due process | Horse Racing Free Tips

Baffert Attorneys: ‘It Does Not Serve The Integrity Of Horse Racing To Suspend First And Ask Questions Later’

Just five days before a scheduled hearing, attorneys for embattled trainer Bob Baffert filed a 434-page memorandum supporting their attempt to convince the court to overturn the New York Racing Association's ban on Baffert. According to the Thoroughbred Daily News, Baffert's attorneys allege that NYRA has “vindictively” targeted the trainer utilizing “hypocrisy” and “backdoor” tactics. The filing also zeroes in on two legal arguments: that the ban violates the trainer's right to due process, and that NYRA has no authority to issue a ban.

“Nowhere in NYRA's Response is there any contention that Baffert has violated any New York statute or racing rule,” the memo states. “In fact, the opposite is true. Over the course of his 46-year training career, including more than 30 years of racing in New York, Baffert has never even been accused of violating a New York rule and he has never faced discipline from either NYRA or the New York State Gaming Commission [NYSGC].

“Despite his distinguished New York racing career, without even a hint of wrongdoing, NYRA believes it has free rein to unilaterally void his constitutionally protected property rights and ban him from all activity in New York without notice and for an indefinite period of time based solely on unproven allegations of a minor infraction (an overage of an allowable medication) in another jurisdiction.”

Baffert filed suit against NYRA on June 14, nearly a month after the racing association notified the Hall of Fame trainer that he was temporarily banned from racing or stabling at NYRA tracks while the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission conducts its investigation into the post-race drug positive for Baffert-trained Medina Spirit, who crossed the finish line first in the May 1 Kentucky Derby. Baffert is seeking a temporary and permanent injunction against the ban.

As defendant in the case, NYRA filed a memorandum of law on June 30 in opposition to Baffert's motion for preliminary injunction. The Jockey Club filed a brief on that same date as amicus curiae, or friend of the court, claiming that its role as keeper of the Stud Book gives it a “unique interest in ensuring that when Thoroughbreds enter the breeding shed (where they determine the future of the breed through progeny), they do so with records uninfluenced by the effects of medication.”

Both those court filings struck the same note, countering Baffert's argument that he will suffer irreparable harm as a result of his ban from Belmont Park and the upcoming high-profile meeting at Saratoga.

In response, the July 7 memo from Baffert's attorneys argues: “There is no compensating for the missed opportunity to participate in prestigious races that define the success of a trainer's career and garner goodwill with clients. NYRA's argument that Baffert cannot prove irreparable harm because he can still race in other states is missing the mark. First, there is no meet more prestigious than Saratoga and the gravitas and economic benefit that come from New York racing cannot be overstated. (…) Baffert's runners in New York win almost three times the amount that they do outside New York. This demonstrates the importance of NYRA racing to Baffert despite the fact that he races in other jurisdictions.”

NYRA's June 30 memo contends that the decision to ban Baffert “was based on probable cause that plaintiff's actions warranted suspension and was necessary to protect the safety of the racehorses and their riders, and required to ensure the integrity of the sport.”

Baffert's attorneys insist that NYRA acting on behalf of the sport's integrity is a “false narrative.”

“The fact NYRA routinely allows onto its tracks trainers who have actually been found to have broken New York's rules of racing completely shatters that false narrative,” their July 7 memo states. “NYRA smears Baffert with allegations about other positive tests, without providing the critical context of those, including that they involved minor overages of permitted substances, none of which merited a suspension and some of which, Baffert was, for all practical purposes, vindicated. … It does not serve the 'integrity' of horse racing to suspend first and ask questions later.”

A hearing on the motion for injunctive relief is scheduled for July 12.

Read more at the Thoroughbred Daily News.

Additional stories about Baffert's Kentucky Derby positive and ensuing legal battles, listed in order from most recent to the original story:

The post Baffert Attorneys: ‘It Does Not Serve The Integrity Of Horse Racing To Suspend First And Ask Questions Later’ appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Baffert Files New York Lawsuit Claiming NYRA Has No Legal Authority For Suspension

Bob Baffert has filed a lawsuit against the New York Racing Association in United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, reports the Thoroughbred Daily News, seeking to overturn NYRA's May 17 decision to not accept his entries or allow him stall space.

Patrick McKenna, NYRA's Senior Director of Communications, issued the following statement Monday: “On May 17, the New York Racing Association, Inc. (NYRA) temporarily suspended Bob Baffert from entering horses in races and occupying stall space at Belmont Park, Saratoga Race Course and Aqueduct Racetrack. NYRA took this action to protect the integrity of the sport for our fans, the betting public and racing participants following Mr. Baffert's public acknowledgement that the Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit tested positive for betamethasone, a banned corticosteroid.

“In making the determination to temporarily suspend Mr. Baffert, NYRA took into account the fact that other horses trained by Mr. Baffert have failed drug tests in the recent past, resulting in the assessment of penalties against him by thoroughbred racing regulators in Kentucky, California, and Arkansas.

“NYRA will vigorously defend the action it has taken in this matter.”

The lawsuit, filed by attorney Craig Robinson, argues that NYRA does not have the legal authority to suspend Baffert. It alleges that while NYRA is a non-profit corporation, it “is specifically governed by the New York law that grants it the exclusive franchise to conduct live Thoroughbred racing and simulcasting at the state-owned racetracks on behalf of the state, from which the state derives substantial revenue.”

As such, the suit contends, the only entity with the authority to suspend Baffert is the New York State Gaming Commission. That, in turn, would mean that Baffert is protected from violations of his right to due process, which the suit alleges would include suspending the trainer prior to the completion of the Medina Spirit investigation by the Kentucky State Horse Racing Commission.

The suit reads: “Specifically, Baffert maintains a right to rely upon and use his New York State occupational trainer's license that was duly issued to him without limitation by the New York State Gaming Commission (the “Gaming Commission”); NYRA has, without legal authority, and without any notice or opportunity to be heard, attempted to indefinitely suspend Baffert's trainer's license issued by the Gaming Commission, thereby preventing Baffert from practicing in his chosen profession or using his state-issued license on state-owned property.”

Read more at the Thoroughbred Daily News.

The post Baffert Files New York Lawsuit Claiming NYRA Has No Legal Authority For Suspension appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

New Mexico Horsemen File Suit Against Commission Over ‘Retaliatory’ Defunding Attempt

The New Mexico Horsemen's Association (NMHA) filed an immediate Appeal and Motion to Stay with the Second Judicial District Court in Bernalillo County on May 23 over action taken by the New Mexico Racing Commission (NMRC) at its meeting on May 20, 2021.

On that date, the NMRC unanimously passed a motion that the NMHA “is to immediately discontinue the practice of requiring its membership to pay the 1% purse diversion, the $5.00 Starter Fee and the $2.00 PAC [Political Action Committee] fee stemming from their participation in horseracing in New Mexico. The motion also is to instruct all five (5) racetracks to not provide those improper funds to the New Mexico Horsemen's Association.”

According to a letter written by NMRC in-house counsel Richard Bustamante, “stopping that improper diversion of purse money will translate to the addition of approximately $700,000.00 a year to purse money.”

The Commission's order cannot stand for several reasons, the court filing by the Horsemen alleges. They contend horsemen were not afforded Due Process, the commission has no authority or jurisdiction over donation by horsemen owners to the horsemen, and the order was made in retaliation.

According to the Appeal and Motion to Stay filed by the NMHA: “The true motive behind the order/directive is to deprive the Horsemen of all or a large portion of funding because the Horsemen objected to racetracks using 'purse monies' for operational expenses [insurance], Horsemen objected to the Commission canceling race meets and/or shortening race meets, Horsemen refused to pay from purse money the operational expenses of the racetracks, and Horsemen were demanding racetracks keep the tracks and backsides in good, clean and safe condition.”

In addition, the NMHA plans to amend its current civil lawsuit against the NMRC to include additional causes of action for both discrimination against the NMHA and for ethics violation of public officials based on alleged conflict of interests of commissioners.

