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.
8 Comments:
Seems to me that winning the Derby would have benefitted IEAH at least as much if not more than Landsman.
The injury ocurred after the Wood, which was run after the sale was completed, so what is the legal point of this suit other than the old "best defense is a good offense" strategy.
Bottom line, IEAH was wrong to sell part of the horse and they know it, and is pissed at Landsman for exposing their deceptive business practices whereby impuning their reputation. So they go into attack mode.
If anyone has a right to complain it is Landsman, who got stuck with a so far useless piece of Stardom Bound. Can't wait for that now inevitable lawsuit and those vet bills to surface;-)
As for the injections, while the vet activity immediately after the Wood indicates he came out of the race with a problem, the ultrasound must not have shown anything so they treated and continued training. It probably did not flare up again until his final breeze.
As for the two later injections on 4/28, I suspect the majority of the horses entered in the Derby had similar treatments, no different that cortisone shots for professional human athletes, except of course the humans get injected eyes wide open to future ramifications while the horses are not given the opportunity to object.
I don't know about you, but I'm sitting back with some popcorn for this one. The show has begun!
Agree with both comments above. In case this counter-lawsuit isn't frivolous (which it very likely is), Iavarone should have known best how conning works. Guess he just didn't expect it coming the other way for once.
IEAH's undisclosed subsequent sale presumably blew up in their face due to the injury allegedly undisclosed to them.
They were probably always planning to sell a nice chunk after the Wood at a big markup, reducing their out of pocket significantly.
Instead, they got stuck holding a much larger piece of a smaller pie.
Hard to believe this is not all covered in their legal document, but like Superfecta says, it should be fun to watch it all unravel especially considering the very unlikable parties on both sides.
You just know that for Iavarone, et al, to have spent the $3 million for the horse that they had to have had vetted him. If anybody should have been sued, how about the ones they hired to vet the horse out?
This is why anyone who owns a racehorse with a great deal of potential should never get into bed with IEAH. If they're going to be this lawsuit-happy over something that could have been prevented with people more wise in the ways of the business of owning a horse, it's best for everyone if people avoid dealing with IEAH, period. Any doubt after the Big Brown nonsense of last year has been erased by this bit of frivolity.
It couldn't happen to some unnicer people, can't wait for the next installment of news.
What cajones, counter suing over an alleged injury that prevented them from making a subsequent sale in violation of their agreeement.
Post a Comment