Appeals court rules Fipke did not have to pay double jock mount in 2017 Breeders' Cup Distaff

A California appeals court has overturned a decision by the California Horse Racing Board that required a horse owner to pay mount fees to two jockeys after one of the riders was replaced in the run-up to a $2 million stakes race.

The California Second District Court of Appeals ruled on Monday that the owner, Charles Fipke, was not required to pay both jockeys a share of the purse from the 2017 Breeders’ Cup Distaff unless the replaced rider was removed after scratch time.

In the 2017 Distaff, Fipke decided to replace Joel Rosario with John Velazquez on Forever Unbridled, who won the $2 million race at Del Mar. The CHRB had ordered Ripke to pay both riders because of the late change, requiring a $100,000 payment to each. Ripke filed a suit contesting the decision, which was earlier upheld by a lower court.

Although Rosario was named as the rider of Forever Unbridled up until the time of entry, he was replaced by Velazquez just prior to entries being taken. At the time, the horse’s trainer, Dallas Stewart, called it a “business decision” to replace Rosario, who had ridden the mare twice earlier in the year to victories.

:: Want to get your Past Performances for free? Click to learn more.

Forever Unbridled went 3 for 3 in 2017 and won the Eclipse Award for champion older dirt female after winning the Distaff under Velazquez, who had also ridden the mare previously in her career.

The court ruled that California statutes have an “implicit” condition regulating rider fees that did not require Fipke to pay both riders, citing a section of the law that “grants considerable discretion to determine the circumstances under which a jockey removed from a mount is entitled to a riding fee.”

“The removal must occur after ‘scratch time,’ ” the court ruled, to require an owner to pay both riders.

The CHRB had ruled that Rosario was entitled to the mount fee as compensation for losing the mount.

In a release issued by his attorney, Fipke said that he “pursued this case because I believe that horse owners have the right to make decisions regarding their horses and ensure that I and other horse owners are neither denied that right nor subjected to arbitrary and unfair sanctions for exercising that right.”