Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings The Company records an accrual for legal contingencies to the extent that it concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Except as disclosed below, no estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters specifically described below. We do not believe that the final outcome of these matters will have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Illinois Department of Revenue In October of 2012, the Company filed a verified complaint for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and for declaratory judgment (the “Complaint”) against the Illinois Department of Revenue (the “Department”). The Company's complaint was filed in response to Notices of Deficiency issued by the Department on March 18, 2010 and September 6, 2012. In response to said Notices of Deficiency, the Company, on October 4, 2012, issued a payment in protest in the amount of $2.9 million (the “Protest Payment”) under the State Officers and Employees Money Disposition Act and recorded this amount as an other asset at December 31, 2012. The Company subsequently filed its complaint in November alleging that the Department erroneously included handle, instead of the Company's commissions from handle, in the computation of the Company's sales factor (a computation of the Company's gross receipts from wagering within the State of Illinois) for determining the applicable tax owed. On October 30, 2012, the Company's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief was granted, which prevents the Department from depositing any monies from the Protest Payment into the State of Illinois General Fund and from taking any further action against the Company until the Circuit Court takes final action on the Company's Complaint. If successful with its Complaint, the Company will be entitled to a full or partial refund of the Protest Payment from the Department. This matter remains pending before the Tax and Miscellaneous Remedies Section of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Kentucky Downs On September 5, 2012, Kentucky Downs Management, Inc. (“KDMI”) filed a petition for declaration of rights in Kentucky Circuit Court located in Simpson County, Kentucky styled Kentucky Downs Management Inc. v. Churchill Downs Incorporated (Civil Action No. 12-CI-330) (the “Simpson County Case”) requesting a declaration that the Company does not have the right to exercise its put right and require Kentucky Downs, LLC (“Kentucky Downs”) and/or Kentucky Downs Partners, LLC (“KDP”) to purchase the Company's ownership interest in Kentucky Downs. On September 18, 2012, the Company filed a complaint in Kentucky Circuit Court located in Jefferson County, Kentucky, styled Churchill Downs Incorporated v. Kentucky Downs, LLC; Kentucky Downs Partners, LLC; and Kentucky Downs Management Inc. (Civil Action No. 12-CI-04989) (the “Jefferson County Case”) claiming that Kentucky Downs and KDP had breached the operating agreement for Kentucky Downs and requesting a declaration that the Company had validly exercised its put right and a judgment compelling Kentucky Downs and/or KDP to purchase the Company's ownership interest in Kentucky Downs pursuant to the terms of the applicable operating agreement. On October 9, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Simpson County Case and Kentucky Downs, KDP and KDMI filed a motion to dismiss the Jefferson County Case. A hearing for the motion to dismiss in the Simpson County Case occurred November 30, 2012. At that hearing the Company's motion to dismiss the Simpson County Case was denied. Subsequently, Kentucky Downs, KDMI and KDP's motion to dismiss the Jefferson County Case was granted on January 23, 2013, due to the Simpson County Circuit Court's assertion of jurisdiction over the dispute. The case will now move forward in the Simpson County Circuit Court. Texas Pari-Mutuel Wagering On September 21, 2012, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas styled Churchill Downs Incorporated; Churchill Downs Technology Initiatives Company d/b/a TwinSpires.com v. Chuck Trout, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Racing Commission; Gary P. Aber, Susan Combs, Ronald F. Ederer, Gloria Hicks, Michael F. Martin, Allan Polunsky, Robert Schmidt, John T. Steen III, Vicki Smith Weinberg, in their official capacity as members of the Texas Racing Commission (Case No. 1:12-cv-00880-LY) challenging the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring residents of Texas that desire to wager on horseraces to wager in person at a Texas race track. In addition to its complaint, on September 21, 2012, the Company filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the state from taking any action to enforce the law in question. In response, on October 9, 2012, counsel for the state assured both the Company and the court that the state would not enforce the law in question against the Company without prior notice, at which time the court could then consider the motion for preliminary injunction. Horse Racing Equity Trust Fund During 2006, the Illinois General Assembly enacted Public Act 94-804, which created the HRE Trust Fund. During November 2008, the Illinois General Assembly passed Public Act 95-1008 to extend Public Act 94-804 for a period of three years beginning December 12, 2008. The HRE Trust Fund was funded by a 3% “surcharge” on revenues of Illinois riverboat casinos that met a certain revenue threshold. The riverboat casinos paid all monies required under Public Acts 94-804 and 95-1008 into a special protest fund account which prevented the monies from being transferred to the HRE Trust Fund. The funds were moved to the HRE Trust Fund and distributed to the racetracks, including Arlington, in December 2009. On June 12, 2009, the Illinois riverboat casinos filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against former Governor Rod Blagojevich, Friends of Blagojevich and others, including Arlington (Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Blagojevich, 2009 CV 03585). While the riverboat casinos alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) against certain of the defendants, Arlington was not named in the RICO count, but rather was named solely in a count requesting that the monies paid by the riverboat casinos pursuant to Public Acts 94-804 and 95-1008 be held in a constructive trust for the riverboat casinos’ benefit and ultimately returned to the casinos. Following several lower court rulings, on March 2, 2011, a three member panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal. We requested the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the matter en banc, which hearing was held on May 10, 2011. On July 8, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a thirty-day stay of dissolution of the temporary restraining order ("TRO") to allow the casinos to request a further stay of dissolution of the TRO pending their petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On August 5, 2011, the United States Supreme Court denied an application by the Casinos to further stay the dissolution of the TRO. On August 9, 2011, the stay of dissolution expired and the TRO dissolved, which terminated the restrictions on the Company’s ability to access funds from the HRE Trust Fund held in the escrow account. Public Act 94-804 expired in May 2008 and Public Act 95-1008 expired on July 18, 2011, the date the tenth Illinois riverboat license became operational. Arlington filed an administrative appeal in the Circuit Court of Cook County on August 18, 2009 (Arlington Park Racecourse LLC v. Illinois Racing Board, 09 CH 28774) challenging the IRB’s allocation of funds out of the HRE Trust Fund based upon handle generated by certain ineligible licensees, as contrary to the language of the statute. The Circuit Court affirmed the IRB’s decision on November 10, 2010, and Arlington appealed this ruling to the Illinois First District Court of Appeals. On April 23, 2012 the Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the IRB’s decision and Arlington filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court on May 25, 2012. On October 1, 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Arlington's petition for leave to appeal. Hawthorne Racecourse filed a separate administrative appeal on June 11, 2010 (Hawthorne Racecourse, Inc. v. Illinois Racing Board et. al., Case No. 10 CH 24439) challenging the IRB’s decision not to credit Hawthorne with handle previously generated by an ineligible licensee for the purpose of calculating the allocation of the HRE Trust Fund monies and the IRB’s unwillingness to hold another meeting in 2010 to reconstrue the statutory language in Public Act 95-1008 with respect to distributions. On May 25, 2011, the Circuit Court rejected Hawthorne’s arguments and affirmed the IRB’s decisions, and Hawthorne appealed the Circuit Court’s decision. Arlington filed its response brief on May 30, 2012, and the IRB filed its response brief on June 30, 2012. Hawthorne filed its reply brief on July 27, 2012. Oral arguments on Hawthorne's appeal before the Illinois First District Court of Appeals were heard on November 1, 2012 and during November 2012, the First District Court of Appeals ruled against Hawthorne. We received $45.4 million from the HRE Trust Fund, of which $26.1 million was designated for Arlington purses. We used the remaining $19.3 million of the proceeds to improve, market, and maintain or otherwise operate the Arlington racing facility in order to conduct live racing. Balmoral, Maywood and Illinois Harness Horsemen’s Association On February 14, 2011, Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., Maywood Park Trotting Association, Inc. and the Illinois Harness Horsemen's Association, Inc. filed a lawsuit styled Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., Maywood Park Trotting Association, Inc. and the Illinois Harness Horsemen's Association Inc. vs. Churchill Downs Incorporated, Churchill Downs Technology Initiatives Company d/b/a TwinSpires.com and Youbet.com, LLC (Case No. 11-CV-D1028) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The plaintiffs allege that Youbet.com breached a co-branding agreement dated December 2007, as amended on December 21, 2007, and September 26, 2008 (the “Agreement”), which was entered into between certain Illinois racetracks and a predecessor of Youbet.com. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached the agreement by virtue of an unauthorized assignment of the Agreement to TwinSpires.com and further allege that Youbet.com and TwinSpires have misappropriated trade secrets in violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act. Finally, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and TwinSpires.com tortiously interfered with the Agreement by causing Youbet.com to breach the Agreement. The plaintiffs have alleged damages of at least $3.6 million, or alternatively, of at least $0.8 million. On April 1, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking an order compelling the defendants to turn over all Illinois customer accounts and prohibiting TwinSpires.com from using that list of Illinois customer accounts. On April 18, 2011, the defendants filed an answer and a motion to dismiss certain counts of the plaintiffs' complaint, and Youbet.com asserted a counterclaim seeking certain declaratory relief relating to allegations that plaintiffs Maywood and Balmoral breached the Agreement in 2010, leading to its proper termination by Youbet.com on December 1, 2010. The preliminary injunction hearing took place on July 6, 2011, and, on July 21, 2011, the court denied the preliminary injunction. On March 9, 2012, the parties mediated the case without resolution. The parties filed motions of summary judgment in November and December 2012, respectively, and replies were filed in January 2013. There are no other material pending legal proceedings.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

