This doesn't sound good (for Servis and Navarro)

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

What constitutes "big name"? We need to draw this line so he can proceed with the slandering.

I mean could one say that Richard Mandella is an absolute cheat and be ok but if they said that Phil Oviedo is as well you could be in trouble?

The top trainers (Bob Baffert) are general purpose public figures.

Any trainer who wins a big horse race (Jason Servis) or leads the standings at a big race meet is a limited purpose public figure, meaning any commentary about horse racing gets protection.

If you want to argue some trainer at Grants Pass is a non-public figure, fine. But all the people we are talking about are public figures.

I suspect Andy's obstacle to identifying dopers by name is NYRA. It certainly isn't slander law.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The top trainers (Bob Baffert) are general purpose public figures.

Any trainer who wins a big horse race (Jason Servis) or leads the standings at a big race meet is a limited purpose public figure, meaning any commentary about horse racing gets protection.

If you want to argue some trainer at Grants Pass is a non-public figure, fine. But all the people we are talking about are public figures.

I suspect Andy's obstacle to identifying dopers by name is NYRA. It certainly isn't slander law.

I understand with a public figure the bar is set much higher (malicious intent), but what's the case law on your claim as it pertains to horse trainers?

[Tom]

If only they cared as much about protecting the bettors as they do the the trainers.........

[Robert Fischer]

Even if it's not illegal, it's unprofessional.

Racing's media personalities have a job to do. They are NOT there to be self-appointed "expert witnesses".

"When TLG says "Although the GRAHAMCRACKER has more 'value', and as improbable a run as it has been, Jason Service's horses CONTINUE to 'run through walls for him', and I cannot leave WESTFERRIGNO off my tickets..."


I get the freakin' point!! subtle inference.... Point driven home. Job done.

[aaron]

Originally Posted by cj

Yeah, that is exactly what Andy does.

Andy,despite what most think gives you information that a lot of players won’t take the time to look up. I pretty much use my own information and methods,but on races I am totally confused about,I will not hesitate to listen to Andy or other players,I feel do their work. There are quite a few out there. I don’t pay much attention to the picks,but the information can be helpful. I go back to the Harvey Pack days and Harvey didn’t give picks,just information.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

I understand with a public figure the bar is set much higher (malicious intent), but what's the case law on your claim as it pertains to horse trainers?

You don't need a specific case involving a horse trainer here, and that's a kind of bad question to ask because that isn't how the law works. Most cases are decided by legal rules, not a specific case on point to the facts.

The rule of limited purpose public figures is set out in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., a longstanding US Supreme Court case. It turns on whether a plaintiff voluntarily injected himself into the public eye. Choosing to become a horse trainer with a large stable at a prominent racetrack certainly qualifies. Athletes, on-screen talent on TV and in the movies, prominent doctors and lawyers within a community, etc., have all been held to be limited purpose public figures.

At any rate, the only case I am aware of that specifically involved a horse trainer was a 1970 New York case, Lloyds v. United Press International, 311 N.Y.S.2d 373 (N.Y. Supr. Ct. 1970). It held a harness trainer was a public figure.

But I assure you, this is right in the center of my expertise as a lawyer in media case: I recently wrote the cert. petition of Kathy McKee seeking US Supreme Court review of the limited purpose public figure doctrine. I am intimately familiar with the cases. There is no doubt that major trainers are limited purpose public figures with respect to their conduct within the sport of horse racing.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Thanks for the info -- I just have a hard time believing a horse trainer is a public figure. That's why I asked for a specific case.

[jay68802]

Yep, TLG should have voiced his concern about doping along time ago. He could have, and put himself in the line of fire. This might have got a little attention, but not much.
I should have announced that I am not betting races until the doping problem is gone from the game. This would have got less attention than TLG. People would have been saying, "Who the F@#K is Jay?"
The trainers should have been voicing their concerns about doping and being cheated. Some have, and they have been heard by tracks and HRB's. Still didn't change anything.
Comes down to one thing. The doping has been talked about by numerous people and groups for a long time, and has fell on deaf ears.
HRB's have kept a inadequate drug testing system in place. Allowing the cheaters to come up with ways to get around it. And if they are caught, the penalty is not a factor.