On Dec. 2, 2020, the NMHA filed a lawsuit against the Commission seeking the return of more than $8 million it alleges the Commission has been collecting improperly from horsemen since 2004 to pay liability insurance for jockeys.

That complaint, a petition for declaratory judgement and relief, also alleges that the commission has improperly ordered horsemen to pay a “gate fee or starter's fee” every time a horse races.

“The costs of operating the 'gate' are and always have been an expense of the association putting on the race, that is a cost or expense of the racino and not the owner or trainer of the horse entering the gate for a scheduled race,” the complaint states, adding that “there is no provision in New Mexico law that allows the Racing Commission to access a fee to horsemen for the starter's gate.”

Finally, the Dec. 2 complaint alleges that the New Mexico Racing Commission improperly demands the Horsemen's Association pay a fee for a license. “The Horsemen's Association does not race horses, or train horses and is a benevolent, non-profit organization and no license is required,” the complaint alleges.

The commission subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, to which the horsemen responded on May 3, 2021.

A portion of that response reads: “In a stunning admission, the New Mexico Racing Commission admits they have taken the Horsemen's purse money, and now suggest the Horsemen have no remedy, not even in the Courts of New Mexico. The Commission suggests the Horsemen can come to them and seek relief, which is akin to asking the fox to return the chicken.”

The response concludes: “Horse racing in New Mexico was saved when each racetrack was allowed to institute casino gaming. The plan, as set forth by statute, was that certain proceeds from casino gaming would go to purses for horse racing. Casino gaming was meant to save horse racing, not the other way around. The New Mexico legislature clearly wrote the money was to be used for purses. Purses are not defined as operating costs of the racetrack/casinos. The rule-regulation of the Commission is not in compliance with the statutes. There is no administrative remedy for the Horsemen and they have attempted, to no avail, to get the Commission to stop allowing racetracks/casinos to use part of the purse money for operating costs. The Horsemen are correct about what the money can be used for, that is, for purses. The Horsemen request the law be complied with and the Court determine not only that it has the jurisdiction but the Horsemen have no remedy but through the Courts.”

The post New Mexico Horsemen File Suit Against Commission Over ‘Retaliatory’ Defunding Attempt appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

NTRA: ‘Contrary To HBPA’s Hyperbole, HISA Is Neither Unprecedented Nor Unconstitutional’

Following Monday's announcement that the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association (NHBPA) is filing a lawsuit against the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA) issued the following response:

Contrary to HBPA's hyperbole, HISA is neither unprecedented nor unconstitutional. HISA emulates the long-established FINRA/SEC model, with even greater protections for all stakeholders. It is disappointing that the HBPA—an entity whose mission is supposedly the welfare of horses and horsemen—would seek to undo much needed reforms to protect the industry's participants.

“HISA, a well-crafted and comprehensive piece of legislation, creates the national framework that addresses our industry's critical need for consistent, forceful anti-doping control and equine safety standards,” said Alex Waldrop, President and CEO of the NTRA. “The NTRA Board of Directors, which consists of representatives from tens of thousands of breeders, owners and trainers from more than 40 states, as well as thousands of horseplayers and virtually every major racetrack in the United States, voted to support HISA. We plan to work tirelessly on behalf of our members and a broad array of interested parties and stakeholders to support HISA's successful launch in July 2022.”

In 2020, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed, and the President signed into law, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA). Through this landmark legislation, HISA recognizes and empowers the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (Authority) to protect the safety and welfare of Thoroughbred horseracing's most important participants—its horses—by delivering commonsense medication reforms and track safety standards.

The NHBPA, along with several of its state affiliates, seeks to upend this historic and bipartisan effort to protect Thoroughbred horses and ensure the integrity of horseracing. The HBPA has recently filed a baseless lawsuit in federal court in Texas, seeking to declare HISA unconstitutional on its face. Setting aside its fatal threshold deficiencies—including the lack of any concrete or imminent harm—the HBPA's lawsuit is meritless. HISA is constitutionally and legally sound. On behalf of a broad spectrum of organizations underlying the sport of Thoroughbred horseracing, we offer the following responses to the various claims by HBPA.

