Preakness result hurt West's court case

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

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.

For the bettor, they are.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by jay68802

For the bettor, they are.

For the owner too, except perhaps in Louisiana.

[Blenheim]

There is further recourse . . . its far from over.

“In a related matter, it has been reported that a $100 million class action lawsuit is being considered by those who wagered on Maximum Security and were impacted by the lack of transparency and integrity associated with the disqualification process that lasted between 22 and 23 minutes. In the aftermath of that decision, Twin Spires and Churchill Downs Inc.-related companies promptly announced that their customers would be reimbursed for wagers on Maximum Security, which can be viewed as an admission that Churchill itself disagreed with the stewards' decision."

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

There is further recourse . . .

“In a related matter, it has been reported that a $100 million class action lawsuit is being considered by those who wagered on Maximum Security and were impacted by the lack of transparency and integrity associated with the disqualification process that lasted between 22 and 23 minutes. In the aftermath of that decision, Twin Spires and Churchill Downs Inc.-related companies promptly announced that their customers would be reimbursed for wagers on Maximum Security, which can be viewed as an admission that Churchill itself disagreed with the stewards' decision."

Blenheim, this is a dead bang loser even assuming West has a case.

The rules of wagering, in EVERY jurisdiction, are that you pay off on an official. We even have a specific precedent on this issue- bettors who bet Forward Pass did not collect on their tickets after the KHRC disqualified Dancer's Image in 1968 after the race had been declared official.

This is not only the rule in horse racing- it applies to many other forms of wagering. For instance, once the next hand is dealt, you can't revise the result of a poker hand, even if someone read the board wrong. If a roulette result is declared, and after the payoffs are made the ball jumps to another number, it doesn't change the result.

This rule, importantly, HELPS players. Without it, you would have to wait until all appeals were exhausted before collecting your bet. You might have to wait to cash your ticket until a week after the race. (And no, you can't have it both ways. You don't get to go ahead and cash when the "error" is in your favor. If you favor non-finality, it works in both directions.)

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

There is further recourse . . . its far from over.

“In a related matter, it has been reported that a $100 million class action lawsuit is being considered by those who wagered on Maximum Security and were impacted by the lack of transparency and integrity associated with the disqualification process that lasted between 22 and 23 minutes. In the aftermath of that decision, Twin Spires and Churchill Downs Inc.-related companies promptly announced that their customers would be reimbursed for wagers on Maximum Security, which can be viewed as an admission that Churchill itself disagreed with the stewards' decision."

It's definitely over.

[Blenheim]

Haven't heard the fat lady sing . . .

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

Haven't heard the fat lady sing . . .

Not based on what you've been arguing lately.

[Blenheim]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Not based on what you've been arguing lately.

I'm gonna be following this case closely and I am looking forward to the final disposition.

[ctownraces@bp]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

Haven't heard the fat lady sing . . .

Man you love that Kool-Aid

[DGroundhog]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

I'm gonna be following this case closely and I am looking forward to the final disposition.

There have been numerous occurrences when a track went official with an incorrect order of finish or incorrect payout and the track offered to pay the correct order of finish or pay out any underpayment of a price (provided the bettor has his ticket or evidence of said wager).

Granted, that wasn't a legal decision. Not sure if that sets 'precedent' or not.

DRF had an article/interview with former jockey Bill Boland and he claims in 1950 stewards told them no horse would be taken down in the Derby, but if they caused any trouble during the race they would be suspended for 1 year. That could possibly play into a lawsuit as well (I am not a lawyer).

That is part of the reason I disagree with the decision. That, and I think Tyler got impatient and went for a hole that didn't appear to be there IMO. His decision was intentional, and Luis was simply trying to control his horse (who may have been spooked or interfered with by WoW).


I don't think everybody has to agree with my opinion, however. I understand those who think MS caused the incident. I just happen to disagree.

[Blenheim]

In closing I believe there are two issues:

It is my contention and I have written that I believe Maximum Security committed a foul - I have no doubt about it. However because the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission violated Mr. West's right to due process, the entire decision will be void.

Looking forward to the decision of the Court . . .

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by DGroundhog

There have been numerous occurrences when a track went official with an incorrect order of finish or incorrect payout and the track offered to pay the correct order of finish or pay out any underpayment of a price (provided the bettor has his ticket or evidence of said wager).

Granted, that wasn't a legal decision. Not sure if that sets 'precedent' or not.

DRF had an article/interview with former jockey Bill Boland and he claims in 1950 stewards told them no horse would be taken down in the Derby, but if they caused any trouble during the race they would be suspended for 1 year. That could possibly play into a lawsuit as well ( i am not a lawyer).

That is part of the reason I disagree with the decision. That, and I think Tyler got impatient and went for a hole that didn't appear to be there IMO. His decision was intentional, and Luis was simply trying to control his horse (who may have been spooked or interfered with by WoW).


I don't think everybody has to agree with my opinion, however. I understand those who think MS caused the incident. I just happen to disagree.

You should not conflate customer service decisions that a track may make, especially when it makes a mistake that the track itself made, with a stewards' decision.

Note as well that the issue of whether a track is liable for damages if it causes your bet to lose by the track's own negligence is a different question from whether a stewards' ruling is final. I have not researched court decisions on racetrack negligence, but it is at least possible that tracks sometimes pay out these bets because there is a possibility of negligence liability. Obviously there is no claim that Churchill was negligent in paying out on the stewards' ruling.

Boland's statement is hearsay and isn't relevant anyway- in 1950, Churchill didn't even have film patrol yet! They didn't get it until 1954 or so! A statement about what Churchill stewards who had no capability to review races at all would do is not binding on people 69 years later who have a boatload of camera angles on every race.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Yep.

He'd still only be no better than second best to win the last two legs.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

He'd still only be no better than second best to win the last two legs.

Risen Star actually got a similar trip in the Preakness.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Risen Star actually got a similar trip in the Preakness.

He had a brutal trip in the Derby.