Actually was a fairly simple question to answer. Either you believe CD should ban those trainers from running horses in the Derby or you don’t.

No


None of the other Trainers hurt the Derby and Oaks brand like Baffert did so he should go first.

Asmussen and Stevens should have been banned after they were caught on video laughing about using a buzzer in my opinion. That somehow disappeared by the time Oxbow won the Preakness that year

This is a seedy game. Money is involved, lots of behind the scenes shenanigans' to bilk people out of money.

Shoot em all I say, one offense, your done, dont come back.

Should a person who robs $1000 from a 7-11 store face the same sentence as a bank robber who steals $5,000,000?

But it took less than 2 weeks to DQ him.

Nobody doubts that the owners will file a frivolous lawsuit. But KHRC should have acted already.

Tracks wouldn't be suspending him had he not obstructed the KHRC process with legal threats.

So the act of exercising your legal rights is the standard for determining suspension?

I'm glad you posted that. A couple of points are worth mentioning:

First of all, yes, some businesses do indeed refuse to do business with people who litigate frivolous claims. The most obvious example is landlords. If you have a record of contesting eviction proceedings, you are going to find that a lot of landlords subscribe to a service that tells them that and won't rent to you. Is that unfair? Not at all. (It IS unfair when someone gets caught in that situation who actually litigated a meritorious defense such as repair-and-deduct against a landlord. But on the other hand, that person may have a defamation claim against the service.)

But if you go into the business world, you will actually find that having a reputation of being someone who brings BS legal claims can follow you around It can make employment more difficult. It can make people less likely to do business with you. And there's nothing unfair about that.

Second, in discussing what you have a "right" to do, it's important to distinguish between procedure and substance.

Every citizen has the right to access the courts. That is quite true. But that does not mean that every citizen has the right to bring a meritless claim. Our legal system punishes people who go to court with meritless claims all the time:

1. If there is a contractual provision, or if there is a statute providing for it, the loser in a lawsuit can be forced to pay the winner's attorney's fees.

2. Federal Rule 11 and state analogues provide for sanctions against people who make false or misleading statements in their court pleadings or in court.

3. Vexatious litigant statutes provide that litigants who get caught too many times raising BS claims or defenses can be barred from making court filings without prior approval and screening.

4. Perjury laws allow for prosecution and significant prison time for lying in court papers or testimony.

5. Criminal defendants who assert their constitutional right to go to trial are given harsher sentences, and under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, those who assert a defense based on innocence when they are clearly guilty get even harsher ones.

The point is, there is actually no constitutional or other right to bring a BS lawsuit. Yes, people get away with it, but the law is quite clear that when you are caught dead to rights doing something, your legal obligation is to admit the charges and get punished.

So no, while Baffert technically has the "right" to hire lawyers, bring suits, etc., he does not actually have any legal right to bring suits based on lies. The fact that we don't enforce that principle in a tougher way reflects policy considerations that I respect and accept, but it doesn't mean anyone has the right to go into court based on a lie.

Racing associations have EVERY right to say "you are clearly guilty, you are misusing the court system, and we don't want to do business with you anymore". That doesn't obstruct Baffert's right to access the court system at all. The right to access the court system does not translate to nobody will ever inflict any consequences on you for accessing the court system to make BS claims.

Uh, yes it is. Indisputably, I might add.


Your (or anyone) merely knowing the light was red is discrimination.

You just wrote a thesis on how we have laws against frivolous lawsuits, so why not let the courts sort out such matters? Racing associations can say someone is misusing the court system but saying so doesn't make it a fact. If Baffert or one of his owners bring a suit based on a "lie" they should be fined and sanctioned accordingly.

I don’t think I need a legal brief to know that no Baffert horse is going to cross the starting gate the first Saturday in may in Louisville or 5 weeks later in Elmont

I agree. I wonder how long it will take for Team Baffert to figure out the obvious.

For the same reason that just because OJ Simpson got acquitted in a court, doesn't mean that if you operate a restaurant you have to give him a table.

I'm sure they know. I assume the lawyers are doing two things right now:

1. Drafting the complaints that they plan to file against Churchill, NYRA, the Breeders' Cup, etc.

and

2. Doing massive amounts of pressure and lobbying behind the scenes and calling in all of Baffert's favors to try and prevent things from happening.