FG 4

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Real BigD,

Sorry to inundate you with requests for your legal opinions, but my guess is that by stating your line of work here you might be open to offereing one or two.

Let's say I publicly accused a jockey of race fixing on a internet forum with no basis of fact, only conjecture and wild conspircy theories.

Have I opened myself to a liebel or slander suit by said jockey? What is the difference between libel and slander? Would this be a civil action solely, or could there be criminal implications and possible prosicution at hand as well?

Thanks, your responses are valued and appreciated.

You're probably safe.

Libel and slander are the same thing; defamation. The only difference is how the statement is published. Slander is spoken; libel is through a fixed medium, usually written but could also be otherwise, i.e., a sign or billboard.

Unless stated as fact, what you said or wrote is not defamation. In other words, if an alleged assertion is a statement of opinion rather than fact, it's not defamation.

Now if you had done this in Kenya, you might already be dead as punishment.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is not meant as a personal criticism, however it may be taken, but as an explanation as to why this is a perfect example of my prior criticisms of this poster's methods. You simply cannot be successful playing Pick-4s for the modest amounts this poster recommends. It is not so much that you will lose, but you will NOT win, as in this case this player should have hit the Pick-4 and collected over $600. Making up $20 may not be that hard, but making up the squandered $600 will prove impossible over time.

Hitting these multi-race bets ( specifically Pick-4s and Pick-6s ) is about two things.....having one good opinion ( MAYBE two for the Pick-6 ) and surviving the other races. This poster passed the first test with flying colors, as he found his single, and that horse won ( in this case at a very square 3-1 ). His opinion is quite obviously good. However, he failed the important test, which is using this excellent opinion to make money. And, why did he fail this test ( and not collect over $600 )? Because his play was weak and did not offer him the opportunity to cash.

Specifically, personally I think he played the first leg well, as he did not have a grasp on the race, and covered himself well. However, after that he was weak.....and why? Because he didn't bet enough combinations ( or commit enough money ). You can't go 2 x 2 and really expect to win these bets over time. You will almost always get tripped up in one ( if not both ) legs. And, while most of the time it won't matter, as your single will have lost, and you may think it was wise that you saved an additional $20-$30, this is not the case, as what happened today was that he lost 20 to 30 future $20-$30 plays. In other words, for an addition $25 today he could have gone 3 x 3 and very well have hit this thing, and thus received $600 more to invest in the future. And, with that additional money to invest, with a good opinion he may well parlay it into even more wins.

I am not saying he would have won today, and maybe he feels he couldn't have used the winner he missed, but over time he will give himself a much greater chance of hitting if his opinion is as solid as it was today. The idea is to make money and one does this by taking advantage of good opinions.

The guy claims to spend a minimum of four hours handicapping these races and I have no reason to doubt him. After doing that he valued his time at $5 an hour by investing only $20 into the Pick-4. Our time, and in his case expertise, is much more valuable than that.

Boy, I just got through this entire thread.. that was some serious reading. I'll toss my 2 cents in just for giggles. In general, how others bet is their own business IMO.. I don't post many selections, ( I should try to do more) just not enough time these days. I do agree with BTW about Pick-4 spending. I had to lose enough times saying, " gee, if I only spent X more dollars I would have hit it," before realizing that if the Pick-4 was my main bet of the day, I should have put more into it! I know others disagree and prefer to spend less, and that's fine. I hope it works for them.
Anyway, felt like chiming in here. No matter where you come out on this, to me it's a been a good thread to read with some good info. thanks.

Originally Posted by SentToStud

You're probably safe.

Libel and slander are the same thing; defamation. The only difference is how the statement is published. Slander is spoken; libel is through a fixed medium, usually written but could also be otherwise, i.e., a sign or billboard.

Unless stated as fact, what you said or wrote is not defamation. In other words, if an alleged assertion is a statement of opinion rather than fact, it's not defamation.

Now if you had done this in Kenya, you might already be dead as punishment.

I agree with the above . . . I suspect I am not the only lawyer around here.

