“Churchill Downs is pleased that the Court granted our Motion for Summary Judgement in the Civil Action brought against our company, CEO and Board Chairman by Bob Baffert, resolving in our favor the last remaining claim, just as the Court had ruled in our favor on all of his previous claims. While he may choose to file baseless appeals, this completes the seemingly endless, arduous and unnecessary litigation proceedings instigated by Mr. Baffert.

“Our actions to suspend Mr. Baffert following Medina's Spirit [Protonico]'s confirmed positive for a prohibited race-day substance, coupled with his extensive history of drug violations, was done in the best interest of protecting the integrity of horseracing. Now more than ever, participants and operators in this industry must individually and collectively assume responsibility to take every reasonable measure to protect our equine and human athletes and reject any practice that jeopardizes that mission.

“We are encouraged that the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) Program has gone into effect this month which will allow uniform rules to govern the industry and expedite both the testing and adjudication process which has historically created confounding delays and threatened the confidence and trust of our fans.

“As we stated when we suspended Mr. Baffert in June 2021, we reserve the right to extend his suspension and will communicate our decision at the conclusion of the initial two-year suspension period. This U.S. District Court ruling in our favor is a victory in our ongoing actions and steadfast commitment to protecting the safety of our equine and human athletes.”

The post CDI Releases Statement Regarding Baffert Lawsuit appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The stated reason is that legislative lobbying efforts conducted by the judge's husband for two racing industry clients allegedly create a conflict of interest for Judge Rebecca Jennings in adjudicating Baffert's case.

Baffert is attempting to reverse the second year of a two-year ban by CDI that prohibits his trainees from accruing qualifying points and competing in the 2023 GI Kentucky Derby.

CDI first imposed that punishment in June 2021 because of a string of drug positives in horses Baffert trained, including two in CDI's most prominent races, the 2020 GI Kentucky Oaks and in the 2021 Derby.

The now-deceased Medina Spirit (Protonico) tested positive for the Class C drug betamethasone after crossing the finish wire first in the 2021 Derby.

Seven months later, the colt collapsed after a workout and died in December 2021.

Medina Spirit was posthumously disqualified from the Derby by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) in February 2022.

Baffert's appeal on that matter (and a suspension he has already served but wants cleared from his record) is pending.

“The plaintiffs submit that the Court's impartiality is in question because [the judge's] husband, Michael Patrick Jennings and his firm, Commonwealth Alliances, are legislative agents employed by The Jockey Club,” Baffert's motion for recusal stated.

“The Jockey Club has actively intervened publicly and litigiously in the litigation surrounding the Bob Baffert/Medina Spirit matter since the beginning of state and racing association action against Mr. Baffert,” the motion stated.

“R. Alex Rankin, a named Defendant in this case, is a senior, influential member of the Jockey Club and serves as a Jockey Club Steward,” the recusal request continued. “The motion is brought on a good faith basis after a diligent investigation of the public record and not for 'other advantage or litigation tactic'…. [T]he impartiality of the Court is in question, and the necessary remedy is a disqualification.”

In an affidavit signed by one of Baffert's lawyers that accompanied the motion, attorney Clark Brewster stated that Patrick Jennings was also employed as a lobbyist by The Stronach Group (TSG).

Although TSG tracks have not banned Baffert, the filing noted that the lobbyist's engagement with TSG overlaps a time when “litigation was pending against TSG by Jerry Hollendorfer (a racehorse trainer excluded from Santa Anita by TSG).”

Brewster's affidavit stated that Patrick Jennings's firm was paid $50,750 by The Jockey Club during 2022, and that his personal income from that client was $34,256. His 2022 personal income from TSG was $34,038 out of $74,219 that went to his firm.

Baffert had initially sued CDI on Feb. 28, 2022, alleging civil rights violations related to what Baffert said was a deprivation of his right to due process of law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment.

According to the court docket, Judge Jennings was “randomly assigned” to the case on the same day it was filed.

“The fees earned in 2022 are a clear source of extrajudicial bias,” Baffert's filing stated. “At no time during the litigation did Judge Jennings disclose her husband's employment by The Jockey Club [or TSG].”

