Saez's Attorney Questions NYGSC Decision

A lawyer representing Thoroughbred Jockey Luis Saez is fighting back against this week's New York State Gaming Commission decision to continue a disciplinary proceeding that could lead to a suspension of the rider for an alleged "careless riding" incident this summer at Saratoga Race Course.

In continuing the disciplinary proceeding, the NYGSC is going against a recommendation of a hearing officer. The gaming commission this week said the hearing officer who considered the case against Saez mistakenly relied on a technical reason in his recommendation to toss out the case against the jockey.

Karen Murphy, a lawyer for Saez, said the commission "is permitting a violation of Mr. Saez's procedural due process rights" by dismissing concerns raised by the hearing officer. "I think we can all agree that is a very bad result,'' Murphy said in an email statement.

At issue are allegations by stewards that Saez, riding Basic Hero in the fourth race on Aug. 8 at Saratoga, interfered in the stretch with another horse. Basic Hero's second place finish was then amended to fifth, and Saez was slapped with a five day suspension. Saez appealed, which then led to a hearing on the matter.

Commission board member John Crotty this week said he and other board members unanimously agreed to reject the hearing officer's recommendation that the case be dismissed due to a defect in the charging notice. The board returned the case to the hearing officer to have the matter reconsidered "based on the law and not technical aspects" of the charging notice.

The hearing officer in the case was Michael Hoblock, a former chairman of the state Racing and Wagering Board, the predecessor agency of the current Gaming Commission. In his Sept. 27 report and recommendation regarding the case, Hoblock noted that Murphy said the charging notice failed to set forth the "predicate rule that fixes the penalty or punishment.'' Hoblock said he looked into 14 other suspension orders in 2016 issued by the commission against licensees in New York and that all included information about potential punishment for the alleged infractions.

At the August hearing, Hoblock said the NYGSC introduced a motion to amend the earlier charging notice against Saez. Apparently too late, Hoblock rejected the motion.

"It is my opinion that Ms. Murphy's motion raises an important issue of procedural law. The failure to identify a rule that allows a penalty or punishment for a specific violated renders this case deficient. The omission is more than a technicality,'' Hoblock wrote in September.

Murphy said the way the charging document was written involving her client amounted to an attempt by the state to "suspend a constitutionally protected property right or license.''