Finally! Washington Post buries Baffert: The dark side of Bob Baffert’s reign

[pandy]

From the day that the NY Times broke this story in 2019, it was clear to anyone with half a brain that the CHRB's handling of the Justify positive was corrupt and dishonest.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by pandy

From the day that the NY Times broke this story in 2019, it was clear to anyone with half a brain that the CHRB's handling of the Justify positive was corrupt and dishonest.

Sure, but it's still shocking for a regulator to actually publicly say "we treated this case differently because this horse won the Triple Crown", as if he thinks that will fly with the public and is perfectly acceptable.

There was a scandal in the 1990's in Los Angeles with unsanitary conditions in restaurant kitchens. One of the restaurants that got shut down was owned by the Mayor, and it happened just before Thanksgiving. Some strings were obviously pulled to get an inspector out and get the restaurant opened back up on Thanksgiving day when a lot of customers were expected.

The thing is, that was obviously terrible and corrupt. And yet- if the health inspector were later interviewed and said on the record that of course he had to treat the case differently because it was the Mayor's restaurant, I would have been shocked. It's one thing that corruption goes on; it's quite another that a regulator would actually think that there's nothing wrong with openly giving special treatment.

When the spokesperson says "we don't believe in special treatment and did not give anyone special treatment", it may be a lie and it may be hypocritical, but it's also what the spokesperson is supposed to say, because the spokesperson is at least acknowledging the norm of equal treatment under the law. The fact that Arthur thinks it is perfectly OK for a regulator to say "this horse won the Triple Crown, we can't disqualify him", who doesn't even think that this is embarrassing and a fundamental violation of a crucial norm, is still shocking to me even though I am not shocked about the corruption.

[pandy]

What's amazing is that there are Baffert fans, or Baffert deniers, who think that it was justified to cover up the Justify positive. This wasn't an arguable situation. They covered it up. They are corrupt.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by pandy

What's amazing is that there are Baffert fans, or Baffert deniers, who think that it was justified to cover up the Justify positive. This wasn't an arguable situation. They covered it up. They are corrupt.

Honestly, outside of my comment on regulators, I bet a lot of folks in the elite circles of horse racing absolutely believe that it was a good thing to cover up the positive test. They see the Triple Crown as the alpha and omega of the sport, there's too many investments in the breeding industry that could be ruined by a disqualification, and even if they think Baffert is crooked as hell, they hate the notion that the owners and breeders might be punished for his sins.

But the whole point of having state regulators is to have people in charge who DON'T think that way and treat the Triple Crown no differently than a cheap claiming race.

I will say- this whole subject should make us appreciate the Churchill stewards' decision to DQ Maximum Security a little more. Because they DIDN'T get caught up in the "this is the Derby, it's different" hysteria (a position argued by many elites in the sport, including even Andy Beyer). They applied the same rule they would apply if a horse did the same thing at the 1/4 pole in the 4th at Ellis Park.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Maximum Security is still pissed off about his DQ.

Would he have been DQ'd if his trainer was some clean blue blood instead of Jason Servis who most already suspected wasn't clean?

I'm not asking "should". I'm asking "would".

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Would he have been DQ'd if his trainer was some clean blue blood instead of Jason Servis who most already suspected wasn't clean?

I'm not asking "should". I'm asking "would".

We don't know for sure, but it certainly looked like the the stewards were calling them as they saw them. Remember, again, even with dishonest trainers, there's tremendous pressure inside the sport not to change the results of Triple Crown races. That's what the Justify thing really shows you.

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

We don't know for sure, but it certainly looked like the the stewards were calling them as they saw them. Remember, again, even with dishonest trainers, there's tremendous pressure inside the sport not to change the results of Triple Crown races. That's what the Justify thing really shows you.