Brewster's affidavit laid out his version of recent events, including details of a spat that erupted over the past week involving differences of opinion related to alleged “ex parte” discussions between the judge and the CDI defense team that potentially occurred without Baffert's attorneys being included. The result was a written denial from the judge that anything improper happened, along with an admonishment from the judge to Baffert's legal team.

“After the Court adjourned on Feb. 3, I sent an informal email to lead counsel for the defense seeking some understanding of how he knew the Court would commence the continued hearing with the defense being permitted to call a party-witness (Mr. Baffert) out of order and cross-examine a party before he was presented by Plaintiffs' counsel,” Brewster stated in his affidavit.

“Given that not every contact with court staff is a prohibited ex parte communication, there was no accusation of ethical or judicial impropriety. The email was sent to gain an understanding of Defendants' surprising degree of knowledge about the mode and manner of the proceedings…

“Defense counsel sent an incendiary email response, copying Judge Jennings and accusing [Brewster] of making false accusations regarding ex parte communications between defense counsel and the Court,” the affidavit stated.

On Feb. 8 Judge Jennings issued a memorandum that stated, in part, that, “The Court has not engaged in ex parte communications with either side [and] Plaintiffs are warned that any future conduct implicitly threatening the Court, attempting to create or fabricate a situation suggesting recusal, or made for other advantage or litigation tactic will not be tolerated and may result in a show cause hearing and disciplinary action.”

Brewster claimed in his affidavit that he was “bewildered by the announcement of Judge Jennings and the 'warning' to counsel to not suggest recusal, given that counsel had made no effort to impugn the Court or to seek recusal.”

Then Brewster engaged in some Googling, which did lead to the seeking of recusal.

“To gain some understanding of Judge Jennings's disclosed concern regarding recusal, [I] searched the internet on Feb. 8 and discovered that Judge Jennings's husband, Michael Patrick Jennings, is the Legislative Agent/Lobbyist for The Jockey Club,” Brewster stated in his affidavit.

This is not the first time that a conflict-of-interest recusal has arisen in Baffert's intertwined legal cases and administrative appeals.

In September 2022, Clay Patrick, the hearing officer assigned to Baffert's KHRC appeal, recused himself three weeks after the appeal's testimony was heard.

Patrick stepped down after Brewster revealed that he had unknowingly bought a $190,000 horse at the Keeneland September Yearling Sale that was co-owned by Patrick, who operates Ramspring Farm.

The KHRC assigned a new hearing officer to that case.

The post Baffert Wants Federal Judge Removed from Case Against CDI appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The original version of the suit, led by Michael Beychok, the winner of the 2012 National Horseplayers Championship, was filed four days after Baffert's disclosure that now-deceased Medina Spirit (Protonico) had tested positive for betamethasone after winning the May 1 Derby.

Split-sample testing at two different labs approved by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) has since confirmed the betamethasone overage, but no (KHRC) ruling has yet been issued over those findings.

The plaintiffs and class members of the suit have alleged that they “have been cheated out of their property” because they placed wagers on other horses and betting combinations that would have paid off had “the drugged horse” not won the Derby.

“The Plaintiffs here are not asking this Court to determine the outcome of the Kentucky Derby,” Beychok, et al, argued in the Dec. 29 filing in United States District Court (District of New Jersey).

“The stewards of the subject race will be the ones to determine the outcome of the Kentucky Derby. Regardless of the stewards' determination, Defendants have still harmed the Plaintiffs and will continue to harm individuals through Baffert's racketeering scheme. The Court is being asked to hold the Defendants accountable for the racketeering enterprise,” the filing stated.

In addition to asking the court to consider the Derby's potential pari-mutuel payouts as an assessment of damages, the plaintiffs, among other demands, are also seeking an order from the judge stating that the Hall of Fame trainer must divest himself from the sport. Baffert, plus his incorporated racing stable, remain as the only defendants after Medina Spirit's owner, Amr Zedan, was dropped from the suit by the plaintiffs back on June 23.

