Maximum Security’s owners ask court to summarily declare it winner of Kentucky Derby

The owners of Maximum Security have asked a federal judge to summarily order their horse reinstated as winner of the 145th Kentucky Derby.

In a motion for summary judgment filed Friday in U.S. District court in Lexington, Gary and Mary West allege that stewards failed to follow the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission’s own rules when they disqualified Maximum Security as the victor.

Attorneys for the couple say stewards violated three rules:

First, they say stewards were required to find that Maximum Security, as the leading horse, was not “clear” of other horses when he allegedly chose a different path on the track. Records show the stewards made no such finding, the motion says.

Second, the motion says stewards were required to find that even if Maximum Security committed a foul, the result of the foul altered the finish of the race. The stewards made no such finding, according to the motion.

Third, had the stewards found that Maximum Security committed a foul that altered the finish of the Derby, they had discretion not to disqualify Maximum Security, the motion says.

Maximum Security, with Luis Saez aboard, enters the first turn of the 145th Kentucky Derby.
May 4, 2019 (Photo: By Michael Clevenger/Courier Journal)

“Yet the stewards did not exercise that discretion and did not explain why they chose, for the first time in the nearly century-and-a-half history of the Kentucky Derby, to exercise their discretion to disqualify the winner of the Derby on the basis of a foul committed in the race,” the motion says.

The motion and a 25-page memo supporting it were filed by Lexington equine lawyer D. Barry Stilz and five other lawyers.

It says the stewards violated the Wests’ rights secured under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and that the only checks on the stewards’ power is the power of the court to reverse the order. The case is now before U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell.

A judge can summarily rule for one party, avoiding a trial, if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the party making the motion is is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. 

The racing commission's executive director, Marc A. Guilfoil, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Wests sued the racing commission and its members on May 14, after the commission refused to consider their appeal, citing a rule that stewards’ rulings are final.

The couple is asking that Maximum Security be named the winner and that the purse money be redistributed in accordance with the original order of finish; the winner's share for the race was $1.86 million, while the jockey and trainer were denied $186,000 each.

Shortly after the race, the stewards found that Maximum Security interfered with other horses and declared 65-1 long shot Country House, the second-place finisher, the winner.

The motion filed Friday includes the full text of the rule under which Maximum Security was disqualified. It says:

“A leading horse if clear is entitled to any part of the track. If a leading horse or any other horse in a race swerves or is ridden to either side so as to interfere with, intimidate, or impede any other horse or jockey, or to cause the same result, this action shall be deemed a foul. If a jockey strikes another horse or jockey, it is a foul. If in the opinion of the stewards a foul alters the finish of a race, an offending horse may be disqualified by the stewards."

Jockey Luis Saez, who rode Maximum Security, is appealing a 15-day suspension he received from the commission, saying the punishment was undeserved and that it was unduly harsh.

Source: Read Full Article