Sometimes something just stinks. You don’t always know exactly why. Maybe something went bad. Maybe it wasn’t made right in the first place. Maybe somebody didn’t clean up properly. Whatever the explanation, your nose tells you something isn’t right. You can examine it, investigate it, explain it away or tell yourself there is probably a perfectly innocent reason for the smell. None of that changes the first impression. If something doesn’t pass the smell test, it doesn’t pass the smell test. That doesn’t establish wrongdoing, but it is usually a pretty good reason to pay attention.
Which brings us to Marshall Gramm, HISA, an unexpected mediation, a longtime business partner, some interesting ownership records, a major handicapping tournament and a few familiar voices who seem determined to tell us what this story is, and perhaps more importantly, what it isn’t.
Marshall Gramm was supposed to appear before a Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority board panel on November 9 and 10 to defend himself against serious charges, including fraud, that could result in a lifetime ban from racing. Instead, three days before the hearing was scheduled to begin, both sides agreed to mediation.
On November 6, panel chair Joseph De Francis granted a joint motion to continue the hearing pending what the order described as the parties’ “good-faith effort to resolve this matter at mediation.” No mediator was named and no date was announced. The panel intends to preserve alternative hearing dates should the negotiations fail.
Here is something important that has largely been overlooked. HISA was not required to mediate. It chose to.
I examined the Authority’s Enforcement Rules, the Rule 8000 Series effective January 19, 2026. The word mediation does not appear in those rules. There is no mandatory mediation requirement before a disciplinary hearing. Rule 8200(c) gives the Authority discretion to enter into a consent decree or similar agreement. Discretion is exactly what it sounds like. HISA could have declined to negotiate and proceeded with the hearing it had already scheduled.
That does not necessarily mean HISA has a weak case. There are legitimate reasons for regulatory agencies to settle disputes, including conserving resources, avoiding appeals and obtaining meaningful sanctions without additional proceedings. But when an agency publicly discusses the possibility of a lifetime ban and then voluntarily returns to negotiations days before the hearing, I think asking why is perfectly reasonable.
This is not the first attempt at a settlement. Before HISA filed charges on August 17, the parties reportedly came close to resolving the matter. HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus said those discussions broke down because Gramm wanted certain information withheld from the public. Gramm offered a different explanation, saying HISA would not allow him to publicly explain his actions.
Both publicly identified disagreements concerned disclosure and public statements. That does not establish that the parties agreed about the underlying conduct, the evidence or the appropriate punishment. It does suggest that what the public would eventually learn was an important issue from the beginning.
And now, just as the parties return to the negotiating table, another set of allegations has surfaced involving Gramm’s longtime racing partner, Clay Sanders.
The timing is interesting. It is not proof of a connection. The mediation order preceded the social media posts circulating by November 9. But the date something becomes public is not necessarily the date people first became aware of it. Were concerns already being discussed privately? Had anyone raised questions about ownership arrangements or tournament participation? Were any reviews underway? Or are we looking at unrelated developments that happened to emerge within days of one another?
I don’t know. Neither does anyone outside the people involved, at least based on what has been made public.
What we do know is that Sanders, who cofounded Ten Strike Racing with Gramm, finished second in the 2026 Breeders’ Cup Betting Challenge. According to the official Breeders’ Cup results, Sanders finished with a tournament bankroll of $130,847 and collected another $323,400 in prize money, bringing his combined return to $454,247.
That is a substantial score, and Sanders earned his position on the published leaderboard through actual wagers. The official BCBC leaderboard shows two successful daily double tickets totaling $12,000, returning $88,260. Those wagers connected Benvenuto Cellini in the Breeders’ Cup Turf with Sovereignty and Forever Young in the Classic. The winning combination was Benvenuto Cellini into Sovereignty. On an unrelated note, that was the same closing wager I made, only I did not hedge or include Forever Young and didn’t have enough of a bankroll left to do any real damage.
