Allard Attorney: Gural ‘Escalating Long-Running Campaign To Blacklist’ Trainer

The Paulick Report received the following open letter from attorney Douglas E. Lieb on behalf of trainer Rene Allard. Meadowlands owner Jeff Gural released a statement earlier this week revealing that Allard, who is under federal indictment, was continuing to train horses and that horses under his care would be excluded from stakes races at The Meadowlands, Tioga Downs and Vernon Downs. Further, Gural's statement declared that owners who have or had horses in Allard's stable this past winter would have all horses owned wholly or in part excluded from participation at the three tracks. 

Allard was named as part of a superseding indictment filed near the end of 2020 in a case of drug adulteration and misbranding along with co-defendants Louis Grasso, Donato Poliseno, Thomas Guido III, and Richard Banca, many of whom were part of the first wave of federal indictments regarding drugs in racing from March 2020. 

Conditions of bail for Allard state that, among other conditions, he may not “train horses entered in any races” and is “to have no contact with racehorses outside the presence of third-party owner or delegated representative of the owner of the premises where racehorse is located.” When asked where Allard was operating and what the arrangements were for his supervision by a horse or facility owner, Lieb said, “Mr. Allard has complied at all times with his release conditions in the criminal case and continues to do so. We have no further information to provide at this time.” 

Dear Mr. Gural:

This firm is civil counsel to Rene Allard. Last week, you further escalated your long-running campaign to blacklist Mr. Allard from his chosen profession. Mr. Allard has every right to make a living. He has every right to continue training horses, which is his passion and his life's work. All of his current professional activities are specifically permitted by court order. We demand that you cease and desist from your tortious interference with — and your efforts to organize a group boycott of — Mr. Allard's business. Your actions are not just unlawful, but wrong.

You began your campaign against Mr. Allard in 2013 by excluding him from your racetracks. You then employed a private investigative firm that harassed and threatened others in the harness racing industry unless they provided negative information about Mr. Allard. You then caused unreliable information generated by those investigators to be turned over to the United States Government, leading to Mr. Allard's arrest. As a result of your actions, Mr. Allard is the subject of a pending criminal prosecution in which he fully intends to clear his name.

In the latest escalation, you have now demanded that all horse owners who do business with Mr. Allard stop doing so as a condition of doing business with you. On March 6, 2021, the Meadowlands media relations department issued a statement (the “March 6 statement”) that the three racetracks you control—The Meadowlands, Tioga Downs, and Vernon Downs, which account for a significant portion of harness racing opportunities in the Northeast and include harness racing's flagship track—will “exclude any horse being trained or that has been trained” by Mr. Allard in Florida. The March 6 statement also notes that for owners who “currently have or have had horses in Mr. Allard's stable this winter,” “all horses owned wholly or in part by them will be excluded” from these three tracks and “deemed ineligible . . . for any/all administered stake races . . . for a minimum of three years.” Owners who have done business with Mr. Allard must also divest their interest from any horses not trained by Mr. Allard in which they are minority owners by March 15 in order for those horses to race at your tracks. The ban would likely affect dozens of owners and hundreds of horses that have never been trained by Mr. Allard.

Thus, in addition to banning horses trained by Mr. Allard, the March 6 statement effectively provides that any owners who have any business relationship with Mr. Allard must agree to cease doing business with him as a condition of doing unrelated business with your tracks. The pressure on owners is severe. Owners who agree to the policy announced in your March 6 Statement would need to immediately sell their ownership interest in horses that are not trained by Mr. Allard, which would likely mean selling those horses at a loss. Owners who do not agree to the policy would presumably lose the stakes money they have already paid to race at the Meadowlands this year and any purses they may have won from racing there.

It is difficult to envision a clearer example of tortious interference with business relations. You are engaged in “deliberate interference” with Mr. Allard's existing contractual relationships with owners in an effort to induce owners to breach their contracts with Mr. Allard. NBT Bancorp Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Fin. Grp., Inc., 87 N.Y.2d 614, 621 (1996). You are also making statements that “impugn[] the basic integrity” of Mr. Allard's business. Amaranth LLC v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 71 A.D.3d 40, 48 (1st Dep't 2009) (“[Plaintiff] has adequately pleaded the elements of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. It is well settled that where a statement impugns the basic integrity . . . of a business, an action lies and injury is conclusively presumed.”). And you are exerting severe economic pressure on owners by threatening to freeze them out of the most important opportunities in their field if they have any economic relations with Mr. Allard in the future. See, e.g.Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 3 N.Y.3d 182, 193-94 (2004) (severe economic pressure on third parties who do business with plaintiff may constitute tortious interference with plaintiff's prospective economic relations).

