Author: News

Three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit have affirmed a lower court's ruling dismissing a suit by Maximum Security owners Gary and Mary West against the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission and Kentucky stewards for disqualifying their horse from the 2019 Kentucky Derby. The decision, published Friday, was unanimous.

Owner Gary West told the Paulick Report he has no intention of continuing the legal fight over the outcome of the race.

“I obviously disagree with the court's findings, but it is time to move on and the decision will not be appealed,” West said via email.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky had dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Attorneys for the Wests argued their horse should be declared the official winner of the race based on four arguments: that a decision by stewards on disqualifications are subject to judicial review, that the stewards' decision was deficient in terms of evidence/that it was arbitrary and capricious, that the stewards violated the Wests' right to due process, and that the regulation allowing the stewards to disqualify a horse is void because it is too vague.

Judge John K. Bush, who authored the opinion on behalf of the court, disagreed with all four of the arguments, referring to Kentucky's laws and regulations outlining what stewards are permitted to do. Kentucky regulations specifically state that stewards' findings of fact and determination “shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal.” Some types of stewards' decisions, like the choice not to grant an applicant a license or a suspension for a medication ruling, are appealable through the court system. That has not previously been the case for decisions on placings.

One of the primary differences between the stewards' process in these cases is that while reviewing a potential case of foul like that of Maximum Security, the race has not yet been declared official until after stewards complete their own internal decision-making process. In the case of a medication finding, the stewards call licensees in to a hearing and hear evidence and arguments before making a decision, which better matches with the legal definition of an “administrative hearing.” Administrative hearings may be appealed.

Bush thought that distinction was correct, because in-game decisions like a race disqualification in the hands of those best equipped to make those judgements.

“To be sure, a good judge is an umpire who calls balls and strikes,” Bush wrote in part. “But we are not game officials in the literal sense, and we are ill-equipped to determine the outcome of sporting contests. The stewards, on the other hand, are racing officials who must go through rigorous training and experience before they may serve in that capacity. Perhaps only the racehorse itself could tell us whether it was fouled during a race. But horses can't speak, so the Commonwealth of Kentucky, similar to many other racing jurisdictions, has designated racing experts — the stewards, not the appointed members of the Commission or judges — to determine when a foul occurs in a horse race. It is not our place to second-guess that decision.”

Read the complete court opinion here.

The post West: Recent Appeals Court Ruling On Maximum Security Disappointing, But ‘It’s Time To Move On’ appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post