|
|
06-08-2019, 08:23 AM
|
#1
|
GARY
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,339
|
GARY AND MARY WEST VS THE KY RACING COMMISSION
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...qualification/
The above link is contained on The Paulick Report Website;
regardless of the chatter to date, both in the press and ,to some degree on this forum, there are many points contained in this litigation that many us missed.
While we all observed the reasons for the DQ many of us were unaware that owners and trainers relinquish their rights to appeal the decision of the stewards which, to my knowledge only exists at Churchill Downs.
The "win" for the"house" represents a "mother load" of profit via the DQ; based upon the allegations regarding the rules of racing , zero Dq's in 145 years etc might just favor the plaintiff.
Even if there is no reversal changes to these"unique" powers of the Stewards must be altered to protect the owners and fans who wager on this race.
Last edited by NY BRED; 06-08-2019 at 08:28 AM.
|
|
|
06-08-2019, 08:48 AM
|
#2
|
self medicated
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: toga
Posts: 3,077
|
I’m aware of it and stated they will probably lose because the judge is going to read that and recite it. Money is no object with these people, this is a jab at the Kentucky Racing Commission and an attempt to dirty up the Stewards which will not be hard to do if they are forced to talk. I said last month “winning” is not what they are looking for. I do agree though that the racing commission should not be “God” or the Wizard of Oz like they are.
|
|
|
06-08-2019, 10:06 AM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,761
|
HA!
When War of Will wins today we'll all know who stole the Triple Crown from whom.
|
|
|
06-08-2019, 11:18 AM
|
#4
|
Todd Bowker
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 152
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY BRED
https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...qualification/
The above link is contained on The Paulick Report Website;
regardless of the chatter to date, both in the press and ,to some degree on this forum, there are many points contained in this litigation that many us missed.
While we all observed the reasons for the DQ many of us were unaware that owners and trainers relinquish their rights to appeal the decision of the stewards which, to my knowledge only exists at Churchill Downs.
The "win" for the"house" represents a "mother load" of profit via the DQ; based upon the allegations regarding the rules of racing , zero Dq's in 145 years etc might just favor the plaintiff.
Even if there is no reversal changes to these"unique" powers of the Stewards must be altered to protect the owners and fans who wager on this race.
|
First of all, it's Mary West, not Marsha.
Second, not being able to appeal Steward's in-race decisions is the norm, not the exception. It's not a Kentucky thing (and Churchill doesn't even get to make that call regardless, the Commonwealth does).
For example, Indiana has the following .... 71 IAC 10-2-9 (f)A decision by the judges regarding a disqualification involving the running of the race that does not result in a ruling is final and may not be appealed.
You can argue that it should be changed, but it being "unique to Churchill" is not the argument, and precedent will likely kill this case. The Kentucky Court of Appeals has already decided on this issue in the case March v KHRC (2015). My guess is the Federal Judge will remand it back to Kentucky, as they normally do with gambling related cases.
Third, the house did not "win" anything as a result of the DQ. The exact same amount of money still got paid out, just to different people.
|
|
|
06-08-2019, 11:36 AM
|
#5
|
@TimeformUSfigs
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbowker
Third, the house did not "win" anything as a result of the DQ. The exact same amount of money still got paid out, just to different people.
|
Basically correct with the small exception that the track probably paid out a little more based on keeping less breakage with the longshot on top.
|
|
|
06-08-2019, 04:19 PM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: va
Posts: 4,942
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Basically correct with the small exception that the track probably paid out a little more based on keeping less breakage with the longshot on top.
|
but I bet they made it up plus some on uncashed tickets with the dq
|
|
|
06-08-2019, 11:31 PM
|
#7
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 5,222
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbowker
First of all, it's Mary West, not Marsha.
Second, not being able to appeal Steward's in-race decisions is the norm, not the exception. It's not a Kentucky thing (and Churchill doesn't even get to make that call regardless, the Commonwealth does).
For example, Indiana has the following .... 71 IAC 10-2-9 (f)A decision by the judges regarding a disqualification involving the running of the race that does not result in a ruling is final and may not be appealed.
You can argue that it should be changed, but it being "unique to Churchill" is not the argument, and precedent will likely kill this case. The Kentucky Court of Appeals has already decided on this issue in the case March v KHRC (2015). My guess is the Federal Judge will remand it back to Kentucky, as they normally do with gambling related cases.
Third, the house did not "win" anything as a result of the DQ. The exact same amount of money still got paid out, just to different people.
|
Thanks for this. The initial post was a real head-scratcher.
|
|
|
06-09-2019, 12:33 PM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
|
What Todd said for the most part (although it would be a dismissal, not a remand to state court).
