Ricardo Santana faces immediate suspension following an arrest. The Ortiz brothers faced no discipline after a cockfighting incident and investigation. Kentucky racing owes its public an explanation.
Read This Part Twice
This column is not a defense of Ricardo Santana Jr. The charges against him are serious. Domestic violence is not a gray area, and if what his girlfriend told police is true, he does not belong on a racetrack. That said, the only people who know what happened and why at this point are the ones who were in the room. Anyone who reads this and comes away thinking Past The Wire is going soft on domestic violence has missed the point, and some will, on purpose.
This column is about a standard. Kentucky applied one this week, swiftly and publicly. It had every chance to apply one last November and chose not to. The evidence was different. The circumstances were different. But the regulator was the same, and its obligation to apply its standards consistently did not change. Same regulator, same sport, same responsibility. The question is whether the standard changes depending on the names.
Monday Night in Louisville
Santana, 33, was arrested by Louisville Metro Police late Monday, October 26. He was charged with two counts of first-degree strangulation, Class C felonies in Kentucky, and two counts of fourth-degree assault involving domestic violence. He pleaded not guilty. Bond was set at $25,000 with a no-contact order. His next court date is November 4.
Those are the established facts of the criminal proceedings. The allegations are serious, but an arrest is not a conviction. What happened remains a matter for the courts to determine.
The industry moved anyway, and fast. By Tuesday the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation had suspended his license pending disposition of the charges. The regulator announced that Santana would be denied privileges at facilities under its jurisdiction and removed from all Kentucky mounts until further notice.
Ron Moquett took him off Hymn in the Sprint. Moquett acknowledged Santana’s right to due process while making clear he would not ride for his stable in the Breeders’ Cup. He also made an important point: accountability and compassion are not mutually exclusive.
Mike Maker took him off Foie Gras in the Filly & Mare Sprint after discussing the situation with the ownership. Maker won the 2020 Juvenile Turf at Keeneland with Santana aboard Fire At Will. He has known Santana a long time and expressed hope that he gets whatever help he needs.
Neither trainer needed a criminal conviction to decide who would represent his stable. That is their right, and I have no quarrel with either decision. The Breeders’ Cup said it respected Kentucky’s suspension and condemned “violence in all forms,” while emphasizing professional standards and due process. Remember that phrase. Violence in all forms.
Last November in Puerto Rico
Now compare what Kentucky had on Irad Ortiz Jr. and Jose Ortiz.
Past The Wire reported on the brothers’ cockfighting involvement in November 2025, well before the matter received broader industry attention. A video posted on X on November 23, 2025, appears to show the brothers on the pit floor at Club Gallístico de Naguabo, collecting money from the betting crowd at a cockfight.
That was not a one-off.
A January 2025 Facebook post showed the brothers holding roosters in a cockfighting arena. A December 17, 2025 advertisement from Club Gallístico de Puerto Rico promoted them as participants in the Gran Campeón Caribeño tournament, describing their passion for cockfighting and their ambition to become champions. Their association with the activity was not something they concealed. In Puerto Rico’s El Nuevo Día, the brothers defended cockfighting as part of their culture. Their involvement had also been documented in a 2019 interview recorded at a cockfighting club.
This was not an anonymous accusation. It was video, photographs, promotion and their own words. Kentucky did look. KHRG chief steward Barbara Borden requested background checks ahead of a meeting with the brothers in late November. Records obtained through a public records request included text messages and screenshots of Google searches concerning the legality of cockfighting in Puerto Rico. The background checks disclosed minor traffic violations. No written account of what the brothers told the stewards was produced in the records obtained by Past The Wire. The result, in the words of KHRG chief legal officer Ashleigh Bailey: “The investigation did not result in any action being taken by KHRG.” No suspension. No disciplinary action. No meaningful public explanation of how the regulator evaluated the documented conduct. In May, the brothers finished first and second in the Kentucky Derby, and the sport celebrated them.
Kentucky did not have to suspend the Ortiz brothers to demonstrate that its standards meant something. It could have explained what evidence it reviewed, what regulatory standard it applied, and why the documented conduct did not warrant discipline. It chose not to.
That is not transparency. It leaves the public to wonder whether the rules are being applied consistently or selectively.
Same Responsibility, Opposite Answers
Kentucky can argue that the cases are different because Santana was charged with crimes and the Ortiz brothers were not. That is a legitimate distinction. It is not, however, the end of the discussion. Kentucky’s regulatory authority does not begin and end with criminal prosecution.
Under 810 KAR 3:020, Kentucky’s licensing regulation for racing participants, the corporation has authority to address conduct against the best interests of horse racing or conduct compromising the integrity of racing operations. The regulation also requires licensees to cooperate with investigations and inquiries.
Separately, 809 KAR 10:008, Kentucky’s disciplinary regulation addressing sports wagering and gaming licensees, identifies both qualifying criminal charges and conduct against the best interests of horse racing, pari-mutuel wagering or sports wagering as grounds for regulatory action.