When Baffert asked the court to dismiss the suit Sept. 1, his filing stated that the plaintiffs “are a group of disgruntled gamblers who placed bets on the 2021 Kentucky Derby and lost.”

Baffert's argument stated that the bettors “attempt to do what courts across the country have routinely rejected: they seek to recoup their gambling losses through a myriad of frivolous claims. No matter how creatively the Plaintiffs attempt to craft their pleadings, they cannot escape the fact that every single court which has looked at gambling losses associated with sporting events has held that no claim can be maintained as a matter of law.”

The class action members begged to differ in Wednesday's filing.

“[Baffert] would have the Court believe that there is no injury because Medina Spirit has yet to be disqualified. The disqualification of Medina Spirit is inconsequential to Plaintiffs' causes of action. The [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] violations occurred regardless of Medina Spirit being disqualified. As alleged, Baffert entered Medina Spirit illegally [and] the Baffert enterprise has already successfully harmed Plaintiffs. Once again, Baffert has profited while the Plaintiffs have been robbed of their day at the track.”

The Dec. 29 filing continued: “Plaintiffs have stated causes of action that do not rely upon the horse racing regulations but instead are independent claims existing under federal and state statutory law and state common law. These claims are allowed whether they are allowed under the regulations or not. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs were obligated to follow the rules but side-step any obligation of Baffert's accountability.

“Baffert suggests to the Plaintiffs that if they don't like the rules they don't have to bet. But more to the point, if Baffert doesn't want to be held accountable under the laws set forth by the federal and state legislatures, then he shouldn't conduct an illegal enterprise of racketeering and fraud,” the filing stated.

The post Class-Action Bettors Urge Judge Not to Dismiss Derby Suit Against Baffert appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Instead, in a swift and terse reply written shortly after NYRA's July 6 filing, Judge Carol Bagley Amon entered an order in United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) that stated, “Defendant has filed a request for a pre-motion conference. The request shall be taken up at the hearing scheduled for July 12.”

That date next Monday morning is the one the judge had already set last month to hear the civil complaint against the racing association by the barred Hall-of-Fame trainer, who seeks to overturn a temporary ban NYRA initiated against him.

As of 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, NYRA had not yet filed any formal motion to dismiss. On July 6 though, NYRA's attorneys wrote a letter to the court indicating that such a filing was in the pipeline.

On May 17, NYRA informed Baffert that he was temporarily not welcome to stable or race at the association's three tracks (Saratoga Race Course, Belmont Park and Aqueduct Racetrack) because of his highly publicized string of recent equine drug positives.

That ban, NYRA said at the time, would be re-evaluated based on information revealed during the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission investigation into Medina Spirit (Protonico)'s positive betamethasone tests that came back after the colt won the GI Kentucky Derby. In the 12 months prior to Medina Spirit's positive, four other Baffert trainees also tested positive for banned substances, two of them in Grade I stakes.

The gaming corporation Churchill Downs, Inc., has already barred Baffert for a two-year period from its five Thoroughbred tracks.

On June 14, Baffert filed a civil complaint against NYRA, alleging that the association's ban violates his Fourteenth Amendment constitutional right to due process.

On June 30, NYRA filed a 236-page memorandum in opposition to granting Baffert an injunction that would get him back on the track in New York.

The post Judge Tells NYRA No on Request for Pre-Motion Hearing appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The suit was filed Thursday in United States District Court for the Central District of California.

When reached by the TDN, Beychok declined to comment and referred all questions to his attorney, Bill Federman.

“The horse racing industry as a whole has refused or cannot take steps that are necessary to protect the horses and the horseplayers from cheats” Federman said. “That's really the bottom line. Bob Baffert is known to have drugged horses in the past. Each time he said that it was an accident, that something was wrong, that somebody with steroids walked into the barn and sneezed. Can you believe it, the horse then tested positive ? Enough is enough, and that is the bottom line. If the industry is not going to police itself it's going to have to be further regulated or you will have outside groups forcing change.”

In several tweets earlier this week, Beychok touched on the controversy and welcomed gamblers to join in the class action suit.

“This guy Baffert wants us to believe that a horse in his care for the biggest horse race in the world was given an injectable drug without anyone in the barn's knowledge,” he wrote. “Are you kidding me with this? That's the best he's got?”

