Quote:
Originally Posted by NY BRED
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.
