TERRIBLE RULING

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Having looked at Section 19500 it is super clear- if the rider gets taken off prior to the scratch deadline, he can get his "mount fee" (a nominal amount) but not his "riding fee" (the percentage). After scratch time, he gets both.

I am pretty amazed that the CHRB didn't know their own statute. Indeed, EVEN THE OWNERS' LAWYERS DIDN'T KNOW IT in the trial court, and Judge Chalfant, the trial judge, who is a good judge I have appeared before, didn't know it either.

The statute is clear as day. The appellate decision is correct.

I have testified numerous times, occasionally in court, but more often in steward's hearings, in proceedings that involved questioning from lawyers.

And to my experience, the attorney is INVARIABLY the dumbest, least informed person in the room. Without fail.

In fact, they have been so ignorant of racing rules and customs as to pollute the proceedings with utter nonsense and render a just decision nearly impossible.

[the little guy]

Fipke took Joel off because he didn't like the ride he gave Verve's Tale in the Turnbackthealarm the prior Saturday at Belmont. Joel didn't do anything wrong. He stalked a relatively quick pace set by the 3:5 favorite and went after that horse turning for home. Not his fault the favorite had nothing and then Eskenformoney nailed them on the wire.

I'm not objective here, as I like Joel a lot and think he got unfairly taken off in the first place. I can see both sides. Knowing Joel, he probably just shrugged it off.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have testified numerous times, occasionally in court, but more often in steward's hearings, in proceedings that involved questioning from lawyers.

And to my experience, the attorney is INVARIABLY the dumbest, least informed person in the room. Without fail.

In fact, they have been so ignorant of racing rules and customs as to pollute the proceedings with utter nonsense and render a just decision nearly impossible.

That's very much an overstatement. GOOD lawyers read the relevant statutes in any regulatory case. The lawyers for the owners who appeared before Judge Chalfant bordered on malpractice here by not identifying the statute.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

That's very much an overstatement. GOOD lawyers read the relevant statutes in any regulatory case. The lawyers for the owners who appeared before Judge Chalfant bordered on malpractice here by not identifying the statute.

How in the WORLD can it be an overstatement when I qualified it in terms of "to MY experience??" I will wait patiently for your response. Very patiently.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by mountainman

How in the WORLD can it be an overstatement when I qualified it in terms of "to MY experience??" I will wait patiently for your response. Very patiently.

It's an overstatement because in the vast majority of courtrooms in fact the lawyers are extremely knowledgeable about the law, especially when they represent rich clients such as owners.

So you made a hasty generalization when you capitalized "INVARIABLY".

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It's an overstatement because in the vast majority of courtrooms in fact the lawyers are extremely knowledgeable about the law, especially when they represent rich clients.

So you made a hasty generalization.

How can a statement PRECISELY applied and restricted to lawyers I HAVE ENCOUNTERED in stewards hearings be a "generalization?"

Please, sir, enlighten me on my own post and show me where i generalized about ALL lawyers. Not just the ones I've encountered. Or the place where I opined about ALL courtrooms , in general.

Again, far from a generalization, my post was somewhat characterized by its specificity.

This kind of argument is pointless and distasteful to me. So please have the final word and consider this post my final word on the matter.

[rastajenk]

Don't worry...dilan always gets in the last word. Usually well after anyone else cares.

[Andy Asaro]

https://www.drf.com/news/appeals-cou...rs-cup-distaff


The court ruled that California statutes have an “implicit” condition regulating rider fees that did not require Fipke to pay both riders, citing a section of the law that “grants considerable discretion to determine the circumstances under which a jockey removed from a mount is entitled to a riding fee.”

“The removal must occur after ‘scratch time,’ ” the court ruled, to require an owner to pay both riders.

The CHRB had ruled that Rosario was entitled to the mount fee as compensation for losing the mount.

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

According to the Court of Appeal, the change came before the draw. This ruling preserves the CHRB's power to impose a double fee if a change occurs after the draw.