You can say most anything you like, as long as it is expressed as an opinion. Certainly there are no criminal consequences; without getting too deeply into it, conceivably you could be required to pay monetary damages if you made a false statement about someone and it caused them eonomic harm.

You may sleep easier if you think about this: If it came down to it. could the defamed/slandered jockey establish that he was damaged? Did anyone believe your wild theory about the race fixing claim? If so, did they, on the basis of what you said, deny the jockey mounts? Unless the jockey suffered injury to his business and/or reputation based on your statements, he/she has no viable claim for damages.

All in all, it seems highly unlikely that anything would come of this.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by RealBigD

I agree with the above . . . I suspect I am not the only lawyer around here.

You can say most anything you like, as long as it is expressed as an opinion. Certainly there are no criminal consequences; without getting too deeply into it, conceivably you could be required to pay monetary damages if you made a false statement about someone and it caused them eonomic harm.

You may sleep easier if you think about this: If it came down to it. could the defamed/slandered jockey establish that he was damaged? Did anyone believe your wild theory about the race fixing claim? If so, did they, on the basis of what you said, deny the jockey mounts? Unless the jockey suffered injury to his business and/or reputation based on your statements, he/she has no viable claim for damages.

All in all, it seems highly unlikely that anything would come of this.

I am no lawyer, but I also think you need to prove an "intent to do harm."

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

I am no lawyer, but I also think you need to prove an "intent to do harm."

Now that the Fair Grounds has cancelled I have more time to reply . . .

This isn't my area of practice so take all of the following for what it is worth, which probably is not much.

The question of what would have to be shown would depend on whether the jockey could be considered a public figure. If the jockey is NOT a public figure, to prevail he would have to show the following:

(1) Defamatory language;
(2) about the plaintiff;
(3) which is published; and
(4) which causes injury to reputation.

If the jockey IS considered a public figure, he would have to establish, in addition to the above, that the defendant acted with "actual malice." "Actual malice" exists where the publication was made with knowledge of the falsity of the statements or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity. That is a high standard and it is difficult for a public-figure plaintiff to prevail in a defamation suit.

I don't think than an intent to cause harm is technically an element of a defamation claim.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by RealBigD

a public figure, he would have to establish, in addition to the above, that the defendant acted with "actual malice." "Actual malice" exists where the publication was made with knowledge of the falsity of the statements or with reckless disregard of their truth or falsity. That is a high standard and it is difficult for a public-figure plaintiff to prevail in a defamation suit.

I don't think than an intent to cause harm is technically an element of a defamation claim.

actual malice.. yes.. knowingly making false statements.. that's the ticket! oh yeah and the public figure thing is a big part as well. 'intent to cause harm' was my general term (a poor one at best). thanks.

[golfer]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Am I the only one that finds it extremely amusing that everytime there is a BBB discussion some " poster " comes out of the woodwork with his ( or her ) first post telling us about all his successes and giving us a link to another board? Of course, they can't reference his plays here, as all of those have been losing ones.

It's kind of the handicapping version of " you should see the other guy ".



By the way, the entire notion of " out-handicapping " someones shows a complete misunderstanding of what playing the horses is all about. There are a lot of terrific handicappers out there who have no clue whatsoever how to make money. The most successful horseplayer I know, and he's VERY successful, has a terrible opinion. I think I'm a pretty good handicapper....I also probably chose the wrong road.

Andy, this may not be the best thread to ask this question (probably needs it's own), but I find your third to last sentence above VERY interesting! Would you mind elaborating?

Originally Posted by RealBigD

(1) Defamatory language;
(2) about the plaintiff;
(3) which is published; and
(4) which causes injury to reputation.

A classic conjunctive rule. First year of law school just paid for itself...

[blackthroatedwind]

There is a wide chasm of difference between having good opinions and turning them into real profits. Take the counter example, how many times have you left the track feeling like you had good opinions, where some won, and you don't feel like you capitalized on them as well as you should or could have? I would guess that most would answer somewhere around " frequently ". There is a substantial difference between having good opinions and putting them together in a way, at the windows, that profits genuinely from them. As one is going to have many more days of mediocre opinions/results than the opposite it is extraordinarily important to take advantage of the opportunities you get.

