By T. D. Thornton
Monday's ruling by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) that disqualified Medina Spirit from the 2021 GI Kentucky Derby has now triggered dueling letters to the federal judge overseeing the class-action case in which a group of bettors are suing trainer Bob Baffert for allegedly engaging in a years-long pattern of racketeering based on his purported “doping” of Thoroughbreds.
The plaintiffs in the case, led by Michael Beychok, the winner of the 2012 National Horseplayers Championship, on Feb. 22 filed a letter in United States District Court (District of New Jersey) informing the judge that Medina Spirit was disqualified for a betamethasone overage and that Baffert was suspended for 90 days and fined $7,500.
On Feb. 23, Baffert's lead attorney, W. Craig Robertson, III fired back with his own letter alleging that the public filing by the plaintiffs was “inappropriate, misleading, and, most importantly, irrelevant to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss which is currently pending before the Court.”
Robertson also wrote that the KHRC's decision is not a final ruling, because Baffert plans to appeal it.
“While the final status of Medina Spirit's Kentucky Derby win is far from decided, whether or not the horse is disqualified makes no difference when it comes to the legal issues argued in [Baffert's motion to dismiss the case]. Simply put, Plaintiffs' letter does nothing to rebut the overwhelming authority that the Plaintiffs, a group of disgruntled gamblers, cannot maintain this action as a matter of law.”
The original version of the lawsuit was filed four days after Baffert's disclosure that now-deceased Medina Spirit had tested positive for betamethasone after winning the May 1, 2021, Derby. Baffert, plus his incorporated racing stable, are the defendants.
The class members of the suit have alleged that they were “cheated out of their property” because they placed wagers on other horses and betting combinations that would have paid off had “the drugged horse” not won the Derby.
The plaintiffs' letter Tuesday would seem to indicate that they want the judge to consider the KHRC's Feb. 21 decision to DQ Medina Spirit when ruling on Baffert's currently active motion to dismiss the suit.
Baffert's lawyer underscored that the KHRC ruling should have no bearing on the matter that is currently before the court, which is the motion to dismiss the suit.
“[Baffert] moved to dismiss this matter based on the following legal grounds: (1) lack of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and improper venue; (2) Plaintiffs' lack of standing to bring their claims; and (3) the failure of the Amended Complaint to state a valid claim under civil RICO or state law. The recent Stewards' Ruling has no impact on any of these legal arguments.
“First, it does not magically create jurisdiction over the Defendants who are based in California and raced Medina Spirit in Kentucky.
“Second, the Stewards' Ruling is preliminary and there is already a proceeding underway before the KHRC to review that ruling since it is not a final decision of the administrative agency. Only now will the matter undergo a full blown Administrative Hearing, including discovery and depositions.
“Thereafter, any ultimate ruling of the KHRC may be appealed to Kentucky's state courts. Thus, we are a long way away (likely several years) from any final decision concerning Medina Spirit's status.”
Robertson continued: “Of particular importance, even if Medina Spirit is ultimately disqualified, the Plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law. Among other reasons, this is because the rules of racing provide that pari-mutuel wagering is unaffected by any disqualification. The Stewards' Ruling which the Plaintiffs provided to the Court recognizes this fact when it specifically states 'Pari-mutuel wagering is not affected by this ruling.'
“Plaintiffs' argument that a disqualification somehow creates a compensable injury has been addressed and roundly rejected [in precedent cases]. [T]he case law could not be more clear that, among other things, gamblers with gambling losses are simply not within the class of individuals those laws are designed to protect,” Robertson wrote.
Not a subscriber? Click here to sign up for the daily PDF or alerts.
