Gill, Adamo file lawsuit against PHRC. Everyone weight in!!!

[Blue feather]

Gill and Adamo have filed a lawsuit against PHRC based on their ejection last Feb. I have the impression most people agree on how Penn handled the situation. I am curious to hear some opinions. Secondly, is your opinion based on personal experience with Gill or Adamo, or from the media and other sources.

[wilf]

Don't really care but since you asked I wonder if the catastrophic breakdown rate has dropped since they left? I am guessing yes but I have been wrong before ,however birds of a feather flock together and the likes of Gill,Adamo and co always seem to find a lawyer or two to ride on their coat tails and give them another chance a la Burton Sipp, Michael Vick etc. As far as personal experience Adamo was the only trainer that I knew who had one drop dead on the way over to the race ,maybe that was just bad luck!

[zinn21]

Blue, do you know what they are alleging PHRC did? I would imagine in a civil suit the preponderance of the evidence would need to weigh heavily in Gill's favor in order to win. But I am not sure PHRC can't remove anyone for any reason.

[KBEquine]

Blue, do you know what they are alleging PHRC did? I would imagine in a civil suit the preponderance of the evidence would need to weigh heavily in Gill's favor in order to win. But I am not sure PHRC can't remove anyone for any reason.

Actually Zinn, that is not inaccurate, but still an over-simplification - the burden of proof is lower in a civil case than a criminal one & if this is really a challenge of an administrative body's decision (and the PA Racing Commission is an administrative agency) the burden is lower, still.

In Pennsylvania, there is a standard that says the Commission can't act arbitrarily, capriciously or contrary to law. My guess, without looking at the pleadings, is that Adamo, Gill et al, are alleging that the Commission acted arbitrarily, i.e., there are other, similarly situated owners/trainers whose stalls were not taken away when Gill/Adamo lost theirs.

Again, that's just a guess, based on Pennsylvania's standard for reviewing the actions of one of its administrative agencies. If there's an arguable good reason for what the agency did, the agency's action stands.

And Wilf - I was also wondering whether the catastrophic breakdown rate had dropped. That would be appropriate evidence for the Racing Commission to present, to show there was a sound basis for their decision. Lawyers use the latin phrase "res ipsa loquitor" (I might have misspelled that!) which translates to "the thing speaks for itself" meaning that if the commission kicked folks out because of safety issues & the safety issues then went away, well, doesn't that prove they done good?

What I still find interesting is the alleged Dauphin County grand jury investigations, chronicled at:

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showt ... p?t=258460

Interesting because it is a Dauphin County grand jury. The prosecutor appears to be the PA Office of the Attorney General, although it might also be the Dauphin County district attorney. In any event, the AG just won the election for Governor. The Governor appoints the Racing Commission members, I believe.

So I'm wondering if the soon-to-be-governor will appoint new racing commissioners, based on his investigation when he was the attorney general . . .

[Blue feather]

Zinn21, to answer what they are alleging PHRC did, here is the article from DRF.

Owner Gill and trainer Adamo file lawsuit over ejection from Penn National
By Matt Hegarty
ShareThisEmailPrintEmail
Michael Gill, a former leading owner, and a trainer he employed, Anthony Adamo, have filed a lawsuit accusing officials of Pennsylvania's racing commission of deprivation of their due process rights and other abuses related to their ejections from Penn National Race Course early this year.

The suit, filed on Nov. 11 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, seeks monetary damages for the alleged abuses and the damage they have caused to the reputations of both Gill and Adamo, along with attorney’s costs.

The lawsuit alleges that Gill and Adamo were ejected from Penn National by officials of the Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission without cause, and it further alleges that racing officials ignored regulations in the state that would have punished jockeys and trainers who refused to ride or start horses in races in which Gill horses were entered.

Gill and Adamo were ordered off the grounds of Penn National on Feb. 2, shortly after many jockeys at the track refused to ride Gill’s horses, citing concerns about the animals’ soundness. The jockeys were later joined by some trainers who said they would not allow their horses to run in races in which Gill had entered horses.

The suit, filed by Alan Pincus, a racing attorney, contends that the complaints about the soundness of Gill’s horses were unfounded and were part of a larger scheme to force Gill from the track. At the time that Gill was ejected, he was the leading owner at Penn National, where purses are heavily subsidized by slot machines.

The suit notes that Pennsylvania racing rules prohibit jockeys from refusing to ride and further prohibits trainers from scratching horses without just cause. It says that the commission took no action to enforce those rules when the boycotts arose.

Gill dispersed all of his racing stock after he was ejected from Penn National, the suit states. Adamo continues to train, but with a small racing stable, according to the suit.

Pennsylvania’s district attorney has issued subpoenas to members of the Pennsylvania racing community since the ejections, according to Pennsylvania racing officials.

[zinn21]

The suit, filed by Alan Pincus, a racing attorney, contends that the complaints about the soundness of Gill’s horses were unfounded and were part of a larger scheme to force Gill from the track.

The above is what Gill camp must prove. Don't know what subjective latitude Penn National has. If Stewards have a lot of subjective latitude under the law Gill will not prevail. This should be an interesting case to follow.

[Sylvie Hebert]

I think you ignore the law in this country.Gill and al does not have the burden of proof as far as soundness is concerned,Penn has to prove that...
And i don't think it can be proven,think a bit:how many horses were claimed by him and broke down in their next start?Argument is they were unsound before.
How many autopsy have been done that can prove without any doubts that horse broke down BECAUSE of what he did or did not do.
How many break downs of his horses compare with the same level,same numbers and same conditions same % in other trainers barns?
I have seen horses taken from the track on a flat bed because they could not even walk back to the barn,being entered again and run,and being vanned again,and run again...at another track with another trainer.
Nobody ever complained...Why?Because he was not leading owner/trainer?
How much of this is plain jealousy?
How much of this is facts not suppositions and simple badmouthing?
I go to cheap tracks all the time,see things that prevent me from sleeping,yet nobody says anything...But the minute one makes a lot of money...
I am not saying he did not do anything wrong,only that no proofs yet...
And we are still in America,the land of the free,where you have to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubts....
That does not seem to exist in the horse business...or does it?