These are distinct regulations with different licensing applications. The point is not that every allegation automatically warrants suspension. The point is that Kentucky’s regulatory framework recognizes an independent responsibility to examine conduct affecting the integrity and reputation of racing. That responsibility does not necessarily require a prosecutor to act first.
Kentucky knows how to use its authority. Regulatory rulings have documented suspensions pending hearings over alleged conduct against racing’s best interests. The state has acted against licensees while investigations or criminal proceedings remained unresolved.
That does not establish that the Ortiz brothers were legally required to be suspended. It establishes something more important: Kentucky had a responsibility to evaluate the conduct under its own rules and explain its decision.
The absence of criminal charges against the Ortiz brothers does not answer whether their documented involvement in cockfighting warranted regulatory discipline. Nor does it explain what Kentucky concluded about the apparent gambling activity.
Federal enforcement of cockfighting laws in Puerto Rico has been criticized as virtually nonexistent. A regulator that relies exclusively on the absence of prosecution in that environment risks making its own conduct standards meaningless.
So here is what due process looks like in Kentucky in 2026. For Santana, an arrest was enough to trigger immediate action while his criminal case remains pending. For the Ortiz brothers, video, promotion and public acknowledgment of cockfighting involvement resulted in an investigation that ended without discipline and with little public explanation.
Those outcomes may have different legal justifications. If they do, Kentucky should explain them. The only thing keeping Irad Ortiz Jr. off a Breeders’ Cup mount this weekend is a broken ankle. Not a regulator.
Two Crimes, One Video
Cockfighting is not a cultural misunderstanding. Under the federal Animal Welfare Act, as amended by the 2018 Farm Bill, federal animal-fighting prohibitions apply to Puerto Rico and the other United States territories. The expanded prohibition took effect in December 2019. Knowingly attending an animal fight can constitute a federal misdemeanor. Sponsoring or exhibiting animals in a fighting venture can carry felony penalties. The Supreme Court declined to disturb the federal prohibition.
Two birds are armed with blades and made to fight, often to the death, for a crowd. And the crowd is betting. That is the part this industry keeps skipping.
The video shows the Ortiz brothers on the floor of a cockfighting arena, apparently collecting cash from the betting crowd. This was not two guys accidentally wandering into the wrong building. These were two of the most recognizable jockeys in America, participating in an event built around animal cruelty and illegal wagering.
Stevie Wonder could see what was going on in that video. Apparently, the Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation couldn’t.
Nobody needs a criminal conviction to recognize what the footage plainly raises. And nobody should need to explain to a gaming regulator why jockeys handling cash in the middle of a cockfighting pit warrant more than a cursory examination.
Now consider who reviewed the matter and decided no disciplinary action was warranted. The Kentucky Horse Racing and Gaming Corporation. An organization responsible for protecting the integrity of racing and wagering reviewed documented cockfighting involvement by two of its most prominent licensees and closed its investigation without providing a substantive public explanation.
The records obtained by Past The Wire show Google searches about cockfighting’s legality. They do not establish everything the regulator did or did not investigate. That is precisely why the unanswered questions matter. This sport runs on animals and it runs on wagering. The Ortiz case touches both.
If that does not warrant a serious examination under racing’s conduct standards, what does?
Violence in All Forms
Due process is a real principle. Santana is entitled to it, and he is getting it in a courtroom. Nobody here is arguing he should have ridden Saturday. The accusations are grave, and Kentucky has authority to take appropriate interim action while the criminal case proceeds.
But due process cannot become a phrase the industry invokes selectively. It cannot explain immediate action in one case while serving as an excuse for silence in another. And it cannot relieve regulators of the obligation to tell the public how they applied their own rules.
The cases are not identical. They do not need to be. Regulatory consistency does not require identical punishment for different conduct. It requires consistent principles, a legitimate process and decisions that can withstand scrutiny.
When the process is visible for one licensee and effectively hidden for another, the public has every right to ask why.
The Breeders’ Cup said this week that it condemns violence in all forms. Past The Wire takes them at their word.
So we will ask the questions this week’s statements raise:
- Is blade-armed animal fighting for a betting crowd a form of violence?
- If it is, why did so few in this sport publicly condemn the documented involvement of two of its biggest stars?
- Kentucky, if an arrest was sufficient to justify interim action against Santana, why did video, promotion and the brothers’ own public defense of cockfighting not warrant action under your independent racing conduct standards? And if you determined no action was appropriate, what evidence and reasoning supported that decision?
We asked the KHRG seven questions about the Ortiz investigation in May. We received a brief response confirming that the investigation ended without action. We did not receive substantive answers to the questions.
We are still waiting. We are asking again.
This is not about punishing the Ortiz brothers because Santana was suspended. It is not about minimizing domestic violence because animal cruelty was overlooked. It is about whether racing means what it says when it talks about integrity, accountability, animal welfare and standards of conduct.
The standard the industry showed this week is the right one. Apply it to everyone, or admit it was never a standard at all.
You Don’t Talk About Fight Club:
Comments