NYS RWB suspends R. Dutrow's license for 10 years

[Dahoss]

Hopefully Rudy has extra stall space.

[paulo537]

He'll appeal.

Even money he wins the appeal.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by paulo537

He'll appeal.

Even money he wins the appeal.

I will take that. How much?

[freddymo]

I hope he wins appeal..Ne did nothing wrong

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by freddymo

I hope he wins appeal..Ne did nothing wrong

[pointman]

Originally Posted by paulo537

He'll appeal.

Even money he wins the appeal.

Really, and your basis for this is? Please book me as well.

[pointman]

Dutrow should follow the Biancone model and move on to the next continent.

[postpicker]

Originally Posted by pointman

Really, and your basis for this is? Please book me as well.

There are claims that Sabini being involved is a conflict of interest because Sabini was the Treasurer of ARCI when Ed Martin, President and CEO of ARCI, sent a letter to NYSRWB in February asking that state look into revoking Dutrow's license. So how can Dutrow get a fair hearing if one of the judges is involved in an organization (ARCI) that was asking to revoke license. Dutrow's lawyer asked that Sabini recuse himself from the process and Sabini refused. So if it is proven that Dutrow was denied due process because of conflict of interest, he will win appeal and then chances are, he can sue and get damages for what happened to him because he has been harmed by losing owners, horses, etc because of this ruling.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by postpicker

There are claims that Sabini being involved is a conflict of interest because Sabini was the Treasurer of ARCI when Ed Martin, President and CEO of ARCI, sent a letter to NYSRWB in February asking that state look into revoking Dutrow's license. So how can Dutrow get a fair hearing if one of the judges is involved in an organization (ARCI) that was asking to revoke license. Dutrow's lawyer asked that Sabini recuse himself from the process and Sabini refused. So if it is proven that Dutrow was denied due process because of conflict of interest, he will win appeal and then chances are, he can sue and get damages for what happened to him because he has been harmed by losing owners, horses, etc because of this ruling.

Uh John, that is the role of the ARCI and NYSRWB. To make and implement policy. I find it hard to believe a public inquiry by Ed Martin acting as head of the racing commissioners organization is going to be enough to find that due process wasn't served. The hearing officer wanted tougher sanctions. He was already denied a license in KY. He had legitimate rulings against him. All they can seemingly hope for is for a court to find the penalty too severe and hope for a reduction. I just dont see what interest was conflicted?

[postpicker]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Uh John, that is the role of the ARCI and NYSRWB. To make and implement policy. I find it hard to believe a public inquiry by Ed Martin acting as head of the racing commissioners organization is going to be enough to find that due process wasn't served. The hearing officer wanted tougher sanctions. He was already denied a license in KY. He had legitimate rulings against him. All they can seemingly hope for is for a court to find the penalty too severe and hope for a reduction. I just dont see what interest was conflicted?

ARCI for the first time asked that a trainer have his license revoked. Sabini, who was on the board of ARCI when the letter was sent, had the power to make it happen in the end. The easiest thing would have been Sabini recuse himself from these proceedings so the conflict of interest or an appearance of it would not have been there for the Dutrow camp to use in an appeal. But now Dutrow camp can claim he had his mind made up prior to hearing and he wanted to be there to fulfill the ARCI agenda. Personally, he should have removed himself from these proceedings because the result of a suspension would have still happened without Sabini involved, just who knows if the penalty would have been the same. Officials have removed themselves in the past to make sure there is no appearance of a conflict of interest. In NY, Braulio Baeza Jr. is one of the 3 stewards. Whenever his mother-in-law, Janice Blake Baeza is riding a race, Braulio removes himself from the race so no one can accuse him of conflict of interest if something needed to be decided by stewards. Dutrow camp will claim, why Dutrow. Why not anyone else since then. Why not anyone else before him. Sabini may have overplayed his hand here by staying on and being part of the decision making process. In the end, it is up to a judge to see if everything was done right and if he decides for Dutrow, then it can really get ugly for some people.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by postpicker

