To our Members,

Given recent events and news coverage, it is important for the NYTHA membership to understand our position on exclusion - a racetrack’s ability to bar a licensed owner or a trainer.  NYTHA is not commenting on the particulars of any individual case, but on the importance of the intertwined issues of Integrity and Process.

We have long believed that NYRA must develop a robust code of conduct that is supported by an equitable and transparent adjudication system.

The following quotes come from a NYTHA letter sent to NYRA over two years ago, when the exclusion issue was raised in another high-profile case.

“Our Board and membership strongly support adherence to the rules of our sport and a level playing field for all. Furthermore, our trainers in particular would like to see a swifter, more consistent penalty system for those caught playing outside the rules. It’s our belief that the best method for developing this system involves a clear process, communicated to all license holders, standardized due process procedures and a transparent hearing protocol.”

“We believe the development and communication of this system will provide for stronger adherence to the rules on the backside and provide NYRA with a stronger legal justification to take appropriate action.”

So what does it all mean?

As horsemen, we want a well-regulated environment in which we can all be confident. While the New York State Gaming Commission (NYSGC) is charged with enforcing many of the rules of our sport, there may be instances where track management feels obligated to act on their own, separate and apart from the regulators - to further protect the sport’s integrity and to protect the NYRA brand. The rules must be applied to all license holders equally and fairly. Due Process is important! For the accused, yes, but also for the legitimacy of the New York Racing Association, so that its decisions can not be dismissed as piques of anger, but have the authority and imprimatur of a rigorous process.

The New York State Courts have created a long line of case law that provides a roadmap for NYRA and the recent Federal decision is amazingly consistent with NYTHA’s position. 

The key takeaways from that decision are:

1. “The claim that NYRA had no right to take the action it did would appear to be foreclosed by the New York Court of Appeals decision in Saumell v. New York Racing Association,”

2. “When the credibility of a property-holder is in issue, that is exactly the situation when a hearing is necessary so that the individual may be heard directly.”

Last week’s article in the Bloodhorse makes it clear that NYRA is swiftly moving in this direction. You can read it HERE. 

We are encouraged by these developments, expecting them to result in a most level playing field.

Sincerely,

Joe