The notice included no specifics.

“The terms of the settlement are to remain confidential,” explained Hollendorfer's attorney, Drew Couto.

DMTC president, Josh Rubinstein, confirmed the settlement in an emailed statement.

“The resolution of this litigation does not reflect the merit of or any acceptance of liability by any party,” Rubinstein wrote.

The 22nd District Agricultural Association, which manages and operates the Del Mar Fairgrounds, is also a defendant in the suit.     This resolution is the latest domino to fall in a sprawling series of cases filed by Hollendorfer after The Stronach Group (TSG) barred the trainer from its facilities in June of 2019. The company took the action after four of the trainer's horses were irreparably injured during Santa Anita's ill-fated 2018-2019 winter/spring meet.

This was a time when the track experienced a well-publicized spike in equine fatalities during an unusually wet spell. Hollendorfer has faced no formal regulatory sanctions for events that occurred during the meet.

Del Mar followed TSG's lead in barring Hollendorfer from its grounds, but the trainer successfully overturned the track's ban in court in July of that year.

Events from the summer of 2019 spawned a handful of different lawsuits, most of which are now resolved.

Last June, Hollendorfer and TSG-controlled subsidiary owners of Santa Anita Park and Golden Gate Fields reached a settlement, the details of which were similarly undisclosed. Hollendorfer has not started a runner at any TSG-owned facility since that original 2019 ban.

Last month, the Blood Horse reported that a San Diego Superior Court judge had dismissed Hollendorfer's case against the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB).

According to Couto, Hollendorfer intends to appeal that ruling.

“The court is aware that Mr. Hollendorfer will be appealing the decision in that case,” he said.

Hollendorfer has been an annual face at Del Mar since the summer of 2019, but at a significantly diminished presence compared to the halcyon years of his numerical dominance which led him to multiple leading trainer titles. Last summer at the track, he trained one winner from just 15 starts.

Filings with the San Diego Superior Court show that Hollendorfer has claimed several causes of action against the DMTC, mainly focused on the impacts from DMTC's actions on his business.

Among them, Hollendorfer argued that the DMTC's actions deliberately interfered with existing “contractual obligations” with several of his clients, and that it was done in part to protect the track's own bottom line.

Hollendorfer also claimed in court filings that the DMTC “conspired” with five other key California-focused industry organizations, including TSG and the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), “to enact a group boycott that prevented Plaintiff from racing and stabling” horses in his care.

“The conspiring parties did so in order to prosper economically by avoiding responsibility and shift blame to Plaintiff for dangerous and inherent conditions at their racetracks. Primary objectives of the group boycott included the manipulation of public perception and deflection or misdirection public attention, scrutiny, and inquiries,” filings show.

Court documents show the DMTC pushing back against Hollendorfer's claims the track intentionally harmed his business, in part to protect its own economic interests. For example, the DMTC argues the trainer failed to prove the track had adequate prior knowledge of the trainer's “contractual relations” with his owners prior to banning him, including specific contractual details.

Court documents also show the DTSC countering Hollenderfer's claims the alleged group “boycott” was done to benefit the groups' members.

“There are no facts showing how DMTC or the District benefitted from the alleged group boycott,” filings state.

Hollendorfer sought to recover damages from DMTC for economic and reputational harm, filings show.

Hollendorfer's training operations have seen marked declines since TSG's ban was enacted in 2019. In 2018, he won 176 races and accrued over $7 million in earnings, according to Equibase. So far this year, he has won 14 races and won just under $670,000.

Over the weekend, a Monmouth Park press release detailed how the trainer had transferred 29 of his horses stabled at the track to long-time assistant Dan Ward, with a view to scaling back his operations to California only.

“I just want to concentrate on what I'm doing here in California,” Hollendorfer is quoted in the press release. “Dan and I have discussed for a while that he wanted a chance to go out on his own. Now seems like a pretty good time to do that.”

The post Hollendorfer, Del Mar Reach Settlement in Lawsuit appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Ward has overseen Hollendorfer's division at Monmouth Park and Oaklawn Park for the past four years.

“I just want to concentrate on what I'm doing here in California,” said Hollendorfer. “Dan and I have discussed for a while that he wanted a chance to go out on his own. Now seems like a pretty good time to do that.”

Hollendorfer said he expects to keep “12 to 15 horses” to race at Los Alamitos and Del Mar.

Ward, 64, spent 22 years as an assistant to Hall of Famer Bobby Frankel and has been Hollendorfer's assistant since 2007. He expects his official debut as the trainer of record to come next weekend at Monmouth Park. Entries have yet to be drawn for those Friday through Sunday cards.

“It's a great opportunity,” said Ward. “It's been a great experience working with Jerry. I'm grateful to be taking over for someone who has more than 7,700 wins. And I'm starting with 29 horses, not one or two, which you often do when you are on your own. It doesn't change what we do in the mornings with the horses. But now when I talk to owners they know the horses are in my name.”

A San Diego native, Ward said he intended to remain on the Monmouth Park-Oaklawn circuit, saying “we're established ourselves the past four years at both tracks. People know we're going to be there.”

He said “the timing is right – it's perfect timing” to go out on his own.

“It's been worth the wait,” he said.