You are also, in potential violation of the Sherman Act, attempting to orchestrate a group boycott of Mr. Allard in plain sight. A group boycott is an agreement among participants in the relevant market not to deal, or only to deal on discriminatory terms, with a competitor. See, e.g.NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, Inc., 525 U.S. 128, 134 (1998). Such boycotts are per se unlawful—meaning that they are illegal irrespective of whether they actually have an anticompetitive effect or a legitimate business rationale—where they involve horizontal agreements among competitors. Seee.g.Fashion Originators' Guild of Am., Inc. v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457 (1941). You are both an owner of racetracks and an owner of horses. Should you succeed in your efforts to induce other horse owners to agree not to do business with Mr. Allard as a condition of doing business with you, you would be entering into such horizontal agreements.

The improper purpose of the March 6 statement is further confirmed by your history of targeting Mr. Allard — and others in your industry who defy your edicts.

In 2013, after Mr. Allard won several significant races at your tracks and was having an excellent season (including a training UDRS of .367), you excluded him from racing at any of your tracks without explanation. As you have acknowledged, banning trainers — especially winning ones — from the Meadowlands can help your bottom line. That is so in part because you and your close associates sometimes have stakes in horses competing in those same races.

 A trainer has previously testified under oath that you banned him from your racetrack because he was winning races. After another trainer spoke out publicly against that ban, you banned him too. When a trainer worked to defeat legislation that would have expressly authorized the practice of allowing horses you own to race on your tracks, you banned him — and then banned other horsemen who were merely members of the association that opposed the proposed bill.

Even after you banned Mr. Allard from your racetracks, Mr. Allard continued his long track record of success. You, in turn, continued taking measures that would harm his career. You engaged a private investigative firm, 5 Stones Intelligence, to investigate Mr. Allard. 5 Stones used aggressive, unlawful tactics in an attempt to coerce witnesses into incriminating others in the industry. When witnesses refused to participate and told 5 Stones that they were not aware of any wrongdoing, 5 Stones threatened their careers in the industry.

You then gave the Government the information that 5 Stones collected through these questionable means. As you noted in the March 6 statement: “We, along with the Thoroughbred Jockey Club, spent much time and money employing the Five Stones investigators to prepare a case to get the feds interested which led to all of those indictments,” referring to the indictment against Mr. Allard and others. Your own words suggest that your purpose in retaining 5 Stones was not to uncover the truth. It was to produce information, whether true or false, that would “get the Feds interested” and lead the Government to indict Mr. Allard. In other words, you worked with 5 Stones to “lead the FBI in the right direction.” That the Government charged Mr. Allard on the basis of information provided at least in part by yourself and 5 Stones — after your years-long campaign against Mr. Allard, and after 5 Stones' repeated harassment of witnesses — raises serious doubt about the criminal charges that Mr. Allard now faces.

Despite Mr. Allard's arrest, owners have continued to employ him to train their young, non-racing horses because they are confident in his integrity and future success. As you are surely aware, Mr. Allard has been permitted by prosecutors and the Court to continue making a living by engaging in this work while the criminal case is pending. You, however, have continued your efforts to put Mr. Allard out of business entirely. Even before the March 6 Statement, you contacted owners directly to pressure them to end their business with Mr. Allard. Those private communications were consistent with your thinly veiled public comments that “anyone who used these people who were indicted cannot be sleeping well” and that “some might find it in their interest to cooperate.”

We hereby demand that you formally retract the March 6 Statement. We further demand that you state in writing that will not seek to require owners to stop doing business with Mr. Allard as a condition of entering horses into races at tracks you control.

You, your corporate entities, your affiliates, your employees and agents, and others acting at your direction, including but not limited to 5 Stones Intelligence, must also preserve all documents and correspondence concerning the investigation of Mr. Allard; your direct and indirect communications with others in the industry about Mr. Allard's business and/or conduct; and/or the March 6 Statement.

This letter is not an exhaustive recitation of Mr. Allard's legal claims, rights, or remedies, all of which we expressly reserve.

Sincerely yours,

Douglas E. Lieb

The post Allard Attorney: Gural ‘Escalating Long-Running Campaign To Blacklist’ Trainer appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Rose Paterson Honoured During Randox Grand National Festival

The Hon. Rose Paterson will be remembered on the first day of the 2021 Randox Grand National Festival, Randox Liverpool's NHS Day on Thursday, Apr. 8, The Jockey Club announced on Thursday. Chairman of Aintree Racecourse since 2014, Paterson will be honoured with the day's fifth race–the Rose Paterson Randox Foxhunters' Chase over the Grand National fences over a distance of two miles and five furlongs. Paterson passed away last June, but she was first involved with Aintree Racecourse as Racecourse Committee Director in 2005. She was also appointed a Steward of The Jockey Club in 2019.