Good point, dilanesp. I wonder how much this may have factored into Baffert's actions. Arrogant people do arrogant things.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by pandy

What's amazing is that there are Baffert fans, or Baffert deniers, who think that it was justified to cover up the Justify positive. This wasn't an arguable situation. They covered it up. They are corrupt.

racing is corrupt

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

[Gamblin4ever]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

racing is corrupt

[Gamblin4ever]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/st...82219915399168

My question is when will NYRA suspend Linda Rice? I know NYGC suspended her license, but, NYRA hasn't suspended her. They can use the same argument on Integrity and Confidence of the public against her. Before anybody uses apples to oranges comparison, remember Dutrow's suspension was mostly about paperwork and look what he got. If you suspend Baffert over multiple violations with drugs, you need to suspend Rice asap to show the rules apply to all. Just my opinion.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by Gamblin4ever

My question is when will NYRA suspend Linda Rice? I know NYGC suspended her license, but, NYRA hasn't suspended her. They can use the same argument on Integrity and Confidence of the public against her. Before anybody uses apples to oranges comparison, remember Dutrow's suspension was mostly about paperwork and look what he got. If you suspend Baffert over multiple violations with drugs, you need to suspend Rice asap to show the rules apply to all. Just my opinion.

In a perfect world you are right.

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

Twitter

---

Last edited by Andy Asaro; 07-01-2021 at 10:21 AM.

[airford1]

Originally Posted by pandy

What's amazing is that there are Baffert fans, or Baffert deniers, who think that it was justified to cover up the Justify positive. This wasn't an arguable situation. They covered it up. They are corrupt.

You could say I'm a Baffert Fan and if he has broken the rules he and OTHERS need to be punished.

The Betamethasone is a BS infraction, meaning that if you have so much evidence they could pick a better case to take Baffert out with. How long have they been building this case?

[AskinHaskin]

Originally Posted by airford1

You could say I'm a Baffert Fan and if he has broken the rules he and OTHERS need to be punished.

The Betamethasone is a BS infraction, meaning that if you have so much evidence they could pick a better case to take Baffert out with. How long have they been building this case?

There remains zero evidence of Baffert having ever been found with his hand in the actual cookie jar that is drugging race horses for the purposes of gaining an unfair, competitive edge.

To infer (as so much of the industry has been doing) that the FBI wouldn't be able to find/notice Baffert were he a participant like the Jason Servis's of the racing world, is pure stupidity.


The Jimson Weed-in-the-hay scenario has played out at every race track since the beginning of (Jimson Weed, or hay, whichever came first), and the reason you don't hear about it is because it isn't relevant to the cheat-defining hand-in-the-cookie-jar designation.


Next thing we're going to do is punish the trainers when the pace is favorable to their charge's success. (It'll be like harness racing: "Judges have fined ______ ______ for setting too slow a pace..." ).


There is a giant, black-and-white difference between stumbling into an unfair edge and plotting in criminal fashion to know an unfair edge for personal financial gain.


LOL - if the industry wants to take Baffert out, why worry about the insignificant drug overages, when the easy way to do it is to condemn him for being so much better than everyone else that he arrives at the Keeneland sales with a list of 25 or 200, buys 3 or 13 of those, and is then offered the chance to train 90+ percent of the original 25 or 200 by other owners wanting only to win the Derby.

His other 'edge' is having so many individuals of quality on the same Derby trail that even if 1, 4, or 22 are rendered unfit to continue on, he has that many or more with which to replace them. Lets ban Bob Baffert from racing for that - which is far more 'clear' than is all of this other muddled stuff.


All of time and effort wasted on Baffert (only because he's in the public eye) is time lost in the pursuit of those actually employing illegal performance enhancing drugs in order to win horse races for personal financial gain.

Anybody anywhere can document Baffert's evolution up through the ranks beginning from helping his trainer father from the mid-1960's. He's already wealthy enough to be doing most anything he wants to do, but there's a reason he lives near to Santa Anita and goes there before dawn on most days. (*** and that reason has zero to do with altering the outcome of horse races through illegal means for his own personal gain or that of anyone around him)


Now, should Medina Spirit be DQ'ed from the Derby?? - of course.

Until such time as when the FBI pauses to take interest in Baffert, all of you armchair detectives whose main evidence approximates some bet you might have cashed were it not for Baffert, would be much better off pointing your keen detective work in the direction of those with their hands in the drugging race horses for personal gain cookie jar.