Hollendorfer, who has a 6-6-7 line from 30 starts at Monmouth Park this year, said he is confident Ward is prepared for the opportunity he now has. “When he came to work for me I wanted someone who would be able to offer a good opinion on what was going on,” said Hollendorfer. “Dan certainly has the foundation to do that. It certainly seemed to work out for us. I have no doubt he will be successful.”

The post Hollendorfer Transfers Monmouth Horses to Dan Ward appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The precipitating event, of course, was the spate of equine fatalities that had covered Santa Anita, and the racing industry in general, under a pall of public condemnation–the exact same kind of scrutiny Churchill Downs has faced these past few weeks, culminating with the announced switch of racing venue to Ellis Park.

As events have unfolded at Churchill Downs, representatives from the Horse Racing Integrity Act (HISA) have made it clear that they could stop the track from exporting their simulcasting signal out of state, if they deemed it necessary.

Here, however, it should also be noted that throughout this period, HISA officials have repeatedly stressed how the agency's actions have been in unison with both Churchill Downs and the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC).

But the ability to block the export of a simulcasting signal is not enough, say several non-HBPA affiliated horsemen's groups, including the Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association, the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association (KTA), the Thoroughbred Owners of California, the New York Thoroughbred Horseman's Association, and the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association.

Since the earliest days of the HISA rulemaking process, they have argued for a clear set of rules giving HISA the discretion to completely suspend racing at a facility by removing its accreditation in the event of a safety-related crisis.

“Some of these owner-trainer groups feel so strongly about this issue,” said Chauncey Morris, executive director of the KTA, who stressed that he believes Churchill Downs, the KHRC and HISA have taken the correct steps throughout the past few weeks.

In answer to a series of questions, HISA spokesperson, Mandy Minger, wrote that the federal agency is indeed considering such a rule change.

In background conversations with track officials, however, they've stressed the disruptive nature of such actions, which can have profound economic impacts on a wide swath of stakeholders. Others warn that such powers need clear definition.

Scott Chaney, CHRB executive director, agrees that the threat alone of pulling a track's simulcasting signal “is not a complete solution,” but the key question for him is this: What criteria would HISA use to justify the ability to suspend racing completely at a facility?

“Is it purely fatality based?” he said. “Or is it more response based–like, is the response of the track satisfactory?”

The Proposal

HISA cited Turf Paradise back in January for several safety-related problems like faulty track rails and a subpar racetrack surface maintenance program. Track management ultimately complied, but only after the HISA Authority applied the thumbscrews of a possible simulcasting export block.

In the Turf Paradise situation, therefore, there were clear racetrack safety violations that HISA used as enforcement leverage.

But what happens in a situation where a track experiences a rash of fatalities and there is no clear actionable violation? What if management at that track is not as cooperative with HISA's overtures as Churchill Downs has been? Then add to the mix the growing wingbeat of a national media calling for the sport's swansong.

This is the central conundrum prompting certain horsemen's groups to advocate for HISA to wield such discretionary powers–something the groups did during the first round of the rule-making process, submitting comments calling for the HISA Authority to be given “residual power to suspend accreditation and suspend racing in case of an unusual cluster of fatalities or other safety emergency.”

They added back then that “unambiguous language is necessary to provide that the Authority and its Safety Committee can actively monitor accreditation requirements during live racing, suspend accreditation immediately in order to ensure the safety of horse and rider, and suspend racing until corrective measures are undertaken.”

Those initial proposals were submitted at the start of 2022. According to Morris, the same groups are in the process of resubmitting similar commentary in the latest window to tweak HISA's rule. And HISA, it appears, is listening.

According to Minger, HISA's current rules bar them from prohibiting “Covered Horseraces at a Racetrack” without an accreditation suspension or a finding of a racetrack safety violation.

However, “for circumstances where that is not the case, HISA is closely examining and considering a new safety rule traditionally utilized by State Racing Commissions to summarily suspend Covered Horseraces at a Racetrack when circumstances present an immediate danger to the health, safety, or welfare of Covered Persons, Covered Horses, and Riders, or are not in the best interests of racing,” wrote Minger.

A formal process to remove a track's accreditation, however, still appears to leave a window open for live racing to continue–as in Texas, where the tracks there are not HISA accredited but continue to operate without the ability to export their simulcasting signal out of state.

Uniquely for Texas, the lack of an exported simulcasting signal has not dramatically affected the state's purse fund, buttressed as it is with monies from a sales tax on equine products. Purses in many other states, however, are funded heavily through wagering.

Without the ability to export a signal, the hypothetical question becomes: How long could a track operate without these monies coming in?

Specific Criteria

The CHRB rule giving it emergency discretion to suspend a track's license is prescriptive about the necessary steps the commission must take to execute that power.

The board must give track management at least 24 hours' notice of the hearing on the petition to suspend the license, which can be filed by the executive director or by the equine medical director, for example. The board also has five days following the petition's filing to make a decision on the suspension or license restriction order, among other requirements.

What's missing, however, is a clear set of detailed criteria delineating what set of circumstances warrant the CHRB's petition to be filed in the first place, and that's a big problem, said Chaney.

“From a regulatory standpoint, pressure and notoriety alone should not be the criteria,” warned Chaney.

Which leads to perhaps the thorniest aspect of the proposed rule change–what are the agreed-upon parameters so this regulatory trip wire isn't used capriciously?

The term multifactorial is routinely bandied around to explain fatal musculoskeletal injuries.

