Talk about a disproportionate response! IEAH came back at David Lanzman's popgun lawsuit over an unauthorized sale of a share of I Want Revenge with the heavy artillery. Talk about wanting revenge. IEAH's counter-lawsuit against Lanzman alleges a sustained effort of deceit as to the horse's health, claiming that the prospective Kentucky Derby favorite, scratched on the morning of the race, was lame as early as April 10. "I think he got hurt in the Wood," Michael Iavarone told Newsday.
Additional treatments for the filling took place from April 11-13 and on April 14 an ultrasound was conducted on the injury, the filing states. The colt was injected in the right front fetlock April 15 and was administered antibiotics for the next five days, according to the counterclaim, with IEAH not being informed of any of those actions. IEAH claims further that the colt was injected in both front fetlocks April 28. [Bloodhorse]IEAH claims that Lanzman covered up the injury in order to not lose out on the chance to collect an additional $1 million in the case the colt won the Derby, and that he denied the horse would be scratched as late as the eve of the race. And it claims that I Want Revenge's "racing career is over at worst, and at best, he will never perform at the graded stakes level again."
Well, there's one thing in particular about this lawsuit that just don't make much common sense at all. Not to say it's not necessarily true, and, after all, what is common sense these days when it comes to business and business deals. But, if Iavarone invested over $3 million in this horse (plus a 25% share of Stardom Bound) as well as what was obviously his totally desperate hopes to find a Derby winner, how could he possibly allow himself to be so completely out-of-touch with the horse's day-to-day routine? And how could he be so totally clueless regarding such an intense regimen of treatment as the suit alleges? From the sound of this, it's like they let Lanzman take the horse home with him to play with. If the agreement allowed Lanzman to make all of the training decisions as the suit claims, maybe IEAH should be suing the person who drew it up instead.
And also, the idea that Lanzman would "sacrifice the colt’s health for his own potential financial gain" seems odd as well. After all, he had just scored a windfall - "I'm especially ecstatic to be where we're at because this is only the second horse I’ve ever bred out of my first broodmare," he marveled after the sale, and he had a lot more to gain down the road even if the Derby was a no-go (though we've certainly seen throughout the years how that race can warp one's thinking).
In any event, one thing seems certain - even if the horse does become physically able to perform again, we likely won't see him run again until this matter is settled one way or another....at least if it's up to IEAH.