Nicholas Wrigley, Chairman of Aintree Racecourse, commented, “It is still hard to believe that Rose will not be joining us for the Randox Grand National Festival this year and it only seems right that she is remembered with her name attached to one of the races over the Grand National fences.

“Rose had a true love and passion for everything related to Aintree, with her Chairmanship involving the securing of Randox as title sponsor and the development of the Grand Women's Summit and the award winning Aintree Community Programme. When combined with her love of the grassroots of the sports and her own accomplished riding skills, the Foxhunters' Chase was the natural race to put her name to. We hope this gesture will go a small way to preserving Rose's memory and recognising the huge amount she gave to Aintree Racecourse and the Randox Grand National.”

The post Rose Paterson Honoured During Randox Grand National Festival appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

HeadCheck Health Aims For Blanket Jockey Health Program

One day in the not-too-distant past, a jockey who had taken a tumble at a Mid-Atlantic racetrack was required to get a doctor's note giving him the medical all-clear before he could ride at the same facility. And so, that's what he did.

But rather than head immediately to a physician in that same state, the jockey hopped the border to ride at Laurel Park. After taking his mounts at the Maryland track, the rider swung by the office of Kelly Ryan, co-medical director for the Maryland Horsemen's Health Program.

“He said, 'I need to see the doctor because I need a note so I can get cleared to go back and ride,'” explained Ryan, who declined to name the jockey and original racetrack due to the sensitivity of the situation. “He could have been riding with a concussion and nobody knew.”

The point of this anecdote wasn't to skewer the jockey but rather to highlight a broader and rather more insidious problem: That while huge strides have been made in the arena of equine health and safety in recent years, when it comes to ensuring the health and safety of the folks steering them, the industry leaves much to be desired.

More pointedly, there's a glaring hole that needs to be filled with an easy-to-use, legally compliant and uniform system across the country to track, store, manage, and share vital information pertaining to jockey health. Which is where a system called HeadCheck Health, pioneered and developed for use between Maryland and Delaware, is seeking to act as a plug.

“This is a very important need. It's a very big need,” said Ryan, who added that for too long, the industry has been making excuses instead of fixing the problem. “We're giving them a reason to stop making excuses.”

Ryan isn't overselling the need. Roughly 45% of sports related brain injuries are related to equine sports, while 7% of falls result in concussions.

In a recently published four-year jockey injury study helmed by Ryan encompassing 590 race days and 5,611 races, there were 204 injuries involving 184 separate incidents and 131 separate falls. Out of the 22 head injuries that jockeys suffered during that time, eight were concussions, which worked out to a ratio of 0.18 concussions per 1,000 mounts.

Mix into the ingredients wildly varying concussion protocols, medical staff and medical models from track-to-track, and it soon becomes apparent why proponents of HeadCheck Health are keen to sing the system's praises. “This is going to make collecting information so much easier,” said Ryan. “It's a game-changer.”

HIPAA Compliant

Founded about eight years ago, HeadCheck Health works with all sorts of other sports teams like rugby, football, and hockey–some of them at the elite, Olympic-level–where the risk of concussion is ever present.

“We've gone through it and we know how to make things work,” said Eric VanderHelm, an account manager at HeadCheck Health, who has worked with Ryan and her colleagues to build a platform catering to the specific needs of horse racing.

Importantly for Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance, there are various levels of access into the system that differentiates what jockeys and medical personnel–like those from the emergency medical services field, athletic trainers and medical directors–can see in the system, and what clerks of scale, stewards and other regulators are able to view.

The main dashboard provides a simple outline of which jockeys are eligible to ride, and their current health status if not. This is the sort of information anyone acting as a concussion spotter at a track has access to.

Specific health-related information, however, is locked to the jockey and medical experts. And what does this cover? Turns out, a fair bit.

There's an electronic form to input the results of a Sports Concussion Assessment Tool 5 (SCAT5) test, which is a standardized way to evaluate sports-related head injuries.

Other digital forms include an accident report, and a digital clearance note with time stamps. Jockey physical cards–typically a slip of paper riders routinely lose–can also be inputted electronically into the system.

See a more complete presentation of the system here:

 

 

The overarching purpose of the app is to streamline and centralize the collection of vital jockey health data and make important details (ranging from information pertaining to suspected or diagnosed concussions to missing physical notes) available to those who need to see it–jockeys especially, said Ryan.

