered by the rules that he finds unconstitutional.

He could not sue without claiming the horse, as he wouldn't have standing in the courts.

[Relwob Owner]

He could not sue without claiming the horse, as he wouldn't have standing in the courts.



Where were you when I asked earlier?(post 30):)

Tha shifts my perception of things a bit, as the claim was a means to an end and not just a needless complication. Like you said earlier, I actually hope he wins from an ownership perspective and if he does, it will change a lot of things, as many, many owners will invade non slots tracks and claim to go to the slots infused ones.

[Fager Fan]

Ok, three different people all basically with the same reply. Just because something is written in a contract doesn't necessarily make it legally binding. We've all heard of the many contracts which have parts stricken due to illegality. One that we hear about often are leases.

The track isn't a principle here. They're neither the seller or the buyer. If they were the seller, I'd think that what you all are saying would hold true, that the seller and buyer negotiated this contract and agreed to these terms and therefore the terms are deemed legal and binding. In the case of claiming, the buyer has no choice in the matter, they can't negotiate the terms. I think tracks have only gotten away with telling owners and trainers what they can and can't do with their property because no one has challenged them before.

I believe their legal authority extends only as far as their own track (or state) and their races. I don't believe that they have the legal authority over the private property of someone else beyond those confines.

Consider the many discussions about the Jockey Club's power (or lack of) to cap stallion books. It's thought that an attempt to do so would be a restriction on trade and would lose any challenge. The same goes for AI and it seems the only reason we don't have AI is that no one has the guts to have all the big farms in Kentucky mad at them even if it's in the best interest of the horses, the breed, and all the breeders not in Kentucky. Maybe JJ can go after that one next.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Just because the track isn't a principal in the transaction does not mean they aren't an agent in the transaction. As an agent, they have every legal right to place stipulations in the claiming conditions, as long as other parties involved agree to those conditions before the transaction is consummated.

[Producer]

Where were you when I asked earlier?(post 30):)

Tha shifts my perception of things a bit, as the claim was a means to an end and not just a needless complication. Like you said earlier, I actually hope he wins from an ownership perspective and if he does, it will change a lot of things, as many, many owners will invade non slots tracks and claim to go to the slots infused ones.


If this does happen, can tracks deny certain trainers the right to claim horses at their track if they think this is what they are gonna do?

[duncan04]

Just because the track isn't a principal in the transaction does not mean they aren't an agent in the transaction. As an agent, they have every legal right to place stipulations in the claiming conditions, as long as other parties involved agree to those conditions before the transaction is consummated.


Bingo, at least someone gets it

[Relwob Owner]

If this does happen, can tracks deny certain trainers the right to claim horses at their track if they think this is what they are gonna do?


You bring up an interesting concept. If JJ does win, I am sure tracks will do what they can to combat things and make things hard on those who act against their best interests.....licensing for certain owners and trainers could get interesting.

[Fager Fan]

Just because the track isn't a principal in the transaction does not mean they aren't an agent in the transaction. As an agent, they have every legal right to place stipulations in the claiming conditions, as long as other parties involved agree to those conditions before the transaction is consummated.

They didn't agree, they didn't negotiate, they had no choice.

The track would also have a hard time proving that they were an agent as they can't claim to be the agent for either party nor did they receive a commission as proof of agency. The two parties would also claim to have agents of their own (be it the trainer, themself, or a bloodstock agent who pointed them to the horse).

[Fager Fan]

You bring up an interesting concept. If JJ does win, I am sure tracks will do what they can to combat things and make things hard on those who act against their best interests.....licensing for certain owners and trainers could get interesting.

They'd possibly be opening themselves up to further court proceedings if they do.

I think that if this is deemed illegal they'll accept it and move on.

[Irish Boy]

He'd have standing even if he didn't make a claim. "I want to claim a horse but can't because of this rule" would probably be sufficient in a constitutional case.

[Saratoga_Mike]

They'd possibly be opening themselves up to further court proceedings if they do.
I think that if this is deemed illegal they'll accept it and move on.

Why? They'd simply be exercising their private property rights (as long as they aren't a govt or quasi-governmental entity, e.g., MTH).

[Relwob Owner]

They'd possibly be opening themselves up to further court proceedings if they do.

I think that if this is deemed illegal they'll accept it and move on.


I seriously doubt that. They will find ways to fight back.

[Saratoga_Mike]

He'd have standing even if he didn't make a claim. "I want to claim a horse but can't because of this rule" would probably be sufficient in a constitutional case.