In a cluster of deaths, is there commonality in the way the horses were conditioned and medicated, for example? Are there glaring holes in the pre-race veterinary checks? Is the out-of-competition testing program rigorous enough? Has the racing office unduly pressured trainers to enter? Is the track surface at fault? What about their breeding, and the way they were raised?

This Iliad-like search for answers makes transparency of a baseline set of information vital in the quest to identify preventable fatalities, said Chaney.

“But since all reporting is not equal, it's hard to have an open and honest conversation about that,” he added.

Indeed, in recent weeks Churchill Downs has faced criticism over its decision not to publicly share equine fatality data through the Equine Injury Database. And it's unclear when HISA–which is mandated to publicly share this data uniformly–will step up to the task.

“HISA's accreditation team has been working with tracks to help them meet their internal review and reporting obligations. We're also in the process of developing internal systems so that reliable catastrophic injury data can be aggregated and made available to the public on an ongoing basis. Until such time as reporting and tracking systems are in place nationwide, The Jockey Club's Equine Injury Database continues to be the most reliable source for the type of information you requested,” wrote Minger.

But this particular data-set is only one part of the industry's current black-hole riddled nebula of unreported and hidden information. The sooner the industry at large begins sharing relevant data in a timely manner–everything from detailed vet's list info to stewards' reports–the better, said Chaney.

“Regression to the mean is just not good enough,” he said. “When it comes to safety, every track, every regulatory authority, has to do everything they can.”

Cautionary Tales

Attorney Drew Cuoto has long been critical of tracks unilaterally suspending individuals from their facilities, describing instances where he believes the horsemen have not been afforded the necessary due process rights of hearing and appeal.

Couto, it should be noted, has represented Jerry Hollendorfer in ongoing litigation stemming from The Stronach Group's 2019 decision to bar the trainer from the company's facilities.

And so perhaps surprisingly, Couto, one of the founding members of the Thoroughbred Owners of California, agrees with the fundamental premise that HISA is given these additional discretionary powers.

But before actually wielding that cudgel, the Authority should ensure that it has taken reasonable measures to get to the bottom of the problem, he said, mirroring Chaney's comments.

“Every situation is unique,” Couto said. “But in my many years of experience, in the event of these unusual clusters, typically there are issues related with the track itself.”

As such, Couto believes that such a scenario should immediately prompt HISA to bring in outside experts to evaluate the available information, like failure analysts and composite material science experts to evaluate track surface measurements.

Here it should be noted that one of the things HISA has done at Churchill Downs is bring in an equine forensics specialist to conduct an independent review of the necropsies.

This is especially needed at those facilities where track operators might not have the necessary training and experience to understand the complex set of factors behind fatality clusters, said Couto. He points out how–unlike many positions in racing like trainers and veterinarians–individuals filling certain racetrack operational roles aren't tested for proficiency through a formal licensing process.

Right now, “suspensions largely serve PR objectives over reasoned analysis,” he said. “And so, what I hope HISA can do is not take the current scientific consensus as gospel, but to see it as a starting point in the scientific process.”

As Morris sees it, however, HISA is uniquely placed to cut through the red-tape of competing interests to police the “triad” of American racing–the racetracks, the horseman and racing commissions–equally.

“In past situations, it can turn into a blame game between the racetrack, the horsemen and a state racing commission that feels it may or may not have the power or jurisdiction to step in,” said Morris.

“But HISA is an independent regulator,” he added. “That is something that was very, very appealing to our collective group.”

The post Proposed HISA Rule Change: Emergency Power to Suspend Live Racing? appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The two writs constituted a twisty legal knot essentially surrounding which entity–the tracks or the agency regulating California's racing industry–had the ultimate jurisdiction to bar the trainer from licensed premises in the state, a hearing for which was held on Oct. 8.

According to Hollendorfer's attorney, Drew Couto, both decisions are appealable, “and those decisions are under consideration.”

The TDN reached out to the CHRB for comment and will update as necessary.

This whole legal saga began when The Stronach Group (TSG) barred Hollendorfer from its facilities after six of the trainer's horses were catastrophically injured between December 2018 and June 2019 at Golden Gate Fields and Santa Anita, a time when the latter track experienced a well-publicized spike in equine fatalities during an unusually wet spell.

This past July, Hollendorfer reached a settlement with TSG-controlled subsidiary owners of Santa Anita Park and Golden Gate Fields, the details of which have not been publicly disclosed.

Hollendorfer has not raced or trained at TSG-owned facilities since that June 2019 exclusion.

The first of the two writs concerned the race meet agreement (RMA) inked between the tracks and the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT).

Hollendorfer had claimed that the CHRB “abused its discretion” by voting to deem the RMA in place when the trainer was initially barred from Santa Anita “expired” and “incapable of repetition” when it came to Hollendorfer's later actions through the CTT–namely, when Del Mar attempted to bar Hollendorfer from its grounds in the summer of 2019, and again later that fall when the trainer tried to enter horses at Santa Anita.

In a minute order dated Nov. 22, judge Ronald Frazier denied this first writ on grounds that Hollendorfer “lacks standing” to bring the petition.

“Any complaint alleging a violation of an RMA may only be filed by one of the contracting entities – that is, the horsemen's organization (here, CTT) or the racing association (here, LATC and PRA),” wrote Frazier.

