Does West Virginia Case Imperil Racing 'Purity?'

re: Does West Virginia Case Imperil Racing 'Purity?'

judgebork — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:17:47 GMT

Bob, Is there no collective effort on the part of West Virginia's horse and dog track operators being discussed to appeal this atrocious decision?

re: Does West Virginia Case Imperil Racing 'Purity?'

horseman — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:24:47 GMT

"A closely-divided West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals dealt a crippling blow to the racing industry’s formerly impregnable legal right to eject, for cause, licensed “permit-holders” such as jockeys."

Mr. Heleringer, with all due respect, you should get your facts correct before making erroneous assumptions such as your introduction.

Prior to this ruling, track managements in West Virginia could eject/exclude permit holders with, or without cause, for any or no reason, with no due process protections for the over 5,000 occupational permit holders in West Virginia. The threat of arbitrary exclusion was very real, and political retaliation and intimidation was the norm.

Shouldn't the Racing Commission be the sport's last line of defense to protect all particpants, permit holders and track owners, from all purported wrongs? You seem to have a track management bias with no concern for those who invest their money and lives in the industry who could have been (and some have been) arbitrarily excluded from their livelihoods.

The "slim majority" promoted justice and fairness in its ruling.

Do you contend track managements should be judge, jury, and executioner simultaneously?

The Racing Commission should, and now does, have the right to overturn unjust exclusions (while affirming just ones).

re: Does West Virginia Case Imperil Racing 'Purity?'

Karlin — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:11:31 GMT

Racetracks will have to develop a new legal method to restrict dirty jockeys and trainers from their grounds. This requires ingenuity. I would suggest criminal charges. Otherwise they might as well go into another business as legal due process rights last forever. Where gambling is involved and the public needs to be protected, the industry cannot afford to continue as is.

re: Does West Virginia Case Imperil Racing 'Purity?'

Needler in Virginia — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 03:57:35 GMT

Well, OK then. West Virginia has spoken. Fraud is OK, lying is OK and racing is again the loser, but the jockeys are happy............ARE THEY KIDDING? After this "decision" (she said snidely), you couldn't get me to bet 5 cents on a walkover. After the road kill decision, I thought WV was joking; now it appears the state is deadly serious about accepting dishonesty in a sport that has had more than its' share of troubles in that arena. This is one for the record books, folks, and it's a DOOZY!

BAH and humbug.........

re: Does West Virginia Case Imperil Racing 'Purity?'

Barry Irwin — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 01:30:27 GMT

A wonderful example of why racing needs to cut a deal with all of the States to opt out of their control. Tracks should pay a couple of percent to the State and tell them to stay out of their business. The tracks need to call their own shots and not be subjected to laws other than their own rules. They need to be a private club. This is the only way racing can gain control of an intolerable situation.

re: Does West Virginia Case Imperil Racing 'Purity?'

PipeDope — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:07:02 GMT

The esteemed "attorney" doesn't seem to have a clue in this matter.

For there is no state legislature in the land which has the power to "allow" "a privately owned racetrack" "to exist".

There are training tracks all over North America, effectively built in peoples' back yards, over which the state legislature has no more and no less influence than it does over homes owned by you or I.

These training centers are effectively "racetracks" with the only difference being that they can't allow parimutuel wagering.

Parimutuel wagering is the only thing which makes attorney Heleringer's image of what he calls a "racetrack" perceptibly different from the local training center with a training track.

Thus the state does not dictate who is and who isn't allowed to build his "privately-owned racetrack". The state merely determines who gets to host parimutuel wagering legally.

With parimutuel wagering comes the need for the state to regulate the goings-on behind the scenes. When there is clear evidence of corruption at a licensed parimutuel establishment then it is the state's responsibility to effectively demand control of who comes, lays, stays, or prays at said establishment.

This obviously has nothing to do with the age old custom of excluding on a whim bookmakers, moneyrunners, and other persons of their ilk from the grounds of "a privately owned racetrack".

Of greater importance is the question of why we are wasting "Industry Voices" column space on something so completely foolish and poorly presented when there is an entire industry out there to save with common sense?

What say we turn over a new leaf and devote this column space to those who might better understand how to right the many wrongs put upon us by the leaders of the North American horse racing industry?