TMZ: Bob Baffert Sued by Gamblers Over Kentucky Derby, Dirty Horse Cost Us a Fortune!

[Andy Asaro]

Odds are against winning but the fact that it's a headline on TMZ is already a win.

Twitter

Here's the filing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rWp...slXxNsR1D/view

[cj]

I'm most interested in the seeing the proof this horse was actually on that cream for a month and that it in fact caused the overage. "Bob says so" doesn't cut it in my opinion and won't work in court.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by cj

I'm most interested in the seeing the proof this horse was actually on that cream for a month and that it in fact caused the overage. "Bob says so" doesn't cut it in my opinion and won't work in court.

Medication logs are being modified as we speak?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Medication logs are being modified as we speak?

From my vast legal experience (reading every John Grisham book) I don't think discovery works the same for civil cases as it does criminal. I'll wait for dilanesp to tell us.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

From my vast legal experience (reading every John Grisham book) I don't think discovery works the same for civil cases as it does criminal. I'll wait for dilanesp to tell us.

What can dilanesp possibly still remember about law? Between Paceadvantage and the poker rooms in Atlantic City...there is no time left for dilanesp to practice law.

[stlseeeek]

Bafferts cheating ass got me.

I had the #7 and an Exacta wheel with the field. Buddy would of had tri.
It cost me a Lot of cash.

But, i had this happen before at Fairmount Park. Ran 2nd at 19/1, only to find out that they dq'd winner for positive. Would of had 19/1 winner and $10 exacta with 25/1 second.


It is what it is, once it says,"Official"

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

What can dilanesp possibly still remember about law? Between Paceadvantage and the poker rooms in Atlantic City...there is no time left for dilanesp to practice law.

I think I worked over 2,000 hours in 2020, despite the pandemic.

I don't think this case gets to discovery. They filed it in California, but Kentucky law should apply to their bets on a Kentucky horse race. And under Kentucky law, they're screwed. Here's the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, accurately stating the law, in White v. Turfway Park, from 1990:

The district court based its ruling largely on its interpretation of a previously uninterpreted rule of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission which provides in relevant part:

Official Order of Finish as to Pari-mutuel Payoff. In the event . . . cause for disqualification of any horses in a race, is brought to the attention of the stewards by the time the last jockey in a race has been weighted in, the stewards shall rule on the extent of disqualification, if any, and shall determine the placing of the horses in the official order of finish for purposes of pari-mutuel payoff. After the stewards have caused the "official" sign to be flashed on the infield result board, the order of finish so declared official shall be final, and no right of appeal thereof shall exist, insofar as the pari-mutuel payoff is concerned. Any subsequent change in the order of finish or award of purse money after the result of a race has been so declared official by the stewards shall in no way affect the pari-mutuel payoff.
810 K.A.R. 1:016 § 16 ("finality rule"); see id. at 1:017 § 7(1) (same rule in context of effect of objections and complaints); id. at 1:011 § 11(5) (same rule in context of parimutuel wagering rules).

In the absence of a controlling Kentucky interpretation, the district court looked elsewhere and found that courts generally hold that when bettors place their bets they consent to be bound by the state rules of racing and by the ruling of stewards as to the order of finish. See Finlay v. Eastern Racing Ass'n, 308 Mass. 20, 22-24, 30 N.E.2d 859, 861 (1941); Salmore v. Empire City Racing Ass'n, 123 N.Y.S.2d 688, 692 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1953); Shapiro v. Queens County Jockey Club, 184 Misc. 295, 297-300, 53 N.Y.S.2d 135, 137-38 (N.Y. Mun. Ct. 1945). The district court was also persuaded by the reasoning of other courts that the immediate rulings of official judges should be given greater credence than the observations in court of a "disgruntled loser of a wager." Shapiro, 184 Misc. at 300-01, 53 N.Y.S.2d at 139; see Discenza v. New York Racing Ass'n, 134 Misc.2d 3, 7-8, 509 N YS.2d 454, 457 (N.Y. Civ.Ct. 1986). Accordingly, the district court read the finality rule as prohibiting it from reordering the finish and redistributing the pari-mutuel payoff....