In the second writ, Hollendorfer argued that the CHRB through its board of stewards wields the ultimate right to refuse a trainer's entries, and not the individual racing association. As such, he sought to “compel” the CHRB “to perform its mandatory ministerial” duties in deciding through a hearing whether the trainer should be able to race at Santa Anita and Golden Gate.

Frazier wrote that the court has “reviewed the lodged records and considered the arguments of counsel, and finds Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated a hearing was required pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 19573.”

In pre-hearing briefs, Hollendorfer also questioned the impartiality of the CHRB in adjudicating his case, citing email communications and deposition testimony from former board members that appeared to betray favorable attitudes towards TSG's actions against the trainer.

Frazier pushed back against those claims, writing that “regardless of the existence or non-existence of the alleged biases and conflicts of interest, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate they influenced or impacted Respondent's investigations in any way.”

Hollendorfer's case against the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club is ongoing.

The post Hollendorfer Writs Denied in CHRB Case appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

These same threads hamstrung the years-long dispute between California's trainers and racetracks about what should be written into the race-meet agreement about fair procedures for trainers facing potential banishment from a facility.

It all boils down to this: How best to balance the rights of track owners to protect their businesses from bad actors alongside the rights of trainers and others from becoming targets of arbitrary bans—actions with often huge implications for their professional futures?

As Jan. 1 looms, when the full remit of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) is scheduled to go into effect—including most crucially HISA's anti-doping and medication control program—how will federal oversight of the sport alter exclusionary rights, if at all?

“HISA is finalizing its policies in this area and will have more to share in the weeks ahead,” wrote HISA spokesperson, Liz Beadle, when TDN asked to discuss the issue with a HISA representative.

So instead, the TDN reached out to three legal experts in the field. Their main takeaway? Other than a tightened regulatory world, don't expect much to alter—at least for now.

“I don't think it will really change the legal analysis,” said Bennett Liebman, Government Lawyer in Residence at Albany Law School and an adjunct professor of law.

Nuances

First and foremost, “I don't think HISA preempts the common-law right of a racetrack to exclude someone for whatever reason they want absent some protective civil right,” said Alan Foreman, CEO and chairman of the Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association (THA).

This means that if a track or racing association decides that a trainer has contravened moral or ethical boundaries—irrespective of whether that same person has fallen foul of any rules and regulations—they have the authority to do so independent of HISA, Foreman said.

“HISA can regulate in areas which they're authorized to regulate, but they can't tell me who I have to allow on my property and who I don't,” Foreman said.

Such actions are rarely cut and dried, of course.

Private properties are required to afford licensees the legal framework of “fair procedure” when seeking to bar them from their grounds. For a state agency—including a quasi-state agency non-profit organization like the New York Racing Association (NYRA)—the legal standard is “due process and equal protection.”

With this in mind, racetracks try not to specify detailed reasons for excluding an individual “in almost all cases,” said Liebman.

“When they do that,” Liebman explained, “there's potential that they might damage the individual's reputation and perhaps give way to constitutional protections.”

Therefore, “the normal approach by most racetracks is to say, 'you're being excluded for our best business interests,'” said Liebman. And he doesn't expect that broad legal dynamic to change much under HISA.

There are nuances, of course.

Even if a racetrack in West Virginia or Pennsylvania excludes a licensee from its grounds, that licensee can then petition the racing commissions in those states to overturn the ban, said Foreman.

In the hypothetical scenario a racetrack in those two states excludes a licensee for a reason that falls under the remit of HISA—for a welfare and safety related issue, for example—and the licensee then tries to take their case to the requisite commission, the relevant track “is going to make the argument that HISA deprives the racing commissions of any jurisdiction over drugs and safety,” said Liebman.

“I don't think it's going to be successful,” Liebman added, about such an argument made by the tracks. “But they're going to raise it.”

Foreman is less sure. Although HISA pre-empts state law, he said, it's unclear whether HISA nullifies the right of those commissions to independently arbitrate track exclusions in their jurisdiction.

“Maybe HISA does have the right to stand in that area,” he wondered. “Maybe not.”

Right of Private Property

This leads to another hypothetical.

In the event a racetrack in other states excludes a licensee for a reason that falls under HISA's regulatory umbrella, there's a strong possibility that person will litigate the action on grounds that HISA should be the one to adjudicate the alleged offense, not the track owners.

“If I was a lawyer representing an individual, I'd argue, “HISA does have jurisdiction here, and HISA has to tell the track what to do because HISA preempts state law,'” said Foreman.

But even then, individual tracks wield enormous legal clout, Foreman added. “If I'm the track, I'd say, 'I'm not acting under state law, I'm acting under right of private property.'”

As Foreman sees it, a more streamlined regulatory environment under HISA—including more expeditious case handling times—should negate the need for tracks to weed-out so-called bad actors (more on this in a bit).

“I think the actions the tracks have been taking recently is because they thought the regulatory system was failing to address offenders, multiple offenders, or those who were giving the industry a bad name,” said Foreman.

As such, “I think it's unlikely we're going to see tracks take actions against individuals because of their records,” said Foreman.

“I think with the enactment of HISA and the implementation of HISA, that probably goes away somewhat,” he added, “unless HISA's a failure.”

But how much latitude does HISA really have in this sphere?

Fair Procedure

Earlier this year, trainer Juan Pablo Silva was handed a 180-day ban from Turf Paradise after a 1-20 shot he trained and owned was pulled up and eased shortly after the start of a race.

