Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Fed judge wrestles with CDI-THG claims and issues.. (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27953)

Kasept 02-20-2009 09:25 AM

Fed judge wrestles with CDI-THG claims and issues..
 
Pretty fascinating issues being raised as part of the lingering THG v. CDI lawsuit (which may or may not procede)...

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...in-cdi-lawsuit

Judge: 'Tough Issues' in CDI Lawsuit
By Ryan Conley

A federal judge presiding over the antitrust lawsuit filed by Churchill Downs Inc. against horsemen’s groups basically said Feb. 19 he has his work cut out for him in trying to resolve the complex issues involved in the case.

United States District Judge John G. Heyburn II said he feels many of the dynamics being argued in CDI’s case against the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Group and the Kentucky Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association are without clear-cut legal precedent.

Danzig 02-20-2009 09:29 AM

we wonder why we can't get backing or support for our industry from outsiders...and our own industry is attacking itself from within. we all expect the racing ship to sail in one direction, but those in the ship are all rowing in different directions. isn't everyone really on the same side, once it's all said and done?
what a mess...

Kasept 02-20-2009 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig
we wonder why we can't get backing or support for our industry from outsiders...and our own industry is attacking itself from within. we all expect the racing ship to sail in one direction, but those in the ship are all rowing in different directions. isn't everyone really on the same side, once it's all said and done?
what a mess...

I disagree Deb, and the throwing of hands up in the air in disgust and frustration is no help. It's not a mess and it's not the industry attacking itself from within. Given the lack of a ruling body to bring these parties together for collective bargaining or similar negotiations, this particular confrontation is undergoing a natural process for determination of who is 'most' right.

Would it have been nice if there had been foresight 10-15 years ago as to these issues presenting themselves? Sure.. But there wasn't, and the technology has moved faster than the industry's ability to comprehend the ramifications. As a result, it's important that a fair, long term, mutually beneficial arrangement be made between the betting platforms (A), bricks and mortar operators (B) and the horsemen/ownership entities (C). For that to happen, everone involved has to understand and respect each parties contributions to the end product that we the customers are 'buying'.

The dynamic changed tremendously from the origins, when there were the tracks and horsemen only, to now. And the tracks suddenly getting in the business of bet-taking via the platforms is an added wrinkle... A period of hard negotiations and decisions is a necessary part of the evolution going on, and the process is a lot closer to having firm foundations from which to work forward than there was even one year ago.

jwkniska 02-20-2009 11:06 AM

If.... and a big IF... it proceeds, this could get real interesting. I do 100% agree that both sides in this have some valid points and that since there's no precedence, it could go absolutely either way, depending on which judge hears it on each level.
It's probably without question that the losing party will appeal it to the next level court too, since there's no precedence too and if the first ruling gets reversed, then the appeal process will keep going upwards.

If and when it does get settled, it could actually help out the industry, because then there will be a precedence for the other industry groups to follow, which may standardize some of the issues, not just in KY, but in the rest of the country.

Danzig 02-20-2009 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kasept
I disagree Deb, and the throwing of hands up in the air in disgust and frustration is no help. It's not a mess and it's not the industry attacking itself from within. Given the lack of a ruling body to bring these parties together for collective bargaining or similar negotiations, this particular confrontation is undergoing a natural process for determination of who is 'most' right.

Would it have been nice if there had been foresight 10-15 years ago as to these issues presenting themselves? Sure.. But there wasn't, and the technology has moved faster than the industry's ability to comprehend the ramifications. As a result, it's important that a fair, long term, mutually beneficial arrangement be made between the betting platforms (A), bricks and mortar operators (B) and the horsemen/ownership entities (C). For that to happen, everone involved has to understand and respect each parties contributions to the end product that we the customers are 'buying'.

The dynamic changed tremendously from the origins, when there were the tracks and horsemen only, to now. And the tracks suddenly getting in the business of bet-taking via the platforms is an added wrinkle... A period of hard negotiations and decisions is a necessary part of the evolution going on, and the process is a lot closer to having firm foundations from which to work forward than there was even one year ago.

it just seems so often that the industry, or members in it, do more to hurt than to help. disagreements about signals, cutting them off completely-which drives down handle...making it harder on bettors to give up their money is not a good thing. i was speaking more about in general than about this specific instance. no one wants to see anyone get short shrift just for the 'greater good'. it seems tho on practically every occasion, that the best answer would be a national governing body-but we're not any closer it seems to getting to that.

as for this particular case, here's hoping the judge has infinite patience and wisdom.

Cannon Shell 02-20-2009 12:24 PM

While I agree it is a very important case, it will be crippling for horseman and eventually will lead to the demise of racing if CDI wins. Without veto power over the signal, the tracks can basically shove any terms they want down our throat and we will have no recourse which surely will lead to further purse reductions and worse conditions for the horsemen. Especially in light of the real reason that this lawsuit has proceeded as far as it has. That is that CD owes the KY horseman over $5 million dollars which we have sued to recover since they dont seem to be inclined to pay that out. They filed this lawsuit as a response to that lawsuit and their lawyers liberal interpretation of antitrust violations. If we dropped that suit, this suit would be dropped also. While many dont realize the implications of this those that do are quite afraid of the outcome. Not having to bother with horseman CDI will start to point its guns at other tracks with huge rate hikes especially tying in the Derby and that will ultimately lead to higher takeout rates overall or the continuation of signal disputes except this time it will be among tracks as opposed to horseman and tracks.

Scurlogue Champ 02-20-2009 04:34 PM

At least they are gonna have a Derby Barbie and Chief Party Officer.

steve 02-20-2009 06:24 PM

are the troubles at Magna going to effect Kentucky and why wasn't more scrutiny paid when cdi bought winticket?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.