Gary West | Horse Racing Free Tips

West Calls Out Saudi Cup Officials For ‘Shrouding This Investigation In A Cloak Of Secrecy’

Maximum Security's co-owner Gary West released the following statement on Wednesday, following Tuesday's announcement by the Jockey Club of Saudi Arabia that purse money from the inaugural running of the $20 million Saudi Cup would be paid out to all except the winner, due to the sealed federal indictment of then-trainer Jason Servis.

On Feb. 29, 2020, Maximum Security, owned by Gary and Mary West and the Coolmore partners, was the impressive winner of the inaugural running of the $20 million Saudi Cup in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, the world's richest race. Now, five and one half months later, the winner still hasn't been declared official and no information has been made public regarding this matter. In the annals of international racing, this is unprecedented.

It is standard operating procedure in the Americas, Europe, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Hong Kong, and Dubai to test horses for the presence of prohibited or illegal substances and to disqualify horses if the presence of such substances is found in post-race laboratory results. This internationally accepted level of transparency is both fair and vital to the integrity of the sport. However, it's just as important and fair to declare a race official in a timely manner and to release purses if horses test negative. Those are the rules by which all major racing centers operate, but this is apparently not how racing is conducted by the Saudi Arabia Jockey Club (SAJC), which developed the Saudi Cup as an entrée into the big leagues of international racing. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of horse racing.

Following Maximum Security's victory in the Saudi Cup, which reinforced his position as one of the best racehorses in the world, the colt's then-trainer, Jason Servis, was indicted by the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in early March on one count of “misbranding conspiracy,” the details of which are in the public record. Subsequently, a decision was made by the representatives of the Saudi Cup to conduct an “investigation” into Maximum Security, even though the SDNY indictment of Servis was limited to his conduct between February and October of 2019. After that time frame, Maximum Security won the Grade 1 Cigar Mile at Aqueduct on Dec. 7 before the Saudi Cup on February 29, 2020, and he has never once tested positive for an illegal or prohibited substance during his career.

NOTE: Under the direct supervision of The Saudi Jockey Club, Maximum Security was tested before he left the states, when he arrived in Saudi Arabia and post-race by two of the best testing labs in the world in Paris and Hong Kong. If any of those tests would have been positive, Maximum Security would have been disqualified long ago.

We understood, once the Servis indictment was announced, that the original test results, which were extensive, including blood, urine, and DNA hair testing, needed to be re-examined post-race by the top drug-testing laboratories in the world. Thereafter, we received two requests from the Saudis for bank wiring instructions, leading us to believe that all test results had been negative (as we believe they were) and funds would be forthcoming. Instead of receiving the purse monies, we received a letter dated April 29 from a 'Private Investigator' who had been hired by the JCSA to conduct an 'investigation' of Maximum Security's entitlement to the purse. If this race is decided by a 'Private Investigator', it will be the first time in the history of horse racing that a 'Private Investigator' will decide the outcome of a horse race. Winning horses are always decided on the racetrack and backed up by post-race testing. If a horse wins the race to the satisfaction of the stewards and passes post-race testing, it is universally accepted that the horse is the winner of the race, with the possible exception of the SAJC.

We have repeatedly asked through our counsel to have the Saudi Cup officials publicly announce whether Maximum Security's test results revealed performance enhancing or illegal medications of any kind and they have refused to provide that information. We have also requested a split sample so that we may have tests performed, but that request has also been denied, which is something that would never happen in the U.S.

We can only assume if Maximum Security tested positive for any illegal or prohibited substance, the news would be out, the horse would have already been disqualified, and any 'investigation' would be irrelevant. We have cooperated and intend to continue to cooperate with the 'investigation', but we call on H.R.H. Prince Bandar and the representatives of the Saudi Cup to make this process transparent and swift to the international racing community. Transparency serves the integrity of racing and the reputations of the Saudi Cup and Maximum Security, both of which have been badly tarnished by these unheard of delays and bizarre circumstances. The entire process has been unfair and the international racing community deserved to know the outcome months ago.

If the SAJC wants to compete on the big stage of international racing, they need to let everyone know what they are investigating and what their plan is. If there was a bad test, that was known long ago and the results should be made publicly available immediately. If Maximum Security tested positive for any illegal substance he should be disqualified. Shrouding this investigation in a cloak of secrecy is not how to gain the respect of and faith in the international racing community.

For the purpose of analyzing the fairness of this decision by the Jockey Club of Saudi Arabia let's assume that any horse tested positive for cocaine, cobra venom, frog juice and 10 other PED's in previous races. Prior positive test results would not disqualify that horse from running in the Saudi Cup or any other race. And, if the horse won and tested negative by testing labs chosen by the racing authorities, that horse would be officially declared the winner of the race. That is the way things work everywhere in the world with Saudi Arabia Jockey Club being the only known exception.

The post West Calls Out Saudi Cup Officials For ‘Shrouding This Investigation In A Cloak Of Secrecy’ appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Maximum Security to Return in San Diego Handicap

Unraced since crossing the wire first in the Feb. 29 Saudi Cup, Maximum Security (New Year’s Day) will make his next start on July 18 GII San Diego H. at Del Mar.

The story was first reported by the Daily Racing Form.

“He’s doing fantastic,” trainer Bob Baffert said. “We’re pointing for the San Diego and I couldn’t be happier with him.”

The San Diego, a mile-and-a-sixteenth race with a purse of $150,000, is a prep for the GI Pacific Classic on Aug. 13 at Del Mar and Baffert confirmed that that race is also on Maximum Security’s schedule.

Shortly after the Saudi Cup, trainer Jason Servis was indicted for allegedly using performance-enhancing drugs on his horses and owners Gary and Mary West decided to turn the horse over to Baffert.