This past June, trainer Marcus Vitali reached an undisclosed settlement with NYRA, after the latter claimed the trainer had “engaged in conduct that is detrimental to the best interests of the sport of Thoroughbred racing or potentially injurious to the health or safety of horses or riders.”

These two trainers subsequently found a home at Mountaineer—alongside another trainer, Burton Sipp, who has faced multiple allegations involving insurance scams and dead horses, animal neglect cases at a zoo he operated, race-fixing stings and regulatory malfeasance over a 40 year period.

Interestingly, Vitali and Silva have recently saddled horses at Turf Paradise, which kick-started its latest 2022-2023 winter meet on Nov. 4.

The question raised by the professional conduct and inter-state activities of these individuals is this: Does HISA have legal sway to independently step in and exclude licensees it deems a detriment to racing's image when a racetrack fails to do so?

For many watching HISA closely, this particular question is where the rubber meets the road.

There's language in the rules that appears to give HISA fairly broad authority over conduct detrimental to the sport and to equine welfare. As Foreman explains it, however, HISA has the ability to “fine, suspend, or revoke registration” from a licensee registered with HISA, but only if that individual is found guilty of violating stipulated HISA rules, and afforded due process.

Ultimately, “If a person is suspended, that's HISA's jurisdiction. HISA is the new national racing commission,” Foreman said, before hammering home how “that has nothing to do with a track's private property rights.”

An important caveat is that every licensee begins life under HISA with a clean slate.

“Remember, everybody starts at zero when the medication rules go into effect on January 1,” said Foreman. “They're not allowed to take into account their prior record.”

And Foreman said he is hopeful that HISA's new stricter set of rules and sanctions in general will motivate better overall standards of equine care.

One salient example of how this stricter regulatory theater will look surrounds Boldenone, an anabolic steroid better known as Equipoise.

In September, the stewards at Gulfstream Park suspended trainer Nagib Aboughaida 15-days and fined him $500 for a Boldenone positive. Under HISA, Boldenone is a prohibited substance, a positive for which necessitates an ineligibility period of up to 14 months.

Still, beyond the purview of actionable conduct, HISA's wrists are still fairly tightly tied, Foreman conceded. This of course includes there being “no mandatory reciprocity among racetracks if a racetrack chooses to exclude an individual for reasons it determines are appropriate,” Foreman added.

“That will still remain moving forward.”

Penalties for Equine Injuries?

That's not to say HISA doesn't have the potential authority to exclude trainers for actions or behaviors that aren't currently specific violations, said Drew Couto, an attorney who has represented trainer Jerry Hollendorfer in the many-splintered litigations stemming from his exclusion from The Stronach Group facilities in June of 2019.

The trick, Couto said, will be to devise a set of objective criteria to specifically delineate expectations of ethical equine care.

Crucially, such criteria must be relayed to trainers and others in clear, easily understandable fashion, said Couto.

“I don't think somebody should be left alone without any idea that their license is in jeopardy and all of a sudden be blind-sided,” said Couto.

In other words, “being congratulated one week in the winner's circle for your winners, and then the next week being told you've got to get out of Dodge,” Couto added.

In this regard, what HISA would have to do is similar to what the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) attempted last year, when proposing regulations that would have penalized trainers for certain equine injuries or fatalities.

The CHRB shelved that idea in favor of a blue-ribbon panel to review equine injuries, stymied—at least for now—by the practicalities of framing sanctionable regulations around what is often such a nuanced and multi-faceted issue.

As for HISA intervening in private property matters, Couto believes that in the early days of the law, the new federal Authority will prove reluctant to weigh in on many matters where licensees have been excluded from private facilities.

Absent that clear set of standards in cases where licensees haven't broken any specific rules, “I suspect HISA's not going to want to jump into the deep end of that pool—not at the outset,” said Couto. “Their lawyers are going to say, 'do we want to be the defendants in a Jerry Hollendorfer-type of case?'”

Given the sheer scale of litigation costs as well as the enormity of the undertaking still ahead in ensuring that HISA works as intended, said Couto, “does HISA want that?”

The post Private Property Rights Under HISA appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The hearing Oct. 8 concerned two writs of mandate that Hollendorfer filed against the CHRB constituting an oftentimes complicated and convoluted legal knot essentially surrounding which entity–the tracks or the state agency–have the ultimate jurisdiction to bar the trainer from participating in California horse racing.

TSG barred Hollendorfer from its facilities after six of the trainer's horses were catastrophically injured between December 2018 and June 2019 at Golden Gate Fields and Santa Anita, a time when the latter track experienced a well-publicized spike in equine fatalities during an unusually wet spell.

This past July, Hollendorfer reached a settlement with TSG-controlled subsidiary owners of Santa Anita Park and Golden Gate Fields, the details of which have not been publicly disclosed.

Hollendorfer has not raced or trained at TSG-owned facilities since that June 2019 exclusion.

The CHRB's responses to the writs of mandate–entwined as they are in the language of race-meet agreements [RMA] and stall applications–also provide an interesting backdrop to the years-long dispute over contractual legalese in the race-meet agreement between the tracks and the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT), primarily surrounding matters of fair procedure.