What's more, “The system is fully HIPAA compliant,” promised VanderHelm.

Jockey Health Information System

Some in the industry who read this will no doubt be familiar with a similar system already in place.

The Jockey Health Information System (JHIS) was launched by The Jockey Club–and integrated into their InCompass system present at nearly all U.S. tracks–some 12 years ago.

But it would be fair to say that the JHIS hasn't been enthusiastically embraced as originally intended. Indeed, the Jockeys' Guild was able to verify only that Keeneland and Churchill Downs are currently utilizing the system.

“It hasn't gotten the support that we would have liked,” admitted Terry Meyocks, president and CEO of the Jockeys' Guild.

Complicated HIPAA laws have made implementation difficult. And while the original intent of the JHIS was for approved medical personnel to input the information, said Meyocks, the huge disparities in medical staffing levels between tracks led to the riders taking on much of that responsibility themselves–a dynamic replete with potholes associated with language and technology barriers, and good old-fashioned apathy.

Varying concussion protocols at different tracks also hindered the effectiveness of the JHIS, with some tracks still to implement them.

Indeed, the ARCI has a model rule regarding concussion protocols, requiring a track to have on-site trained personnel to diagnose and assess concussions, for example, and established return-to-ride guidelines.

But according to Jockey's Guild attorney Mindy Coleman, Maryland, Delaware, Colorado, Washington State, and Oklahoma are the only states where these model rules have been both adopted and enforced, while NYRA is working with New York Institute of Technology to adopt concussion protocols as a house rule.

“If everybody's serous about concussions, which I think they should be if they're worried about liability, I think it would be in the industry's best interest to come up with something, whether it's through InCompass or HeadCheck,” said Meyocks.

The Future

HeadCheck Health–a much more sophisticated and dynamic tool than the JHIS, say its proponents–isn't yet the finished article, with technical wrinkles still being ironed out.

Nevertheless, the individuals behind it are now looking to start expanding the system beyond the Maryland and Delaware borders.

As they do, they, too, face some of the same issues that hampered the rollout of the JHIS, namely the Swiss cheese distribution of trained medical staff across the nation's tracks. But HeadCheck Health has the potential to circumvent some of these barriers.

For one thing, it opens the door to things like baseline concussion testing via telehealth consultations, meaning that a trained physician could perform a virtual assessment on a jockey in a completely different state (provided that physician is licensed in the rider's state, explained Ryan).

Importantly the software can be tailored to the individual needs of a track or jurisdiction, said VanderHelm. “It's a matter of them telling us what they need to have in the system to make sure it's compliant, but we can tweak it to make it work.”

Ryan sees other uses for HeadCheck Health. With a centralized database detailing falls and injuries, for example, it could also be used to run important data, potentially identifying trends to make tracks safer, she said.

Proponents of the system also downplay the costs. “It's really not very expensive–I haven't faced any pushback on the financial investment,” said Andy Belfiore, project manager with Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association. “I think people are more concerned about personnel, who's responsible for entering the medical information.”

In other words, for the system to work as effectively as it could and should, it needs buy-in from all stakeholders. “The heart of doing that is going to be up-front,” said Belfiore. “Once you've got those jockeys entered into the system, it becomes a much easier task for everyone.”

Which is why some industry figures are looking at the recently inked Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) as a potential compliance vehicle for HeadCheck Health that's broad-based and enforceable.

“The HeadCheck Health program developed through Dr. Ryan's leadership in Maryland represents the ongoing effort to prioritize health and safety for horse and rider. 1/ST RACING has led nationwide reforms and is pleased that our industry is moving towards uniform regulations,” wrote Steve Koch, The Stronach Group's senior vice president of racing, in a statement.

“As we look to the future, it is reasonable to anticipate that that HISA would use a program like HeadCheck Health, that focuses on head health for jockeys, as a foundation for establishing and expanding a program of this nature across U.S. racing jurisdictions.”

Note: The Association of Racing Commissioners International is hosting a briefing on the HeadCheck Health system Monday, Mar. 15 at 1 p.m. ET. Register for the briefing here.

Anyone interested in the HeadCheck Health program can contact Kelly Ryan at: kdryan13@gmail.com.

The post HeadCheck Health Aims For Blanket Jockey Health Program appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letters to the Editor: On the 140-Mare Cap

There is no simple answer to the question of whether or not it is in the interests of breeders in the United States to limit the number of mares any stallion can cover. However, we can be certain that none of the relevant arguments should be concerned with questions of free markets. Not even the most dogmatic of believers in the efficiency of free markets would, after a moment's reflection, consider the market for stallion seasons to have the appropriate characteristics.