More broadly, a lot of people who support the Wests in this litigation seem to have this fantasy where the Wests get to take far ranging discovery, deposing Tyler G and getting him to "concede" that War of Will ran up on MS's heels, deposing the stewards and getting them to "admit" that they didn't post the inquiry sign, making semi-clever arguments about how they didn't DQ in other roughly run Derbies, etc.
That's not how this works. Under Rule 12(b)(6), you have to state a claim for relief BEFORE you can get discovery in federal court, if the defendant can show a plausible ground for dismissal. You have to show that if the facts are as you say they are, you can win your suit.
There's precious little chance that this case gets anywhere near discovery. What's very likely to happen is that the Defendants will move to dismiss, arguing that stewards' decisions are final and that there is no due process right to anything more than a stewards' deliberation in a horse race, and that's it, the Plaintiffs lose. And it is very likely that this argument will win, the case will be dismissed, and the dismissal will be affirmed on appeal.
|
|
|
06-09-2019, 02:00 PM
|
#9
|
PA Steward
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Del Boca Vista
Posts: 88,176
|
Even though I really didn't want to, given the OPs history of messing up facts (lulz), I gave in to my proper instincts and corrected Marsha to Mary.
Still a hilarious fail if you ask me.
|
|
|
06-09-2019, 05:32 PM
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 3,641
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY BRED
Even if there is no reversal changes to these"unique" powers of the Stewards must be altered to protect the owners and fans who wager on this race.
|
I'd settle for having transparency of information on the horses, like they do in Hong Kong, so I can have a veterinary history of the horses I am spending my hard earned $$ on. I can't count the number of times I've been "hood-winked" in this manner, finding out stuff about horses way way after the fact.
|
|
|
06-09-2019, 07:25 PM
|
#11
|
Journeyman
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 44
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceBored
HA!
When War of Will wins today we'll all know who stole the Triple Crown from whom.
|
um... ya
|
|
|
06-10-2019, 10:33 AM
|
#12
|
Todd Bowker
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 152
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ctownraces@bp
but I bet they made it up plus some on uncashed tickets with the dq
|
Outs tickets in Kentucky used to revert to the Kentucky Racing Health and Welfare Fund after a period of time. Assuming they still do, Churchill wouldn't have profited itself.
As every jurisdiction is different, it's possible some guest sites may have benefited.
|
|
|
06-10-2019, 11:53 AM
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,861
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceBored
HA!
When War of Will wins today we'll all know who stole the Triple Crown from whom.
|
It was not surprising to see WoW and Tacitus finish behind the winner in the Belmont. WoW did not have the stamina to finish well in the Derby and he was even less likely to win the Belmont after a hard campaign over the past couple of months.
Tacitus is by Tapit out of Pulpit. Neither of those could stay beyond 9 furlongs.
I saw Pulpit race a few times. Definitely a middle distance horse, not a classic distance horse, based on his physique and his record.
There is stamina in Tacitus' pedigree with A.P. Indy, Seattle Slew, Unbridled, and Unbridled's Song, but maybe the sprinter/middle distance genes from the Storm Cat pedigree on the dam's side is a little more dominant? Did Storm Bird ever win a major race beyond 7 furlongs?
Now if Tacitus was to be bred to a dam with stamina in her pedigree, like a My Flag-pedigreed filly, then maybe the offspring could win some classics.
|
|
|
06-10-2019, 12:14 PM
|
#14
|
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 9,893
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by highnote
It was not surprising to see WoW and Tacitus finish behind the winner in the Belmont. WoW did not have the stamina to finish well in the Derby and he was even less likely to win the Belmont after a hard campaign over the past couple of months.
Tacitus is by Tapit out of Pulpit. Neither of those could stay beyond 9 furlongs.
I saw Pulpit race a few times. Definitely a middle distance horse, not a classic distance horse, based on his physique and his record.
There is stamina in Tacitus' pedigree with A.P. Indy, Seattle Slew, Unbridled, and Unbridled's Song, but maybe the sprinter/middle distance genes from the Storm Cat pedigree on the dam's side is a little more dominant? Did Storm Bird ever win a major race beyond 7 furlongs?
Now if Tacitus was to be bred to a dam with stamina in her pedigree, like a My Flag-pedigreed filly, then maybe the offspring could win some classics.
|
Marconi, a Tapit, won a Grade II at 1 1/2 on the Belmont card.
|
|
|
06-10-2019, 12:21 PM
|
#15
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,861
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike
Marconi, a Tapit, won a Grade II at 1 1/2 on the Belmont card.
|
Yes. I see that Tapit has now sire at least 3 Belmont winners. I had stopped following U.S. racing for several years and missed that.
I wonder if the Tapit colts got their stamina from Tapit via the grand sires like A.P. Indy and Seattle Slew, or from the dam side?
I'd like to the speed Belmont speed figures of his colts that won.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|