IBJNews

Federal suit intensifies horse-racing dispute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former car dealer Ed Martin Jr. has raised the stakes in his ongoing feud with the Indiana Horse Racing Commission by filing another lawsuit against the agency and its top officials.

Martin’s federal complaint alleges that the IHRC violated his civil rights and trespassed on his Florida thoroughbred farm during a so-called “investigation” of him. The suit also names IHRC Executive Director Joe Gorajec, Director of Security Terry Richwine and board Chairwoman Sarah McNaught, among others.

It’s the second time Martin, who helped create the state’s horse-racing industry, has taken to the courts in an attempt to resolve his disputes with the IHRC. In September, he filed a lawsuit still pending in Marion Superior Court seeking to overturn his ban from state horse tracks.

The IHRC barred Martin in November 2010 after he refused to obtain a horse-racing license. Martin alleges the ban is retaliation for his criticism of the commission, and especially of Gorajec.

Before being banned, Martin had criticized Gorajec’s handling of various industry issues, and Gorajec launched an investigation into alleged neglect at Martin’s thoroughbred farm in Florida that he no longer operates.

Martin’s latest suit, filed April 9 in federal court in Indianapolis, seeks $700,000 in damages on each of several charges against the IHRC for wrongfully initiating the probe that Martin alleges it had no authority to conduct.

Reached by phone, Martin declined to comment on his complaint, which he filed without an attorney.

“The lawsuit is baseless, totally without merit,” Gorajec said in a prepared statement. “The Indiana State Police and the Inspector General, which conducted an investigation of the horse racing commission, looked into the same issues [Martin alleges] and found absolutely no wrongdoing by the commission or anyone on the commission staff.”

Owners, trainers and others working at tracks have to be licensed, but breeders don’t.

Martin has been licensed as an owner in the past, but he hasn’t raced any horses in Indiana lately. He split time between Florida and Indiana, focusing on breeding and serving as executive director of the Indiana Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association.

The commission said Martin should have obtained a license because he worked for the trade group, which received financial support from the commission and conducted its business at the track.

Martin—known locally for his chain of car dealerships, which he sold to his sisters in 2006—has a long history in Indiana horse racing. He was a member of the racing commission from 1996 to 2001, and he co-founded the ITOBA thoroughbred trade group.

In March 2009, he was elected a director of the association and was hired as its executive director in October of the same year, according to his suit.

Martin’s troubles with the IHRC started during his time as a director, when he accused the commission of allowing track owners to commingle purse winnings with their general operating funds.

The relationship further deteriorated during the 2010 legislative session, when Martin successfully lobbied against a bill supported by the IHRC that would have eliminated a “breed development program,” according to the suit.

Martin alleges that the IHRC then instructed him to apply for the license, which he never did.

In retaliation, the IHRC launched its investigation into Martin’s thoroughbred farm in Florida, alleging that he was abusing and neglecting his horses, the complaint said.

Martin accuses the IHRC of trespassing on the property without his consent or a warrant.

Martin said in the suit that the Horse Protection Association of Florida exonerated him of any alleged abuse after conducting its own independent investigation.

But Martin alleges in his complaint that the IHRC, in an attempt to further threaten and intimidate him, has never closed its investigation or released any records of the probe.

Phone calls to both the IHRC and its attorney seeking comment on Martin’s suit were not returned.

Martin was terminated as ITOBA’s executive director in November 2010 after the IHRC cut off funding to the association “in an effort to inflict additional damage, threats, and intimidation” on him, Martin said in his suit.

He also alleges that he’s suffered economic loss, loss of business, damage to his reputation and emotion and mental suffering as a result of the firing.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Jurisdication
    The Indiana Horse Racing Commission's definition of jurisdiction in their own administratuve code is '"Jurisdiction" of the commission means the state of Indiana.' Some in the Governor's office needs to share a map of the US with the commission to point out to them exactly where Indiana versus Florida.
  • Gorajec Comments
    I wouldn't expect the Executive Director of the Indiana Horse Racing Commission to come out with a statement that says he believes the Martin accusations have merit. What I would expect that the Inspector General's report would mention the commission's clearance with the Martin investigation and the report does not. In fact, there is no one word in the Inspector General's report on the subject.
  • Racing industry is in rough shape
    Racing in general is certainly on the decline due to discretionary dollars being spent in casino's. The purses have to be big enough to attract horsemen bringing their horses into town to race. Indiana did a nice job increasing the purses but spend no real dollars on generating excitement to the potential fan base. IHRC is going to ultimately bury the sport in Indiana if they don't wake up quickly! If the article above is true, then the commission needs to be changed out before it is too late. Please, Gov Daniels, we don't want to lose racing in Indiana- act now to clean them up!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I'm a CPA who works with a wide range of companies (through my firm K.B.Parrish & Co.); however, we work with quite a few car dealerships, so I'm fairly interested in Fatwin (mentioned in the article). Does anyone have much information on that, or a link to such information? Thanks.

  2. Historically high long-term unemployment, unprecedented labor market slack and the loss of human capital should not be accepted as "the economy at work [and] what is supposed to happen" and is certainly not raising wages in Indiana. See Chicago Fed Reserve: goo.gl/IJ4JhQ Also, here's our research on Work Sharing and our support testimony at yesterday's hearing: goo.gl/NhC9W4

  3. I am always curious why teachers don't believe in accountability. It's the only profession in the world that things they are better than everyone else. It's really a shame.

  4. It's not often in Indiana that people from both major political parties and from both labor and business groups come together to endorse a proposal. I really think this is going to help create a more flexible labor force, which is what businesses claim to need, while also reducing outright layoffs, and mitigating the impact of salary/wage reductions, both of which have been highlighted as important issues affecting Hoosier workers. Like many other public policies, I'm sure that this one will, over time, be tweaked and changed as needed to meet Indiana's needs. But when you have such broad agreement, why not give this a try?

  5. I could not agree more with Ben's statement. Every time I look at my unemployment insurance rate, "irritated" hardly describes my sentiment. We are talking about a surplus of funds, and possibly refunding that, why, so we can say we did it and get a notch in our political belt? This is real money, to real companies, large and small. The impact is felt across the board; in the spending of the company, the hiring (or lack thereof due to higher insurance costs), as well as in the personal spending of the owners of a smaller company.

ADVERTISEMENT