This is frankly why I consider it of the utmost importance to bet. Putting down opinions on paper, while perhaps a fun exercise, causes no pain, and it is only in the pain of losing that one will be forced to try and correct their mistakes. Learning to construct winning tickets ( whether it's exactas, triples, supers, doubles, Pick-3s, Pick-4s or Pick-6s ) is the true exercise that will teach you to at least have a chance to win. Learning to identify traps, or situations where spreading is necessary, can really only be exposed when you constantly cause yourself pain by making the wrong move. Consider it sort of a horseplayer's Pavlov's Dog exercise. Some people will continue to make the same mistakes forever, and these are the ones that have a basic inability to admit their own fallacies, but the ones who really want to win, and ultimately will have a chance to, are the ones that learn to adapt. You cannot learn to adapt without betting at least enough money to cause yourself some pain when you lose.

Another reason people prevent themselves from having a chance to win is exposed in this thread, and that is the immature notion that it's a contest of who's smarter, and the winner is the best handicapper. A horseplayer has to get over that as the best handicapper is rarely also the best horseplayer. And the best horseplayer is the one who wins the most money.....and that is what playing this game is REALLY about.

[golfer]

If pain is the key to turning things around, I should be in good shape for the future... the last month has been very painful. I went out and played Gulfstream yesterday (didn't have time to post any picks, GOOD THING), it was a train wreck. How much time do you allot to figuring out where you went wrong?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by golfer

If pain is the key to turning things around, I should be in good shape for the future... the last month has been very painful. I went out and played Gulfstream yesterday (didn't have time to post any picks, GOOD THING), it was a train wreck. How much time do you allot to figuring out where you went wrong?

I wouldn't say I allot time, and often you sort of know where you went wrong, and sometimes you did the best you feel you could have and it just doesn't work out. But one has to spend some time at least going back over things and seeing what you may have missed or could have done differently.

It's subjective and virtually everybody has to try to keep learning as they go along. That goes for all of us.

Hey D

Thanks for the kind words. It seems only a few on this board post elsewhere. I reviewed my previous posts, this forum, and could only find one person who could truly feel insulted and that was the "fog jock" who plugged the horse in Xmas eve at FG.

That post may have led to the defamation question. Many here demanded "proof", yet a similar post on the Nola forum did not raise any eyebrows and in fact yielded some corroborating anecdotal "evidence".

I suspect heresay would be inadmissable however. On another note I see your son is going to invest in mutual funds rather than pick 4's; oh the mistakes youngsters make! BBB

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by bellsbendboy

Hey D

1.) that was the "fog jock" who plugged the horse in Xmas eve at FG.

2.) That post may have led to the defamation question. Many here demanded "proof", yet a similar post on the Nola forum did not raise any eyebrows and in fact yielded some corroborating anecdotal "evidence".

1. Again, you're a little on the crazy side I think with that one. I'll gladly pull that thread back up if you'd like...you know, the one where you took wild stabs in the dark about race fixing, even in the face of about a dozen posts worth of statistical evidence showing that you were completely out of line.

2. Seems to say a bit more about the people who post there than those who post here. You seem to think that when you post outrageous claims like that, the forum on which people gladly go along with that sort of silliness are the ones to be respected. You insinuate that those on a forum like this one, who attacked the situation logically were the strange ones for wanting "proof" or "evidence" outside of your outrageous and out of line (not to mention completely debunked by more than one Derby Trail poster) claims.

It still appears, two months later, that you are sour about not having been able to "out-handicap" the rest of the players in a LA Statebred Allowance race.

Originally Posted by bellsbendboy

Hey D

Thanks for the kind words. It seems only a few on this board post elsewhere. I reviewed my previous posts, this forum, and could only find one person who could truly feel insulted and that was the "fog jock" who plugged the horse in Xmas eve at FG.

That post may have led to the defamation question. Many here demanded "proof", yet a similar post on the Nola forum did not raise any eyebrows and in fact yielded some corroborating anecdotal "evidence".

