Keeping them honest

[TEJAS KIDD]

I don't know if this has ever been said before/or if it's ever been done.
I suggest that the next time a horse is disqualified from purse money (after the race was official) from the result of a bad drug test, horse players that were effected (mainly bettors that had the place horse) should take a class action suit against the trainer of that dq'd horse. Wouldn't the threat of having to pay off thousands or more dollars to gamblers, keep them somewhat honest?
I'm sure there are many lawyers out there. Is this a winnable case?

[ryesteve]

I'm obviously in favor of deterrents, but I think it would be difficult to sufficiently prove in a court of law that the outcome of the race would have been different.

[Cangamble]

Originally Posted by ryesteve

I'm obviously in favor of deterrents, but I think it would be difficult to sufficiently prove in a court of law that the outcome of the race would have been different.

The obvious angle against what you said is why do they ban these substances in the first place especially if they are labeled performance enhancers?
I don't think you need to prove that one horse would have won over the drugged horse.

[DanG]

Hypocrisy 101;

I am diametrically opposed to almost all class action law suits and yet I love this idea!

[ryesteve]

Originally Posted by Cangamble

The obvious angle against what you said is why do they ban these substances in the first place especially if they are labeled performance enhancers?

I'm not saying they're not enhancers... but a lawyer would argue that the enhancement can't be quantified, so you can't prove the outcome would've been reversed.

But why are you saying this wouldn't need to be proven? If you're suing for damages, isn't this how you were damaged? By being deprived of an otherwise winning wager?

[cj's dad]

Originally Posted by TEJAS KIDD

I don't know if this has ever been said before/or if it's ever been done.
I suggest that the next time a horse is disqualified from purse money (after the race was official) from the result of a bad drug test, horse players that were effected (mainly bettors that had the place horse) should take a class action suit against the trainer of that dq'd horse. Wouldn't the threat of having to pay off thousands or more dollars to gamblers, keep them somewhat honest?
I'm sure there are many lawyers out there. Is this a winnable case?

Just what we need- more scoopers at the track picking up tickets hoping for a drug dq a month or two down the road, and others filing lost ticket claims.
Your idea has merit but it is just too cumbersome to work. IMO.

[Marshall Bennett]

Originally Posted by ryesteve

I'm obviously in favor of deterrents, but I think it would be difficult to sufficiently prove in a court of law that the outcome of the race would have been different.

To make a long story short , you hit the nail right on the head .

[HUSKER55]

Would you really have to prove anything? The drug was banned or he used it in excess and therefore he altered the race and therefore no one will ever know the true outcome.

What is KNOWN is that he committed fraud as proved by the drug test. That should be enough, I would think.

It is like buying a table off the showroom. It sits flat and level. You take yours home and find one of the legs is longer.

What's the difference? Deception is deception. Fraud is fraud.

What am I missing?

[ryesteve]

Originally Posted by HUSKER55

Would you really have to prove anything? The drug was banned or he used it in excess and therefore he altered the race and therefore no one will ever know the true outcome.

What is KNOWN is that he committed fraud as proved by the drug test. That should be enough, I would think.

It is like buying a table off the showroom. It sits flat and level. You take yours home and find one of the legs is longer.

What's the difference? Deception is deception. Fraud is fraud.

What am I missing?

The difference is, by misrepresenting the table, it doesn't perform the function you paid for it to do. The impact of the deception is clear.

You yourself said that in the case of a horse drugging, the alternate outcome will never be known. If you're going to sue someone, you need to prove that their actions had an effect on you, not just that they did something wrong.

[Marshall Bennett]

A case could very well hinge on whether or not a trainer was acting with malicious intent . Were drugs introduced for the intended purpose of enhancing performance rather than a medical condition . All sorts of variables would enter into such a case , expert witnesses , ect. We're not talking about murder here , but a conflict where gambling interest are at issue . I may be wrong , but I don't see such litigation going anywhere , especially in an industry where question marks already litter the playing field .

[Zman179]

Oh great, yet another frivolous lawsuit in the United States. Like we don't have enough of those.

C'mon, if you hit a $200 exacta ten times, then you find out that the winner was drugged to the hilt and dq'd out of the purse, are you going to give back that two grand?

Right.

[TEJAS KIDD]

Originally Posted by Zman179

Oh great, yet another frivolous lawsuit in the United States. Like we don't have enough of those.

C'mon, if you hit a $200 exacta ten times, then you find out that the winner was drugged to the hilt and dq'd out of the purse, are you going to give back that two grand?

Right.

Probably not....But the purpose for the lawsuit is to keep trainers from doing it..Nothing else seems to work...Maybe reaching deep into their pockets would..

[john del riccio]

Originally Posted by ryesteve

I'm obviously in favor of deterrents, but I think it would be difficult to sufficiently prove in a court of law that the outcome of the race would have been different.

Seve,

I mean no disrespect, you are obviously a knowledgeable player.

It would not be at all difficult to prove it in a court of law, the problem is the FUNDS & EFFORT that it would require in our maze of a legal system.


This is a GREAT idea (class action lawsuit in races where DQ's for positives after mutuel payouts have been distributed).

The skinny, it ain't gonna happen.

John