Commitments And Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
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 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. 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. On October 11, 2013, depositions were taken from the plaintiffs. 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. On May 16, 2013, Kentucky Downs, KDP and KDMI filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against the Company and Turfway Park, LLC. On September 19, 2013, the Company filed its response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. A hearing occurred before the Simpson County Circuit Court on September 23, 2013 on the Kentucky Downs, KDP and KDMI Motion for Summary Judgment. All parties appeared before the Simpson County Court and oral arguments were heard. On October 31, 2013, the Simpson County Court entered an Order Denying Petitioners’ (Kentucky Downs Management Inc. et al.) Motion for Summary Judgment. The case will now move forward through discovery and to trial. No trial date has been set. 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. On April 15, 2013, both parties filed their opening briefs, and a trial was held on May 2, 2013. On September 23, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled against the Company and upheld the Texas law at issue. Subsequently, on September 25, 2013, the Company ceased taking wagers from Texas residents via TwinSpires.com and returned deposited funds to Texas residents. The Company filed a motion for an expedited hearing in the United States Court of Appeals, which was granted on October 17, 2013. The Texas Racing Commission, et. al., filed an appellate brief on December 13, 2013. The Company filed its brief in reply on December 30, 2013. Oral arguments were heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on February 4, 2014, and the Company is awaiting a ruling from the Court. 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 for summary judgment in November and December 2012, respectively, and replies were filed in January 2013. During June 2013, the Court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment. On November 1, 2013, the Company reached a final settlement in the matter and paid the plaintiffs $2.3 million, of which $2.0 million was reimbursed to the Company by its insurance carrier. 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 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. 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. On October 11, 2013, depositions were taken from the plaintiffs. 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. On May 16, 2013, Kentucky Downs, KDP and KDMI filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against the Company and Turfway Park, LLC. On September 19, 2013, the Company filed its response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. A hearing occurred before the Simpson County Circuit Court on September 23, 2013 on the Kentucky Downs, KDP and KDMI Motion for Summary Judgment. All parties appeared before the Simpson County Court and oral arguments were heard. On October 31, 2013, the Simpson County Court entered an Order Denying Petitioners’ (Kentucky Downs Management Inc. et al.) Motion for Summary Judgment. The case will now move forward through discovery and to trial. No trial date has been set.

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. On April 15, 2013, both parties filed their opening briefs, and a trial was held on May 2, 2013. On September 23, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ruled against the Company and upheld the Texas law at issue. Subsequently, on September 25, 2013, the Company ceased taking wagers from Texas residents via TwinSpires.com and returned deposited funds to Texas residents. The Company filed a motion for an expedited hearing in the United States Court of Appeals, which was granted on October 17, 2013. The Texas Racing Commission, et. al., filed an appellate brief on December 13, 2013. The Company filed its brief in reply on December 30, 2013. Oral arguments were heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on February 4, 2014, and the Company is awaiting a ruling from the Court.

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 for summary judgment in November and December 2012, respectively, and replies were filed in January 2013. During June 2013, the Court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment. On November 1, 2013, the Company reached a final settlement in the matter and paid the plaintiffs $2.3 million, of which $2.0 million was reimbursed to the Company by its insurance carrier.

There are no other material pending legal proceedings.