Preakness result hurt West's court case

[DGroundhog]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

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.

I wasn't trying to conflate anything. You noted the DQ of Dancer's Image set PRECEDENT. Well, there are other incidents that contradict that precedent.

The decision by Twin Spires/CD to reimburse their customers seems like a restrictive decision. Isn't everybody betting into the Derby pool ultimately a CD customer? I don't see any reason Joe Blow at an OTB in Peoria shouldn't be reimbursed.

Not DQing a horse in the Derby was sort of an unwritten rule. Never happened for an on the track incident in 144 years. Boland seems to verify this unwritten rule. In the 1959 Derby his horse was bumped, he lodged an objection, stewards did nothing. Stewards historically have done nothing. Why did that change this year?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

He had a brutal trip in the Derby.

Yep.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by DGroundhog

I wasn't trying to conflate anything. You noted the DQ of Dancer's Image set PRECEDENT. Well, there are other incidents that contradict that precedent.

The decision by Twin Spires/CD to reimburse their customers seems like a restrictive decision. Isn't everybody betting into the Derby pool ultimately a CD customer? I don't see any reason Joe Blow at an OTB in Peoria shouldn't be reimbursed.

Not DQing a horse in the Derby was sort of an unwritten rule. Never happened for an on the track incident in 144 years. Boland seems to verify this unwritten rule. In the 1959 Derby his horse was bumped, he lodged an objection, stewards did nothing. Stewards historically have done nothing. Why did that change this year?

1. Dancer's Image is a precedent because it involves an official change in the result after the official sign was up and the bets were paid. Tracks paying off as a customer service gesture after racetrack negligence do not involve that situation and are thus not a relevant precedent.

2. The decision by twin spires dot com is a promotional gesture. Churchill makes A LOT of money if online players use their wagering platform. It has nothing to do with the "wrongness" of the ruling.

In Kentucky, one of the stewards is an employee of the track rather than the racing commission and represents the track in the deliberations. Churchill employee voted to disqualify Maximum Security. You should take that as Churchill's official position here.

3. It wasn't an unwritten rule. First, until 1954 they didn't even have film patrol. That's 70 years of Derbies where a DQ for all but the most blatant fouls in the stretch could never have happened.

Second, they disqualified horses twice before. In 1968, and also in 1984. They also had a long steward's inquiry involving the first two finishers in 1959. Why would they have a long steward's inquiry if they knew they weren't going to DQ anyone?

There was no unwritten rule. They simply never had an incident where the winner blatantly fouled three horses at the 5/16 pole before. There's a first time for everything.

[dilanesp]

BTW, I should mention, the jockey on the second place finisher in 1959, who stood to get moved up to first after that long inquiry, was none other than Bill Boland. So he ought to know better.

[delsully]

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.

Do people pay you to represent them?

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by zico20

Then he can be mentioned in the same breath as Risen Star and Point Given. Of course he is nowhere near as good as those two were.

And Hansel as well. The difference is that these did not lose their chance in the Derby because they were fouled by another horse. They lost the race on their own. The idea that these other horses may have been better than WoW is irrelevant to the lost chance and not even certain at this point in WoW career.

[burnsy]

Maybe, but does it really prove anything? None of the real top 4 ran. Plus, WOW ran the best of the Derby horses that showed up and more times than not the “ new shooters” don’t win. I mean WOW had already beaten some of them by open lengths. Owendale had to run like 10 lengths better to beat WOW and the Improbable love was hilarious. WOW in all likelihood deserved to be the chalk in that race. Especially, after drawing the rail there .

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by keithw84

How, exactly, does the Bad Luck Board work?

It sounds like a couple of guys at TwinSpires decide on Mondays if there was a really hard luck situation where they can generate some good will with their users by giving them a little back on a losing wager. This is their summation in the week where they gave two, one for a race at Gulfstream, the other for the Dubai World Cup.

In our quest to do things differently, TwinSpires has instituted a Bad Luck Board. Every Monday, TwinSpires will select a race or races from the preceding weekend in which we feel unforeseen circumstances or just plain bad luck cost our players and compensate them.

In our attempt to deliver a win one loss at a time, TwinSpires will refund $10 to all players who bet $10 or more on Haunt. For those that bet $10 or more to Win on Gronkowski, they will be compensated $410, the amount a $10 Win wager would have paid had Gronkowski won.

( https://www.twinspires.com/blog/tag/bad-luck-board )

Having your jockey in the Preakness fall off practically before the tail had finished coming out of the gate seems like "unforeseen circumstances or just plain bad luck" to me.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by delsully

Do people pay you to represent them?

Yes. And sometimes to hear things they don't want to hear.

[rastajenk]

I bet they hear them over and over, too.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

I bet they hear them over and over, too.

Only if they respond with numerous legally invalid arguments.

[jocko699]

Originally Posted by highnote

I do.

You like bad rulings. I don't.

YES, a hell of a lot better than shitty judges.

[LemonSoupKid]

Upon first glance, yes, it seems so. Digging deeper, you see that as above, the biggest shooters didn't go at it again, Gaffalione keeps the rail ride, and in a sense, that almost vindicates Maximum Security. He rode up the horse's ass without checking him, here he just didn't have anyone to hit from behind, it happened to stay clear. In the stretch I wonder if anyone complained about the bumping and the bearing out WoW did 3 lanes rightward.

[bpiets]

Mr wests offer to some of the other owners of the horses he thinks are of lessor quality in the k d shows that perhaps he is going threw a second childhood syndrome...or the beginning of the tantrums of the beginnings of same...or perhaps on his way down in the horse racing industry inspite of all the great horses he has in his stable...he sure has offended many owners and trainers and let's see if the jocks on the k d horses that claimed foul get rides on any of his horses in the future that rode for him before......always did bet a lot of his entries but now am a bit more weary of so Doing....

[bpiets]

Originally Posted by 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 . . .

due process happens via the race track officials which are the Stewart's....lol...when was the last time any decision was made by the courts except against trainers and owners and jocks who fixed races or used drugs etc...and that because track officials brought same to the courts of law ....and in each case , the gambler was the only loser because they got nothing returned to them except a black eye and additional distain for the sport of kinks...