After finding the judgment of the manager rejecting the type justification since his win in the 2018 Santa Anita Derby (G1) was too obvious to be considered judicially, a judge in Los Angeles ruled that he would give officials a chance to comply California laws by clarifying their position.
The decision, made on May 26 but not made public until today, breathes life into the lawsuit brought by Mick Ruis, the owner and coach of Mick Ruis. Bolt d’Oro , who came in second after Justify. Ruis argued that regulators were legally obligated to remove Justify under the so-called 1859.5 rule after he tested positive for scopolamine.
The rule says, “The manager’s finding that an official test specimen from a horse participating in any race contains a prohibited drug as defined in this article, determined to be Levels 1-3 (unless not confirmed by split test sample) will request disqualification.
A post-race sample showed Justify positive for scopolamine during the Santa Anita Derby, an ingredient found in jimson weed, which at the time was a prescribed class 3 drug. Prior to the Santa Anita Derby, officials had taken steps to change its status to 4th, a positive that does not require disqualification, but the change has not been codified.
During the August 2018 CHRB executive session, CHRB members voted unanimously not to press charges as suggested by then-executive director Rick Baedeker and equine director, Dr. Rick Arthur, and the issue. subject is considered finished. Their actions were not initially disclosed publicly.
In a legal complaint filed two years later by Ruis, the CHRB held that its decision was legal under the California Business and Professions Code 19577, which stated, “Any recommendation by the chief executive officer action for the board to dismiss the matter will have to be mutually agreed with the horse governing body. The medical director. The authority to deal with the matter will be the responsibility of the board.”
Mick Ruis and Bolt d’Oro after winning the 2018 San Felipe Stakes at Santa Anita Park
Up to the time Ruis began his lawsuit, the managers had never been presented with a lawsuit, but as a result of the lawsuit, they held a hearing in October 2020. Ruis argued. that administrators should remove Justify using the language required by rule 1859.5. The CHRB considers disqualification to be inappropriate based on a number of arguments: the board dismissed the matter in 2018 after an investigation found Justify had ingested scopolamine as a result of environmental contamination; the complaint has not been filed for two years; scopolamine was later reclassified as a Category 4 substance; and fairness and due process will be violated if Ruis is successful.
In his analysis, Los Angeles Superior Court Justice, Mitchell Beckloff, remarked that courts are subject to a standard of respect for the consideration of administrative actions, to the extent that it has been argued. their judgments are correct; and that the burden rests on the challengers to prove that the administrative award is unlawful. Beckloff noted that whether the agency will proceed according to the law is a legal question that courts can and must consider for themselves by making an independent judgment.
Beckloff then turns to rule 1859.5 and the CHRB’s argument that the rule, despite its language, does not require disqualification for category 1-3 drug offenses. Citing Lavin’s case against the California Horse Racing Board in 1997, Beckloff wrote that the argument was “inconclusive.”
Beckloff writes: “There is no doubt that Stewards found Justify disqualification under Rule 1859.5.
Beckloff said he understands managers say they refused to act because the CHRB decided not to pursue the issue during an August 2018 executive session, but Beckloff wrote that the people’s analysis management about their decision not to continue is unclear.
“The court cannot provide its own reasons for a decision,” he wrote.
Essentially, Beckloff found that managers were asked, but were unsuccessful, to produce findings that provided sufficient explanation so that interested parties could determine whether the decision should be reconsidered. agency decision or not and on what basis. Based on court records, the judge found “effective judicial review of the Administrator’s (sic) decision was not possible because of the lack of clarity…. The court was unable to determine from profile how Managers achieve their goals decide. Their path of analysis is not clear.”
Beckloff gave the managers another chance to make a clearer judgment by returning or returning the case to them.
Beckloff will review the matter at a hearing in Los Angeles Superior Court on August 4 to determine what actions, if any, managers took under the court order.
BloodHorse has reached out to Ruis’ attorney, Carlo Fisco, and CHRB for comment, but they did not respond as of publication of this story.