Without making the claim, he has no standing, imo, especially if the basis of his case is invoking the commerce clause.

[Fager Fan]

Why? They'd simply be exercising their private property rights (as long as they aren't a govt or quasi-governmental entity, e.g., MTH).

There are rules that they must follow. A mall can't keep black people from shopping there just because they're private property. When a track starts messing around too much with someone's ability to race their horse or practice their livelihood, they better have a compelling reason for doing so. Getting back at someone for a legal challenge where the track is deemed to have done something illegal will be tough to prove as compelling.

[CryingForTheHorses]

In order to claim a horse,A owner must have started at least 1 horse at that meet..Owners getting other owners to claim a horse then transferring it over to a new owner to ship it out could get the owner that claimed the horse in trouble with management at said track.These claim rules are house rules for each track.Trainers getting stalls know these house rules.If they allow this,You may see the end of backsides and horses going to training centers.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

In order to claim a horse,A owner must have started at least 1 horse at that meet..Owners getting other owners to claim a horse then transferring it over to a new owner to ship it out could get the owner that claimed the horse in trouble with management at said track.These claim rules are house rules for each track.Trainers getting stalls know these house rules.If they allow this,You may see the end of backsides and horses going to training centers.
Racetracks would love it if they didn't have to pay for the backstretch, but without a backstretch, most might be able to fill a card a week. Plus you'd wind up with a lot less owners because of the added expenses of shipping and stall fees.
A horse lost at one track is a horse gained at another. The cheaper tracks needn't worry because it is not economical to ship cheap horses very much.
And nothing stops someone from going to the backstretch and buying a few horses and shipping them without any penalty.
The other thing is most horses run at inflated prices anyway, so I don't see how this would lead to more claiming, or very few horses being transferred.

[Gallop58]

Am I wrong, or is there no actual contactual obligation when claiming. You get the horse and that's it, As I recall the claiming slip does not have a ton of legal fine print. All you get is the signed over papers. Lots of people claim and then retire them to the breeding shed. There is no further obligation after the claim. It's a simple sale.

Now.....

There a myriad of house rules in place to control things being done with a claimed horse or a licenced participant as discussed here, some of which are likely ok, and some of which are likely in the grey zone of not so legal house rules.

Just my 2 cents, as I can't get past the part where by claiming you are agreeing to anything and the "he knew the rules before he claimed" just doesn't pass the smell test for me. He knew the rules, and he's deemed them challengable.

[Stillriledup]

Read something about this case at Paulick today.

Did anyone think that Kentucky was going to find in favor of a guy from California suing a Ky racetrack even though that guy probably had a good case?

[Irish Boy]

It's so nice to be proven correct in a debate you've long forgotten about.

[Irish Boy]

Read something about this case at Paulick today.

Did anyone think that Kentucky was going to find in favor of a guy from California suing a Ky racetrack even though that guy probably had a good case?
He didn't have a good case.

[smokinjoe@bp]

here in louisiana we have a 60 day rule before horse can race at another
track,i recently claimed and can not race at fairgrounds till after the 60th day. i knew that going in so really can not complain

[Stillriledup]

here in louisiana we have a 60 day rule before horse can race at another
track,i recently claimed and can not race at fairgrounds till after the 60th day. i knew that going in so really can not complain

I think the lawsuit was about laws and not "rules". Its similar to the signs that businesses often put up that say "we reserve the right to deny you service" and that is the business just "making up" their own rules, but you have to ask, is what they're doing LEGAL? People often confuse "rules" and "laws". they are two different things.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... People often confuse "rules" and "laws". they are two different things.

For a point reference regarding this phenomenon, check out some of the house rules at SRU Downs.

[Irish Boy]

I think the lawsuit was about laws and not "rules". Its similar to the signs that businesses often put up that say "we reserve the right to deny you service" and that is the business just "making up" their own rules, but you have to ask, is what they're doing LEGAL? People often confuse "rules" and "laws". they are two different things.
This had nothing to do with the opinion. You're just way, way off here. See page 6 of the opinion; laws and state regulations are treated exactly the same for commerce clause purposes.

[Mineshaft]

here in louisiana we have a 60 day rule before horse can race at another
track,i recently claimed and can not race at fairgrounds till after the 60th day. i knew that going in so really can not complain




you have to wait 60 days to run at a track in the state of Louisiana. You can go anywhere to run after the FG meet ends.