the Wests filed suit...

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

Interesting stuff gentlemen.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. I have put into bold what I understand to be the most significant points.

[/B]





The terms "meaningful appeal" may be important here. Please define.

If the 14th Amendment supersedes Kentucky Statute what, if anything will happen next? Appeal, if so in what Court? Redistribution of purse?; Changing order of finish?; Changing of Kentucky statute? . . .

I don't think a federal court can issue a mandatory injunction here. All they could do is award the purse money in damages, which wouldn't make MS the winner.

If they had to do this, they should have filed in state court. At least state courts can in theory issue a writ of mandamus ordering the result to be changed.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

Whoa now, easy does it . . . how about we hear from the legal minds first read what they've got to say about the 14th Amendment and the Kentucky Statute, go from there.

The Kentucky statute making the stewards' decision final is perfectly constitutional. There's a Seventh Circuit case from 2005 that upholds Illinois' similar law.

If it weren't, then a municipal softball umpire's calls would have to be appealable in court too.

[keithw84]

Originally Posted by FenceBored

How can we have a Triple Crown of three races in five weeks if we have to wait years between the races to find out who really won each one?

Before American Pharoah, a lot of people were saying the races needed to be spaced out more so the TC could be won again. Maybe have the Preakness 2 years after the Derby, and the Belmont 3 years after that. We might get the first gelding to win the Triple Crown.

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by keithw84

Before American Pharoah, a lot of people were saying the races needed to be spaced out more so the TC could be won again. Maybe have the Preakness 2 years after the Derby, and the Belmont 3 years after that. We might get the first gelding to win the Triple Crown.

A G1 restricted to 8 year olds. Maybe we'd see stallions coming out of the breeding shed to run in the Belmont.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by keithw84

Before American Pharoah, a lot of people were saying the races needed to be spaced out more so the TC could be won again. Maybe have the Preakness 2 years after the Derby, and the Belmont 3 years after that. We might get the first gelding to win the Triple Crown.

Make the Belmont a harness race - easy pace for the old guys.

[Blenheim]

I've been doin' some research on the subject matter, here is a synopsis:

When a state agency [KHRC] fails to comport with due process a Federal court can step in and reverse on procedural grounds . . . they will not even reach the decision to take the horse down. They entire decision and procedure will be void . . . in violation of the 14th Amendment. There is precedent in the U.S.: Ramsey v. LA Horseracing Commission from 2018. LA Court of Appeals over a takedown for interference which was reversed. This is also a due process claim. Or lack of due process . . .

Imagine all those winning tickets (100M) that got thrown away . . . If the decision is reversed and I still have my winning tickets, can I cash em' in? What is the deadline on a winning ticket?

Hold your tickets . . . if you still have em'!

[MutuelClerk]

Maybe Casse can sue drawing the rail twice.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

I've been doin' some research on the subject matter, here is a synopsis:

When a state agency [KHRC] fails to comport with due process a Federal court can step in and reverse on procedural grounds . . . they will not even reach the decision to take the horse down. They entire decision and procedure will be void . . . in violation of the 14th Amendment. There is precedent in the U.S.: Ramsey v. LA Horseracing Commission from 2018. LA Court of Appeals over a takedown for interference which was reversed. This is also a due process claim. Or lack of due process . . .

Imagine all those winning tickets (100M) that got thrown away . . . If the decision is reversed and I still have my winning tickets, can I cash em' in? What is the deadline on a winning ticket?

Hold your tickets . . . if you still have em'!

This is way, way off.

The Ramsey case had NOTHING to do with due process and was a STATE court case. The Ramsey case involved a Louisiana statute that provided that Louisiana Horse Racing Board's decisions were reviewable on the preponderance of the evidence standard. This basically means there is a plenary review in court.

The suit was filed in state court, because the state court had the power to reverse the decision.