There is nothing inherently suspicious about those wagers. Other tournament players also capitalized on the same horses. The tickets themselves do not establish anything improper.
The issue being raised is entirely different.
A verified X account operated by Justin Wunderler, known as @SwiftRABBI, has publicly alleged that Gramm and Sanders participated together in the tournament. Wunderler has circulated screenshots of private messages, racing records and other material in support of his suspicions. Those materials do not independently establish that Gramm participated in Sanders’ tournament wagers, and no such participation has been publicly established.
But the relationship between Gramm and Sanders is not speculation. Their longstanding racing partnership is documented, and that relationship becomes relevant when examining both the tournament allegations and the restrictions Gramm accepted under his provisional suspension.
As reported by Thoroughbred Daily News, Gramm agreed in August that he could not directly or indirectly own, hold a beneficial interest in, exercise control over or maintain a financial interest in a covered horse. Horses he owned outright had to be transferred before they could race or record workouts. For jointly owned horses, Gramm had to surrender his ownership interest.
TDN also reported that all transfers required approval by the stewards and registration with HISA. That is an important requirement, and it brings us to the ownership records.
Horses previously associated with Ten Strike Racing have appeared under other ownership names, including Agile Partners. Lobby Rendezvous is one example. Available racing records show the horse previously associated with Ten Strike and subsequently listed under Agile Partners, although the exact date and financial terms of the ownership change have not been established through the records examined.
Mission Critical provides another documented example. Horse Racing Nation reported in August that Ten Strike Racing was the sole owner of Mission Critical at Finger Lakes. The official Equibase entries for November 9 identify Agile Partners as the owner of Mission Critical, with Marshall Gramm and Clay Sanders listed as breeders.
That establishes a change in the named ownership. It does not establish who currently holds every financial or beneficial interest. Breeding a horse is not the same thing as owning it, and a breeder’s name remaining on a racing record is not evidence of a prohibited ownership interest.
But were the transfers examined beyond the paperwork? Were the financial transactions verified? Were the interests actually sold at arm’s length? Were payments made and documented? Did Gramm retain any direct or indirect beneficial interest, financial arrangement or authority over decisions involving the horses?
Those questions arise directly from the restrictions HISA imposed. The suspension did not merely require Gramm’s name to disappear from an ownership listing. It prohibited financial interests and control.
I would expect an organization imposing those restrictions to have a meaningful process for verifying compliance. Steward approval and HISA registration are documented requirements. What has not been publicly established is the extent to which the underlying ownership agreements, consideration paid, beneficial interests and continuing financial arrangements were examined.
Was there a substantive verification of divestiture, or did compliance depend primarily on ownership paperwork and representations by the parties?
That distinction matters. It is also something the appropriate regulatory authorities should be able to address without disclosing confidential financial information unnecessarily.
Then there is the tournament.
I played in the Breeders’ Cup Betting Challenge this year for the first time. I have been a professional horseplayer for decades, and one, there are others, reason I have generally avoided handicapping tournaments is the potential for collusion. That is not a criticism of everyone who participates, nor is it an accusation against the BCBC. It is a concern about what can happen when substantial money is at stake and multiple people have opportunities to coordinate decisions, share financial interests or participate in arrangements that are not necessarily apparent from the official standings. Collusion is one rule it is next to impossible to adequately police.
Horseplayers exchange opinions. That is part of the game. I do it. Other professionals do it. There is nothing inherently improper about discussing a race with another handicapper. The question is where exchanging opinions ends and prohibited coordination or undisclosed participation begins.
The published BCBC rules address that distinction. The 2026 rules expressly stated, “All players must make his or her own final selection independently of every other player in the contest.” The rules also prohibited coordination and manipulation of tournament entries. The precise application of the current rules matters, particularly when the person allegedly providing assistance is not himself entered in the contest.