ARCI for the first time asked that a trainer have his license revoked. Sabini, who was on the board of ARCI when the letter was sent, had the power to make it happen in the end. The easiest thing would have been Sabini recuse himself from these proceedings so the conflict of interest or an appearance of it would not have been there for the Dutrow camp to use in an appeal. But now Dutrow camp can claim he had his mind made up prior to hearing and he wanted to be there to fulfill the ARCI agenda. Personally, he should have removed himself from these proceedings because the result of a suspension would have still happened without Sabini involved, just who knows if the penalty would have been the same. Officials have removed themselves in the past to make sure there is no appearance of a conflict of interest. In NY, Braulio Baeza Jr. is one of the 3 stewards. Whenever his mother-in-law, Janice Blake Baeza is riding a race, Braulio removes himself from the race so no one can accuse him of conflict of interest if something needed to be decided by stewards. Dutrow camp will claim, why Dutrow. Why not anyone else since then. Why not anyone else before him. Sabini may have overplayed his hand here by staying on and being part of the decision making process. In the end, it is up to a judge to see if everything was done right and if he decides for Dutrow, then it can really get ugly for some people.

But I dont think it matters John. Sabini was only one vote. The hearing officer who is supposedly neutral recomended a harsher penalty. Why Dutrow? Who else has a record like his? And no Asmussen and Pletcher dont have a record of willful violations like Dutrow. Hell he falsified his license application 3 times. What other state issued professional license wouldn't be revoked with a record similar to Dutrows? Think if you had a liquor license and had 64 violations you'd be keeping it? Or a CDL? Or a Doctor? Or lawyer? Not to mention what lawyer who thinks he has a legit case plays his hand in the public before even filing an appeal?

[pointman]

Originally Posted by postpicker

There are claims that Sabini being involved is a conflict of interest because Sabini was the Treasurer of ARCI when Ed Martin, President and CEO of ARCI, sent a letter to NYSRWB in February asking that state look into revoking Dutrow's license. So how can Dutrow get a fair hearing if one of the judges is involved in an organization (ARCI) that was asking to revoke license. Dutrow's lawyer asked that Sabini recuse himself from the process and Sabini refused. So if it is proven that Dutrow was denied due process because of conflict of interest, he will win appeal and then chances are, he can sue and get damages for what happened to him because he has been harmed by losing owners, horses, etc because of this ruling.

The conflict is interesting, but it does not address the substance of the numerous violations which led to the imposition of the penalty. A license for anything issued by a State is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, the revoking agency is accorded a wide range of discretion. The appeals court is limited to a determination as to whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings made as opposed to being arbitrary or capricious.

Dutrow will have the burden of demonstrating that the conflict violated his due process rights to a fair hearing (and frankly administrative hearings in New York are not fair to begin with, they tend to almost always be stacked against the respondent). Even if he can overcome that hurdle, he then has to overcome the substantial evidence of the rules he has broken.

Dutrow's chances of overcoming both those hurdles are slim. As Chuck said, Dutrow has a better chance of convincing a court that the penalty is unduly harsh considering the level of evidence introduced against him. Even then, the Court is unlikely to act unless it finds the penalty shocks the Court's sense of fairness.

Dutrow may get a stay of the revocation pending appeals since he will be given the benefit of the doubt, but considering the number of violations his chances on appeal are slim IMO. Though the penalty is a stringent one, considering Dutrow's history of violations in NY and elsewhere, he may even have a hard time getting a reduction from the Courts.

[postpicker]

Originally Posted by pointman

The conflict is interesting, but it does not address the substance of the numerous violations which led to the imposition of the penalty. A license for anything issued by a State is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, the revoking agency is accorded a wide range of discretion. The appeals court is limited to a determination as to whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings made as opposed to being arbitrary or capricious.

Dutrow will have the burden of demonstrating that the conflict violated his due process rights to a fair hearing (and frankly administrative hearings in New York are not fair to begin with, they tend to almost always be stacked against the respondent). Even if he can overcome that hurdle, he then has to overcome the substantial evidence of the rules he has broken.

