Preakness result hurt West's court case

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Nashua?

Native Dancer, Damascus, and Hansel

[highnote]

I totally forgot the Preakness was today.

Looks like the field was fairly weak. Bode Express finished last. Improbable did not have a great run.

Was happy that Marshall Graham's horse ran well. They were hoping for third or better, but fourth is not bad. Ziemba and Graham wrote an academic paper on Dosage Theory. https://core.ac.uk/display/22988819

Paulick wrote about Graham's horse:

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...-in-preakness/

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Native Dancer, Damascus, and Hansel

Man O' War

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Man O' War

Didn't start in the Kentucky Derby

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Didn't start in the Kentucky Derby

True

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by highnote

I totally forgot the Preakness was today.

Looks like the field was fairly weak. Bode Express finished last. Improbable did not have a great run.

Was happy that Marshall Graham's horse ran well. They were hoping for third or better, but fourth is not bad. Ziemba and Graham wrote an academic paper on Dosage Theory. https://core.ac.uk/display/22988819

Paulick wrote about Graham's horse:

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...-in-preakness/

Bodexpress didn't finish last, he never started. Gary West tricked his way into Pimlico dressed as an assistant starter and held onto Bodexpress's reins when the gate opened causing the horse to dump the rider. It's perfectly clear on the 1/8th speed replay.

[Blenheim]

Preakness result hurt West's court case
West already erred by not running MS in the race, but this is the worst possible outcome for him. The horse his horse fouled just won the Preakness. That just undescores that the foul may have cost WoW a place two weeks ago.

War of Will winning the Preakness has absolutely nothing to do with the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission violating the due process rights of Mr. West.


“This action [Federal Lawsuit] seeks to redress the Defendants' violations of Plaintiffs' Due Process Rights under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and to enforce their rights under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky."


dilanesp is mocking and laughing the whole time . . .

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

War of Will winning the Preakness has absolutely nothing to do with the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission violating the due process rights of Mr. West.


“This action [Federal Lawsuit] seeks to redress the Defendants' violations of Plaintiffs' Due Process Rights under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and to enforce their rights under the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky."


dilanesp is mocking and laughing the whole time . . .

Blenheim, court cases are judged by human beings. The Wests have absolutely no case on the legal merits. But an old lawyers' saying is when the law doesn't support you, you pound the facts. Because maybe you will get some sympathy.

Today's result was a bad fact for West, because it makes it look like the foul really harmed War of Will. Which lessens the Wests' chances.

I really don't understand why you think I don't know these things.

[papillon]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

West already erred by not running MS in the race, but this is the worst possible outcome for him. The horse his horse fouled just won the Preakness. That just undescores that the foul may have cost WoW a place two weeks ago.

The race is inadmissable in court under releavancy rules, and has no relevancy to a due process case even in the colloquial sense.

It has absolutely no effect.

It doesn't even have a serious effect on handicapping a future race btwn Maximum Security and War of Will.

I seriously hope you are not a lawyer.

I get it, you don't like West, you don't like Servis, you don't like Saez, you don't like the horse. I don't care about or for any of them. But gtfo if you are lawyer who neither understands this case, nor why in the larger picture the issue at law here is pretty important for all the non-millions, who can't challenge abitrary and capricious agency rulings.

Now that Casse, Barber, and Gafflione have actually won a TC race, they should be asked how sanguine they'd feel if it was snatched away 20 minutes latter.

There is $5m on the table, the ball is in their court. Take the challenge, go head to head with Maxium Security.

Big Drama is missing, that's what I care about, that and the fact that I actually do find legal cases fascinating. I picked a good career for myself.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by papillon

The race is inadmissable in court under releavancy rules, and has no relevancy to a due process case even in the colloquial sense.

It has absolutely no effect.

It doesn't even have a serious effect on handicapping a future race btwn Maximum Security and War of Will.

I seriously hope you are not a lawyer.

I get it, you don't like West, you don't like Servis, you don't like Saez, you don't like the horse. I don't care about or for any of them. But gtfo if you are lawyer who neither understands this case, nor why in the larger picture the issue at law here is pretty important for all the non-millions, who can't challenge abitrary and capricious agency rulings.

Now that Casse, Barber, and Gafflione have actually won a TC race, they should be asked how sanguine they'd feel if it was snatched away 20 minutes latter.

There is $5m on the table, the ball is in their court. Take the challenge, go head to head with Maxium Security.

Big Drama is missing, that's what I care about, that and the fact that I actually do find legal cases fascinating. I picked a good career for myself.

papillon, this is truly insulting, and sad.

1. If you don't believe that the judge who hears this case will know that the horse MS fouled won the Preakness, you are really not thinking this through..Whether or not the evidence is "admissible", it will be known.

2. FYI, were we to ever get to an evidentiary proceeding, War of Will's Preakness win would very possibly be admissible. Bear in mind, if the record is limited to the matters reviewed by the stewards, the Wests lose. Wests lawyers' need the Court to consider slow motion NBC videos. Well, if we are going to go outside the stewards' room, why can't we consider ANY evidence that moght provide more information about the foul, including future performances. (Indeed, this point is one reason the Wests should never be allowed to introduce videos not used by the stewards to challenge their decision.)

3. I actually like Maximum Security. Going from 16,000 claimer to finishing 1st in the Derby is a great story. I also.like the Wests-I felt sorry for them when their horse Restoring Hope was compromised to run interference for Justify.

I just don't want courts reviewing stewards' inquiries.

[keithw84]

Originally Posted by papillon

Big Drama is missing, that's what I care about, that and the fact that I actually do find legal cases fascinating. I picked a good career for myself.

Haven't heard the name Big Drama in a long time! Freaking out in the gate at the Preakness when Rachel won. I think Quality Road did the same in the BCC that same year when Zenyatta won. Bunch of chauvinists that year!

[keithw84]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

West and his supporters claim that Maximum Security's inclusion in the Twinspires "Bad Luck Board" promotion (refund of win bets up to $10) is an admission of guilt on their part.


https://www.twinspires.com/different


When Twinspires makes Bodexpress their next "Bad Luck Board" entry will this mean that Churchill is admitting guilt in his behavior and the assistant starter's actions in the gate?

How, exactly, does the Bad Luck Board work?

[Blenheim]

Originally Posted by papillon

But gtfo if you are lawyer who neither understands this case, nor why in the larger picture the issue at law here is pretty important for all the non-millions, who can't challenge abitrary and capricious agency rulings.
.

I am interested in knowing what you think may be some of the ramifications of this case should Mr. West win.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I just don't want courts reviewing stewards' inquiries.

I do.

You like bad rulings. I don't.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by highnote

I do.

You like bad rulings. I don't.

That's really very wrong and shows a lack of thought about the matter.

I apologize in advance to PA for the following politically tinged example, but here goes:

I think Bush v. Gore was wrongly decided. I don't think the Supreme Court should involve itself in Presidential elections.

That opinion does not mean one way or the other that I like or don't like bad ballot counts, or certain kinds of ballots, or certain kinds of recounts. I just don't think the Supreme Court should be involved, whether to affirm the result of the election or to change it.

This is how I feel about this issue. Has nothing to do with liking "bad" stewards rulings. I want the stewards to make good rulings. But I nonetheless want them to be final.