Interesting
The First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on March 7 in the ongoing lawsuit between owner Michael Gill and Gulfstream Park. Gill sued Gulfstream in 2003 for defamation following the publication of a Sports Illustrated article that alleged Gill “engaged in illegal horse racing practices.” The ruling on Monday was about a side issue: Specifically, Gill’s right to know the identities of the anonymous tipsters that reported suspicious activities* at his barn to the Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau (TRPB), prompting an investigation into Gill’s practices at Gulfstream during the winter of 2002-2003. The District Court of New Hampshire ordered the TRPB to turn the names over to Gill; the TRPB appealed to the First Circuit Court, which found that the District Court didn’t fully consider questions surrounding confidential information and industry investigative agencies and has sent the matter back to the lower court.
Whew. What all that background leads up to is this: On its own, the First Circuit’s ruling isn’t that important, but if the District Court orders again that the names of the TRPB tipsters be made public, it could have a chilling effect on whistleblowers at a time when the industry is trying to clean itself up. This matter bears watching.
The ruling does clear one thing up — the gruesome missing leg incident gets explained. There’s a strong suggestion that the leg, from a horse named Casual Conflict who broke down during a race in February 2003, was removed to prevent Gulfstream testing for banned substances. The leg was eventually retrieved from the freezer of one of Gill’s veterinarians, Philip Aleong, and tests done by the track found nothing illegal.
*Among other things, it was alleged by tipsters that one of Gill’s veterinarians was “blocking the joints” of Gill’s horses with painkillers on racedays, and that horses were being shipped to another facility four days before races for “Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy” in violation of Florida racing rules. When Casual Conflict broke down, the Florida authorities took over the investigation from the TRPB. The following month, TRPB distributed a report that included the allegations from the anonymous sources. Gill learned of the report after his lawsuit against Gulfstream was filed and sought the names of the informants at that time. The ruling is worth reading in full — it says a lot about how Gill operates.
[Thanks to reader Doug Beaton for the link to the court’s ruling.]
