Harness: Will the Tretter lawsuit lead to future "bad loser" litigation?

Two years ago a horse bettor Jeffrey Tretter filed a lawsuit in which he claimed that he was cheated out of winnings of over $30,000 because a horse won a race that subsequently tested positive for a banned substance. The lawsuit was actually filed by the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (P.E.T.A) on behalf of Tretter and accused the trainer of the winning horse of fraud and racketeering.

The race in question took place at The Meadowlands on January 15, 2016 and was won by Tag Up And Go, trained by Robert Bresnahan Jr. Following the race, Tag Up And Go tested positive for E.P.O., a banned substance that is naturally secreted by human kidneys and is used to help produce red blood cells, particularly in patients that are fighting cancer and have resulting anemia from the chemotherapy. However, the test was not conducted by the New Jersey Racing Commission, rather the out-of-competition testing program conducted by The Meadowlands. Bresnahan was excluded from The Meadowlands, Tioga Downs and Vernon Downs following the positive test.

Two weeks ago, that lawsuit was settled for the sum of $20,000. Tretter must have had wagered quite a bit on the race, because his horses that finished 2nd through 5th were 5-1, 5-1, 5-2 and 7-1, which typically doesn’t produce payouts in any scenario of $30,000-plus, but that's a topic for another day.

The settlement is both surprising and interesting. There is now a case on the books in which a bettor was given money because a horse tested positive for a banned substance and the trainer essentially cheated. While the settlement doesn't carry the weight of an actual decision awarding the money, it could pave the road for more of these lawsuits down the line.

Anytime a horse is announced to have tested positive in the future, bettors who would have won had that horse not won the race, can essentially file a lawsuit claiming they have been cheated out of winnings. That's pretty wild. The interesting piece to this puzzle is because the testing that produced the result was out-of-competition testing, the horse was never disqualified from purse money. The winning owners never had to return the purse money and the connections of the runner-up from that race, Fox Valley Legend, didn't gain the winner’s share of the purse due to the purse money being redistributed.

It is also interesting that P.E.T.A filed the lawsuit on behalf of a bettor and not the horsemen of the next five finishers in the race. One would believe that would have been an easier lawsuit, simply file a claim on behalf of the owners and trainers who finished 2nd through 6th for the redistribution of the purse money. I guess that doesn't make the same headlines, though.

What does this mean going forward in racing and other sports? With the legalization of sports betting, can bettors sue because players have been exposed as cheaters? Can those who wagered on the Dodgers or Yankees to win the 2017 World Series file a lawsuit against the Houston Astros because it is known the Astros players have cheated? They actually confessed to the cheating. If you wager on someone to win the Tour de France and that cyclist finishes second to a winner who months later is disqualified for using performance-enhancing drugs, can the bettor sue the cyclist?

These may sound like ridiculous things, but a bettor was just given $20,000 from the trainer of a racehorse because that trainer cheated. Until now, that notion sounded fairly ridiculous as well. In the internet age, it is far easier to prove that you wagered on the event as well. You wouldn't have to have kept the ticket if you used an advance deposit wagering site or an online gaming site. It's all right there in your account.

Recently in thoroughbred racing, Bob Baffert had two major horses test positive for lidocaine following wins; one in a major stakes race, the Arkansas Derby. Both horses were subsequently disqualified from purse money, but obviously that doesn't impact the bettors. One of the horses, Charlatan, was a 2-5 favorite and the horses who finished 2nd through 5th were 9-1, 4-1, 20-1 and 10-1. Someone out there could've had a trifecta or superfecta with those horses and missed out on big money. The other winner, Gamine, was 3-5 and the horses behind her were 7-2, 24-1, 15-1 and 4-1. Again, someone lost out on a big score.

The last thing horse racing needs right now is people who feel they were cheated out of winnings reaching out to P.E.T.A. to pursue legal action against trainers and others in the industry. Maybe this settlement will scare trainers a bit and make them think twice about giving illegal substances to their horses.

I do have one major problem with this lawsuit. Had Tretter won $20,000 on a race where it was discovered the winner had tested positive for an illegal substance, would he return the money? Or is that not his problem, but rather the trainers for cheating in the first place? That’s more of an ethical question. I can tell you that bettors are very aware when it comes to the subject of trainers cheating and it has become a part of their handicapping. They suspect and wager accordingly. In fact, the biggest complaint I hear is that bettors don’t know when trainers will be cheating and when they aren't.

Just last week I received a text from a bettor and owner citing a trainer who was winning at 20% at The Meadowlands, Yonkers and Pocono for the first six months of the year and recently went through a stretch where he was a combined 0-for-76 across four racetracks. Bettors are doing their homework and they are following those kinds of trends. Could it just be a bad stretch? Sure, but you will never convince this bettor that is the case.

This lawsuit raises a lot of questions about the future, not just for racing but all sports that invite wagering. I wouldn't just shrug it off as a one-time thing simply because the case was settled, which technically doesn't qualify as "legal precedent." There will be bettors out there who are very aware of this and we know there will be lawyers ready to take the case.