7/18 (BEL): Jaipur S. (G3) -- True Quality barred on Paragallo tie

[Kasept]

9TH (5:17) Jaipur S. (G3)

6 Furlongs (Turf) | Open | 3 Year Olds And Up Stakes | Purse: $150,000

1 Yield Bogey Samyn J L 118 L
2 True Quality Arroyo N Jr 118 L
3 Heros Reward Castellano J J 124 L
4 Due Date Maragh R 118 L
5 Silver Timber Coa E M 118 L
6 Mohegan Sky Chavez J F 113 L
7 Le Grand Cru Luzzi M J 118 L
MTO Premium Wine Maragh R 118 L

[Kasept]

Jaipur entrant to be scratched by N.Y. board
By David Grening

http://www.drf.com/news/article/105539.html

The New York State Racing and Wagering Board will scratch True Quality out of Saturday's Grade 3, $150,000 Jaipur Stakes at Belmont Park because of "insufficient proof" that Paraneck Stable no longer has ownership interest in the colt, according to a board spokesman.

"After reviewing the available information on the proposed sale of True Quality," said Joe Mahoney, a board spokesman, "it was determined there was insufficient proof the Paragallos no longer have ownership in True Quality, so we're scratching the horse for Saturday."

[MisterB]

Better safe than sorry.

[SniperSB23]

Anyone have more info or opinions on this one? This seems like a pretty big deal.

[Echo Farm]

Tough call.

Shouldn't they have to prove that Top Quality is still owned by Paragallo and friends?

Has Paragallo been found guilty by a court of law?

Perhaps let True Quality run, put the earnings (if any) in escrow 'till this is sorted out.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Echo Farm

Tough call.

Shouldn't they have to prove that Top Quality is still owned by Paragallo and friends?

Has Paragallo been found guilty by a court of law?

Perhaps let True Quality run, put the earnings (if any) in escrow 'till this is sorted out.

Racetrack management traditionally hasn't had burden of proof obligations. Private property.. Their rules. Holding True Quality out of this sends an excellent message. It says NYRA and the RWB are taking the sanctions against Paraneck/Paragallo 100% seriously, are following through on the penalties, and are being vigilant.

It also is a supportive stance for tough action against other 'undesirable conduct' around the racetrack... The threat of legal entanglement by penalized parties of any kind (trainers, jocks, owners) has been a thorn in the side of the states/tracks/industry in recent years, and being hard-assed about things has to start somewhere.

[Echo Farm]

I agree somewhat, as I earn my living under the thumb of the American Kennel Club. They too have their own rules, and if you want to play the game, you comply.

The message is good, unfortunately it's not equal on a national basis.

Rachel Alexandra will run soon, True Quality won't get the opportunity.
(not that either horse really cares)

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Racetrack management traditionally hasn't had burden of proof obligations. Private property.. Their rules. Holding True Quality out of this sends an excellent message. It says NYRA and the RWB are taking the sanctions against Paraneck/Paragallo 100% seriously, are following through on the penalties, and are being vigilant.

It also is a supportive stance for tough action against other 'undesirable conduct' around the racetrack... The threat of legal entanglement by penalized parties of any kind (trainers, jocks, owners) has been a thorn in the side of the states/tracks/industry in recent years, and being hard-assed about things has to start somewhere.

Steve how hard is it to produce a bill of sale sign it and if necessary(which it hasn't) notarize ? If that isn't proof that ownership has been transfered then what the heck is? If there is a valid proof of sale, I sincerely hope NYRA has t's crossed and I's dotted because I suspect this will be settled in court.. Seriously, what the heck is so complicated about a bill of sale?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Steve how hard is it to produce a bill of sale sign it and if necessary(which it hasn't) notarize ? If that isn't proof that ownership has been transfered then what the heck is? If there is a valid proof of sale, I sincerely hope NYRA has t's crossed and I's dotted because I suspect this will be settled in court.. Seriously, what the heck is so complicated about a bill of sale?

While I have no knowledge of the circumstances involving this particular case NY started to refuse bills of sales that were obvious attempts to circumvent the rules. Things like selling a horse for $1 and such. A notary just proves who signed the document was the person who was listed, does not speak for the validity of the bill of sale. They perhaps asked to see the money trail, receipts, statements,etc. and there were none or were refused? And NYRA and the Racing board are two seperate entities. NYRA didnt scratch the horse.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

While I have no knowledge of the circumstances involving this particular case NY started to refuse bills of sales that were obvious attempts to circumvent the rules. Things like selling a horse for $1 and such. A notary just proves who signed the document was the person who was listed, does not speak for the validity of the bill of sale. They perhaps asked to see the money trail, receipts, statements,etc. and there were none or were refused? And NYRA and the Racing board are two seperate entities. NYRA didnt scratch the horse.

Clearly the validity of a sale is not based on money being exchanged. No reason why Cannon Shell can't sell Bob a horse and because you and Bob have a history that money doesn't have to be exchanged for the sale to be valid. Plus I doubt they would put 1 dollar on the bill of sale.. So I don't get still refusing entry if a valid Bill of Sale exists? I didn't realize it was the racing board..BTW not sure Belmont is deemed private property Steve as it is owned by a state Authority?

