Baffert Wants Federal Judge Removed from Case Against CDI

Trainer Bob Baffert now wants the federal judge handling his year-old lawsuit against Churchill Downs, Inc. (CDI), to recuse herself.

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

Weekly Stewards and Commission Rulings: A Primer

Starting next week, the TDN will begin a weekly roundup of key official rulings from the primary tracks within the four major racing jurisdictions of California, New York, Florida and Kentucky.

The task, however, of collecting these rulings has wrenched the curtain back on the fractured way in which the industry polices its own and then makes those rulings public–or not, as is often the case.

The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) provides something of a gold standard, thanks to a centralized, easy-to-use database containing all stewards rulings from across the state.

Perhaps most importantly, it includes a soup to nuts of everything from medication violations to disorderly conduct on the backstretch to excessive use of the riding crop.

This isn't the case across the board, with information sometimes buried deep in hard-to-use websites, or else withheld from the public altogether.

When it comes to the Florida racing industry, which operates without a centralized commission, medication violations and excessive use of the whip offenses–at least those whip offenses pertaining to state rules–are supposed to be posted on the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulations' (DBPR) website here.

The information, however, is limited. Indeed, to see a particular stewards' ruling, a final order, or a consent order, for example, you would need to make a public records request.

What's more, the website isn't organized in a chronologically searchable fashion, meaning, you would need to know in advance who the ruling is against before you could find it.

And so for the sake of our weekly endeavour as it pertains to Florida, we will also scour the Thoroughbredrulings and ARCI's Recent Rulings websites alongside the DBPR. Because those other databases aren't always updated on a timely basis for similar reasons, however, the information we impart may be similarly tardy.

Other offenses in Florida, like most riding violations, are handled by the individual tracks according to their house rules. In the case of Gulfstream Park, however, these rulings aren't made public.

The situation in Florida does appear poised to change thanks to an administrative hearing ruling from earlier in the year.

Expected imminently, a panel of stewards–one from the state and two association stewards–will begin hearing horse racing related medication and riding offenses in Florida.

When will this new system start? The answer is unclear. And where will these rulings be posted? That's unclear, too. But we will be following developments.

Interestingly, a state bill signed into law earlier this year creates a gaming commission in Florida.

That legislation was signed into law alongside two companion bills. One is commonly referred to as the Seminole Compact, that permits the Seminole Tribe to operate sports betting and adds craps and roulette to the tribe's casinos, among other things. The other was a decoupling bill, which allows racetracks and other gaming facilities to host other forms of gambling.

A ruling late last month in a Washington D.C. federal court invalidated the compact, however. Will this impact plans to create a gaming commission? Possibly, said Daniel Wallach, a Florida-based attorney who has been following this case closely.

“All three statutes–the Seminole Compact, the creation of this new gaming agency, and the decoupling of Harness racing and Quarter Horse racing–they were all adopted at the same time, and, crucially, the effectiveness of decoupling and the creation of the agency was expressly tethered to the effective date of the compact becoming a law,” Wallach said.

Therefore, Wallach added, “If the compact is no longer effective since it was invalidated by a federal court, then it raises the question of whether the statutes creating the agency and the decoupling of non-Thoroughbred horse racing are invalid as well.”

The creation of a Florida gaming commission, experts say, wouldn't likely have an impact on the way horse racing related offences are adjudicated, however.

When it comes to New York, their rule book is “older, and certainly less prescriptive in some areas, than what you might be used to seeing in other jurisdictions,” explained Dr. Jennifer Durenberger, the Jockey Club steward for the New York Racing Association (NYRA), in a written statement.

Issues like medication violations, reckless or careless riding, and of conduct detrimental to racing are supposed to be posted on the New York State Gaming Commission's website here.

Violations of the NYRA house rule on whip use–which limits the number of consecutive strikes to five and prohibits use of the crop when a horse is no longer in contention–as well as other minor backstretch infractions, are handled in-house by NYRA by a board of stewards. These rulings are not made public.

The TDN has asked NYRA if it will share on a weekly basis any whip-related rulings, which NYRA says happens fairly infrequently. A response is pending.

When it comes to Kentucky, the state's Horse Racing Commission makes public its administrative rulings here, at the bottom of the page. Higher up on the same page are links to the race day stewards actions and comments.

Will the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) make any difference–if, indeed, it goes into effect on July 1? When it comes to medication violations, expect things to remain disjointed in the beginning.

For the first six months of the program, post-race medication violations will continue to be handled by the individual commissions and posted on their individual websites.

And for those same first six months, the out-of-competition (OOC) testing program will be handled by the enforcement agency, most likely the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), which will post results on its website.

Come 2023, all post-race and OOC testing is expected to be handled by USADA, and therefore, all results are expected to be posted on its website.

When it comes to other violations, things have a similarly fractured look to them.

There are certain issues like dangerous riding and minor backstretch altercations that don't fall under HISA's purview, and which, as a result, will continue to be adjudicated by state stewards (and therefore posted on their individual websites–or not, as the case may be).

But matters like excessive whipping and use of an electronic device (i.e., a buzzer) do fall under the act's remit. As such, these offenses will be heard by one of two different panels.

