Via TD Thornton
The Kentucky Court of Appeals on Friday rejected a suggestion by coach Bob Baffert and owner Amr Zedan to uphold their penalties related to Medina Spirit’s betamethasone positive during the 2021 GI Kentucky Derby. .
This means that the harshest punishment, a 90-day suspension under appeal imposed by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) against Baffert, will now go into effect by order on Monday, April 4. .
In accordance with the regulations regarding the suspension in California, where Baffert was stabbed at Santa Anita Park, the sign was removed from his barn there at midday on April 1 before his scheduled move. his racing activities.
“Baffert’s main argument that he would suffer a ‘severe’ injury has to do with the fact that one of the disciplinary penalties imposed on him was a suspension from his coach for 90 days, ” Acting Chief Justice Allison Jones wrote in her 29-page order.
“He explained that the suspension would have the effect of preventing him from working as a coach anywhere in the United States because of national reciprocity and California regulations that would required him ‘to close his stables, disburse about 100 horses in his care, and lay off nearly 80 employees. ‘ He further asserted that he would lose customers and the chance to compete in future races, including the 2022 Triple Crown race series…
“This court cannot agree,” Jones continued. “It is true that Baffert cannot be taken back 90 days after the suspension was made. However, the time lost by itself is not enough to demonstrate irreparable harm.”
One of Baffert’s attorneys, Clark Brewster, told TDN by phone, “In these circumstances, it’s very difficult to issue all of these harsh penalties before you’ve even had a reasonable chance to get it right. everyone applies the rules.”
In the big picture, Brewster added, Baffert’s legal battle to clear his name is “just beginning.”
Still, Brewster added, the Hall-of-Fame coach has to be realistic about what’s going to change in the near term.
“We have to act in response to what the ruling is, and we will consider our alternatives. I mean, it’s a sad day when this happens in the industry [and] Regulatory authorities not only allow but also participate in this. “
Asked if Baffert’s legal team planned any final legal action before Monday that could keep the suspension in effect, Brewster said this:
“I think at this point we have to consider that that procedural matter is, for the most part, done. And now the problem – it’s like someone accused you of something, and now they’re going to get you to serve your prison sentence before you go to court. It goes against every legal principle we have. And it’s never been – really never – in Kentucky. None of the regulators have ever heard of [the KHRC not granting a stay while an appeals process plays out]. However, they were involved in it. ”
Brewster said TDN he made no secret of any logistics involved in transferring Baffert’s stock to other coaches other than what had been reported on Derby Rivals.
“I just read the verdict. I still haven’t spoken to my mentor colleague and I certainly haven’t spoken to Bob yet,” Brewster said. “But here’s the deal with Bob: No matter what the rules are, Bob will do it, okay? That’s what he’s been doing all his life, so if this is what needs to be done, he’s the type to say, “Okay, let me do what I need to do.” So we will deal with it in a very direct and simple way. “
Devil in the details?
It took the appeals court eight days to dismiss Baffert and Zedan’s request to stay. But the case has been raging in the Kentucky court system for more than a month.
On February 21, the KHRC issued Medina Spirit’s dirty test judgments against Baffert and Zedan, who subsequently appealed at the committee level. The appeal was approved, but on February 25, a seemingly routine request to stay on penalties while the appeal was made was denied by KHRC chief executive Marc Guilfoil. So Baffert and Zedan took the matter to Franklin Circuit Court on February 28.
On March 2, Judge Franklin said he would suspend a full court hearing to decide the stay and/or order until the full KHRC panel has had a chance to vote on stay. instead of relying solely on the CEO’s words- So.
On March 4, the KHRC panel voted 10-0 to refuse to stay in the penalties under the decision Guilfoil had made.
Then on March 21, Judge Franklin refuse request to force the KHRC to impose any form of stay. Baffert and Zedan then decide push Franklin’s court denial to the Higher Court of Appeal on March 24.