Without accord, the same contract has been automatically adopted at the start of each meet in California for some three years. The CHRB has given the relevant stakeholders until this Thursday's CHRB meeting to reach a compromise.

At the heart of the two writs of mandate are the events surrounding Hollendorfer's attempts to enter horses at Del Mar and Santa Anita in the summer and fall of 2019.

After TSG initially banned Hollendorfer from its grounds, the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club (DMTC) took the same course of action for its subsequent summer meet.

In response, Hollendorfer, through the CTT, asked the CHRB to intervene on his behalf, but because Del Mar's action was subsequently overturned in court, the CHRB dropped the matter before a formal hearing could take place, according to court documents.

After Hollendorfer's failed attempts to enter horses at the start of Santa Anita's following fall meet, the trainer once again petitioned the CHRB to intervene. “The CHRB investigated and determined in its discretion that no rules were violated” because of language in the RMA and stall applications, according to CHRB'S court filings.

Also key to the arguments is CHRB rule 1989, which relates to a track's ability to remove or deny access to a licensee. The CHRB argues in court filings that “There has never been any assertion by the CHRB or the racing associations that Petitioner was removed or denied access under Rule 1989.”

Hollendorfer disagrees and writes in court filings that the CHRB's own counsel, Robert Brodnik, “independently invoked Rule 1989 as the basis for asserting that the associations had 'denied access' to Petitioner rather than 'exclude or ban' him.”

Hollendorfer also argues that rule 1989 is inconsistent with other statutes-an inconsistency that gives the CHRB, through its board of stewards, the ultimate right to refuse a trainer's entries, and not the individual racing association.

Through the writ of mandate, Hollendorfer seeks to “compel” the CHRB “to perform its mandatory ministerial” duties in deciding whether the trainer should be able to race at Santa Anita and Golden Gate.

“Petitioner's regulatory complaints against DMTC and [Los Angeles Turf Club] LATC were substantively similar. Both stemmed from actions by those associations in refusing to accept race entries submitted by Petitioner. CHRB's Rules only authorize racing personnel to establish individual race conditions and the procedures for the submission of entries, with control over and the power to refuse entries delegated exclusively to the CHRB's Board of Stewards,” Hollendorfer writes.

“In investigating Petitioner's complaint against LATC, Respondent's Chief of Investigations confirmed that LATC had independently refused Petitioner's valid race entry without involving the Stewards. Respondent's investigation further confirmed that LATC did so based on a purported 'contractual rights' secured via RMAs and Stall Applications, which conflicted with CHRB Rules. As a consequence, Respondent was fully aware that the actions of both racing associations were inconsistent with controlling statutes and regulations,” according to court filings.

In failing to conduct “any hearings on Petitioner's complaints,” the CHRB “permitted the illegal acts of licensed racing associations in dereliction of its duties under the law, all to the harm and damage of Petitioner,” Hollendorfer's court filings state.

“The general rule as stated by the Supreme Court is that 'statutes do not supplant the common law unless it appears that the Legislature intended to cover the entire subject or, in other words, to 'occupy the field.' '[G]eneral and comprehensive legislation, where course of conduct, parties, things affected, limitations and exceptions are minutely described, indicates a legislative intent that the statute should totally supersede and replace the common law dealing with the subject matter,” the filings add.

Hollendorfer also questions the impartiality of the CHRB in adjudicating his case, citing email communications and deposition testimony from former board members.

“The day the ban of Petitioner was announced, [former board member Madeline] Auerbach shared with senior CHRB staff her, and that of CHRB Chair Charles Winner, approval of the media's change in focus from the recurring number of fatalities to the exclusion. Her email stated: 'It appears to me that most of the coverage that I have read seems more concentrated on Santa Anita's action to remove Hollendorfer than on the latest fatality. That is probably a good way of getting a positive spin on a negative story.' Chair Winner replied, 'Well put,'” Hollendorfer's court filings state.

In response to Hollendorfer claims, The CHRB claims that the 2018-2019 race RMA in place between Santa Anita and the CTT contains language providing the track authority to “deny stable space and refuse entries” so long as the decision is not arbitrary or capricious.

“Petitioner insists that the CHRB had a mandatory duty to give him a hearing regardless of the actual reasons behind the racing associations' decisions to not allow him to enter or race in 2019. However, possession of a valid trainer's license does not 'confer any right upon the holder thereof to employment at or participation in a race meeting,'” the CHRB's court filings state.

“[The CHRB's] Chief Loehr completed his investigation and report on October 1, 2019, five days after Petitioner submitted his Complaint. He found no violation of the Horse Racing Law. He found that Petitioner was banned from all Stronach Group tracks on June 22, 2019, and the ban remained in place as of the time of his investigation,” states CHRB court filings.

“[Loehr] determined that both the Stall Application and the RMA gave the LATC the authority to deny stalls and refuse race entries as long as the decision is not arbitrary or capricious, and that 'The LATC decision to deny Mr. Hollendorfer's entry is based upon his June 22, 2019 ban from all Stronach Group tracks,'” according to the CHRB's court filings.

In response to Hollendorfer's questions over the board's impartiality, the CHRB distances itself from TSG's actions.

