Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kenwoodall2
I think this is the right one, why the DM exec said he would independently take responsibility for refusing the pool!:
(9) No guest association shall conduct wagering on any race or races other than those approved by the Board or simulcast by its host association. (10) No guest association, except as provided for in Business and Professions Code Section19605.3, may discontinue its operation nor conduct any activity which would cause interruption of the signal without giving the Board and the host association prior written notice within fifteen (15) calendar days of such discontinuance or other change
|
Still doesn't really cover it. Would be a huge stretch of this regulation ... which certainly the CHRB is capable of.
There might be a rule along the lines of Ohio's though.
3769.089 Simulcast horse racing
"In addition, in order for a permit holder to offer simulcasts of horse races conducted at facilities located outside this state, the permit holder shall offer all simulcasts of horse races conducted in this state made available to it."
Still doesn't specify all pools, but 'all simulcasts' could be interpreted to mean it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by InTheRiver68
You guys really need to get over this. Ernst made a decision to protect his organization's business interests ... good for him! That's his job! And remember, this is coming from someone who LOVES to bet against bridgejumpers.
|
+1
