Chicago Barn to Wire Breeders' Cup Handicapping Tournaments
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


October 25, 2014, 05:30:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Supreme Court denies case  (Read 6351 times)
Klink
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 696




Ignore
« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2009, 08:46:06 AM »

I've raced horses for 15 years, and my feelings are clear. Sorry, I do not support Tu Tu Twain/hockeydad.

lol..now I know who he is...Probably will see him this weekend and we can chat over a few beers.
Report to moderator   Logged
Old and Slow
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2766




Ignore
« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2009, 08:46:33 AM »

Your reward for sticking through thick and thin is to finally have the opportunity to run for bigger purses.

The law was passed several years ago, but its legality was contested in court. It didn't take effect until yesterday, until the U.S. Supreme Court finally gave it a green light. Who knows, maybe the casinos will find another way to delay it yet.

What's right is that the money given to the racing industry by the Assembly be used as the Assembly intended it to be used, as spelled out in the law - to compete with other states, to attract more and better horses, and to generate more wagering handle. Spitting in the Assembly's face and using it in a different manner than intended is not right, and is counterproductive to getting future help from the Assembly. They would look at retro payments and say, "These guys obviously could care less about trying to put a better more attractive product on the track, so why should we bother?"

"(3) That the decline of the Illinois horseracing and
16           breeding program, a $2.5 billion industry, would be
17           reversed if this amendatory Act of the 94th General
18           Assembly was enacted. By requiring that riverboats agree to
19           pay 3% of their gross revenue into the Horse Racing Equity
20           Trust Fund, total purses in the State may increase by 50%,
21           helping Illinois tracks to better compete with those in
22           other states.
"

How does retro payments help "Illinois tracks to better compete with those in other states" through higher purses?

I've raced horses for 15 years, and my feelings are clear. Sorry, I do not support Tu Tu Twain/hockeydad.

Terry, I couldn't agree with you more. As I said on the harness side:

I hope the tracks do take this as an opportunity to improve and market the product on their end. We can only hope that the IRB diligently oversees the tracks' use of these funds.  I suspect the General Assembly may be watching, too. If we want to get something permanent done, I think both sides have to show the Legislature, the Governor, the bettors and the public that they are using this money wisely.
Report to moderator   Logged

I know one thing for sure.  Indecision may or may not be my problem.
General Powell
Guest

« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2009, 09:28:24 AM »

The extension legislation is being challenged in court on different grounds than the original legislation was challenged. It could be held up for years, or overturned, or even rescinded by the Assembly. It should also be kept in mind that the current governor is not a friend of racing and probably would not give support to a 3rd renewal. So, this particular bundle of money should probably be used very wisely and not all at once. It was originally intended to cover what, three years? Two years? The IRB should find some way to make it last that same length of time now, until the future is a little clearer, and not let the horsemen and tracks spend it all at once like drunken sailors, like it seems everyone is drooling about.
Good point.  I think it is unlikely that the bill signed by Blago last year will be overturned by either the courts or the legislature, but either way it ends in 2011. Of course, Quinn may not be Governor by that time (though Democratic challengers seem more interested in the Senate seat of "Tombstone" than the Governor's Mansion.) If a Republican wins (though I don't see how at this time), a more permanent bill would be likely. Time will tell.
Report to moderator   Logged
nmslim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 895




Ignore
« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2009, 12:48:32 PM »

There has never been contention about the split to my knowledge. The law says 57% Tbred and 43% Harness. The time to contest that if anyone had objections would have been when the bill was written. I don't think there is a problem here.

Case law will be on our side. Why would they run up legal fees when they've already been beaten?

Horses will follow the money, not vice versa.

