IEAH Suing

Barbaro06 · Postby **Barbaro06** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:13 pm

Interesting:

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/51684/ieah-says-i-want-revenge-injury-not-disclosed

Tucumcari · Postby **Tucumcari** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:27 pm

zinn21 · Postby **zinn21** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:01 pm

What an ugly ugly scenario. Lanzman witholds soundness information opting to keep IWR in training in order to receive an additional 1 Million with a Derby win per the IEAH deal and IEAH sells a piece of the colt without providing Lanzman with a copy of all documents related to such sale and agreement per the agreement.

The horse is ruined due to greed and Jeff Mullins is smack dap in the middle of this mess. What a bunch of weasels..

Barbaro06 · Postby **Barbaro06** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 4:30 pm

Yep, ugly is as ugly can be. Sad.

Fireslam · Postby **Fireslam** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 5:10 pm

Please dont tell me that they didnt vet the colt before they bought him.

nferro9925 · Postby **nferro9925** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 8:09 pm

This is turning into a mud slinging slugfest!

Where's my popcorn?

HR LLC · Postby **HR LLC** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:11 pm

I agree with Fireslam...this IEAH crew is suppose to be so much smarter and better than any other racing partnership or owners out there. They are suppose to spot and purchase a talented race horse before anyone else.

They even vetted Racheal Alexandria and turned her down due to a chip in 2008. Now they get a possible Derby winning horse in April 2009 and they dont send their own vet to check the horse out?

madelyn · Postby **madelyn** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 5:34 am

I believe they are not claiming he was injured before the percentage of him was PURCHASED - just that it was not disclosed before the DERBY. Lanzman sued them for his share of the sale of the 10+% interest, which they probably sold for more than they pay for their interest. This looks like a "sour grapes" backlash.

Claiming a loss due to the expense of attending the Derby... well how common can you get? Are they saying they wouldn't have gone to the Derby? The injury happened on the 10th of April - not a whole lot of time before the first Saturday in May. I'm sure the tickets were already bought, etc.

Ever since Big Brown - when I think of the fellows involved in IEAH and their background, the one word that comes to mind is "sleazy."

bdw0617 · Postby **bdw0617** » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:49 pm

HR LLC wrote:I agree with Fireslam...this IEAH crew is suppose to be so much smarter and better than any other racing partnership or owners out there. They are suppose to spot and purchase a talented race horse before anyone else.

They even vetted Racheal Alexandria and turned her down due to a chip in 2008. Now they get a possible Derby winning horse in April 2009 and they dont send their own vet to check the horse out?

but the last time they vetted a horse and it came back a no go was rachael alexandra, they passed on her because she didnt' vet out. they weren't going to let that happen again

(laughing)

I dont' think they are as much sleezy as wreckless.

I would classify the trainer of the grapefruit and sweet catomine as sleezy.. running a horse he knows isn't right, isn't close to being right, a filly at that, against boys and then saying "oh yeah I forgot to tell you" after the race, then throwing a hissy fit when he coudlnt' run a horse that was injuried in the santa anita derby. that's sleezy.

No.. IEAH, they are just wreckless and somewhat irresponsbile.

they do some good. pure clan, Bennie and Kippy are good. very good for the spot and were good investments. but their decision making over the last year and a half has left alot to be desired.

Foggytrip · Postby **Foggytrip** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:03 pm

They are sleezy buffoons. Love to see how much they put in their pocket on that deal. When you need a body guard in horseracing you are f'ing the wrong people

Shammy Davis · Postby **Shammy Davis** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 5:12 pm

Madelyn posted:

Ever since Big Brown - when I think of the fellows involved in IEAH and their background, the one word that comes to mind is "sleazy."

I agree. Smells like sour grapes on the part IEAH. The days of a honest handshake to make a deal are history.

tbrace · Postby **tbrace** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:17 pm

It is interesting that the genius trainer of high moral character, Jeff Mullins, couldn't find the injury in the correct ankle, on Derby Day, no less.

"At the time of the scratch of the colt, it was announced that it was due to lameness in the left front ankle," according to IEAH’s filing. "It was subsequently reported that the injury was to the right ankle. The colt was the first favorite to ever be scratched the morning of the Derby." . . .
Bloodhorse magazine

zinn21 · Postby **zinn21** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 9:04 am

IMO, of course Mullins and Lanzman knew the horse was having problems with the ankle. They rolled the dice hoping he would get through the Derby with a win and another Million to Lanzman from IEAH. According to reports:

"I Want Revenge was diagnosed as being lame and had filling in his right front fetlock April 10. The court filing contends Lanzman failed in his fiduciary duty to IEAH by not notifying the partner of the injury and that the colt was X-rayed and treated for the filling.

Additional treatments for the filling took place from April 11-13 and on April 14 an ultrasound was conducted on the injury, the filing states. The colt was injected in the right front fetlock April 15 and was administered antibiotics for the next five days, according to the counterclaim, with IEAH not being informed of any of those actions. IEAH claims further that the colt was injected in both front fetlocks April 28."

Lanzman failed to disclose because he knew IEAH would demand stoppage of training and he would lose potential Derby winnings and IEAH bonus payment.

going4stamina · Postby **going4stamina** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:52 am

They not only were being dishonest to IEAH (who I have little compassion for), but can you imagine the ongoing PR debacle if another horse and/or jockey would have been killed in the Derby? The favorite, at that! They were messing with the financial well-being of every body in the TB business. To me, it also verges on animal abuse. Speculating, of course, but if IWR had broken down in the race--I would prosecute for animal abuse and 20 counts of attempted manslaughter/murder or whatever charge could be brought against those who willingly knew the horse was UNSOUND.

Anybody know if there were future bets after April 10th? How about all the de-frauded bettors? Oh yeah, Mullins says bettors are idiots. I guess they are

.

zinn21 · Postby **zinn21** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:33 pm

stamina wrote:

They not only were being dishonest to IEAH (who I have little compassion for), but can you imagine the ongoing PR debacle if another horse and/or jockey would have been killed in the Derby? The favorite, at that! They were messing with the financial well-being of every body in the TB business. To me, it also verges on animal abuse. Speculating, of course, but if IWR had broken down in the race--I would prosecute for animal abuse and 20 counts of attempted manslaughter/murder or whatever charge could be brought against those who willingly knew the horse was UNSOUND.

Totally agree and above is, IMO, one of the biggest ethical problems racing has. Studies already show when there is initial ankle filling, treating with corticosteroids etc. and a return to training result in a 70% greater chance further damage will occur. This cited by Dr. Larry Galupo at a stem cell seminar I recently attended. I am a proponent of corticosteroids used appropriately. It is a tremendous drug with great benefits but when used to mask wear and tear due to repetitive pounding caused by training and racing of a young horse-it is wrong.