Wests plan to appeal dismissal of suit on Maximum Security's Derby DQ

LEXINGTON, Ky. – A federal judge in Kentucky has granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit that had been filed by the owners of Maximum Security seeking to overturn a decision by the stewards to disqualify the horse from first place in this year’s Kentucky Derby.

In a ruling issued Friday afternoon, Judge Karen Caldwell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted the motion to dismiss sought by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, citing Kentucky regulations that “make clear that the disqualification is not subject to judicial review.” The 25-page opinion summarily strikes down the arguments made by attorneys for Gary and Mary West, the owners of Maximum Security, in an initial lawsuit filed by the couple and in subsequent legal filings.

Maximum Security became the first horse to be disqualified from first for interference in the Derby when stewards ruled unanimously that the horse had impeded other horses when sharply drifting out around the final turn. Maximum Security was placed 17th in the official order of finish.

In a statement released on Monday, the Wests said that they would appeal the decision, calling the process that led to the disqualification “the way things are done under totalitarian regimes in third-world countries.”

“Stewards’ decisions are of momentous financial and intangible importance to owners, breeders, trainers, jockeys, and the betting public,” the statement said. “The transparency and reviewability of decisions by stewards is essential to the integrity of racing in America and is critical to the public’s confidence in the sport.”

In their initial lawsuit, the Wests had claimed that the stewards’ decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and claimed that their due-process rights had been violated.

In its motion to dismiss, the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission had argued that the Wests’ claims had no legal merit, considering that Kentucky’s regulations clearly state that disqualifications cannot be appealed, and that the Wests agreed to such a rule as a condition of licensure in the state.

Caldwell agreed.

“The state regulations governing the determinations of fouls and disqualification of horses explicitly provide … that the stewards’ decision is final and not subject to appeal,” Caldwell wrote. She further stated that the Wests “do not explain why the court should simply ignore this regulation and conduct an appellate review of the stewards’ decision” and that the suit by the Wests “reflects a misunderstanding” of a prior judgment cited in their lawsuit.