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

[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.

[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.