I was sure he was on the overnight. If not it's still a very tough one to swallow but no nearly as bad.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

Don't worry...dilan always gets in the last word. Usually well after anyone else cares.

Oh stop it. Mountainman's post was a clear preemptive statement that his several paragraphs must be the last word. Which is what people do when other people call BS on them.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

The rule was and is very clear in the CHRB Rule Book. The Stewards decided based on that rule.

The rule was written to protect both parties from capricious last second whims.

There is no such rule.

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

Jockey agents are vilified, denigrated and sanctioned every day for not honoring commitments.

An agreement should be binding. When it's betrayed the other way the Stewards have the ability to fine the agent or force the jockey to sit out the race if he doesn't honor his first call.

At Del Mar less than a year later (August 2018), a similar situation transpired "the other way" when a jockey's agent gave the call to ride an owner's horse but before the draw took the call on a second horse. That second horse ended up winning the race. The first owner put in a complaint.

The stewards in their decision fined the jockey's agent $200. He did not have to turn his share of the winning purse over to the first owner.

Also, the stewards cited CHRB Rule 1530 as the basis of their decision. The title of that rule is: Cases Not Covered By Rules and Regulations

But when an owner doesn't think they should be held to a similar standard they take it to court.

Just because this guy had the money to see it all the way through doesn't make it fair or correct.

Fipke was not held to a similar standard. He wasn't required to pay the mount fee (as he should have according to the rules) or given a small fine.

As it turned out that the stewards had applied their authority inconsistent with Horse Racing Law and the CHRB rules so seeing all the way through was the correct move both for himself, other horsemen in similar situations going forward, and the rule makers.

If this is the way it's adjudicated why not have all the jockeys come to the paddock before a race and the connections bid on and negotiate for their services right then.

Makes more sense the other way around. If I were a jockey, I'd rather have 2% of Gun Runner's BC Classic earnings than I would 20% of Pavel's...

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

Don't worry...dilan always gets in the last word. Usually well after anyone else cares.

Now I'm really confused. Would not qualifying your remarks as the product of your own experience be a means of establishing they are NOT intended as the last word???????????????????????????????????

Surely this guy's distortions of my post have one of the monitors close to stepping in.

It's wrong, and it's ridiculous.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

Don't worry...dilan always gets in the last word. Usually well after anyone else cares.

Well, he is an (uninformed) lawyer. That's his job. I think he gets paid by the word.

[VeryOldMan]

Getting back to the court's opinion, here is the money paragraph. The statute clearly draws a distinction between mount fees and riding fees and simply doesn't provide for a riding fee if the mount is changed before "scratch time". The stewards don't have the authority to ignore the underlying statute, no matter how seemingly unfair it may have been to Rosario. It's up to the Legislature to change the statute - it's not for the stewards to ignore it or attempt to rewrite it through rulings.

Although section 19500 grants CHRB considerable discretion to determine the circumstances under which a jockey removed from a mount is entitled to a riding fee, it imposes one implicit condition on the exercise of that discretion: the removal must occur after “scratch time.” Had the Legislature not intended to impose such a condition, it could have provided a single direction to CHRB to establish the circumstances under which a jockey is entitled to receive a riding fee and/or a mount fee when removed from a mount. The Legislature instead chose to direct CHRB to separately address situations where a jockey is removed before and after scratch time; only in the latter circumstance did it specify the jockey might be entitled to a riding fee. The clear implication of this decision is that the Legislature intended jockeys removed from their mounts prior to scratch time would not be entitled to riding fees.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

https://www.drf.com/news/appeals-cou...rs-cup-distaff


The court ruled that California statutes have an “implicit” condition regulating rider fees that did not require Fipke to pay both riders, citing a section of the law that “grants considerable discretion to determine the circumstances under which a jockey removed from a mount is entitled to a riding fee.”

“The removal must occur after ‘scratch time,’ ” the court ruled, to require an owner to pay both riders.

The CHRB had ruled that Rosario was entitled to the mount fee as compensation for losing the mount.

I bet he doesnt even pay the riding fee, lol.