'13 Travers Defamation Suit to Jury Trial

The question of whether the trainer of runner-up Moreno (Ghostzapper) defamed the winning connections of Will Take Charge (Unbridled's Song) in the aftermath of the 2013 G1 Travers S. by making unproven accusations that the winning jockey used an illegal electronic shocking device will proceed to a Sept. 13 jury trial in Albany, a New York federal judge has ruled.

In an Aug. 23 ruling, United States (Northern N.Y.) District Court Judge Thomas McAvoy denied defendant Eric Guillot's motion for summary judgment in the $5-million libel and slander lawsuit brought by owner Willis Horton and jockey Luis Saez.

According to the New York Law Journal, Guillot had argued that Horton did not have standing to be a plaintiff “because Guillot had complained of Saez, the jockey, being the cheater and not Horton or the horse's trainer, D. Wayne Lukas, who [is] not a plaintiff in the lawsuit.”

The judge denied this plank in Guillot's argument, ruling that Guillot had used the word “they” when complaining to the press about the unproven cheating, implying that others in the Will Take Charge stable were involved in some sort of alleged conspiracy that resulted in Moreno's defeat by a nose in the most important race of the meet at Saratoga Race Course.

The New York State Gaming Commission (NYSGC) cleared Saez of any wrongdoing six weeks after Guillot made his very public accusations, which had been well documented in national racing publications and mainstream media.

“A jury could reasonably conclude that the 'they' to which Guillot referred included the owner of the horse, and that people in the horse-racing community would have interpreted Guillot's accusations to include Plaintiff Horton,” McAvoy wrote. “A horse-racing operation is not huge, and the small group of people involved in putting Will Take Charge on the track, including Plaintiff Horton, could easily be seen to be among those to whom Guillot referred.”

The judge did, however, agree with Guillot that both Horton and Saez are “public figures” who must be held to a “heightened standard that applies to defamation.” This means that the plaintiffs will have to prove to a jury that Guillot intended malice and showed a reckless disregard for the truth when he accused them of cheating.

Guillot had also asked the court to preclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' rebuttal experts, claiming that they offered “unreliable and speculative opinions which are not based on sufficient facts or reliable principles and methods.” But the judge reserved ruling on that motion until the time of the trial.

In his 18-page ruling, the judge summed up how Guillot's accusations in the aftermath of a narrow, emotional defeat led to the defamation lawsuit:

“Defendant testified that, while disappointed at losing a million-dollar race, he did not feel that anything illegal had happened when Will Take Charge passed Moreno at the end of the race…He only began to suspect improper conduct after his brother told him he saw something suspicious on a video of the race that his brother saw after returning home to Louisiana…

“After watching the tape himself, Guillot concluded that Saez's actions appeared 'very suspicious with all his movement in his hands'…He filed a formal [NYSGC] complaint after sharing the video with Moreno's owner and speaking to him about the situation…Guillot then spoke to the press, making some of the statements that are the subject of this lawsuit…Guillot repeated these allegations after the [Gaming] Commission determined them unfounded, stating that while he apologized, he would make them again…

“Considering all of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds that a reasonable juror could conclude that Defendant, motivated by animosity towards an operation that had beaten a horse he trained, repeatedly accused Plaintiffs of cheating in the Travers Stakes 'with reckless disregard of the truth or falsity' of that claim.”

Although last week's court order cleared the way for the case to go to trial, Guillot's attorney on Aug. 31 petitioned the court for a postponement related to his client's Thoroughbred business obligations.

“[Sept. 13] is the same week as the Keeneland Yearling sale which is the leading Thoroughbred yearling auction held each year in Keeneland, Kentucky,” defense attorney Kenneth Alweis wrote. “It is very important to my client and his employer that he be present for the auctions.”