I suspect heresay would be inadmissable however. On another note I see your son is going to invest in mutual funds rather than pick 4's; oh the mistakes youngsters make! BBB

Echoing what I said in one of my earlier posts, given the reputation for dishonesty of the infamous "fog jockey," in my opinion it would be difficult for him to prove up a claim for damages based on defamation of character. This is particularly true in Louisiana, where said jockey has plied his trade (when not serving suspensions) for many years and is well-known to horsemen in the state.

I'm sure all you guys and gals remember Billy Patin and Valhol, who won the Arkansas Derby at a boxcar price only to be DQ'ed from the purse money because the jockey carried a buzzer. I have no fear of facing a defamation claim over that last stasement because, in this country, truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

Patin and the "fog jockey" have ridden for much of their careers at the "minor" racetracks in Louisiana, i.e. Evangeline Downs, Delta Downs, and formerly Jefferson Downs, and I suspect that buzzers have been and are occasionally used on those circuits by certain riders. This is not to impugn the character of any individual who rides or has ridden at those tracks; it is just my opinion given my experiences, observations, and conversations with horsemen. I do believe that an effort is made to police that sort of activity; however, as the Patin/Valhol incident shows, not all such efforts are successful.

All that said, I have no knowledge of what happened in the race in question on Xmas eve at the Fair Grounds. We all try to explain aberrant results in ways that make sense to us. In retrospect, Valhol,although a maiden when he won the Arkansas Derbty, may have won without benefit of a battery as he was probably the best horse in the race; that doesn't mean that Patin didn't drop a buzzer on the track, in full view of the cameras, after the race was over.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by RealBigD

We all try to explain aberrant results in ways that make sense to us.

Which in this case, was the logical property that states:

1.) I can out-handicap any horseplayer in the United States

then

2.) I did not have the longshot winner

therefore

3.) Obviously, someone was cheating.

It was pure uncalled for folly in every sense of the word.

BigD. Like the others in this thread, I get a good feeling from you, so don't interpret this as an attack on you in any way.

I know you weren't here for Derby Trail's Best Thread Ever, so here it is if you'd like to check it out. The numbers against the claim of fixing a race are positively damning. Who risks their entire livelihood in order to cheat, just to get a horse to improve roughly a length and a half off their previous best race ever? It wasn't necessary. So naturally, you've got to cut many of us some slack for not being willing to just follow the lemming off the cliff in order to justify a longshot winning a race which in retrospect, he had every right to be a competitor in to begin with.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Which in this case, was the logical property that states:

1.) I can out-handicap any horseplayer in the United States

then

2.) I did not have the longshot winner

therefore

3.) Obviously, someone was cheating.

It was pure uncalled for folly in every sense of the word.

BigD. Like the others in this thread, I get a good feeling from you, so don't interpret this as an attack on you in any way.

I know you weren't here for Derby Trail's Best Thread Ever, so here it is if you'd like to check it out. The numbers against the claim of fixing a race are positively damning. Who risks their entire livelihood in order to cheat, just to get a horse to improve roughly a length and a half off their previous best race ever? It wasn't necessary. So naturally, you've got to cut many of us some slack for not being willing to just follow the lemming off the cliff in order to justify a longshot winning a race which in retrospect, he had every right to be a competitor in to begin with.

I hope to have time to review the Best Thread Ever soon. Thanks for the link.

I agree that it's faulty logic to say that if a longshot wins, and you didn't have him, someone was cheating. We're all going to tear up far more tickets than we cash, and I consider myself lucky to score on a longshot now and again.

But, you know, by definition, cheaters cheat. If a rider is so brazen that he will hide his horse in a fog bank while the others complete a lap and then gallop down the stretch to cross under the wire "first," all for the sake of the winner's share of a purse that was probably in the neighborhood of $2500 total, I wouldn't put it past him to carry a buzzer in a race that carried a total purse in excess of $40,000. Which certainly isn't to say he did, but I am not willing to close my mind to the possibility.

I agree that fixed races -- in the sense that there's a conspiracy to hold some entrants back so as to allow an agreed upon entrant to win -- are extremely rare. However, as shown by virtually every NASCAR race, individuals will occasionally try to gain an advantage over the competition by illegitimate means.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by RealBigD

I hope to have time to review the Best Thread Ever soon. Thanks for the link.