It was revealed shortly after the Derby that Medina Spirit had tested positive for a banned corticosteroid, Betamethasone. Subsequently, Baffert revealed that Medina Spirit was treated with an antifungal medication that contained Betamethasone to clear up a case of dermatitis and that he was treated with the ointment as late as Apr. 30, the day before the Derby. He maintained that he made an innocent mistake and gave the horse a medication that could not have had any effect on his performance.

The Kentucky Racing Commission has yet to take any action against Baffert and cannot do so until a second lab has tested a split sample.

In the suit, Beychok claims he made bets totaling $966 that would have resulted in payoffs between $10,000 and $100,000 had Medina Sprit not won the race. The other plaintiffs are Justin Wunderler, Michael Meegan and Keith Mauer. Wunderler claims he bet roughly $2,000 and stood to win at least $40,000. Meegan and Mauer each made small wagers.

In 2020, a bettor, Jeff Tretter, backed by PETA, sued harness trainer Robert Bresnahan, Jr. and owner J.L. Sadowsky for doping, racketeering and fraud after betting on a horse that finished behind a Bresnahan trained horse who won a 2016 race at the Meadowlands and tested positive for EPO. Bresnahan and Sadowsky settled with Tretter out of court, paying the Illinois gambler $20,000.

“The New Jersey case was clearly a shot across the bow for the trainer and the industry that apparently went unnoticed,” Federman said. “It's time for the industry to regulate itself. The industry has not been willing to represent those who bet their money.”

The plaintiffs maintain that they wagered on the Derby with the belief that there would be a level playing field and that none of the starters would be racing on prohibited medications.

“Bettors and members of the public expect that horses will give their best effort in every race and that all horses entered in every race will not be racing under the influence of a drug or foreign substance that has been administered in violation of racing rules and regulations,” the suit reads.

They contend that Baffert and Zedan committed fraud because they misrepresented to bettors that they had entered a horse that complied with all racetrack rules. The suit also points to the numerous drug positives racked up by Baffert throughout his career.

“The Baffert Defendants' acts are not isolated events; rather they are a pattern of events related to each other in that they have similar purposes, participants, methods of commission, and other distinguishing characteristics,” the suit reads. “Relatedness is also established by the fact that all acts were done for the purpose of winning thoroughbred races, including but not limited to the Kentucky Derby.”

Beychok is a partner and creative director at Ourso Beychok Inc., a Democratic direct mail consulting firm based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He has worked on political campaigns at the local, state and national levels. His victory in the NHC netted him $1 million plus an Eclipse Award for best handicapper of 2012.

The post Horseplayers Sue Baffert, Zedan appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

“What should have been the fastest two minutes in sports turned into over a year of litigation,” wrote Judge John K. Bush in the opinion accompanying the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. “Neither Kentucky law nor the Fourteenth Amendment allows for judicial second-guessing of the stewards’ call.

“The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim,” the opinion stated. “It determined that the stewards’ decision was not reviewable under Kentucky law, that the Wests had no property interest in the prize winnings, and that the challenged regulation is not unconstitutionally vague…. We agree and affirm the judgment of the district court.”

Gary West told TDN via email he won’t be pursuing further legal action.

“This is the only comment I will ever have,” West wrote. “I obviously disagree with the courts’ findings, but it is time to move on and the decision will not be appealed.”

The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC), whose board members and executive director were the defendants in the lawsuit along with the three Churchill Downs stewards, issued a statement that said the organization was “pleased with the decision.”

KHRC executive director Marc Guilfoil said in the statement that the stewards’ decision to disqualify Maximum Security was “an easy call to make, but a tough day to make it on.”

In the 2019 Derby, Maximum Security led almost every step and crossed the wire first.

But there was bumping and shifting in close quarters as he led the pack off the final turn. Two jockeys filed post-race objections, but there was no posted stewards’ inquiry.

The three stewards who officiated the Derby–chief state steward Barbara Borden, state steward Brooks “Butch” Becraft, and Churchill Downs steward Tyler Picklesimer–launched a post-Derby adjudication process that played out on national TV.