Gramm was not a BCBC participant this year. Therefore, simply alleging that Sanders received handicapping advice from Gramm would not automatically establish collusion between tournament players under the quoted independence provision. The more significant questions concern whether anyone other than Sanders had a financial interest in his entry, shared its risks or rewards, exercised control over its wagers or participated in a manner prohibited by the tournament’s governing rules.
Who funded the entry? Who controlled the wagering decisions? Who stood to benefit financially from the result? Were there any arrangements beyond the registered participant?
Those are the questions that matter, not whether two longtime friends might have discussed the Breeders’ Cup. A leaderboard tells us what was wagered and what the tickets returned. It does not necessarily establish who made every decision or who ultimately benefited from the winnings.
The Breeders’ Cup has its own tournament rules and authority to enforce them. HISA has its own disciplinary authority and suspension restrictions. They are not interchangeable, and a violation of one organization’s rules would not automatically establish a violation of the other’s.
That brings us to another development circulating on X.
An account operating as Gulf Scheme Park, under the handle @Jackpotkimm, has posted what it suggests a potential settlement between HISA and Gramm might look like. The post describes a seven year suspension from racing activities, a $500,000 fine allocated to aftercare, restrictions on racetrack access and a requirement that Gramm divest his ownership interests.
There is no verified settlement reflected in that post. It is an unconfirmed social media proposal or prediction, not an official HISA ruling, and it should not be treated as one.
But I will say this. If the eventual resolution resembles those terms, if the sanctions are enforceable, the ownership restrictions are properly verified and HISA complies with its disclosure obligations, I would consider that a meaningful enforcement outcome. I would have no problem supporting it.
A seven year suspension and a $500,000 fine are not insignificant penalties. They would represent substantial consequences without requiring the parties to complete a contested hearing and potentially lengthy appeals.
There is also an important distinction between regulatory enforcement and criminal prosecution. HISA and HIWU are regulatory bodies, not criminal prosecutors. They may investigate matters within their authority, impose or seek applicable regulatory sanctions and refer information to law enforcement. If criminal charges are warranted, those decisions belong to the appropriate law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities.
A regulatory settlement does not automatically establish criminal wrongdoing, and it does not necessarily prevent a separate criminal investigation. Nor should a regulatory agency be criticized simply because it resolves a matter within its jurisdiction rather than attempting to exercise powers it does not possess.
If HISA can obtain a meaningful, enforceable resolution consistent with its rules, that is not necessarily a retreat. It may be a very good result. If the settlement mirrors the post, another question arises, and it is not the first time, does someone with deep knowledge of HISA proceedings and talks suffer from loose lips?
Transparency is the condition I would insist upon.
Under Rule 8380(g), HISA must publicly disclose the resolution of an alleged violation within 20 days, including a resolution reached through agreement with the covered person. Rule 8380(h) specifies information that must be disclosed, including the identity of the person involved, the applicable violation, the sanction imposed and the resulting order or ruling.
That does not necessarily require the publication of every underlying document or every detail discussed during mediation. But it does require public disclosure of the resolution.
If the parties reach an agreement, I would hope HISA releases it promptly rather than waiting until the end of the permitted period. If the agreement includes substantial sanctions, verified divestiture and clear findings or admissions concerning the violations resolved, and HISA makes those terms public without further proceedings, I would call that a win for enforcement and accountability.
That does not mean every question about wagering, ownership or the tournament has necessarily been answered. Those matters must be evaluated on their own facts and under the applicable rules.
Now, about some of the people who have been publicly discussing this case.
Michael Novak is not a new voice in the Gramm controversy. We addressed his August article, HISA: A Clear Lack of Integrity and Safety, in our earlier Past The Wire column, Marshall Gramm, HISA and a Sport Wearing Blinkers.
Novak is a software developer with experience building stable management platforms for the racing industry. He raised legitimate technical concerns about HISA’s access controls and the security of its portal. Those concerns deserved examination then, and they still do.
