Just days after the one-year anniversary of Churchill Downs, Inc. (CDI) ruling against trainer Bob Baffert for repeated drug violations for his horses, game company GI control Kentucky Derby has returned to the Hall of Fame coach in federal court in a attempt to make the judge dismiss a lawsuit initiated by Baffert to reverse a two-year ban.
“For the past 11 months, Bob Baffert has attempted to evade responsibility for drugging Medina Spirit,” CDI wrote in a brief written response filed June 6 in U.S. District Court for the Western District (U.S. District Court). Western Kentucky County, Louisville Division).
“He has launched legal challenges across the country, all of which ended in failure,” the filing continued. “The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) and the New York Racing Association (NYRA) – which Baffert admits ‘no skins in the game’ – have independently reached the same conclusion as CDI: Baffert violated the rules. rules and suffer the consequences. ”
Baffert, whose horse crossed the line first in the Derby record seven times, was declared unwelcome to race in the Derby or at any CDI-controlled property through the spring meeting. in 2023 after post-race tests revealed his 2021 Derby winner, Medina Linh, tested positive for betamethasone.
The CDI ban is separate from the appeal, the 90-day suspension Baffert is currently serving for a Class C drug violation ruling that was issued by the KHRC in February.
“In this Court, Baffert failed to defend the legality of his complaint, and this case will suffer the same fate as all of his others,” the CDI filing states.
The filing continued: “None of these misdirections worked…. Baffert’s lawsuit is a desperate and baseless attack on CDI’s right to protect the integrity, reputation and safety of the races it hosts. The court should dismiss his complaint.”
Baffert does not see it that way. The federal lawsuit he filed 28 against CDI, its chief executive, Bill Carstanjen, and the company’s chairman of the board, Alex Rankin, alleges that Churchill Downs is actually a “city park” that is supposed to be “public property” and CDI is intentionally limiting his ability to participate. in interstate commerce.
Baffert also caused a stir with the CDI being said to “usurp” the power of the state racing commission over the sports police, and he accused CDI superiors of “conspiring” to “take away” [his clients] the freedom to choose their chosen trainer for their Derby horses while leaving their own trainer’s license unhindered. ”
The CDI, in its June 6 rebuttal, described Baffert’s legal approach as “liberal”, adding that “he presents a jumble of factors that could cause state action, offers six different formulas in a confusing passage. Sixth Circuit does not apply this practice. It stipulates that plaintiffs ‘must prove’ action by the state under one of three checks established by the Supreme Court. “
According to the CDI:
Functionality Test– “Baffert failed to produce facts showing that horse racing has been traditionally and exclusively performed by the “government” in Kentucky.”
Coercive Test– “Baffert did not properly allege that Kentucky forced CDI to suspend him.”
Nexus Test– “Baffert expends synonyms in making various suggested state action formulas, but he cannot satisfy the nexus test, which requires expressing Kentucky as ‘one person who participates in the activity being challenged.’
As for Baffert’s insistence that Churchill Downs is a public space because CDI 20 years ago transferred its flagship facility in Louisville to the city and subsequently sub-leased the land as part of a re-financing agreement. lucrative development, CDI writes that the track “is not a public park, and has no constitutional right to race in the Derby or [GI Kentucky] Oak. Baffert… is still free to participate in races at the Racecourse, [but] there is no ‘freedom interest’ in competing in horse races at a privately run track. “
The CDI filing continues: “Baffert has not even committed to a coherent theory of how the suspension has restricted trade…. Even if a suspension could be seen as a trade restriction under some other theory not specified by Baffert, it would be judged by the rule of reason…which would require Baffert to determine that Defendant has market power.
“Here, however, Baffert is not even alleging that CDI or Carstanjen compete in the ‘horse breeding’ market, let alone market power in it.”
The filing continued: “As for Rankin, the complaint does not contain a legitimate factual allegation that he used market power for a purpose, nor can it, as Rankin is only one of those. horse breeding in the United States and not even accused. used to run at the Battle of Derby or Oaks. “