The only published Federal court of appeals case is Holton v. Indiana Racing Commission. In that case, Judge Easterbrook, a famous Seventh Circuit judge, found that the stewards' decision was unreviewable and no Due Process right existed:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...98/928/597653/

[MONEY]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

Imagine all those winning tickets (100M) that got thrown away . . . If the decision is reversed and I still have my winning tickets, can I cash em' in? What is the deadline on a winning ticket?

Hold your tickets . . . if you still have em'!

Changing the order of finish of a race many days or even months after the event is over is not
an unusual occurrence. It often happens after a naughty horse tests positive for an illegal substance.
The result is always that the official order of finish and pay outs stay the same, but the purse
money is distributed to the connections that didn't cheat.

If the Wests' win their case, I expect that they will get 1st place money and a nice trophy,
but the bettors will not benefit from the court's judgement.

[Blenheim]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This is way, way off.

The Ramsey case had NOTHING to do with due process and was a STATE court case. The Ramsey case involved a Louisiana statute that provided that Louisiana Horse Racing Board's decisions were reviewable on the preponderance of the evidence standard. This basically means there is a plenary review in court.

The suit was filed in state court, because the state court had the power to reverse the decision.

The only published Federal court of appeals case is Holton v. Indiana Racing Commission. In that case, Judge Easterbrook, a famous Seventh Circuit judge, found that the stewards' decision was unreviewable and no Due Process right existed:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...98/928/597653/

I've read your work and like papillon, I found it to be very disingenuous. Henceforth, I will remember always papillon's comments when I read your posts . . .

Originally Posted by dilanesp
The legal opinion is they got all the process they were due-- a stewards' deliberation, a vote, and a commission appeal which was summarily rejected. That's all the statute says they were entitled to (and if they didn't like the statute, nobody forced them to run in the Derby), and there's no constitutional requirement that decisions of officials in sports events be subject to further review.

So their suit should be dismissed under FRCP 12(b)(6).

Originally Posted by papillon
No. And since most here have no clue how to even how look up Rule 12, very disingenuous. Rule 12 does not apply unless you can provide an Opinion where any agency regulation, which is what the rule is, stating an agency may summarily deny the right to a meaningful appeal. I'll save you your billable rate, you can't, because their isn't. Motion to Dismiss will be denied.

Because they are a state agency, not a private entity, they were required to provide a clear, transparent process, both initially and subsequently. The standard is "was the ruling arbitrary and capricious." Key determinants: level of subjectivity in ruling, meaningful right to be heard, level of transparency, meaningful appeals process. What they did to Saez only makes it worse for them.

The question now is way beyond your focus on boilerplate, it is whether the state regulation can stand period. Continuing to address this as a contract case is simply wrong. It is Con Law and Admin Law, not Contracts and Tort. The West's are suing the state of KY for violation of the 14th Amendment.

I said this would be the case. I pegged the fact that a class action lies (as detailed in the claim). Here's number 3: Louis if you're out there, file a simlar suit in the same court. The court will join it sua sponte to the West's and it makes both your cases stronger.

fwiw I was wrong about $42 million being lost on the horse because of the DQ, it was over $100 million.

Some Admin Law professor should assign following this case.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by MONEY

Changing the order of finish of a race many days or even months after the event is over is not
an unusual occurrence. It often happens after a naughty horse tests positive for an illegal substance.
The result is always that the official order of finish and pay outs stay the same, but the purse
money is distributed to the connections that didn't cheat.

If the Wests' win their case, I expect that they will get 1st place money and a nice trophy,
but the bettors will not benefit from the court's judgement.

Correct. Forward Pass bettors didn't get their money either.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

I've read your work and like papillon, I found it to be very disingenuous. Henceforth, I will remember always papillon's comments when I read your posts . . .

I am sorry you think that way. I am actually a very careful lawyer with an excellent professional reputation who is telling you the entire truth. Whereas papillon's posts have glaring errors.

You will find this out in due time when the Wests' suit loses on the grounds I am articulating. But you are making a serious error here.