Then, a day later, Jones, judge of the Court of Appeals, raise the issue about whether Franklin’s fundamental appeal originated in the exact same place in the first place. Franklin County is where the KHRC is located. But Jefferson County was the site of the Derby, so it was where the “cause of action” arose.
In his April 1 order, Jones wrote that “The Court concluded that Jefferson County was the appropriate venue to challenge the Racing Commission’s denial of the requested stayers…. [A state law that covers legal venues] does not prohibit filing at Franklin Circuit Court, and the race being contested is in Franklin County, it would be the appropriate venue for this action…”
However, Jones concluded, before making a judgment on the merits of the case, she was “satisfied that both the circuit court and this Court have subject jurisdiction.”
However, the judge also questioned three other procedural issues. The two handled Baffert/Zedan court files. The third one concerns KHRC rulings.
Jones wrote that Baffert and Zedan’s February 28 filing in the Franklin court represented an “unusual step” because they were acting solely on the KHRC executive’s letter saying there was no right to do so. stay will be approved and not based on a vote of the KHRC board, the amount is to “apply an undecided ruling of the Racing Commission.”
Brewster explained to TDN “It was a calculated decision just because of the time involved. The suspension would require Bob to disband his stables, and so out of an abundance of caution, filing with the court was made before the committee had actually assembled and rendered a ruling. “
Additionally, the judge also noted how one of the KHRC rulings was issued to “Owner Amr F. Zedan” while court filings instead list “Zedan Racing Stables, Inc.” as a legal entity requesting legal aid.
“This court does not know the exact ownership of Medina Spirit,” Jones wrote. “However, what is clear is [state law] allow ‘[a] rejected person [a stay] by the racing commission’ to file an appeal against the denial of a request to remain in circuit court…. The Racing Commission’s denial was directed at Mr. Zedan, not the Zedan Racing Stables, [which is] a separate legal entity separate from its shareholders. If Mr. Zedan wants to stay or follow orders, he must file an appeal himself….
“Furthermore, there is no dispute that Medina Spirit died in December 2021 so the penalty will not have any effect on the horse’s value or competitiveness in future races. The only tangible effect was that Mr. Zedan was ordered to have the funds in his wallet confiscated. The loss of money, even if a large sum, has never been held to increase to an irreparable level of vulnerability.”
The judge also questioned how the KHRC had written its rulings: “Both written decisions made by the Racing Managers listed the track in question as ‘Court Park. grass.’ The court held that these were just typographical errors because it was indisputable that the 2021 Kentucky race was held at Churchill Downs Raceway in Louisville, Kentucky. ”
‘Balance of stocks’
“Ultimately, the Court is acutely aware that in considering whether to issue an order, even in the limited context of an emergency order, it should balance fairly,” Jones wrote.
“The Racing Committee has steadfastly and strongly asserted that a stay, even temporary, is inappropriate, given Baffert’s repeated violations. [by providing] ensure that the races are fair and competitive indeed. ‘
“While the Racing Commission’s ruling is not indisputable, neither can the Court discount it,” continued Jones. “The decision of the Racing Commission must be considered in light of the enormous responsibilities that our General Assembly has assigned to the Oversight Committee.
“The Racing Commission, and this Court in turn, cannot focus solely on punishment as a punishment for Baffert which would prove unreasonable if he were fully vindicated at the end. [his] Stunning. Punishment must also be seen as necessary to protect the public and those responsible for Baffert in the event that he is not exonerated. Those hobbies are fascinating and have
recognized by the General Assembly as extremely important to this Commonwealth.
“With respect to the emergency stay, the Court was unable to conclude that the harms Baffert alleges him would have suffered, primarily of an economic nature, outweighed the public protection concerns to which the Commission was concerned. racing board asserted and recognized by the General Assembly as a matter of public policy. ,” concluded Jones.
Brewster summed up his point on that point in a different way.
“A lot of times headlines come up along the way, and when a guy is vindicated, it’s on page six,” says Brewster. “But we will have time, and we will have the opportunity to present not only the evidence but also the rules. And I keep telling Bob that it’s coming, it’s inevitable, and we’re looking forward to it.”