“I’ve gotten to know him and he’s really nice to be around,” Baffert said. “He’s classy, just a dream to be around.”

Baffert said the Servis situation is something he is not focusing on.

“I really don’t want to get into that,” he said. “I just go by what I see on the racetrack and I see a really good horse when I see him on the racetrack. When I see him train I see a great horse.”

The post Maximum Security to Return in San Diego Handicap appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Crux of Argument in Wests’ Derby DQ Appeal: ‘Stewards Are Put Above the Law’

An attorney for Gary and Mary West argued in a federal appeals court teleconference Tuesday that a 2019 dismissal of their civil rights lawsuit pertaining to the disqualification of Maximum Security (New Year’s Day) in the GI Kentucky Derby should be overturned on the basis that a Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) regulation should not pre-empt a state statute that gives power to courts to review final orders of agency determinations.

“If this decision of the district court is not reversed, what it means is that the stewards’ decision to disqualify a horse is never reviewable by anybody, ever,” Ronald Riccio, representing the appellants, told a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

“Kentucky will be the only jurisdiction in the United States in which the stewards have unlimited power to disqualify horses and nobody can change it. Not the commission, not a court, not anybody. The stewards are put above the law,” Riccio said.

Jennifer Wolsing, an attorney arguing for the appellees, which include the three Churchill Downs stewards who officiated the Derby, the KHRC executive director, and all of the board’s members at the time, told the judges that participating in Kentucky racing as a licensee is a privilege and not a right, and that the Wests’ should have known that by Kentucky’s rules, in-race rulings regarding fouls shall be final and not subject to appeal.

“The Wests’ agreed to abide by the commission’s regulations, including the provision that stewards’ determinations are final,” Wolsing said. “And this rule is here for a reason: To [allow] otherwise would turn the most exciting two minutes in sports into two years of protracted litigation.

“Just as it would be ludicrous to litigate an umpire’s decision at a high school baseball game, it’s also inappropriate to ignore Kentucky’s regulation and allow the Wests’ to challenge the stewards’ unappeasable disqualification determination,” Wolsing said.

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 was 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, who own Maximum Security, 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.

“Kentucky’s regulations make clear that the disqualification is not subject to judicial review,” the court order stated. “Further, the disqualification procedure does not implicate an interest protected under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

The Wests then filed an appeal brief Dec. 20, 2019. The June 16 oral arguments were the first scheduled opportunity for both sides to state their case in oral form and offer rebuttals before a panel of judges.

Much of the argument that Riccio put forth centered on the definitions of what constitutes a “final order” issued by a “state agency head.” He likened the way the Churchill stewards made their disqualification decision to an “administrative hearing” that he believes should be reviewable by a higher power or court of law.

“What the district court concluded was that the stewards’ process by which they disqualified Maximum Security was not the product of an administrative hearing,” Riccio said.

“And that, we suggest, is very flawed,” Riccio continued. “It was flawed because what the stewards did was conduct a process by which they had the sole and exclusive power to conduct the hearing…. We take the position that the district court misinterpreted ‘final order’ and produced a result that is in conflict with the legislative intent of the Kentucky racing commission.

“First the [KHRC] said the commission can’t review the stewards’ disqualification. Then they said that this court can’t review what the stewards did. In other words, what that means is, if the stewards want to flip a coin and decide who should be disqualified and who should not be disqualified, they can do that with impunity and without fear,” Riccio said.

Wolsing countered that stewards routinely determine disqualification in summary fashion in the immediate aftermath of race, and that they are not an “agency head” determining a “final order” after a formal administrative hearing. She again brought up her point that stewards function more like umpires in a baseball game.

“Regulations say [stewards] have to exercise immediate supervision, control and regulation of racing licensees,” Wolsing explained. “Which is kind of a way of saying that they call balls and strikes. In contrast, the full 16-member racing commission is actually the agency head for the purpose of final order.”

Judge John Bush interjected to bring up a point about defining the stewards’ true roles in officiating races.

“This is a little different than an umpire at a Little League game. You have a situation where you have a regulated sport where gambling is also sanctioned by the government as part of the sport, and there is an elaborate procedure by regulation as to how the stewards are to function,” Bush said.

“[The stewards] actually issued an order saying what their decision was after interviewing witnesses,” Bush continued. “Doesn’t this look more like an agency determination that would be subject to this statute that says ‘All final orders of an agency shall be subject to judicial review’?”

Riccio, at a later point in the proceedings, also took umbrage with the analogy that stewards function as umpires.

“The stewards are state actors. Umpires are not. What the stewards did in this case would be the equivalent of umpires changing the rules of the game,” Riccio said. “Instead of having three strikes and you’re out, the umpire decides you can have four or five strikes or no strikes.

“So what we’re dealing with here is not a judgment call by the stewards. We’re dealing with changing the rules of the game to fit their purposes and to make [arbitrary] decisions never subject to judicial review,” Riccio said.

At a different point, one of the judges asked Riccio to state what property or liberty interest the Wests had prior to the race being declared official. (The plaintiffs in their original lawsuit argued that the disqualification had stripped them of the honor, prestige and prize money of winning America’s most important horse race. They wanted Maximum Security and Country House declared as co-winners until the courts could render an official result.)

Riccio said the Wests’ acquired those property and liberty interests “not prior to, but immediately after the horse crossed the finish line first.” He added that “You don’t need to have something in hand in order for a property right to be protected under the 14th Amendment.”

Wolsing, when it was her turn, cited a point of law that underscored “one cannot forfeit something that one does not possess,” adding that “Maximum Security’s purse was not forfeited. It was awarded to the horse that won the race.”

The post Crux of Argument in Wests’ Derby DQ Appeal: ‘Stewards Are Put Above the Law’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post