Racing has one choice now. Change the drug testing system. Change the fines and suspensions. And most of all, when and if they do this, keep the trainers and owners alphabet groups out of the process.

[dilanesp]

To be clear, "NYRA doesn't want me talking out of school about specific trainers" is a perfectly legitimate reason for a NYRA employee with a public face to limit his comments. Getting fired and becoming a free speech martyr isn't going to solve the doping problem. He has done what he could given his position.

But I think it's important to be accurate on the law here. Anyone is allowed to voice their opinions about leading trainers. It's not prohibited by defamation doctrines.

[Blenheim]

The owners of Maximum Security were so shocked and dismayed that SGF Servis was doping their prized colt that they decided to send him to Scopolamine Bob . . . the trainer that perpetrated the biggest heist in the annals of horse racing.

Same as it ever was.

[thaskalos]

It would have made no difference if TLG screamed the names of the alleged dopers from the rooftops. How much yelling about this doping did Andy Beyer do in his journalistic days? What difference did it make in the grand scheme of things? The horsemen ridiculed him, and accused him of making excuses for the "under-performance" of his speed figures...while the rest of the industry remained conspicuously mute on the sidelines. And the dopers continued on their merry way...and here we are.

What happens from now on is anybody's guess. If the government remains involved, then there is a possibility that an independent anti-doping agency might be employed to oversee the game...and then things will get better. If a few suspensions and fines are handed out, and the government falls for the racing industry's company line that "the game can police itself"...then this whole ordeal will amount to nothing more than a smoke-and-mirrors exhibition. You can't trust a fox to guard the hen-house.

[NY BRED]

He announced his retirement about 10 days ago

[aaron]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It would have made no difference if TLG screamed the names of the alleged dopers from the rooftops. How much yelling about this doping did Andy Beyer do in his journalistic days? What difference did it make in the grand scheme of things? The horsemen ridiculed him, and accused him of making excuses for the "under-performance" of his speed figures...while the rest of the industry remained conspicuously mute on the sidelines. And the dopers continued on their merry way...and here we are.

What happens from now on is anybody's guess. If the government remains involved, then there is a possibility that an independent anti-doping agency might be employed to oversee the game...and then things will get better. If a few suspensions and fines are handed out, and the government falls for the racing industry's company line that "the game can police itself"...then this whole ordeal will amount to nothing more than a smoke-and-mirrors exhibition. You can't trust a fox to guard the hen-house.

For any progress to be made,more trainers must be exposed.If these are the only two big names,then it will be business as usual.
Problem is tracks can not police their organizations. Tracks only interest is business continue and those in charge continue to get their pay checks. As noticed by the investigation,owners were given a pass.Hard to believe,the owners did not know what the horseplayers knew.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Racing has one choice now. Change the drug testing system. Change the fines and suspensions. And most of all, when and if they do this, keep the trainers and owners alphabet groups out of the process.

That 10 year ban should look a bit loose today.

Racing needs to get it's ARSE out it's butt and start ending this crap. When you cheat, you go away - forever. Not 3 days at your convenience, you go away and never come back to the game. You re out. End of story.

2 or more drug positives, you are gone. Buh bye.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by aaron

For any progress to be made,more trainers must be exposed.If these are the only two big names,then it will be business as usual.
Problem is tracks can not police their organizations. Tracks only interest is business continue and those in charge continue to get their pay checks. As noticed by the investigation,owners were given a pass.Hard to believe,the owners did not know what the horse players knew.

And it was the FBI here.
From what we know now, for at least 2 years, racing has FAILED to protect the bettors from GP to Mth, to Bel to Sar to the Ky Derby to the $20 Million race.

Pretty pathetic record.

MY prediction - nothing will change.
The vast majority of drugers, who are still not caught, will lay low for a few weeks, then gradually crank it back up and BAU by Derby day.

The game has no control over itself.