Who is going to leave New York,Delaware,or Maryland when a two or three hour van ride will put you in a race with similiar or larger purses,against better competition than at AP or Hawthorne.Also,the good Kentucky horses are going to run at Saratoga and Keeneland anyway,and the good horses will winter in Florida and New Orleans.The back and forth on this topic has generated a lot of talk.What do you think when lawyers get involved is going to happen?As far as case law being on "our" side.What is this case law?If there were precedent it would have been stopped a long time ago.This is mainly a political issue,and we have not yet begun to see the grandstanding and wrangling that will be forthcoming,especially as it concerns the Racing Board.As for retroactive payments,that is just wishful thinking.Lets say the casinos wind up winning through some master stroke,are the horse owners and racetracks going to have to give all the money back?
Report to moderator   Logged
APCD Dan
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3818




Ignore
« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2009, 01:22:49 PM »

What is Frank Calabrese's opinion on retro payments?  He would stand to make the most money on any retro payments as he won most everything during those years.  I would guess that he would rather see it paid forward.
Report to moderator   Logged
Klink
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 696




Ignore
« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2009, 01:28:33 PM »

What is Frank Calabrese's opinion on retro payments?  He would stand to make the most money on any retro payments as he won most everything during those years.  I would guess that he would rather see it paid forward.

I don't know...Frank? Not retro?? I'm not so sure that is what he would say..lol..
Report to moderator   Logged
childewood
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 940




Ignore
« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2009, 01:45:58 PM »

I am a T-bred owner with my share of wins the last couple of years.
I say put the money to good use and and increase the purses.
Anything else would be  screwy
Report to moderator   Logged
Horse Voice
Guest

« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2009, 02:01:54 PM »

Sorry, I do not support Tu Tu Twain/hockeydad.

Tu Tu Twain & hockeydad are the same guy? LOL!
 
Nothing is going to happen if it's up to this guy -- he's always threatening to sue somebody. He's a complete douchebag, and full of hot air. (Go on ***hole -- threaten to sue me for posting this.)
Report to moderator   Logged
Scav
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 733




Ignore
« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2009, 02:03:39 PM »

What is Frank Calabrese's opinion on retro payments?  He would stand to make the most money on any retro payments as he won most everything during those years.  I would guess that he would rather see it paid forward.

Are you nuts? Calabrese would be insane not to want it retro'd with the last two years that he had. He doesn't have the stock nor trainer to get the job done now and wouldn't see nearly the amount he would see from a retro payment.

The likelyhood of a retro payments is slim because of a slew of things, but if Calabrese is smart, he should be the first in line to recommend retro.
Report to moderator   Logged
big wally
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 695




Ignore
« Reply #59 on: June 09, 2009, 09:33:01 PM »

I doubt it. It would just have to collapse back in a couple years.

Well, Hawthorne is on record saying the reason for small fields in the Spring is because everyone leaves because lack of racing so Hawthorne to solve this problem will request those winter dates and if I recall right Jim Miller is quoted as saying as much and it is no secret Ap wants those October Dates. So, the real questions are what will the IRB do? will Hawthorne accept those winter dates but lose October and the Breeders CUP? Will AP accept the October dates but give go up the Host of the extra 2 weeks dark days.

It will eventually collapse anyways.
Report to moderator   Logged
APCD Dan
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3818




Ignore
« Reply #60 on: June 09, 2009, 10:49:08 PM »

Are you nuts? Calabrese would be insane not to want it retro'd with the last two years that he had. He doesn't have the stock nor trainer to get the job done now and wouldn't see nearly the amount he would see from a retro payment.

The likelyhood of a retro payments is slim because of a slew of things, but if Calabrese is smart, he should be the first in line to recommend retro.

Frank lost several million during those winning years.  A lot of that lost money was due to claiming high and running back in low claimers.  I think he is in it for more than the money, he just wanted to win at any cost.  Therefore, I think he would probably let it go and let the money be paid out in the future.  He likes the challenge.
Report to moderator   Logged
Old and Slow
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2766




Ignore
« Reply #61 on: June 10, 2009, 08:15:48 AM »

As far as case law being on "our" side.What is this case law?If there were precedent it would have been stopped a long time ago.This is mainly a political issue,and we have not yet begun to see the grandstanding and wrangling that will be forthcoming,especially as it concerns the Racing Board.
I mentioned case law being on our side in reference to the lawsuit challenging the extension of the original bill, the one signed into law in December 09.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled (unanimously) that the law did not violate the "takings" clause. The US Supreme Court agreed. That is now the case that will be cited in any new law that challenges the extension based on the takings clause.