Where Novak lost me was his willingness to characterize Gramm as a scapegoat while the full facts remained contested. A failure to secure confidential information and the improper acquisition or use of that information are separate issues. One does not automatically excuse the other. I recall using the analogy a bank with poor security does not provide the thief with such a defense.
Novak has now been publicly challenging Wunderler’s allegations involving Sanders and the BCBC. Asking for evidence is appropriate. What concerns me is the apparent willingness to dismiss the possibility of improper conduct before the relevant ownership and financial arrangements have been publicly established. Novak had no answer for Wunderler’s question about how he knew the allegations were false.
And Novak’s connection to this discussion is more substantial than simply being an interested software developer.
In an article titled The Punishment and the Crime: Inside the HISA Case Against Marshall Gramm, Peter Thomas Fornatale disclosed that Novak had reviewed the script Gramm used to obtain the records. Fornatale also described Novak as an associate of his and expressly acknowledged that readers should consider that relationship when evaluating Novak’s analysis.
That is relevant information. Novak was not merely speculating about a computer program he had never examined. According to Fornatale’s published account, he had reviewed the actual script. But access to a script and the ability to explain its technical operation do not necessarily establish the full extent of the data collected, how it was used or whether the conduct violated HISA’s rules.
Fornatale has also been transparent about his own relationship with Gramm. In his September 25 In The Money Telegraph, he disclosed that Gramm is a friend and that Ten Strike Racing was the first commercial sponsor In The Money Media ever had.
I respect that disclosure. Relationships should be acknowledged, particularly when someone is publicly analyzing allegations involving a friend and former sponsor.
What I have questioned from the beginning is the tendency to minimize the significance or apparent scope of Gramm’s conduct while offering technical explanations that do not necessarily answer the underlying regulatory allegations.
Fornatale and Novak have emphasized the distinction between accessing information through legitimate credentials and circumventing security. That distinction is technically relevant. It does not, by itself, establish that the access was authorized or that the subsequent use of the information was permissible.
Nor should we overlook Gramm’s own acknowledgments.
As TDN reported on August 24, Gramm admitted that he improperly accessed confidential veterinary records concerning horses he did not own. He has disputed HISA’s characterization of the conduct, including allegations concerning concealment, methods and intent. Those positions are not mutually exclusive. He can acknowledge improper access while contesting whether the conduct constitutes fraud or warrants the sanctions HISA seeks.
But acknowledging the access matters. It should not disappear from the discussion simply because critics believe HISA’s technology was inadequate.
I raised specific questions with Fornatale about the basis for limiting the apparent scope or significance of Gramm’s conduct. I did not receive answers to those questions. That does not make his analysis wrong, but it leaves the basis for certain conclusions unresolved from my perspective. Fornatale stated Gramm only used the “subject PP’s” for claiming, not handicapping or tournaments. As Novak had no answer for Wunderler, Fornatale had no answer for me as to how he knew that.
If someone has evidence that materially limits what HISA alleges occurred, I am interested in seeing it. If the argument is simply that HISA’s system was vulnerable and Gramm used legitimate credentials, we have already covered that ground. It does not resolve the rest of the case.
There is another relationship being dragged into the social media discussion, and I think it deserves considerably less attention than it has received.
Wunderler has pointed to attorney Michael B. de Leeuw, who has represented Mike Repole in other racing matters and has also been identified as Gramm’s attorney. The apparent implication is that Repole may somehow be financing Gramm’s defense or participating in it.
Having the same attorney does not establish who is paying another person’s legal bills, who is directing the representation or whether the clients are coordinating their positions. Without evidence of an actual financial or legal arrangement, the inference is unwarranted.
Frankly, I find the ownership transfers, the verification of financial interests, the tournament rules and the terms of any settlement considerably more relevant.
Mike Repole has acknowledged knowing Gramm and expressed disappointment concerning what happened. Pat Cummings has also acknowledged his relationship with Gramm and the disappointment surrounding the case.
