Bettor sues after winning horse has positive drug test
 

I think we've all had dreams of this scenario, here goes someone trying their hand at it. I figured it was an aggrieved type of degenerate (the likes of which you'd find here, in a positive way) but once seeing that PETA was behind this, I think that immediately shuts the door on getting behind this guy.

I have to think any legal types around here will agree this lawsuit is a zero-shot attempt & just a PETA play for bad PR against horse racing, anyone disagree?

http://www.drf.com/news/losing-betto...-positive-test

So you make a LARGE wager and your horse finished 2ond and you find out that the winner was given a Milkshake and was able to out finish your horse. Seems to me that you have a case and the trainer of the winner might be the one having to pay, if all things were fair. Just saying it could happen one day.

its not worth suing for a $20 or $50 bill. but that being said there are plenty that use adw's that have records of all the bets they make. if someone were to follow up on bad test's and wait until he has a substantial amount of losses that were overturned due to bad test's, the trainers are race tracks might have to cough up some money. and then maybe the game would change.

Why should a race track/owner/trainer be above the legal system? Making a bet in good faith and then having it taken away by specific illegal actions by a third party seems idea fodder for a damn nice lawsuit. Maye leading to a class action suit by all the people who were screwed by a low life cheater.

The real money is in "Punitive Damages" not actual loses.

Once the race is deemed final the payouts at the track are final as well. In the event a horse is then dq'd for testing positive it in no way affects the pari-mutuel system. On the other hand should those who had the winner give back their winnings?

if a listed company misleads investors by leaving out vital information there are lawsuits and often times corporations lose the suits and have to cough up money. i don't see to much difference with pari-mutuel racing because basically the stock market and the pari-mutual markets operate the same way. the more demand for the shares of a stock the more the stockholder has to pay, the less demand the less they pay.

First of all, I resemble that remark. I wish him luck, because if he would win it would force horse racing to make some needed changes.

My bets have repeatedly run second to several of Karl Broberg's new acquisitions. I wonder if I too have a legal leg to stand on...

This is the point as to why nothing will be affected. If you're on the flip side & won a lot of money with a horse who happened to be on the juice, I don't think there will be a line of people looking to return their ill-gotten gains. Without those winnings returned, if you sued a trainer for all the "winning" bets which weren't when there's a positive test, that'd pretty much bankrupt any individual involved.

yes. :ThmbUp:

call the ACLU, they have sued for crazier things

I like that, good one.

Depending on the state and what exactly occurred there may be exceptions.

The "milk shaker" might have bet on the horse and pocketed more money than just 10% of the purse, and...if he/she is not the owner.

It has zero chance of winning in Illinois.

No, of course not.
BUT, the owner of the drugged horse should be fined the amount of the total pools affected by his or her failing to control a horse they entered in violation of the rules.

Bet no one ever gets fined more than once! ;)

Who is responsible to preventing their horse from being "shaked?"

Ultimate responsibility goes to the owner.
You don't get to outsource responsibility.

Legally it would never happen, but that's actually a tremendous idea.

Are you referring to the horse Navarro and his owner bet on in the video last summer at GP? :bang:

Exactly what the game needs now more litigation....also none of those bets ever can be construed as a life changing event for those betting. Of course the guy who was on his way to hitting the Rainbow six last month probably looked at suing someone, anyone....

How many people who owned stock in Exxon were responsible for that oil spill on the Valdez? None. Blaming the owner who in at least 99% of these infractions is just passing the blame onto someone who can afford to pay the fines associated with the infraction.

Is there some backlog of litigation I don't know about?

These suits never get resolved in the bettors receiving their winning bet. I have seen suits like this go back about 30 years. It is a rigged game against the bettor. The owners on the other hand will be handed a purse. Just the way the game is played. If you held tracks responsible for these errors and made them make restitution to bettors,the game probably would be in bettor shape. Just my opinion.

Exactly, it's the same case in sports betting at a Vegas book, right or wrong, good or bad. People can theoretically cash there that night thus making a later decision impossible to handle for the book. Same thing here with the parimutuel system as onefast states.