I agree that it's faulty logic to say that if a longshot wins, and you didn't have him, someone was cheating. We're all going to tear up far more tickets than we cash, and I consider myself lucky to score on a longshot now and again.

But, you know, by definition, cheaters cheat. If a rider is so brazen that he will hide his horse in a fog bank while the others complete a lap and then gallop down the stretch to cross under the wire "first," all for the sake of the winner's share of a purse that was probably in the neighborhood of $2500 total, I wouldn't put it past him to carry a buzzer in a race that carried a total purse in excess of $40,000. Which certainly isn't to say he did, but I am not willing to close my mind to the possibility.

I agree that fixed races -- in the sense that there's a conspiracy to hold some entrants back so as to allow an agreed upon entrant to win -- are extremely rare. However, as shown by virtually every NASCAR race, individuals will occasionally try to gain an advantage over the competition by illegitimate means.

I think once you read the BTE, you'll get more of what I'm saying.

I've never said that there are not cheaters and that there are not races in which jocks plug a horse in. That's not my point.

My whole point was that the righteous attitude (titling a thread "Fixed Race on XMas Eve," not "suspicious" or "hey what do you all think about this.") ken by a poster regarding this "fixed" race had very little numerical backing. If a horse were going to be plugged in in a race like that, it jsut wouldn't make sense. The horse only improved his career best race from earlier last year by something in the vicinity of 2 lengths. That sort of improvement wouldn't even gaurantee him a spot on the board in that race, just a shot at it. Had the horse actually run a number that was wildly out of this world compared to his career top, there may have been a conversation to have.

My whole point has been that it's a whole lot of risk and work just to cheat to get a horse to improve such a little bit....to a point where that improvement may still have meant only a 4th place finish had the other horses in the race actually shown up that day.

It is really a "dead horse" so to speak. There is not much to add to it. Some think that a longshot running the best race of his life (even if ever so slightly), is indication that it was plugged in.

Others think that the numbers show that that performance wasn't as outrageous as it was made out to be.

It is what it is, and I'm touching it again only because you're new here and it came up in this thread. Bells can think whatever he wants, and I will think whatever I want. I just prefer the logical approach (how do these numbers stack up) as opposed to the anecdotal approach (he cheated before). But that's just me,and you and Bells are free to feel how you do.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I think once you read the BTE, you'll get more of what I'm saying.

I've never said that there are not cheaters and that there are not races in which jocks plug a horse in. That's not my point.

My whole point was that the righteous attitude (titling a thread "Fixed Race on XMas Eve," not "suspicious" or "hey what do you all think about this.") ken by a poster regarding this "fixed" race had very little numerical backing. If a horse were going to be plugged in in a race like that, it jsut wouldn't make sense. The horse only improved his career best race from earlier last year by something in the vicinity of 2 lengths. That sort of improvement wouldn't even gaurantee him a spot on the board in that race, just a shot at it. Had the horse actually run a number that was wildly out of this world compared to his career top, there may have been a conversation to have.

My whole point has been that it's a whole lot of risk and work just to cheat to get a horse to improve such a little bit....to a point where that improvement may still have meant only a 4th place finish had the other horses in the race actually shown up that day.

It is really a "dead horse" so to speak. There is not much to add to it. Some think that a longshot running the best race of his life (even if ever so slightly), is indication that it was plugged in.

Others think that the numbers show that that performance wasn't as outrageous as it was made out to be.

It is what it is, and I'm touching it again only because you're new here and it came up in this thread. Bells can think whatever he wants, and I will think whatever I want. I just prefer the logical approach (how do these numbers stack up) as opposed to the anecdotal approach (he cheated before). But that's just me,and you and Bells are free to feel how you do.

I do need to read the other thread. As I think I said in a previous post, I don't know what happened in the race in question and have never expressed an opinion on the subject.

I hope in the future I'll be able to expand my posts beyond a defense (if you want to call it that) of BBB and a discussion of buzzer riders. What has my handicapping career come to?? The mutual funds are looking better every day.