  1. An individual jurisdiction can enter into a voluntary agreement with the Authority which will allow its existing state stewards to adjudicate these offenses.
  2. If they don't enter into a voluntary agreement, a separate body of stewards, overseen and managed by the Authority, will hear these cases.

And where will these rulings be posted? At the moment, that's unclear, though it does appear as though they will be posted on a publicly available centralized website at some point after the act goes into effect.

There are a couple of important things to note before we begin this weekly process.

One is that, because California appears to be the only one of the four major jurisdictions to post rulings on minor backstretch infractions, we will stick primarily to medication and riding offenses, so as not to treat the California licensees unfairly.

The second is that the information the TDN posts weekly will only be as timely as that issued on each jurisdiction's websites. Expect a bit of a time drag, therefore.

“As a steward, I would be interested in seeing a weekly summary,” Durenberger wrote, about the TDN's plans. “I believe it's been suggested to HISA to require house rulings and associated fines to be made public in a centralized searchable database.”

The post Weekly Stewards and Commission Rulings: A Primer appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter to the Editor: John Sikura

The case of Bob Baffert has been, sad but fascinating to watch. It has served to be the perfect foil for agenda-driven companies and organizations to attach a face to 'the cause.' Due process and the right to defend oneself with veracity is the foundational tenet of this country. It protects citizens from overreaching by entities such as Churchill, NYRA and others banning Baffert from running at their tracks until adjudication is reached–not dictated. The actions of Churchill Downs clearly prioritize what we already know, which is that the value proposition of the Kentucky Derby is their one commitment to racing. The serial monetizing of racetracks, and devotion to casino and historical racing revenue leave them without a credible position except as very good drivers of CDI stock value. The leading face of racing is excluded from racing at Churchill and cannot earn Derby points while the premise argument (veterinary-prescribed topical skin cream) has proven to be validated.  Will the NYRA now reverse itself or cling to its ban? Admonished by a judge for sidestepping due process and a new hearing scheduled to decide the right of Baffert to race at their tracks, this new evidence is assuredly exculpatory for Baffert. What about The Jockey Club? They have taken a lead position on HISA and have committed to exposing cheats while fairly dealing with violations. They joined the NYRA suit in their brief and therefore should publicly state a position. This is a good test for them as well.

I wish to make my position clear that I am against all forms of cheating or illegal drug use. Those convicted of such should face the harshest of penalties. I also believe that jealousy and innuendo without proof are unfair and tarnish the reputation of our game and can cost people their careers. Ignoring thresholds of therapeutic drugs, inconsistent withdrawal times, human error or environmental contamination is not realistic testing. The intent should be to eliminate all illegal drugs from our game and deal with 'positives' in a manner which attaches penalties uniformly and fairly. I hope and trust that HISA will accomplish all of this and more.

In the interim, the Baffert barn is responsible for following the rules and protocols of racing in each jurisdiction he races and that is not debated by me. I do contest the piling on in advance of final proof and draconian punishment of banishment as commensurate penalty for the 'violations.' None have included illegal drugs and none have tested at a threshold to enhance performance.

I close by admitting that it was probably best if this letter was not written and I said nothing publicly. Bob Baffert has been a friend and an important part of my life and business so you can question my objectivity. I would counter by saying that those who know me know I speak candidly and without adherence to public opinion or consensus. I don't absolve him of being responsible for his barn, I only write the letter as his detractors have been vocal, organized and many. I for one wish to tilt the scales and offer my support.

The post Letter to the Editor: John Sikura appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter to the Editor: Cynthia McGinnes

For the sake of being entirely accurate, which would help members of the press and public who aren't close followers of racing, I think it is important to clarify that Bob Baffert's positive tests have all been for overages of permitted medications not for banned substances.

I think it is an important point to make, as it is not the same as what Jason Servis was using. Also, the positive test for Gamine in the Oaks was within the rules–she received the Beta Vet 18 days before the race, which had a 14-day suggested withdrawal time. Gamine did not clear the medication within that withdrawal time, which happens occasionally.

Finally, perhaps not everyone knows that the Arkansas Racing Commission vacated the disqualifications for Gamine and Charlatan, restoring the purse money, because of problems with the testing. Several other horses that day turned up positive for lidocaine. Baffert and several other trainers, I believe, paid fines as absolute insurers, but there were no further penalties because of problems with the testing.

For the six months after Gamine's Oaks, which was an explainable violation, Baffert had no further positives until the Derby, where the tests are still ongoing as to which beta variant tested positive.

Actually, if the first Saturday in May hadn't been the first day of the month, it would not have been five in one year. Since May 1 there have been no further positives, making it basically one in the last year.

I feel as if the media has used incomplete information to blacken racing's reputation, and hope you feel the same way. I believe that it was the fungus cream that tested, as Baffert knew from Gamine's experience not to trust a withdrawal time for Beta Vet, and he certainly knew it would test. Medina Spirit' s performance was not enhanced in any way. The Derby winner was not doped!

I do hope as one of the most-read and -trusted publications that you can help to get the difference between banned substances and overages of permitted medications

made clear to the general public and media. Racing doesn't deserve this black eye.

Yours truly,

Cynthia McGinnes

The post Letter to the Editor: Cynthia McGinnes appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights