plaintiff alleged unjust enrichment and other complaints the plaintiff a veterinarian such recover payment for a legit services to horses allegedly owned by the defendant michael arad oh well referred violated the illinois administrative code review the standard of review we believe on on this issue we would argue that it's to know really questions other than geldings and even when you get it to those other horses these amounts are restricting the amount that can be given that the code is very very heavily restrictive of amounts that these trucks can be given enforced ok and so that in my opinion as a public policy problem with that ruling a court should not be ruling that it's ok that a plaintiff i leave the code in by the way the court admitted that the pla f did that in her ruling but said it just wasn't being enforced and that's my problem with that when  the code was actually being in force and you're correct at that time because the date is actually in effect when the racetrack and other the racetrack personnel and others really begin to understand that  and that it allows conduct that isn't violation of the code but says that it's ok because it just wasn't being the point to believe that it wasn't being enforced that's the problem that i have adopted part of that ruling was being enforced that's a very bad slippery slope i think to allow courtroom gauge upon because it allows a party to say i wasn't aware that i have a policy or i wasn't i didn't think it was being enforced and therefore when i violated that public policy it was ok that's the problem i have with that part of the ruling and that's why i think that as a matter of policy that ruling was in  to horses when they believe that when they race they bleed to their longs and this drug is given to or to the horse to prevent that from happening when they race  sex but not on race day that would bring forth that were arise a separate section of the code we think that would also cause for actions into question and that subsection six o three point seven subsection  client said he never even had much of a relationship just for a one day and say well i think that my response to that would be is that the code is very detailed and probably gates of public policy look into the code it seems to propagate through public policies and it seems to be the health of the horse is one public policy and then the second public policy seems to be for to protect the integrity of the horseracing here a violation of a public policy that is i think weighty enough that it should bar the enforcement we have actions that's  sir i will point out that my client's specific testimony to the truth of regarding his relation to the trainer he instructed the trainer that he did not want these these treatments and so if the if it think it would be unfair to require him to pay for treatments that he specifically instructed the trainer he didn't want he feels he didn't need them over a period of two plaintiff submitted one was invoices and the other was statement it was a long summary of our services which we believe the court based its ruling upon the plaintiff testified it's not a common thing that she does that she didn't keep that record that there was a bookkeeper that kept at the book at present there we believe it was there to allow that to come into evidence it was entered into evidence over the objection over my objection are based on foundation and hearsay so with that i would i'm sorry alison sullivan all of this earth you see the defendant essentially for the first time at trial set forth these affirmative defenses that these drugs lasix an echo place were given in violation of the administrative regulations  that he failed to prove these defenses a trial and you failed to prove that they were administered in violation of the law he did not prove that the presence of the drugs was found in any proposed raised bodily fluid samples which is the method used to determine whether the horses you know with other times but i think they're monitored percent to the administrative regulations on the actual race day as far as the lasix goes the defendant also did not provide any evidence of the leaders list it was his testimony against the plaintiff the veterinarian who is a state license veterinarian who's been practicing for nearly thirty years the judge simply found his testimony to lack credibility and as far as the epic voice my client testified that and again she's been practicing at racetracks for this in nearly three decades that this regulation constitute a small fraction of all of the services that she provided for these horses and these statements and invoices to reflect all of the services in medications that she had minister to the sources for over a year if you don't want your clients credibility here and i argued in my brief that the standard of review was whether or not the judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence i'm wondering now and as i was preparing i kind of question myself on that and thinks i think that it probably should have been abuse of discretion either way completely disagree with the defendant that it's the nobel i believe that there were factual disputes at issue throughout the trial based on the testimony th conflicting testimony of the parties and that the judge's determination of their credibility should be given