“Petitioner claims that former CHRB Chair Charles Winner and Vice-Chair Madeline Auerbach harbored pecuniary or other bias that somehow infected the CHRB's response to his complaints. His allegations are baseless and irrelevant. Neither Winner nor Auerbach were involved in any CHRB decisions concerning Petitioner. Both were off the Board by February 2020, and did not vote to approve the Hearing Officer's proposed decision that the CTT/LATC dispute was moot,”

In a separate writ of mandate, Hollendorfer claims the CHRB “abused its discretion” by voting to deem the RMA in place between the CTT and the relevant tracks when the trainer was initially barred from Santa Anita “expired” and “incapable of repetition” when it came to Hollendorfer's later actions through the CTT.

“Conversely, Respondent has maintained that the same RMAs were extended [by the CHRB], effective December 26, 2019, and deemed operative and binding on those same signatory parties for the purposes of re-licensing the racing associations to conduct subsequent race meets, and the resolution of trainer expulsion disputes,” according to Hollendorfer's court filings.

“Respondent's inconsistent actions constituted, at a very minimum, an abuse of discretion that unlawfully deprived Petitioner of due process and equal protection under the law, as to vested fundamental rights recognized and protected by the constitution and judicial precedent established by the Supreme Courts of the United States and California,” Hollendorfer adds.

In response, the CHRB argues that the writ should be denied because Hollendorfer “was not a party to either of the two administrative proceedings conducted by the CHRB, and has no standing to challenge the results of those proceedings.”

Even if Hollendorfer did have standing, the CHRB continues, “the petition should still be denied. As to the LATC administrative process, the CHRB correctly decided that the matter was moot. Subsequent actions by the CHRB to impose the terms of the RMA on later race meets because parties could not agree on the terms of a RMA was unforeseeable, and is irrelevant to whether the CHRB's mootness decision was correct at the time based on the administrative record before the CHRB.”

The CHRB adds: “As to the DMTC proceeding, there was no hearing, and the CHRB never issued an administrative decision that would be subject to judicial review under C.C.P section 1094.5. The CHRB accepted the parties' representation of settlement and never rendered a decision. Thus, that aspect of Petitioner's cause of action is not ripe for adjudication now. Petitioner has no standing to challenge the outcome of either administrative proceeding conducted by the CHRB, and his petition under C.C.P. section 1094.5 should be denied.”

The judge in the case took both writs under submission and a ruling is pending.

Hollendorfer's court briefs can be read here, here, here and here. The CHRB's oppositions briefs can be read here and here.

The post Hollendorfer, CHRB Hearing Played Out, Ruling Pending appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The details of the settlement were not disclosed in the notices, however. It's currently unknown, therefore, if the terms include any remuneration, for example.

It's similarly unknown if the settlement terms open the door to the possibility of Hollendorfer once again training and racing at TSG-owned facilities.

TDN reached out to Hollendorfer's attorney, Drew Couto. There is “nothing I can share,” Couto said. “Everything is confidential.”

Attorney Richard Specter, representing TSG, did not respond before publication to an emailed request for comment.

This settlement doesn't draw to an end Hollendorfer's legal wranglings.

The trainer is also engaged in ongoing litigation against the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) and the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club (DMTC). These cases are being heard in the Superior Court of San Diego County.

TSG banished Hollendorfer from its facilities after four of the trainer's horses were catastrophically injured during Santa Anita's ill-fated 2018-2019 winter/spring meet, when the track experienced a well-publicized spike in equine fatalities during an unusually wet spell.

The trainer subsequently launched legal actions in Alameda County Superior Court against the Pacific Racing Association, the corporate operators of Golden Gate Fields, in August of 2019.

Hollendorfer sued the Los Angeles Turf Club, TSG's subsidiary owners of Santa Anita, in September of 2019. This lawsuit concerned seven causes of action.

A bifurcated non-jury trial was conducted in the LA County Superior Court between April 4 and April 6 of this year, focused on a single declaratory relief cause of action, encompassing the proper legal interpretation of the race-meet contract between the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) and Santa Anita.

In his ruling, judge Maurice Leiter found that Hollendorfer had no standing as a third-party beneficiary to seek a legal declaration of his rights under the race-meet contract in effect when he was barred from all TSG-owned facilities in June of 2019. Only the CTT could pursue these rights under that race-meet agreement on the trainer's behalf, the judge decided.

TSG's actions in 2019 appear to have led to a marked reversal of fortunes for the former numerical powerhouse trainer.

According to Equibase, Hollendorfer trained 35 winners and earned $1,619,956 in prize money last year. In 2018, he trained 176 winners and accrued $7,191,756 in prize money.

A court filing from late last year states that Hollendorfer's stable has shrunk from more than 120 horses in California to an average of just 10, with another 25 to 30 horses traveling between three to four other states.

The post Hollendorfer, Stronach Group Reach Legal Settlement appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The post First Foal Out of Paola Queen Makes Impressive Debut appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

4th-OP, $90K, Msw, 3yo/up, f, 1 1/16m, 3:33 p.m.

A pair of fillies represent Mandy Pope's Whisper Hill Farm at Oaklawn Park Thursday, including DANCE IT (Tapit), a 3-year-old purchased for $500,000 from the 2020 Keeneland September Yearling Sale. Out of the unraced Forestry mare Redwood Dancer, herself from the extended family of champion 2-year-old Flanders (Seeking the Gold) and MGIW Air Force Blue (War Front), Dance It is a half-sister to GIP and SW The Virginian (Aus), along with three other winners from as many to race. She makes her career debut here going two-turns after a consistent work log at the Fair Grounds, including a five-furlong drill from the gate in :59 3/5 Mar. 9. Dance It gets Lasix for her first start, and jockey Joel Rosario picks up the ride for trainer Steve Asmussen.

