Ohio horsemen simulcast rights upheld by Sixth Circuit

Lexington, Ky.—The Ohio Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, represented by Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney, PLLC, succeeded in its lawsuit to strike down the Ohio statute that denied the horsemen’s ability to withhold consent to interstate off-track wagering.

Ohio state law allowed racetracks to appeal to the Ohio State Racing Commission any refusal by horsemen to consent to interstate off-track wagering on simulcasts of Ohio races to out-of-state betting sites, and purportedly empowered the Commission to overrule the horsemen’s refusal to consent. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an opinion on January 24 that struck this Ohio statute as unconstitutional under the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 (IHA), and based its rationale, in part, upon an earlier landmark decision rendered in 1994 entitled, Ky HBPA v. Turfway Park Racing Ass’n, also issued from the Sixth Circuit [and also litigated by Sturgill Turner]. The earlier Turfway case upheld the constitutionality of the IHA, and explained in detail the importance of horsemen’s consent to interstate off-track wagering, calling horsemen’s rights under the IHA a “horsemen’s veto.”

“These two cases from the Sixth Circuit, located in the heart of horseracing country, now stand as bulwarks of horsemen’s rights under the IHA regarding interstate simulcasting and off-track betting,” said Douglas L. McSwain, Sturgill Turner member and chief counsel for the National HBPA.  

This case dates back to the fall of 2006, when two Ohio racetracks asked the Ohio HBPA for approval to send their signals to a Pennsylvania racetrack for a 3 percent host fee. Because the racetrack hosts Standardbred live racing, the Ohio HBPA, a group of Thoroughbred owners and trainers, would not consent to the simulcast unless the hosting fee was raised to 5 percent. The Ohio tracks appealed to the Commission, which sided with the racetracks and granted permission for the races to be simulcast in Pennsylvania, despite the fact that the IHA requires the horsemen’s consent to such an arrangement. The Ohio HBPA then sued the Commission, arguing that the horsemen’s rights under the IHA are federal in nature and cannot be mitigated by state law. 

“Horsemen’s rights under the IHA are fully vindicated in this new Ohio decision,” said McSwain. “The ‘horsemen’s veto’ cannot be taken away or diluted by any state law, and if any state’s law purports to do so, it will not survive constitutionally.”