I have not seen either man publicly defend Gramm’s conduct, minimize the acknowledged improper access or claim to know the full extent of what occurred. Acknowledging a friendship is not defending alleged misconduct. Expressing disappointment is not excusing it. And sharing legal counsel with another person is not evidence of financing that person’s defense.
There is a meaningful difference between acknowledging a relationship and publicly advancing an interpretation that minimizes the seriousness of conduct already acknowledged by the person involved.
That is the distinction I see between Repole and Cummings on one hand and the published commentary from Novak and Fornatale on the other.
People are entitled to their opinions. They are entitled to defend friends. They are entitled to criticize HISA, its technology, its investigative methods and its legal theories. I have criticized HISA myself, and I will continue to do so whenever I believe criticism is warranted.
But the standard should remain consistent. If HISA makes allegations, it should be able to support them. If someone publicly dismisses those allegations or claims the conduct was materially narrower than HISA maintains, that conclusion should also have a factual foundation.
We should not be expected to accept HISA’s characterization simply because HISA says it, and we should not be expected to accept Novak’s or Fornatale’s characterization simply because they understand the technology or know the person involved. The evidence should decide.
Which brings us back to the hearing that did not happen.
HISA alleges Gramm improperly accessed confidential veterinary information concerning horses with which he had no authorized connection. It alleges he used automated methods to collect approximately four million records and that the information could provide an advantage in claiming or wagering decisions. Gramm acknowledges improper access but disputes important aspects of HISA’s characterization and the alleged intent.
The Authority has sought serious sanctions, potentially including a lifetime ban. Gramm accepted a provisional suspension that substantially restricts his participation in racing and his ownership interests. Now both sides have voluntarily agreed to mediate.
At the same time, public allegations have surfaced concerning his longtime partner’s participation in a major handicapping tournament, while racing records show horses formerly associated with Ten Strike appearing under different ownership names.
Perhaps the ownership transfers were fully documented and properly verified. Perhaps Sanders’ tournament entry was entirely independent and compliant with every applicable rule. Perhaps the mediation has nothing whatsoever to do with any of these developments.
Those are all possible explanations. If supported by the facts, they should be accepted.
But there are legitimate questions concerning the verification of financial divestitures, the beneficial ownership of horses, the integrity of tournament participation and the ultimate terms of any negotiated resolution.
The people responsible for administering and enforcing the applicable rules are in the best position to address those questions. HISA can explain its enforcement and verification procedures. The appropriate racing authorities can address ownership registration and transfer approvals. The Breeders’ Cup can determine whether its tournament rules were followed. my hope is all three will respond. Past performances say otherwise. HISA and CEO Lisa Lazarus has been transparent about the Gramm matter. To date, others have not and there may be investigative and legal reasons for that. Time will tell. Maybe.
There is no need to turn social media allegations into findings of guilt. There is also no reason to pretend the documented relationships and ownership changes are irrelevant simply because the allegations have not been proven.
A mediation HISA was not required to enter. A longtime business partner collecting more than $450,000 through a major handicapping tournament. Horses appearing under different ownership names following a suspension requiring divestiture. Public allegations of participation that remain unsubstantiated. A software developer who reviewed Gramm’s script and continues to challenge the regulator’s account. A commentator with disclosed personal and commercial ties to Gramm. And a regulatory settlement that, if reached, must be publicly disclosed within 20 days. Sniff sniff.
Maybe every one of those developments has a perfectly reasonable explanation. I would welcome that. A meaningful settlement, properly documented and publicly disclosed, could represent a strong outcome for HISA and the sport. Any separate questions concerning ownership compliance or tournament integrity should be resolved by the authorities responsible for them. One would think they’d use this as an example to make a statement diffusing the perception of incompetence and favoritism.
But a settlement does not necessarily answer every question, and a change in the name on an ownership record does not necessarily establish what happened to the underlying financial interests. The same applies to a name on a tournament leaderboard.
Those distinctions are worth remembering as this matter moves toward a possible resolution.
Yes I can…………..
Comments