[Shannon]

If he dispersed all the horses, wouldn't BOTH parties lack evidence at this point? Out of curiousity, were his horses frequently or ever scratched by the track vets?
Also, why doesnt Penn allow a jockey the right to refuse a ride if they feel their safety is at stake due to the soundness of the horse?
I know nothing about the rules at Penn, nor anything about this suit, I'm just curious.

[Sylvie Hebert]

Track vets really inspecting horses and not being biaised would be a good start...I remember being in the paddock with a horse clearly tying and the vet and steward refused to have him scratch because already too small a field...even tthreatening to suspend trainer for the rest of the meet.
Horse had to be vanned off...after tentatively "running" around the track to the finish line,he never raced again,took months to reconstruct damages to the muscles.
Trainer should have go back to the barn and forfeith his licence that day,and/or sue after having the horse vetted by outside vet,but in that environnement what vet would have intervened??...
Tracks are a closed political party...

[aethervox]

There's an article in the New York Times which gives the jockey's reasons -- six fatal breakdowns in four months, and two in the three days prior to their mass refusal to ride any Gill horses or to ride in any race with a Gill horse entered. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/sports/02racing.html

A Paulick Report post http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/gill-center-of-controversy-again/ that gives a good overview of the controversy states:

According to Equibase charts, in just over three months, 14 other horses owned by Gill have either broken down, were pulled up, returned lame, or eased at Penn National. There were nine in October, three in November, one in December and two in January. (The count includes Saturday night’s incident involving Laughing Moon, even though the Equibase chartcaller did not report the horse broke down past the wire.) Most of the horses are running in bottom level claiming races. At Penn National, however, thanks to slot machine revenue, $5,000 claimers can run for as much as $20,000, with $12,000 going to the winner. An owner can make money squeezing a win out of a horse he claimed for $5,000, even if that horse never runs another race.

Another Paulick Report has a post about the people who worked for Gill http://www.paulickreport.com/blog/gills-gang-of-misfits/

I suggest that you read the comments as well as the posts - there's a lot of additional information there.

[Sylvie Hebert]

The argument is not how many of his broke down or were eased or lame but % compared to others and how many were claimed in last start?
The guy ran so many horses(up to 3-4 per race and 1 -2 in every cheap race!!)that he must have had more wins,more loss,more breakdowns...
Let's pretend trainer A runs 10 horses a month in cheap claiming races compare to trainer B runs 100 a month in same class you have to theorically expect 10 times more breadowns in trainer B barn...
If we agree that average wins are 10%(one every race)and average breakdown as per another contributor here 50% then trainer A should win one race a month and break down 5 horses where trainer B wins 10 races and break down 50 horses...
anyone checked statistics in an exact way?I did not,just thinking aloud....

[aethervox]

The argument is not how many of his broke down or were eased or lame but % compared to others and how many were claimed in last start?
The guy ran so many horses(up to 3-4 per race and 1 -2 in every cheap race!!)that he must have had more wins,more loss,more breakdowns...
Let's pretend trainer A runs 10 horses a month in cheap claiming races compare to trainer B runs 100 a month in same class you have to theorically expect 10 times more breadowns in trainer B barn...
If we agree that average wins are 10%(one every race)and average breakdown as per another contributor here 50% then trainer A should win one race a month and break down 5 horses where trainer B wins 10 races and break down 50 horses...
anyone checked statistics in an exact way?I did not,just thinking aloud....

I find it significant that the jockeys felt it was necessary to boycott races where Gill's horses ran. That, to me, means that the jockeys felt that Gill's horses were a threat to their safety--even if they weren't riding them. After all, if they don't ride, they don't get paid.

[Sylvie Hebert]

But they still rode them at Philly park and other tracks??....Why? same owner ,trainers and even sometimes same horses!!
And some of them have been sold/claimed to other trainers and they have ridden them?...
They were a risk when the owner name was Gill but as soon as another name on the form they are not a risk anymore?
If you believe only changing ownership makes a horse sound,come to my barn,have i got a deal for you...!..!

[aethervox]

But they still rode them at Philly park and other tracks??....Why? same owner ,trainers and even sometimes same horses!!
And some of them have been sold/claimed to other trainers and they have ridden them?...
They were a risk when the owner name was Gill but as soon as another name on the form they are not a risk anymore?
If you believe only changing ownership makes a horse sound,come to my barn,have i got a deal for you...!..!

No, I think that the jockeys felt the horses were a risk to ride when the owner's name was Gill and they were racing at Penn National for Gill's trainers.

That's my opinion after reading through the 100+ posts on 'Business as Usual at Penn National' in the COTH racing forum, as well as the Paulick Report, NY Times, Bloodhorse and TB times coverage of the situation.

If more information comes out during the lawsuit, I reserve the right to revise my opinion.

[Blue feather]

Some good points have been made. It seems apparent that the supposed facts need more accurate and deeper support. There are alot of contradictions and assumptions in this case. Some questionable points are as follows, Penn National has had trouble keeping the track safe. The track was "...coming apart.." as recently as, I believe ,this past May. As an owner, I have had personal experience with close to ten trainers. In my opinion, none would jeopardize their career by having an owner persuade them to do anything illegal. Gill may very well be guilty of these accusations, but at the very least, I believe PHRC was reactive and premature. I hope this lawsuit exposes the truth about what really happened.