[P]laintiff attempts to show that the plain language of the finality rule did not abrogate any existing cause of action without showing there was indeed such a cause of action. And we believe that, by its plain language, the rule makes the steward's determination of the official winner binding upon pari-mutuel bettors.

Plaintiff also argues that by abrogating existing causes of action, the district court's interpretation renders the finality rule an ultra vires administrative action. We find the statutes underlying the Racing Rules to be broad enough to vest authority in an official to declare a race winner and facilitate the orderly disposal of pari-mutuel winnings. We note that, in fact, plaintiff's arguments recognize the need for finality as to pari-mutuel bettors. We find it somewhat disingenuous to argue that the need for finality should be ignored anytime a bettor can point to a technical violation of a racing rule.

Whenever you place a bet, you agree to the rule that whatever the result is that the stewards declare to be official, you are bound by. That basically legally screws you on ANY cause of action that seeks lost winnings.

Indeed, this is especially true with drug tests, because the KHRC regulations are clear that a post-race drug test affects purse money only. In other words, you are assuming the risk that the horses might be doped and that you won't win your bet if they are.

This will likely be resolved quickly, on a motion to dismiss, on the basis of well established law.

[foregoforever]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This will likely be resolved quickly, on a motion to dismiss, on the basis of well established law.

I didn't read the complaint, but the Paulick story says that suit was filed against Baffert and Zedan Racing, not against CDI or Kentucky. It says nothing about seeking to have the parimutuel payoffs changed but rather seeks damages from Baffert because of his "racketeering activity".

Isn't that a different issue?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by foregoforever

I didn't read the complaint, but the Paulick story says that suit was filed against Baffert and Zedan Racing, not against CDI or Kentucky. It says nothing about seeking to have the parimutuel payoffs changed but rather seeks damages from Baffert because of his "racketeering activity".

Isn't that a different issue?

No. If the law is you have no legal entitlement to a winning ticket based on a post-race drug test, and such a test may only change the purse money, then plaintiffs can assert no damages here as a matter of law. They got exactly what they bargained for, which was a ticket that would be paid or rejected based on the result confirmed by the stewards after the race.

The basic problem here is that the bettors get the benefit of this bargain. For instance, when you bet on a horse that is later disqualified for purse money, you get to keep your winnings. And- and this is truly important- you get your money fast. We could institute a rule that we wait for post-race drug tests to pay off winning tickets. Then, if you get beat by a doped horse, you get paid. But- BETTORS WOULDN'T LIKE THIS. They want their money immediately after the race. Indeed, a couple of decades ago, they stopped waiting for the weigh-in after the race before putting up the official sign, because bettors wanted their money even faster!

So this is a rule that is incredibly beneficial for bettors, and bettors benefit from it all the time. And as White says, "when bettors place their bets they consent to be bound by the state rules of racing and by the ruling of stewards as to the order of finish".

[Onesome]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

No. If the law is you have no legal entitlement to a winning ticket based on a post-race drug test, and such a test may only change the purse money, then plaintiffs can assert no damages here as a matter of law. They got exactly what they bargained for, which was a ticket that would be paid or rejected based on the result confirmed by the stewards after the race.

The basic problem here is that the bettors get the benefit of this bargain. For instance, when you bet on a horse that is later disqualified for purse money, you get to keep your winnings. And- and this is truly important- you get your money fast. We could institute a rule that we wait for post-race drug tests to pay off winning tickets. Then, if you get beat by a doped horse, you get paid. But- BETTORS WOULDN'T LIKE THIS. They want their money immediately after the race. Indeed, a couple of decades ago, they stopped waiting for the weigh-in after the race before putting up the official sign, because bettors wanted their money even faster!

So this is a rule that is incredibly beneficial for bettors, and bettors benefit from it all the time. And as White says, "when bettors place their bets they consent to be bound by the state rules of racing and by the ruling of stewards as to the order of finish".

I thought I remember reading that some of the players who played in the highstakes games in Molly's Room had to give back their winnings because one of the players used embezzled funds in it., How is it different then this?

