Courts

Horse Lords Make Constitutional Case Over Derby Disqualification

When reached for comment, Maximum Security said "neigh," because he's a freaking horse.

By  
on

At some point, can we talk about how someone named their horse after, like, jail? (Photo by Michael Reaves/Getty Images)

Issue spotter time:

At an annual horse race and hat show, the fastest horse finished first, as is tradition. But the people who owned the second fasted horse argued that the fastest horse obstructed a much slower horse. After a long video review, horse race officials decide that a horse lane infraction had occurred, and ruled the second fastest horse the “winner” of the race, even though everybody saw the fastest horse cross the invisible finish line first. Millions of dollars changed hands while all the horses involved furtively glanced around trying to spot the predator they must have surely been running away from. The President of the United States issued a proclamation claiming that the best horse did not win, without explaining his philosophical reasoning that equates “best” with “fastest,” and in the process misspelled the name of one of the states he governs. No horses died during the spectacle or were put to death afterwards, which is always a minor miracle that is overlooked approximately three times every year.

What, if any, claims arise from the above facts, and how can those claims be used to force Donald Trump into a deposition?

If you answered “Dear God, I hope none,” you get partial credit. If you answered “Go f**k yourself with this nonsense,” you get full credit.

And yet here we are. Gary and Mary West, the breeders and owners of disqualified Kentucky Derby winner Maximum Security, have filed a federal lawsuit. They claim statutory and Constitutional violations by the Derby’s process for disqualifying their horse. From Law360:

The owners of Maximum Security, the horse that finished first in the Kentucky Derby before it was disqualified, are suing the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission and its members, saying the “bizarre and unconstitutional” disqualification should be overturned and the horse redeclared the winner…

Taking the win away from Maximum Security not only deprived the horse’s trainer and jockey of prize money, but will reduce the horse’s value as a stallion and cost betters who put their money on Maximum Security up to $100 million, according to the complaint.

According to the complaint, the stewards failed to alert the racers that there was any inquiry into the finish of the race, and the evidence doesn’t back up their decision to disqualify Maximum Security.

The Wests further allege that the stewards’ statement does not address what rules of the race the horse or the jockey broke to warrant disqualification, or how they determined that the order of the finish had been altered by Maximum Security or the jockey’s actions.

Sponsored

As much as I think it’s dumb to sue over a horse race (and, in case my tone wasn’t clear, I think it’s extremely dumb), there is just so much money involved here that a lawsuit felt kind of inevitable.

You can read the full complaint here. I jumped ahead to the “Constitutional” claims, because I really want to know what clauses or amendments apply to horses.

COUNT II
THE DISQUALIFICATION OF MAXIMUM SECURITY VIOLATES PLAINTIFFS’ FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
…
119. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits “any State” from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
120. The Commission members and Stewards are officials of Kentucky and state actors under the law.
121. As a result of Maximum Security crossing the finish line first in the Derby, Plaintiffs had a property interest based on their reasonable expectation and legitimate claim of entitlement to any and all of the financial and other benefits that they would otherwise have received as the result of Maximum Security winning the Derby…

124. The process followed by the Stewards in disqualifying Maximum Security failed to comport with the minimum requirements of Procedural Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment in the following ways:

a. Relying on 810 KAR 1:017, Section 4(1)(b) and (c), and Section 4(2) the Defendants refused to allow Plaintiffs to appeal the Stewards’ Final Order to the Commission or in any other way to administratively challenge the Final Order disqualifying Maximum Security;
b. Despite the fact that no objection had been lodged by the owner, trainer, or jockey of War of Will or Bodexpress, the Stewards unilaterally determined that Maximum Security had committed a foul and then lied to the public that they interviewed the “affected riders” when they knew they did not interview War of Will’s jockey, Tyler Gaffalione, nor Chris Landeros, Bodexpress’s rider;
c. The Stewards determined that Maximum Security had committed a foul on an ex parte basis by failing to give Luis Saez, the jockey of Maximum Security, notice that they were examining whether Maximum Security fouled War of Will and Bodexpress nor did they give him an opportunity to respond to the Stewards’ secret deliberations into whether Maximum Security had fouled War of Will or Bodexpress;
d. The Stewards failed to notify the public of the Court Objection prior to the announcement of the disqualification, as a result of which the public interest was harmed and the integrity of the Derby’s outcome was put under a cloud;
e. The Stewards failed to notify the public that it was conducting a general inquiry into the running of the Derby; and
f. The Stewards deprived Plaintiffs and the public of their right to know the reasons for the disqualification by falsely claiming to have interviewed the “affected riders” even though they did not interview either Tyler Gaffalione or Chris Landeros, by submitting a statement announcing the disqualification that was not supported by substantial evidence, and by refusing to answer any questions from the public or Plaintiffs about the reasons for the disqualification.

Hmm. [scratches head]. I mean… it is odd that race officials disqualified Maximum Security for obstructing two horses which did not object, without interviewing the riders of those horses, yet telling the public that those riders were interviewed. Even if we concede near unilateral authority for race officials to declare official winners, even disqualified apparent winners have a clear pecuniary interest in having the reasons for their disqualification communicated accurately and truthfully. To the extent that the race stewards actions fail to even meet a basic, Judge Friendly level of procedural fairness, perhaps…

No, no I’m not doing this. It’s a freaking horse race. How about we agree that all the participants should get apples for the rest of their lives and call it a day.

Sponsored

Owners Of Horse DQ’d In Kentucky Derby Want 1st Place Back [Law360]

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and a contributor at The Nation. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Topics

,