The Company records an accrual for legal contingencies to the extent that it concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Except as disclosed below, no estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters specifically described below. We do not believe that the final outcome of these matters will have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Illinois Department of Revenue

In October of 2012, the Company filed a verified complaint for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and for declaratory judgment (the “Complaint”) against the Illinois Department of Revenue (the “Department”). The Company's complaint was filed in response to Notices of Deficiency issued by the Department on March 18, 2010 and September 6, 2012. In response to said Notices of Deficiency, the Company, on October 4, 2012, issued a payment in protest in the amount of $2.9 million (the “Protest Payment”) under the State Officers and Employees Money Disposition Act and recorded this amount as an other asset at December 31, 2012. The Company subsequently filed its complaint in November alleging that the Department erroneously included handle, instead of the Company's commissions from handle, in the computation of the Company's sales factor (a computation of the Company's gross receipts from wagering within the State of Illinois) for determining the applicable tax owed. On October 30, 2012, the Company's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief was granted, which prevents the Department from depositing any monies from the Protest Payment into the State of Illinois General Fund and from taking any further action against the Company until the Circuit Court takes final action on the Company's Complaint. If successful with its Complaint, the Company will be entitled to a full or partial refund of the Protest Payment from the Department. This matter remains pending before the Tax and Miscellaneous Remedies Section of the Circuit Court of Cook County.

Kentucky Downs

On September 5, 2012, Kentucky Downs Management, Inc. (“KDMI”) filed a petition for declaration of rights in Kentucky Circuit Court located in Simpson County, Kentucky styled Kentucky Downs Management Inc. v. Churchill Downs Incorporated (Civil Action No. 12-CI-330) (the “Simpson County Case”) requesting a declaration that the Company does not have the right to exercise its put right and require Kentucky Downs, LLC (“Kentucky Downs”) and/or Kentucky Downs Partners, LLC (“KDP”) to purchase the Company's ownership interest in Kentucky Downs. On September 18, 2012, the Company filed a complaint in Kentucky Circuit Court located in Jefferson County, Kentucky, styled Churchill Downs Incorporated v. Kentucky Downs, LLC; Kentucky Downs Partners, LLC; and Kentucky Downs Management Inc. (Civil Action No. 12-CI-04989) (the “Jefferson County Case”) claiming that Kentucky Downs and KDP had breached the operating agreement for Kentucky Downs and requesting a declaration that the Company had validly exercised its put right and a judgment compelling Kentucky Downs and/or KDP to purchase the Company's ownership interest in Kentucky Downs pursuant to the terms of the applicable operating agreement. On October 9, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Simpson County Case and Kentucky Downs, KDP and KDMI filed a motion to dismiss the Jefferson County Case. A hearing for the motion to dismiss in the Simpson County Case occurred November 30, 2012. At that hearing the Company's motion to dismiss the Simpson County Case was denied. Subsequently, Kentucky Downs, KDMI and KDP's motion to dismiss the Jefferson County Case was granted on January 23, 2013, due to the Simpson County Circuit Court's assertion of jurisdiction over the dispute. The case will now move forward in the Simpson County Circuit Court.

Texas Pari-Mutuel Wagering

On September 21, 2012, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas styled Churchill Downs Incorporated; Churchill Downs Technology Initiatives Company d/b/a TwinSpires.com v. Chuck Trout, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Racing Commission; Gary P. Aber, Susan Combs, Ronald F. Ederer, Gloria Hicks, Michael F. Martin, Allan Polunsky, Robert Schmidt, John T. Steen III, Vicki Smith Weinberg, in their official capacity as members of the Texas Racing Commission (Case No. 1:12-cv-00880-LY) challenging the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring residents of Texas that desire to wager on horseraces to wager in person at a Texas race track. In addition to its complaint, on September 21, 2012, the Company filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the state from taking any action to enforce the law in question. In response, on October 9, 2012, counsel for the state assured both the Company and the court that the state would not enforce the law in question against the Company without prior notice, at which time the court could then consider the motion for preliminary injunction.

Horse Racing Equity Trust Fund

During 2006, the Illinois General Assembly enacted Public Act 94-804, which created the HRE Trust Fund. During November 2008, the Illinois General Assembly passed Public Act 95-1008 to extend Public Act 94-804 for a period of three years beginning December 12, 2008. The HRE Trust Fund was funded by a 3% “surcharge” on revenues of Illinois riverboat casinos that met a certain revenue threshold. The riverboat casinos paid all monies required under Public Acts 94-804 and 95-1008 into a special protest fund account which prevented the monies from being transferred to the HRE Trust Fund. The funds were moved to the HRE Trust Fund and distributed to the racetracks, including Arlington, in December 2009.