[Kasept]

Excellent points being raised on all fronts. I think NYRA and RWB are in close contact and harmony on the Paragallo follow through. The private property issue should still apply in the new state-association scenario. (Perhaps Oak Tree Association holding sway during its' seasonal tenure at Santa Anita can be pointed to as an example.)

If RWB and/or NYRA have reason to believe the transfer of True Quality was dubious, they have every right under the domain of the racetrack to demand proof otherwise.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Excellent points being raised on all fronts. I think NYRA and RWB are in close contact and harmony on the Paragallo follow through. The private property issue should still apply in the new state-association scenario. (Perhaps Oak Tree Association holding sway during its' seasonal tenure at Santa Anita can be pointed to as an example.)

If RWB and/or NYRA have reason to believe the transfer of True Quality was dubious, they have every right under the domain of the racetrack to demand proof otherwise.

Well I don't get what isn't crystal fn clear about a bill of sale. I realize Pags is a douche but discrimination comes with consequence.. I doubt if the track was owned by an individual who could be held financially accountable for its actions would such a position have been taken.

I know its a popular stance to Fcuk with a JO who starves horses but how does punishing the rightful owner help?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Clearly the validity of a sale is not based on money being exchanged. No reason why Cannon Shell can't sell Bob a horse and because you and Bob have a history that money doesn't have to be exchanged for the sale to be valid. Plus I doubt they would put 1 dollar on the bill of sale.. So I don't get still refusing entry if a valid Bill of Sale exists? I didn't realize it was the racing board..BTW not sure Belmont is deemed private property Steve as it is owned by a state Authority?

There are rules on the books concerning hidden ownership and obviously the Rand W board feels that the sale wasn't a valid one.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Well I don't get what isn't crystal fn clear about a bill of sale. I realize Pags is a douche but discrimination comes with consequence.. I doubt if the track was owned by an individual who could be held financially accountable for its actions would such a position have been taken.

I know its a popular stance to Fcuk with a JO who starves horses but how does punishing the rightful owner help?

Not to mention that what exactly would you sue for? Discrimination? On what basis? If the track was owned by an individual they (the individual) can make whaever rules they deem fit and are allowed to refuse entries or not allow you on the property as long as there is no discrimination on the basis of race, religion, etc.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Not to mention that what exactly would you sue for? Discrimination? On what basis? If the track was owned by an individual they (the individual) can make whaever rules they deem fit and are allowed to refuse entries or not allow you on the property as long as there is no discrimination on the basis of race, religion, etc.

Well let me put this Bill of sale thing in perspective.. I never bothered to deal with one with the 2 year old DrugS orginal purchased on behalf of us last year. We entered him and I had to get one showing I was sole owner and DrugS was on the paperwork.. DrugS scribbled and I mean scribbled some verbage on a blank piece of paper and faxed it over.. Then the idiot dated it after the time of entry so he had to send me an ammened scribbled one on Thursday.. Clearly it was as shotty a document as could possibly have been sent.. Guess what? Apparently the Pags rules weren't invoked.. Look I am not defending Pags but I just dont get it..

As for sueing trust me there are plenty of attorneys who would take a shot!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Well let me put this Bill of sale thing in perspective.. I never bothered to deal with one with the 2 year old DrugS orginal purchased on behalf of us last year. We entered him and I had to get one showing I was sole owner and DrugS was on the paperwork.. DrugS scribbled and I mean scribbled some verbage on a blank piece of paper and faxed it over.. Then the idiot dated it after the time of entry so he had to send me an ammened scribbled one on Thursday.. Clearly it was as shotty a document as could possibly have been sent.. Guess what? Apparently the Pags rules weren't invoked.. Look I am not defending Pags but I just dont get it..

As for sueing trust me there are plenty of attorneys who would take a shot!

Drugs cant be compared to anyone else because of the power he wields over the sport. Many lawyers have taken a run at it and as far as I can recall, all have lost. I once upon a time worked for Yonkers raceway which has to be the leading pari-mutuel banner. They banned drivers, owners, trainers, etc at the drop of a hat. Were sued many times and never lost.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Drugs cant be compared to anyone else because of the power he wields over the sport. Many lawyers have taken a run at it and as far as I can recall, all have lost. I once upon a time worked for Yonkers raceway which has to be the leading pari-mutuel banner. They banned drivers, owners, trainers, etc at the drop of a hat. Were sued many times and never lost.

What happened Mr AAA owners threatened to leave if they didn't draw the rail or Did Buddy Gilmour have pics of one of the Rooneys? Yonkers in the late 70's and early 80's was a precious place.. Nothing better then waiting for WWWF wrestling at midnight watching racing from Yonkers a little Teddy Wing on Skip By Night swinging 5 wide..

Anyway they are just FN with anything that has to do with Paranack.. I guess he deserves the special treatment