Dutrow's chances of overcoming both those hurdles are slim. As Chuck said, Dutrow has a better chance of convincing a court that the penalty is unduly harsh considering the level of evidence introduced against him. Even then, the Court is unlikely to act unless it finds the penalty shocks the Court's sense of fairness.

Dutrow may get a stay of the revocation pending appeals since he will be given the benefit of the doubt, but considering the number of violations his chances on appeal are slim IMO. Though the penalty is a stringent one, considering Dutrow's history of violations in NY and elsewhere, he may even have a hard time getting a reduction from the Courts.

No one can deny Dutrow deserved a suspension. But they will argue the cards were stacked against him from the start. No matter what the crime is, a person deserves due process. They will argue, why did ARCI try and get rid of Dutrow, why not other trainers in other states who may have a record just as bad if not worse than Dutrow. Will ARCI go after Asmussen or O'Neill or Mullins or Lake or anyone else if they have a violation. ARCI set a dangerous precedent and if they dont go after others like they did Dutrow, then they are helping Dutrow's case.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by postpicker

No one can deny Dutrow deserved a suspension. But they will argue the cards were stacked against him from the start. No matter what the crime is, a person deserves due process. They will argue, why did ARCI try and get rid of Dutrow, why not other trainers in other states who may have a record just as bad if not worse than Dutrow. Will ARCI go after Asmussen or O'Neill or Mullins or Lake or anyone else if they have a violation. ARCI set a dangerous precedent and if they dont go after others like they did Dutrow, then they are helping Dutrow's case.

I agree that Sabini should have recused himself and that he has possibly given Dutrow an issue where none should exist. However, the poster's suggestion that I responded to was that the odds were that Dutrow will ultimately prevail which is something that I strongly disagree with, conflict or not.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by postpicker

No one can deny Dutrow deserved a suspension. But they will argue the cards were stacked against him from the start. No matter what the crime is, a person deserves due process. They will argue, why did ARCI try and get rid of Dutrow, why not other trainers in other states who may have a record just as bad if not worse than Dutrow. Will ARCI go after Asmussen or O'Neill or Mullins or Lake or anyone else if they have a violation. ARCI set a dangerous precedent and if they dont go after others like they did Dutrow, then they are helping Dutrow's case.

None of those guys have a record like Dutrow. He has personal violations and he has been refused a license already. The ARCI can suggest whatever they want as they have no jurisdiction. As far as we know it was Ed Martin's opinion. So if I wrote an editorial for the Bloodhorse saying I think Dutrow should get his license revoked does that mean because Sabini may have read it and because we are both licensed members of the NYSRWB that he has to recuse himself? If the ARCI makes a statement about medication (which they have on numerous occasions) then does every commissioner have to recuse themselve from every instance of a medication violation in their individual states?

[3kings]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Hopefully Rudy has extra stall space.

I laughed but you may be right. Owners who use obvious, I mean "suspected" cheaters will just move on to the next one.

[MisterB]

Why would you call Rudy a cheater?? Stupid comment!!! You are clueless and stupid also. I guess you are a called troll, who has troll comments. I can deal with it, but I am a counter troll commentator.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by MisterB

Why would you call Rudy a cheater?? Stupid comment!!! You are clueless and stupid also. I guess you are a called troll, who has troll comments. I can deal with it, but I am a counter troll commentator.

Mr Brown Please expand why you think a journeyman jock suddenly was able to build such a barn for such a fine upstanding client base? This should be good

[asudevil]

Ten effin years babe. Guess he'll have to go run real good somewhere's else. Too bad babe...we had a real good run. I cashed real good on St. Liam, babe. Shame babe cause we run really good.

[King Glorious]

My understanding is that has a hearing scheduled for Oct 17 at which point a stay of suspension will be granted until the case can be heard by the state supreme court. That will probably take a couple of years. At that point, whichever side loses that decision will probably file an appeal with the NY state court of appeals and we're probably talking about a couple more years. After that, we probably still go to federal courts. I'm gonna say it's 2016 at the earliest that this is decided.