After 22 agonizing minutes, Maximum Security was judged to have fouled Long Range Toddy (Take Charge Indy), and thus placed behind that rival in 17th place. Country House (Lookin At Lucky), who crossed the wire second, was elevated to first place via the DQ process.

Ten days later, the Wests sued based on allegations that “the final [revised Derby] order is not supported by substantial evidence on the whole record” and that the disqualification violated the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit was granted by a U.S. District Court judge Nov. 15, 2019. The Wests appealed, and the case was argued June 16, 2020.

The Wests put forth four arguments on appeal. First, they argued that the stewards’ decision to disqualify Maximum Security was a ‘final order of an agency’ that is subject to judicial review under Kentucky law.

Second, they argued that the stewards’ decision was not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary and capricious, or was otherwise deficient as a matter of law.

Third, they argued that the stewards violated the Wests’ right to procedural due process.

And finally, the Wests argued that the regulation that gives stewards the authority to disqualify a horse is void for vagueness.

“Perhaps only a racehorse itself could tell us whether it was fouled during a race,” the opinion stated. “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. We therefore hold that a stewards’ decision to disqualify a horse under [state regulations] is not a ‘final order’ of an agency’ under [state law] and therefore, is not subject to judicial review.”

The court next addressed the Wests’ argument that the stewards deprived them of constitutionally protected liberty and property interests. To plead a due process claim, the opinion stated, the Wests must allege “a life, liberty, or property interest requiring protection under the Due Process Clause” and a “deprivation of that interest” without adequate process.

“The Wests contend that they have a protected property interest in the winner’s share of the Derby purse, and a liberty interest in an agency following its own regulations,” the opinion stated. “Right out of the gate, the Wests fall behind. Kentucky law provides that ‘the conduct of horse racing, or the participation in any way in horse racing…is a privilege and not a personal right; and that this privilege may be granted or denied by the racing commission or its duly approved representatives acting in its behalf.'”

The opinion also noted that “a party cannot possess a property interest in the receipt of a benefit when the state’s decision to award or withhold the benefit is wholly discretionary.”

Bush wrote that the regulations “are clear that the stewards have unbridled discretion” in determining whether a racing foul occurred, and whether to disqualify a horse because of it.

“The Wests argued that [a Kentucky racing regulation] which governs the procedure after a race has been declared ‘official,’ grants them the right to the benefits of the Kentucky Derby,” the opinion stated. “Not so. That provision has no bearing here because Maximum Security was disqualified before the race results were official. Even if that regulation were to apply here, it does not grant any person the right to the benefits of winning a horse race. Rather, it dictates the procedures that the stewards must follow while they review objections and determine the propriety of any sanctions against a horse and jockey.”

The opinion continued: “Heading down the final stretch, the Wests argue that because Maximum Security was the first horse in the 145-year history of the Kentucky Derby to ever be disqualified for a foul committed during the race, the custom and practice was to declare the horse that crossed the finish line first the winner.

“[But] even though Maximum Security’s disqualification was unprecedented, the fact remains that the stewards have always had the discretion to call fouls in horse races; this just happens to be the first time that they exercised this discretion in the Kentucky Derby.

“As a condition of maintaining a Thoroughbred racing license in Kentucky, the Wests agreed to…’abide by all rulings and decisions of the stewards and the commission.’ The only mutually explicit understanding between the Wests and the Commission was that the Wests agreed to abide by the regulations, and those regulations do not give the Wests a property interest in the purse or the trophy.”

The Wests, the opinion stated, “cannot identify a property interest in the Derby winnings because Maximum Security did not win the race and they were never entitled to the winnings. The Wests have not pointed to a ‘state statute, formal contract, or contract implied from the circumstances that supports [their] claim to a protected property interest.'”

The opinion stated that the Wests’ argument that their liberty interest was violated largely mirrored their property argument. “Because the Wests do not have a liberty or property interest, their void-for-vagueness challenge fails as a matter of law.”

The post Federal Court Affirms Dismissal of Derby Lawsuit; Wests Won’t Pursue Further Action appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post