1. HBPA Claim: HISA violates the constitutional “non-delegation doctrine.”

Reality: HISA does not violate the non-delegation doctrine because the United States Supreme Court has long recognized that Congress may rely on private entities so long as the government retains ultimate decision-making authority as to rules and enforcement. HISA recognizes and empowers the Authority to propose and enforce uniform national anti-doping and equine safety standards, but only upon review, approval and adoption by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Though this is a first for the Thoroughbred horseracing industry, HISA's structure is not new. HISA follows the FINRA/SEC model of regulation in the securities industry, and, like that model, is constitutional because any action the Authority undertakes is subject to the FTC's approval and oversight.

2. HBPA Claim: The HISA runs afoul of the Appointments Clause.

Reality: The Authority is a private entity, independently established under state law, and recognized by HISA. As such, it is simply not subject to constitutional restraints on appointments (or removal) of its Board members. Indeed, any such claim is at war with HBPA's non-delegation theory premised on the fact that the Authority is a private entity. On the one hand, the HBPA claims that the Authority cannot take action because it is private entity, but then argues, on the other hand, that the Authority cannot appoint its own Board members because it is effectively a public entity. These two HBPA arguments are in conflict, but have one important thing in common: they are both wrong.

3. HBPA Claim: HISA violates due process protections.

Reality: The HBPA's due process theory also falls flat. Though the HBPA complains of equine industry participants regulating their competitors, a strong bipartisan majority of the House and the Senate made clear in HISA that a majority of the Authority's Board members must be from outside the equine industry. To be sure, a minority of the Authority's Board members will have industry experience and engagement. But it is difficult to understand how that statutory recognition of the value of informed voices constitutes a deprivation of due process. What's more, with respect to the minority industry Board members, HISA expressly provides for equal representation among each of the six equine constituencies (trainers, owners and breeders, tracks, veterinarians, state racing commissions, and jockeys). Furthermore, the committee tasked with nominating eligible candidates for Board and standing-committee positions is made up of entirely non-industry members. HISA further imposes broad conflicts-of-interest requirements to ensure that all of its Board members (industry and non-industry alike) as well as non-industry standing committee members (not to mention their employees and family members) are required to remain free of all equine economic conflicts of interest.

Beyond these robust safeguards, established precedent confirms what common sense indicates: even when a private entity is engaged in the regulatory process, agency authority and surveillance protect against promotion of self-interest. Under HISA, for example, the FTC has the authority to decline the Authority's proposed rules and overrule any sanctions—ensuring that neither the Authority nor the individuals making up its Board can use their position for their own advantage in violation of constitutional restraints.

HISA has broad support from the Thoroughbred industry, including: organizations such as the Breeders' Cup, National Thoroughbred Racing Association, The Jockey Club, The Jockeys' Guild, American Association of Equine Practitioners and the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders' Association; the nation's leading racetracks, including Churchill Downs, Del Mar Thoroughbred Club, Gulfstream Park, Keeneland, The Maryland Jockey Club, Monmouth Park, The New York Racing Association and Santa Anita; leading horsemen's organizations such as the Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association and the Thoroughbred Owners of California; prominent Thoroughbred owners Barbara Banke, Anthony Beck, Arthur and Staci Hancock, Fred Hertrich, Barry Irwin, Stuart S. Janney III, Rosendo Parra and Vinnie Viola; leading Thoroughbred trainers Christophe Clement, Neil Drysdale, Janet Elliot, Claude “Shug” McGaughey, Bill Mott, Todd Pletcher and Nick Zito; grassroots organization Water Hay Oats Alliance, with more than 2,000 individual members; international organizations the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities and The Jockey Club of Canada; and prominent animal welfare organizations American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Wellness Action and the Humane Society of the United States.

The post NTRA: ‘Contrary To HBPA’s Hyperbole, HISA Is Neither Unprecedented Nor Unconstitutional’ appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post