Making her third career start for Whisper Hill is GOLDENA (Medaglia d'Oro), who brought $300,000 at the 2019 Keeneland September Yearling Sale. While she has an age and experience advantage over her stablemate, the 4-year-old will need to move forward from her first two starts, a disappointing 10th going six-furlongs Jan. 7 and a distant seventh Feb. 13 at 1 1/16 mile, both at Oaklawn. Her works have notably picked up in intensity since her most recent start, including a five-furlong work in 1:00, the fastest of 12 at the distance Mar. 21. Goldena also worked four-furlongs in :48 1/5 Feb. 28 to post the quickest time of 63. She adds blinkers Thursday for trainer Jerry Hollendorfer. TJCIS PPs

The post Thursday Racing Insights: Mandy Pope Starts Pair At Oaklawn appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The non-jury trial, however, is focused on a single declaratory relief cause of action against TSG, encompassing the proper legal interpretation of the race-meet contract between the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) and Santa Anita, and excludes some of Hollendorfer's broader causes of action.

TSG banned Hollendorfer–formerly one of California's most prolific trainers numerically–from its facilities after four of his horses were catastrophically injured during Santa Anita's 2018-2019 winter/spring meet, when the track experienced a well-publicized spike in equine fatalities during an unusually wet spell.

In short, Hollendorfer argues in a brief, dated Feb. 25, that when TSG ejected him from its facilities in June of 2019, the company exceeded its authority as written into the race-meet agreement and as outlined in the California Horse Racing Board's (CHRB) rulebook. More broadly, Hollendorfer maintains that he was denied fair procedure when he was told he had 72-hours to vacate TSG properties after a brief and impromptu meeting with TSG representatives on June 22 of 2019.

In response, TSG maintains it has a common law right of exclusion, and that its authority was also granted through language in the stall application–an agreement between the individual trainer and the racing association–as well as through a CHRB rule pertaining to removal or denial of access. In pre-trial briefs, TSG has argued that the company twice gave Hollendorfer the opportunity to discuss his situation, and therefore, met the elements of fair procedure.

Hollendorfer has been barred from TSG-owned facilities since June of 2019–a period that has seen the trainer's fire-power decline markedly.

A court filing from late last year states that Hollendorfer's stable has shrunk from more than 120 horses in California to an average of just 10, with another 25 to 30 horses traveling between three to four other states.

According to Equibase, Hollendorfer trained 35 winners and earned $1,619,956 in prize money last year. In 2018, he trained 176 winners and accrued $7,191,756 in prize money.

Hollendorfer's legal tussle with the operators of Santa Anita dates to September of 2019, when he filed his initial lawsuit, and the following month, when LA County Superior Court denied his application for a temporary restraining order.

The plaintiff's brief summarizes the defendants' arguments. For one, TSG contends that the terms of the stall application–a document referenced by and woven into the race meet agreement–empowers them to “refuse horse race entries,” the brief states.

Furthermore, CHRB Rule 1989, concerning removal or denial of access, “provides a racing association–as a licensee–unfettered discretion to exclude any other licensees from their premises, including where such exclusion deprives another licensee of vested fundamental rights without Fair Procedure, due process, or equal protection under the law, or any other form of recourse or redress,” the filing adds.

Hollendorfer, however, asks the court to focus on a certain section of the race meet agreement “which provides that the 'agreement of CTT shall be a condition precedent' to the execution of a decision by Defendants 'to limit or eliminate' a trainer's 'ability to participate in racing or training activities' at their racetracks.”

Since the start of legal proceedings, the CTT has supported Hollendorfer's argument that he was denied due process and fair procedure.

Hollendorfer also takes aim at CHRB rule 1989, contending that the agency wields ultimate jurisdiction as to access eligibility of licensees onto CHRB-licensed grounds.

“Plaintiff contends that Defendants' interpretation of the Rule is without merit, inconsistent with controlling case law, and would otherwise constitute the improper abrogation and/or delegation of the CHRB's legislated responsibilities and duties to private entities,” the brief states.

The CHRB has taken no disciplinary actions against Hollendorfer for the fatalities in the winter and spring of 2018-2019, and he has continued to train at Los Alamitos racetrack.

A CHRB investigation into the fatality spike at Santa Anita that winter found no smoking gun. A concurrent investigation by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Task Force similarly found no evidence of “criminal animal cruelty or unlawful conduct.”

The court's ruling will have a significant bearing on Hollendorfer's broader claims for damages when he is expected to take them before a jury.

The ruling is also expected to have a bearing on the outcome of ongoing negotiations to revise the race meet agreement contract currently used in California.

Hollendorfer filed his initial lawsuit against the Pacific Racing Association–the corporate operators of Golden Gate Fields–on Aug. 12, 2019, in Alameda County Superior Court. That Court also subsequently denied Hollendorfer's application for a temporary restraining order. The trial date in that case is scheduled for Mar. 21.

Hollendorfer is also engaged in ongoing litigation against the CHRB and the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club. These cases are being heard in the Superior Court of San Diego County.

The post Race Meet Agreement at Center of Hollendorfer, TSG April Trial appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post