[Dave Schwartz]

courts generally hold that when bettors place their bets they consent to be bound by the state rules of racing and by the ruling of stewards as to the order of finish

Alas, I am but a poor, humble living room lawyer who gets his legal knowledge from TV.

(Once saw a Boston Legal where someone was arrested on Monday, tried and sentenced on Friday, and out after a successful appeal the following Monday. SO, I KNOW how the legal system works. LOL)

But, in all seriousness, dilanesp...

Isn't that meant to protect the track as opposed to the alleged perpetrator of a FRAUD?

IOW, does this statute and case law specifically prevent someone who has lost money from trying to recover that money from a guilty party?

I've not spent my time looking up what I don't understand, but it seems logical that, while the track is certainly clear of this, someone accused of being a criminal would have a difficult time using this to shield their liability.

Am I really out to lunch here?
(If I am, say it gently. LOL)


Dave

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz

Alas, I am but a poor, humble living room lawyer who gets his legal knowledge from TV.

(Once saw a Boston Legal where someone was arrested on Monday, tried and sentenced on Friday, and out after a successful appeal the following Monday. SO, I KNOW how the legal system works. LOL)

But, in all seriousness, dilanesp...

Isn't that meant to protect the track as opposed to the alleged perpetrator of a FRAUD?

IOW, does this statute and case law specifically prevent someone who has lost money from trying to recover that money from a guilty party?

I've not spent my time looking up what I don't understand, but it seems logical that, while the track is certainly clear of this, someone accused of being a criminal would have a difficult time using this to shield their liability.

Am I really out to lunch here?
(If I am, say it gently. LOL)


Dave

Start your analysis with what money are you trying to recover?

Does a bettor have an entitlement to cash her ticket where she bet on the horse that finished second to win, because the winner was doped?

Under Kentucky law, the answer is no- her bet is a loser, because the holder of the ticket betting on the 1st place finisher is entitled to be paid, whether or not the horse fails a post-race test.

Our bettor "consent[ed] to be bound by the state rules of racing and by the ruling of stewards as to the order of finish". She agreed that if the stewards ruled her horse finished second, she loses.

If I make a bet with you as to the results of a coin toss, and we specifically agree to pay off even if the coin later turns out to be loaded, can you sue the manufacturer of the loaded coin if it turns out to be loaded? No, because you agreed when you placed the bet that your bet wouldn't pay off if you lost because of a loaded coin. So your losses were within the scope of the risk you assumed.

Bettors, under Kentucky law, agree that if they get beat by a doped horse, they won't win anything. They assume that risk when they place the bet.

[airford1]

I have been rubbing Betamethasone cream on my skin for along time and I cant say it improved my performance at all. I do have soft skin.

[Andy Asaro]

There are what seems to be some outrageous claims in the lawsuit. My theory is that Beychock (who is no dummy) could know something about a Fed investigation into Baffert. I hope so.

Twitter

---

Last edited by Andy Asaro; 05-15-2021 at 08:15 AM.

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Start your analysis with what money are you trying to recover?

Does a bettor have an entitlement to cash her ticket where she bet on the horse that finished second to win, because the winner was doped?

Not from the track.

I just find it hard to believe that fraud perpetrated by someone besides the track - or for that matter an actual fraud BY THE TRACK - would allow for no recourse against the CRIMINAL.

An example from current times would be the COVID vaccine.

The drug companies are free from exposure if these vaccines don't work.

However, if it turned out that people were dying and that one of the drug companies had faked the testing so that they could say their drug worked when they knew it was dangerous, it would seem to me that there would still be recourse through the court.

[edit] Not say that this will happen or even that it should.

If I make a bet with you as to the results of a coin toss, and we specifically agree to pay off even if the coin later turns out to be loaded, can you sue the manufacturer of the loaded coin if it turns out to be loaded? No, because you agreed when you placed the bet that your bet wouldn't pay off if you lost because of a loaded coin. So your losses were within the scope of the risk you assumed.

1. Our agreement would be between you and me.
2. If the dice were loaded by the manufacturer, why would I not have the option to receive restitution from them? They were not protected in our agreement.

3. For that matter, what if you were part of the fraud? Is there not an assumption that both of us would play fair?