Ohio Horsemen’s Decision to Block Signals Upheld
September 25, 2008--by Frank Angst of the Thoroughbred Times
The Ohio Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association scored a legal victory on Tuesday when a judge upheld the group’s decision to block a simulcast signal.
In January 2007, Ohio horsemen refused to allow Beulah Park to export its signal to Chester Downs, a harness track in Pennsylvania, without an increase in requested host fee from 3% to 5%. Ohio Thoroughbred tracks Beulah Park and River Downs challenged the horsemen’s denial, citing an Ohio law that allows permit holder’s to appeal to the Ohio State Racing Commission.
The Ohio law could have allowed the racing commission to overrule the horsemen’s decision.
Ohio horsemen asked the court for a decision on the issue in a lawsuit against the commission, Beulah, River Downs, and Chester Downs. United States District Court Judge Michael Watson ruled that the Interstate Horseracing Act, cited by horsemen in blocking the signal, preempts Ohio law. The ruling also found Chester Downs in violation of the Interstate Horseracing Act and reserved the determination of damages against Chester Downs for a later date.
“Despite being a small organization, the Ohio HBPA Board of Directors felt it was imperative to protect the rights guaranteed to horsemen under the Interstate Horseracing Act,” said Dave Basler, executive director of the Ohio HBPA. “Judge Watson’s well-crafted opinion validates our organization’s opinion that the Ohio statute used by the racetracks to deny horsemen’s consent was unconstitutional.”
Attorney Doug McSwain, who represented the horsemen, said the decision is an important one. Currently, horsemen in Kentucky and Florida, along with their adviser, the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Group, are involved in a legal dispute with Churchill Downs Inc.
Horsemen in those states have blocked signals to advance-deposit-wagering outlets, citing the Interstate Horseracing Act. Churchill contends the horsemen are violating antitrust laws.
“Judge Watson’s ruling is a significant victory for horsemen’s rights. Neither a racing commission nor a racetrack has the authority to overrule horsemen if they withhold consent to interstate-simulcast betting,” McSwain said. “Congress intended for horsemen to be co-equal partners with host racetracks and racing commissions in the decision whether to allow interstate-simulcast betting, and if so, at what price and under what terms and conditions.” |
|
