Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board


Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Racing Discussion (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   GARY AND MARY WEST VS THE KY RACING COMMISSION (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=152687)

NY BRED 06-08-2019 08:23 AM

GARY AND MARY WEST VS THE KY RACING COMMISSION
 
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...qualification/

The above link is contained on The Paulick Report Website;

regardless of the chatter to date, both in the press and ,to some degree on this forum, there are many points contained in this litigation that many us missed.

While we all observed the reasons for the DQ many of us were unaware that owners and trainers relinquish their rights to appeal the decision of the stewards which, to my knowledge only exists at Churchill Downs.

The "win" for the"house" represents a "mother load" of profit via the DQ; based upon the allegations regarding the rules of racing , zero Dq's in 145 years etc might just favor the plaintiff.

Even if there is no reversal changes to these"unique" powers of the Stewards must be altered to protect the owners and fans who wager on this race.

burnsy 06-08-2019 08:48 AM

I’m aware of it and stated they will probably lose because the judge is going to read that and recite it. Money is no object with these people, this is a jab at the Kentucky Racing Commission and an attempt to dirty up the Stewards which will not be hard to do if they are forced to talk. I said last month “winning” is not what they are looking for. I do agree though that the racing commission should not be “God” or the Wizard of Oz like they are.

FenceBored 06-08-2019 10:06 AM

HA!


When War of Will wins today we'll all know who stole the Triple Crown from whom.

toddbowker 06-08-2019 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY BRED (Post 2477276)
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...qualification/

The above link is contained on The Paulick Report Website;

regardless of the chatter to date, both in the press and ,to some degree on this forum, there are many points contained in this litigation that many us missed.

While we all observed the reasons for the DQ many of us were unaware that owners and trainers relinquish their rights to appeal the decision of the stewards which, to my knowledge only exists at Churchill Downs.

The "win" for the"house" represents a "mother load" of profit via the DQ; based upon the allegations regarding the rules of racing , zero Dq's in 145 years etc might just favor the plaintiff.

Even if there is no reversal changes to these"unique" powers of the Stewards must be altered to protect the owners and fans who wager on this race.

First of all, it's Mary West, not Marsha.

Second, not being able to appeal Steward's in-race decisions is the norm, not the exception. It's not a Kentucky thing (and Churchill doesn't even get to make that call regardless, the Commonwealth does).

For example, Indiana has the following .... 71 IAC 10-2-9 (f)A decision by the judges regarding a disqualification involving the running of the race that does not result in a ruling is final and may not be appealed.

You can argue that it should be changed, but it being "unique to Churchill" is not the argument, and precedent will likely kill this case. The Kentucky Court of Appeals has already decided on this issue in the case March v KHRC (2015). My guess is the Federal Judge will remand it back to Kentucky, as they normally do with gambling related cases.

Third, the house did not "win" anything as a result of the DQ. The exact same amount of money still got paid out, just to different people.

cj 06-08-2019 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddbowker (Post 2477344)
Third, the house did not "win" anything as a result of the DQ. The exact same amount of money still got paid out, just to different people.

Basically correct with the small exception that the track probably paid out a little more based on keeping less breakage with the longshot on top.

ctownraces@bp 06-08-2019 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj (Post 2477357)
Basically correct with the small exception that the track probably paid out a little more based on keeping less breakage with the longshot on top.

but I bet they made it up plus some on uncashed tickets with the dq

Fager Fan 06-08-2019 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddbowker (Post 2477344)
First of all, it's Mary West, not Marsha.

Second, not being able to appeal Steward's in-race decisions is the norm, not the exception. It's not a Kentucky thing (and Churchill doesn't even get to make that call regardless, the Commonwealth does).

For example, Indiana has the following .... 71 IAC 10-2-9 (f)A decision by the judges regarding a disqualification involving the running of the race that does not result in a ruling is final and may not be appealed.

You can argue that it should be changed, but it being "unique to Churchill" is not the argument, and precedent will likely kill this case. The Kentucky Court of Appeals has already decided on this issue in the case March v KHRC (2015). My guess is the Federal Judge will remand it back to Kentucky, as they normally do with gambling related cases.

Third, the house did not "win" anything as a result of the DQ. The exact same amount of money still got paid out, just to different people.

Thanks for this. The initial post was a real head-scratcher.

dilanesp 06-09-2019 12:33 PM

What Todd said for the most part (although it would be a dismissal, not a remand to state court).

More broadly, a lot of people who support the Wests in this litigation seem to have this fantasy where the Wests get to take far ranging discovery, deposing Tyler G and getting him to "concede" that War of Will ran up on MS's heels, deposing the stewards and getting them to "admit" that they didn't post the inquiry sign, making semi-clever arguments about how they didn't DQ in other roughly run Derbies, etc.

That's not how this works. Under Rule 12(b)(6), you have to state a claim for relief BEFORE you can get discovery in federal court, if the defendant can show a plausible ground for dismissal. You have to show that if the facts are as you say they are, you can win your suit.

There's precious little chance that this case gets anywhere near discovery. What's very likely to happen is that the Defendants will move to dismiss, arguing that stewards' decisions are final and that there is no due process right to anything more than a stewards' deliberation in a horse race, and that's it, the Plaintiffs lose. And it is very likely that this argument will win, the case will be dismissed, and the dismissal will be affirmed on appeal.

PaceAdvantage 06-09-2019 02:00 PM

Even though I really didn't want to, given the OPs history of messing up facts (lulz), I gave in to my proper instincts and corrected Marsha to Mary.

Still a hilarious fail if you ask me.

clicknow 06-09-2019 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NY BRED (Post 2477276)
Even if there is no reversal changes to these"unique" powers of the Stewards must be altered to protect the owners and fans who wager on this race.

I'd settle for having transparency of information on the horses, like they do in Hong Kong, so I can have a veterinary history of the horses I am spending my hard earned $$ on. I can't count the number of times I've been "hood-winked" in this manner, finding out stuff about horses way way after the fact.

PuckLuck 06-09-2019 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenceBored (Post 2477305)
HA!


When War of Will wins today we'll all know who stole the Triple Crown from whom.

um... ya

toddbowker 06-10-2019 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctownraces@bp (Post 2477616)
but I bet they made it up plus some on uncashed tickets with the dq

Outs tickets in Kentucky used to revert to the Kentucky Racing Health and Welfare Fund after a period of time. Assuming they still do, Churchill wouldn't have profited itself.

As every jurisdiction is different, it's possible some guest sites may have benefited.

highnote 06-10-2019 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenceBored (Post 2477305)
HA!


When War of Will wins today we'll all know who stole the Triple Crown from whom.

It was not surprising to see WoW and Tacitus finish behind the winner in the Belmont. WoW did not have the stamina to finish well in the Derby and he was even less likely to win the Belmont after a hard campaign over the past couple of months.

Tacitus is by Tapit out of Pulpit. Neither of those could stay beyond 9 furlongs.

I saw Pulpit race a few times. Definitely a middle distance horse, not a classic distance horse, based on his physique and his record.

There is stamina in Tacitus' pedigree with A.P. Indy, Seattle Slew, Unbridled, and Unbridled's Song, but maybe the sprinter/middle distance genes from the Storm Cat pedigree on the dam's side is a little more dominant? Did Storm Bird ever win a major race beyond 7 furlongs?

Now if Tacitus was to be bred to a dam with stamina in her pedigree, like a My Flag-pedigreed filly, then maybe the offspring could win some classics.

Saratoga_Mike 06-10-2019 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highnote (Post 2478501)
It was not surprising to see WoW and Tacitus finish behind the winner in the Belmont. WoW did not have the stamina to finish well in the Derby and he was even less likely to win the Belmont after a hard campaign over the past couple of months.

Tacitus is by Tapit out of Pulpit. Neither of those could stay beyond 9 furlongs.

I saw Pulpit race a few times. Definitely a middle distance horse, not a classic distance horse, based on his physique and his record.

There is stamina in Tacitus' pedigree with A.P. Indy, Seattle Slew, Unbridled, and Unbridled's Song, but maybe the sprinter/middle distance genes from the Storm Cat pedigree on the dam's side is a little more dominant? Did Storm Bird ever win a major race beyond 7 furlongs?

Now if Tacitus was to be bred to a dam with stamina in her pedigree, like a My Flag-pedigreed filly, then maybe the offspring could win some classics.

Marconi, a Tapit, won a Grade II at 1 1/2 on the Belmont card.

highnote 06-10-2019 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike (Post 2478508)
Marconi, a Tapit, won a Grade II at 1 1/2 on the Belmont card.

Yes. I see that Tapit has now sire at least 3 Belmont winners. I had stopped following U.S. racing for several years and missed that.

I wonder if the Tapit colts got their stamina from Tapit via the grand sires like A.P. Indy and Seattle Slew, or from the dam side?

I'd like to the speed Belmont speed figures of his colts that won.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.