As far as wagering goes, it's part of the game. Like home cooking and bad ref calls in any other sport. Buyer beware type thing.

I'm sure there are thousands against racing commissions, track management and anyone else associated with decisions that could have been wrongly made. You should know this you are a big part of the game....and a good part, so don't sue me. Sue Tom....:pound:

My legal analysis is that this is a loser.

My gambling analysis is that this should be a loser-- you need to have a point in time when people can throw away their tickets. "OFFICIAL" does that.

My ethical analysis is that I would love if PETA wins this. It would effectively be the equivalent of a trainer responsibility rule for racetracks. You let doped horses run at your track, you pay out the wagers.

Obviously, this guy has no chance of winning this, but the bigger problem is that the racing industry, harness and thoroughbred, and law enforcement, are too easy on the dopers. When a doped horse wins a race, the race was a fixed race. Attempting to alter a sporting contest is a felony and the guilty parties should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. They should go to jail.

Those involved are fined and suspended, that in itself isn't a real big deterrent to the ones who continue to cheat and get away with it. Look at the recent rulings against Murray Rojas 14 convictions and she isn't going to jail despite all the evidence against her and the vets.

People who bet on undeserving winners did nothing wrong. Bankrupt cheating trainers and owners? Yes, please!

Apparently, this was a test that the track ordered and conducted by a lab in Hong Kong, and is being challenged for that reason. This may not be the best test case, though they still have my full support. This link has that additional information.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireSto...oping-53582614

"If you don't cheat, you look like an idiot; if you cheat and don't get caught, you look like a hero; if you cheat and get caught, you look like a dope." Darrell Waltrip.

Racing is racing. Difference in horse racing is that trainers and acquaintances can bet vs their customers.

I've been waiting for well over a decade for this to happen. It is a fixed race by definition.

If they could somehow link the pattern of administration, non- administration of "performance enhancing (and weakening) substances - legal or otherwise, to betting patterns they could do it. Or even keeping a terminal open after the start.

But there's no incentive. Handles hold, bonuses and tickets are cashed. Family protects family - until they can't.

This is said from the outside looking in = conjecture. Take it for what it's worth.

P.S. The sport can be fun and beautiful at it's best = Bolt d'Oro vs McKinzie.

Guys? each race you handicap the factor of a trainer using milkshakes. Its just fact...

You bet on the super bowl, call the quarterbacks wife and ask her if she was a bitch all morning.. lol.. you'll probably pick the winning team every year after.

Handicapping is beyond what you see, feel, or know.. its what just happens before or even during the bet takes place.

So we should EXPECT that the game is rigged and that trainers are going to cheat? :rolleyes:

You should be in PR for casinos.

Most state laws and the rules of racing says that the racetrack pays off on the "official" winner. If a horse is later disqualified for any reason that would not change the fact that the horse was the winner when the race was declared "official". Thus a lawsuit would have no merit as the track was following the rules and the mutual department did what they had to do by law. I can't think of any way to change this as the drug tests usually take about a week to clear. I'm sure nobody wants to wait a week to get paid.

BTW (completely off topic) I'd like to formally thank you for having mercy on me and staying out of my head to head match ups this week. Most appreciated. Sorry for being off topic. Come to think of it. Maybe it's not. I'd like to have you tested for PED's after our contests. I'm calling my lawyer Bombastic Buskin right now.:headbanger:

Its a no win situation because of what others have said. Once its official, and paid out according to the rules the track is off the hook. But I can see a claim vs. trainer because there is an injured party and the trainer is responsible for that fact. I think some people don't understand the law. The amount and who sues does not matter. Many of these suits are settled for a buck. Just for proving who is wrong or right. If there was a victory it would not matter if its PETA or if its for a dollar. The precedent would be set for other suits and the flood gates would open...….if lawyers saw one win of this type of suit, things would change in a hurry!

You've been too hot to handle lately in the heads-up tourneys. I am waiting for you to cool off.

The owners don’t get paid until all drug test results are in.

Seems the moral here is better to be the cheater than the cheated.