A free market is one in which no one player, on either the supply or demand side, holds a dominant position, and it is also one in which all the relevant information is available freely to both buyers and sellers. In the stallion market, there are of course players who hold a dominant position and these and others have always resisted attempts to create a more open market where everybody is aware of changes in prices and supply. More often than not, when you sign the contract for a stallion season, you are not entirely sure of either how many mares the stallion in question will cover, nor the exact price paid by other breeders using the same horse. This is not a criticism; it is simply the way markets function without regulation. The players in any market will of course try to maximize their rent or return without considering the interests of all the other participants. For a market to be and to remain free there have to be rules.

Once it became technically and physically possible for stallions to cover successfully anything up to and beyond 200 mares during the spring covering season it was inevitable that many stallion owners would chose to do so. Particularly as almost as immediately it become clear that the demand for seasons to successful and popular stallions is inelastic to both price and supply. The market for stallion seasons is not at all similar to those for ordinary agricultural products, where you expect demand to fall when the price rises and for prices to fall if there is an expansion of supply. We have seen many examples in both the United States and Europe showing that when a stallion is commercially hot, demand for seasons is almost limitless, whatever the price and the number of mares due to be covered.

The market for stallion seasons resembles those for luxury goods. To begin to understand the way it works you have to think about top of the range handbags rather than grain or potatoes.

Once a handbag acquires the status of a symbol, the more expensive it is, the most desirable it becomes and the more often it appears on the shoulders of the right people, the more others want to have it on theirs. The peak satisfaction comes at the moment of purchase, the instant when you join the club of those who have it. The thrill lingers on, but in many cases, it will not be quite so exquisite in the future. For every product, there will probably be a price and a supply which is just too much, but in both cases, experience has taught that it is higher and bigger than anyone would have thought possible viewing through the prism of utility or efficiency.

In the early days, many thought that big stallion books would be a passing phase. Commercial breeders would soon realize that it was not in their interests to pay a lot of money for a season only to go to the sales to compete with anything up to 100 other yearlings by the same sire. This again was a misconception as breeders, as much as those who buy yearlings, are searching for a dream. Most breeders sign the contract avidly, aware of the competition ahead, but confident that their mating will produce one of the best by the sire who will shine in the sales ring and on the track afterwards.

Given the nature of the market, does it make sense to restrict the number of seasons offered to any stallion? After all, few would suggest that Hermes should be allowed to make only a certain number of its most sought after handbags, even if the number any customer is allowed to buy is limited. There are probably two sides to any attempt to answer. The proposed limitation will surely open up the market to a wider range of both horses and people who stand them. Some of the mares covered in the past by the most popular sires will instead be covered by others. The business will not be lost, but will be spread over more sires with different owners. The bloodstock market consistently fails to select the best stallions when they first go to stud. From Tapit, Into Mischief or War Front to Dubawi, Galileo and Siyouni in Europe, the best sires are rarely rated at the top of their generation when they start out on their stud career. For this reason alone, any regulation which forces breeders to try a wider selection of new stallions will probably be beneficial for everybody in the medium run. And then by lowering the barriers to entry and the advantages of the established farms, it will also encourage new stallion owners and farms to enter the business.

The second part of the argument concerns the long or medium term effect of concentrating breeding on an ever smaller selection of elite sires. No genetic test is ever going to resolve this conundrum as nobody knows for sure exactly which physical and mental characteristics allow one horse to run faster than another. In some ways breeding has its own built in adjustments as the future will never be a repeat of the recent past. The success of one super-sire will on its own change the type of mare likely to be successful in the future. As the breed itself is continually changing, and so are the type of sire and mare most likely to succeed.

However, anybody who has worked on matings knows there is already a problem of inbreeding with Thoroughbreds, particularly in Europe, and this is a one which is going to get worse as books of 150+ mares have only become common relatively recently. A look at the Thoroughbreds' past suggests that excessive inbreeding will throw up a few superior individuals, but will also create weaknesses and failures of both physical and mental characteristics. Successful breeders are always thinking about future generations and if the market is pushing in one direction nudging breeders towards prudence and variety will probably help everybody in the medium term.

One possible compromise would be to restrict the number of mares any stallion can cover during its first five seasons at stud, while allowing the handful of sires who are still popular and sought after at this point in their careers to cover more. This way, you could push breeders to try a broader selection of sires, while allowing the owners of those who prove to be the best to maximize their return.

No organization is in a position to contemplate imposing similar restrictions in Europe. If The Jockey Club succeeds in doing so, breeders from all over the world will of course, be following the experiment.

–Jocelyn de Moubray

The post Letters to the Editor: On the 140-Mare Cap appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights