Stewards never filed a inquiry .... West arguement in court

[Gold Medal]

Apparently Gary West is not going to litigate in court whethe Max Security committed a fould or not but instead argue that since stewards never officially filed a inquiry and WOW never filed a objection that the only thing stewards should have been allowed to consider is Country House and Long Range Toddy who were the only ones that officially objected but stewards cited WOW in official paperwork as reason for DQ.

Should get interesting

[paulbenny]

Do the Kentucky rules require the lodging of an objection by anyone other than the stewards to be specific to the horse directly affected by the infraction claimed?




If not, it does not matter that WOW did not lodge the claim of foul, and it does not matter that the stewards did not initiate the review.


It achieved the correct outcome and call.

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by paulbenny

Do the Kentucky rules require the lodging of an objection by anyone other than the stewards to be specific to the horse directly affected by the infraction claimed?




If not, it does not matter that WOW did not lodge the claim of foul, and it does not matter that the stewards did not initiate the review.


It achieved the correct outcome and call.

I honestly dont know what the rules are concerning that but apparently West has some hot shot lexington lawyer that thinks they have a case or at the very least believes thats the best case they have to make ...

[PowerUpPaynter]

what would happen to the bets paid out and not paid out if it was ever overturned?

[headhawg]

We live in such a litigious society. Effing crazy. Just deal with it and grow. There are bigger problems in the world.

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by headhawg

We live in such a litigious society. Effing crazy. Just deal with it and grow. There are bigger problems in the world.

They said the thing that has him most upset is not that the horse got DQ but how the track handled it by taking so long to make a decision and leaving his wife like that in limbo for 25 minutes and than refusing to even say one word to him after the race to explain why they DQ his horse

[lamboguy]

from a little first hand experience, i was with a friend at Churchill once that had a horse that finished second to the race and we saw the horse get decapitated. the name of the horse was INITFORTHECANDY. as it turns out the jockey on INITFORTHECANDY got his front teeth knocked out as a result of the incident and couldn't get to the outrider with the walkie talkie to claim foul. the incident happened right in front of the stewards stand. my friend, Jeff Talley, flew over to the stewards to place an objection. after further review they took the first place horse down and put his horse up. the horse that crossed the wire first, as luck would have it, was a Bill Mott trainee.

the point that i am trying to make is that the Stewards do a great job collecting their paychecks, but come in a little light when it comes to looking for incidents when they happen right in front of their faces.

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by PowerUpPaynter

what would happen to the bets paid out and not paid out if it was ever overturned?

Good question but I cant see any way bettors get paid out that had Max Security

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Gold Medal

I honestly dont know what the rules are concerning that but apparently West has some hot shot lexington lawyer that thinks they have a case or at the very least believes thats the best case they have to make ...

Under the law, the claim is a loser. The DQ was clearly correct, and the technicalities of who called the inquiry are completely irrelevant. Plus the statutes say stewards' decisions are final.

But it is also a fun case for judges. And you never know when you have a fun case for judges. Tom Brady found a judge who was a football fan, and he got his suspension overturned even though the precedents were clear. (That was later reversed on appeal.)

The fact that a judge might find it fun to decide the Kentucky Derby gives the Wests a puncher's chance. But he's stupid not to run in the Preakness, because winning the other two races would give him an even better chance.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PowerUpPaynter

what would happen to the bets paid out and not paid out if it was ever overturned?

The same thing that happened when the commission disqualified Dancer's Image. Nothing.

[Gold Medal]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Under the law, the claim is a loser. The DQ was clearly correct, and the technicalities of who called the inquiry are completely irrelevant. Plus the statutes say stewards' decisions are final.

But it is also a fun case for judges. And you never know when you have a fun case for judges. Tom Brady found a judge who was a football fan, and he got his suspension overturned even though the precedents were clear. (That was later reversed on appeal.)

The fact that a judge might find it fun to decide the Kentucky Derby gives the Wests a puncher's chance. But he's stupid not to run in the Preakness, because winning the other two races would give him an even better chance.

The kentucky racing commission says stewards decisions are final. I am not a legal expert but I dont think a federal judge is bound by what they say but I agree it should be fun if it does indeed make it to a courtroom

[Grits]

Originally Posted by Gold Medal

They said the thing that has him most upset is not that the horse got DQ but how the track handled it by taking so long to make a decision and leaving his wife like that in limbo for 25 minutes and than refusing to even say one word to him after the race to explain why they DQ his horse

Oh Lord help her. I wonder if his little wife has recovered?


I swear.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by paulbenny

Do the Kentucky rules require the lodging of an objection by anyone other than the stewards to be specific to the horse directly affected by the infraction claimed?




If not, it does not matter that WOW did not lodge the claim of foul, and it does not matter that the stewards did not initiate the review.


It achieved the correct outcome and call.

This is what I've been wondering ever since everyone started shouting about who did and who didn't lodge objections. Who cares? Once the objection is filed, then the stewards look at it. It's basically redundant to file another objection.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Gold Medal

The kentucky racing commission says stewards decisions are final. I am not a legal expert but I dont think a federal judge is bound by what they say but I agree it should be fun if it does indeed make it to a courtroom

It will likely be a state judge. You take a writ of adminstrative mandamus from the decision of the Racing Commission, once it is final. And that goes to the local state court.

But having said that, the reality is it depends on how badly the judge wants to decide this. If they follow the law, the stewards' decision is unreviewable. But judges don't always follow the law in these fun sports case.

[098poi]

Originally Posted by Grits

Oh Lord help her. I wonder if his little wife has recovered?


I swear.

Ha-Ha!! As if this was the most important issue to address in this whole affair.