Quote:
Originally Posted by AskinHaskin
That last part is clueless.
The reason Hollendorfer got an injunction against Del Mar is that Del Mar operates under a contract with horsemen which is not identical to something similar at Santa Anita.
If SA were under an identical contract then Jerry H.'s angle would be that despite so many other would-be scofflaws flaunting the rules resulting in so many other horse deaths, he was "arbitrarily" singled-out (and "denied the privileges of the grounds") while many of the others were allowed to keep on flaunting the rules on those same grounds.
|
The judge's ruling in the Del Mar case, which you can find online, has nothing to do with the terms of the Horsemen's contract. It's a straight analysis of whether the power to rule off undesirables extends, under California law, to ruling off an undesirable simply because he causes bad public relations for the track. That was the reason Del Mar argued they could rule him off.
The Court said no- they said the standard is minimal, but there must be some evidence against the undesirable.
Santa Anita has plenty of evidence against the undesirable here, and that's why he is trying to do a backdoor through the BC rather than just going to court and having the Del Mar ruling extended to Santa Anita.