On June 12, 2009, the Illinois riverboat casinos filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against former Governor Rod Blagojevich, Friends of Blagojevich and others, including Arlington (Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Blagojevich, 2009 CV 03585). While the riverboat casinos alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) against certain of the defendants, Arlington was not named in the RICO count, but rather was named solely in a count requesting that the monies paid by the riverboat casinos pursuant to Public Acts 94-804 and 95-1008 be held in a constructive trust for the riverboat casinos’ benefit and ultimately returned to the casinos. Following several lower court rulings, on March 2, 2011, a three member panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal. We requested the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the matter en banc, which hearing was held on May 10, 2011. On July 8, 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a thirty-day stay of dissolution of the temporary restraining order ("TRO") to allow the casinos to request a further stay of dissolution of the TRO pending their petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. On August 5, 2011, the United States Supreme Court denied an application by the Casinos to further stay the dissolution of the TRO. On August 9, 2011, the stay of dissolution expired and the TRO dissolved, which terminated the restrictions on the Company’s ability to access funds from the HRE Trust Fund held in the escrow account. Public Act 94-804 expired in May 2008 and Public Act 95-1008 expired on July 18, 2011, the date the tenth Illinois riverboat license became operational.

Arlington filed an administrative appeal in the Circuit Court of Cook County on August 18, 2009 (Arlington Park Racecourse LLC v. Illinois Racing Board, 09 CH 28774) challenging the IRB’s allocation of funds out of the HRE Trust Fund based upon handle generated by certain ineligible licensees, as contrary to the language of the statute. The Circuit Court affirmed the IRB’s decision on November 10, 2010, and Arlington appealed this ruling to the Illinois First District Court of Appeals. On April 23, 2012 the Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the IRB’s decision and Arlington filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court on May 25, 2012. On October 1, 2012, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Arlington's petition for leave to appeal. Hawthorne Racecourse filed a separate administrative appeal on June 11, 2010 (Hawthorne Racecourse, Inc. v. Illinois Racing Board et. al., Case No. 10 CH 24439) challenging the IRB’s decision not to credit Hawthorne with handle previously generated by an ineligible licensee for the purpose of calculating the allocation of the HRE Trust Fund monies and the IRB’s unwillingness to hold another meeting in 2010 to reconstrue the statutory language in Public Act 95-1008 with respect to distributions. On May 25, 2011, the Circuit Court rejected Hawthorne’s arguments and affirmed the IRB’s decisions, and Hawthorne appealed the Circuit Court’s decision. Arlington filed its response brief on May 30, 2012, and the IRB filed its response brief on June 30, 2012. Hawthorne filed its reply brief on July 27, 2012. Oral arguments on Hawthorne's appeal before the Illinois First District Court of Appeals were heard on November 1, 2012 and during November 2012, the First District Court of Appeals ruled against Hawthorne.

We received $45.4 million from the HRE Trust Fund, of which $26.1 million was designated for Arlington purses. We used the remaining $19.3 million of the proceeds to improve, market, and maintain or otherwise operate the Arlington racing facility in order to conduct live racing.

Balmoral, Maywood and Illinois Harness Horsemen’s Association

On February 14, 2011, Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., Maywood Park Trotting Association, Inc. and the Illinois Harness Horsemen's Association, Inc. filed a lawsuit styled Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., Maywood Park Trotting Association, Inc. and the Illinois Harness Horsemen's Association Inc. vs. Churchill Downs Incorporated, Churchill Downs Technology Initiatives Company d/b/a TwinSpires.com and Youbet.com, LLC (Case No. 11-CV-D1028) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The plaintiffs allege that Youbet.com breached a co-branding agreement dated December 2007, as amended on December 21, 2007, and September 26, 2008 (the “Agreement”), which was entered into between certain Illinois racetracks and a predecessor of Youbet.com. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached the agreement by virtue of an unauthorized assignment of the Agreement to TwinSpires.com and further allege that Youbet.com and TwinSpires have misappropriated trade secrets in violation of the Illinois Trade Secrets Act. Finally, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and TwinSpires.com tortiously interfered with the Agreement by causing Youbet.com to breach the Agreement. The plaintiffs have alleged damages of at least $3.6 million, or alternatively, of at least $0.8 million. On April 1, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking an order compelling the defendants to turn over all Illinois customer accounts and prohibiting TwinSpires.com from using that list of Illinois customer accounts. On April 18, 2011, the defendants filed an answer and a motion to dismiss certain counts of the plaintiffs' complaint, and Youbet.com asserted a counterclaim seeking certain declaratory relief relating to allegations that plaintiffs Maywood and Balmoral breached the Agreement in 2010, leading to its proper termination by Youbet.com on December 1, 2010. The preliminary injunction hearing took place on July 6, 2011, and, on July 21, 2011, the court denied the preliminary injunction. On March 9, 2012, the parties mediated the case without resolution. The parties filed motions of summary judgment in November and December 2012, respectively, and replies were filed in January 2013.

There are no other material pending legal proceedings.