Derby Lawsuit | Horse Racing Free Tips

Led by Michael Beychok, the winner of the 2012 NTRA National Horseplayers Championship, four gamblers have filed a Class Action Lawsuit against trainer Bob Baffert and owner Amr Zedan, alleging fraud. Each maintains that they made bets that would have won had GI Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit (Protonico) not been “doped.” The plaintiffs allege that Baffert and Zedan are in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the California Control of Profits of Organized Crime Act (CCPOCA) and for committing state common law and equitable fraud.

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

A three-judge panel of a federal appeals court Friday upheld a district court’s decision from last November to dismiss a lawsuit by Gary and Mary West, the owners of Maximum Security (New Year’s Day), which sought to overturn the colt’s controversial disqualification from first place in the 2019 GI Kentucky Derby.

“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