CDI: Baffert's Derby Lawsuit a 'Manufactured Emergency'

The gaming corporation that owns Churchill Downs told a federal judge in a late-night Tuesday court filing that Bob Baffert's lawsuit to try and get his private-property banishment and exclusion from the GI Kentucky Derby lifted would not only harm the corporation's portfolio of tracks, but would hurt the owners and trainers of other horses who have rightfully earned Derby berths but would be precluded from entering if the court rules they had to be pushed off the qualifying list to make room for the barred trainer.

“This lawsuit is Bob Baffert's latest attempt to evade responsibility for his wrongdoing,” stated the Mar. 29 filing by Churchill Downs Incorporated (CDI), in United States District Court (Western District of Kentucky).

“Baffert could have filed this lawsuit ten months ago,” the filing continued. “Instead, his lawyers spent the time working the press and trying without success to persuade other courts and tribunals of Baffert's innocence. They only came to this Court after all their other gambits and legal maneuvers failed.

“They are now rushing into this Court with the 2022 Derby just over a month away, demanding an expedited preliminary injunction on the basis of a manufactured emergency in hopes of litigating Baffert's way into the race.”

Baffert had sued CDI Feb. 28 in an attempt to get an injunction enjoining CDI from suspending him from its tracks and races, and prohibiting Baffert and/or any horse trained directly or indirectly by him from earning points, qualifying and entering the Derby in 2022 and 2023.

Baffert has since transferred four Derby aspirants to other trainers, and he is simultaneously fighting an under-appeal Kentucky Horse Racing Commission suspension of 90 days that is set to start Apr. 4 because of a betamethasone positive in Medina Spirit, his now-deceased 2021 Derby winner.

“There is no legal precedent, in more than a century of Kentucky and federal law, for what would amount to a judicial takeover of the Derby—an eleventh-hour edict forcing CDI to accept a trainer whose conduct threatens the safety and integrity of the race,” CDI's filing stated, explaining how Baffert has failed to meet any of the three requirements for relief.

“First, Baffert has not shown he will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction,” the filing stated. “His tactical, ten-month delay negates any claim of irreparable harm. His primary alleged harm—the loss of purse money—is speculative and would be fully compensable by money damages in any event.

“Nor will he lose his client base or suffer a loss of goodwill absent relief. Since his CDI suspension began, he has run horses in hundreds of races around the world at virtually the same frequency he did prior to the suspension. Although he claims some horses have been transferred from his care, he provides no evidence that these transfers resulted from CDI's suspension, rather than from the suspension imposed by the KHRC or another state racing authority…

“Second, Baffert has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. His due process claim fails because CDI is a private corporation, the individual defendants are not government officials, and no one violated Baffert's rights in any event,” the filing continued.

“Baffert's claim for “wrongful exclusion” fails because CDI has a well-settled common law and contractual right to exclude from its property and its races repeat offenders like Baffert who endanger the safety of horses and jockeys, and threaten the integrity of the sport and CDI's signature events. And his antitrust claim fails because he does not allege, let alone establish, basic elements of Sherman Act liability.

“Third, the equities cut strongly in CDI's favor. An injunction would cause substantial harm to CDI, including to its business interests, brand, and customer goodwill, and would injure the owners and trainers who would lose their fairly-earned berths in the Derby to make room for Baffert,” the filing stated.

“An injunction would also undermine the strong public interest in ensuring that all who attend, watch, or bet on horse races have confidence in the safety and integrity of the sport. For all these reasons, this Court should deny Baffert's motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendants will soon file a motion to dismiss this lawsuit in its entirety.”