Now, if the boats try another tack to get the extension overturned, say because of political corruption, do you really see any chance that a judge will overturn a law that is an extension of a law that has already been to the highest court in the land?

If a judge did overturn on corruption grounds, how many other laws that were signed by Blago would be challenged? I don't think anyone would want to open that can of worms.


Report to moderator   Logged

I know one thing for sure.  Indecision may or may not be my problem.
nmslim
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 895




Ignore
« Reply #62 on: June 10, 2009, 10:13:55 AM »

I hope that this money is wisely spent and not mishandled the way the racetracks have been.That is the one problem I have with this whole ordeal.There are a lot of racetracks that should fail and not be propped up by artificial stimuli.I know this sounds harsh but as a farm boy and one who grew up in the horse business,I know that it takes horseflesh that is sound and good to attract people,not slick marketing and an inferior product,as has been the case all over this nation.I hope it works out for everyone,but do not expect the track owners to do any better with this extra money than they have with their failing businesses.
Report to moderator   Logged
Scav
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 733




Ignore
« Reply #63 on: June 10, 2009, 11:12:34 AM »

Frank lost several million during those winning years.  A lot of that lost money was due to claiming high and running back in low claimers.  I think he is in it for more than the money, he just wanted to win at any cost.  Therefore, I think he would probably let it go and let the money be paid out in the future.  He likes the challenge.

I don't disagree with anything but if it were to be retro, then it is like 'free' money because it was never expected.

It is HIGHLY unlikely for numerous reasons that retro payments will happen. It is borderline impossible because of all the things that go into running a racehorse, alot of people don't understand what it takes, and how many bills there are on one single race horse, and how everyone and I mean everyone has their hand in the kitty.

I think it is about at odds of 1/5 that it is paid out in the future. It is simple, organized, and cut and dry. The other way has lawsuits, people ***, and lots and lots of paperwork
Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #64 on: June 12, 2009, 07:49:06 PM »

The ones calling for retroactive payment don't care about the future of the industry. They do care about the sure thing that's best for themselves. They don't want to have to actually compete for that money against extra/better horses it might attract. They want it handed to them for the six horse race they won two years ago.

Not sure about this. You'll have to provide proof of their feelings and intentions. And you'll have to provide proof they won't put their revenue back into racing.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 07:50:43 PM by Edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #65 on: June 12, 2009, 07:55:15 PM »

Not sure about this. You'll have to provide proof of their feelings and intentions. And you'll have to provide proof they won't put their revenue back into racing.

Let's call it MY PERSONAL OPINION.
Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #66 on: June 12, 2009, 08:00:06 PM »

Let's call it MY PERSONAL OPINION.

Its meaningless without proof. 
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #67 on: June 12, 2009, 08:01:56 PM »

Its meaningless without proof. 

Like your opinions about takeout, you mean?

No, they're still opinions.
Report to moderator   Logged
Edwarren
Guest

« Reply #68 on: June 12, 2009, 08:19:25 PM »

Like your opinions about takeout, you mean?

No, they're still opinions.

The ones calling for retroactive payment don't care about the future of the industry. They do care about the sure thing that's best for themselves. They don't want to have to actually compete for that money against extra/better horses it might attract. They want it handed to them for the six horse race they won two years ago.

No, your opinion about the above. It's meaningless without proof. You'll have to provide proof of their feelings and intentions if you expect your meaningless statements to have any credence around here. And, you'll have to prove they wouldn't put their revenue back into racing if you expect to be taken seriously.

"Very difficult to explain hole in doughnut, but hole always there."
---Charlie Chan

Thanks for the laugh.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.162 seconds with 16 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy