The Greatest of All Time - Bob Baffert

[Gander36]

Originally Posted by Redboard

Depends on your reason for sabotaging.

If your purpose was to make money, I'd drug the 12-1.

If you were trying to enhance the performance of a 12-1 horse with a topical anti-inflammatory, you would be a pretty dumb criminal. And how would you get the opportunity and know what body part to apply the cream on?

[PhantomOnTour]

In retrospect, the title of this thread is hilarious.

[classhandicapper]

None of this makes sense to me.

This a legal therapeutic drug. That means you can use it as long as it's out of the horse's system by race day.

It's hard for me to believe almost anyone is stupid enough to purposely use this drug within the window it will produce a positive when you know they test for it. That would be too insanely stupid to believe.

To me there are 3 main possibilities.

1. He uses it legally and regularly in training because he believes it gives him an advantage in getting horses ready (maybe they can work harder?) or because the anti inflammatory and other benefits last longer than the drug stays in the horse's system. But occasionally it stays in the horse's system longer than expected and you get an accidental positive like in this case and the Gamine case.

2. It's a false positive.


3. He's using something else that occasionally produces a positive for this drug.

Most likely it's #1. But it is strange that he fully denies using it on Medina Spirit at all (he admitted it with Gamine) and apparently the horse's medical records will show he wasn't using it. For all this to be true that means he would have to be sneaking a LEGAL drug into the horse's system (so there was no record) and then getting an accidental overage. Something doesn't fully add up yet.

[Redboard]

Originally Posted by Gander36

If you were trying to enhance the performance of a 12-1 horse with a topical anti-inflammatory, you would be a pretty dumb criminal. And how would you get the opportunity and know what body part to apply the cream on?

If you were the vet or groom, wouldn't you know these things?

[dilanesp]

Too much effort is expended on "why would he do this?" and "it doesn't make sense". Those are modes of analysis that apply when someone with a clean record gets into trouble.

But we already know Baffert cheats. So why the search for the innocent explanation? He's the trainer, it's in the horse's system, he's responsible, period.

[Gander36]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Too much effort is expended on "why would he do this?" and "it doesn't make sense". Those are modes of analysis that apply when someone with a clean record gets into trouble.

But we already know Baffert cheats. So why the search for the innocent explanation? He's the trainer, it's in the horse's system, he's responsible, period.

WORD!

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

2. It's a false positive.


3. He's using something else that occasionally produces a positive for this drug.

This thread is worth a read:

Twitter

[mountainman]

I've spoken out numerous times advocating the imposition of draconian penalties on drug offenders. And I know given Baffert's history and the current climate of thoroughbred racing that this observation comes across as politically incorrect, to say the least. But minus the incendiary context, his offense constitutes the racing equivalent of jaywalking, or throwing a taco bell container out of a car window.

I've seen overages on similar substances come across my desk showing 10x the threshold limit. And a respected Ohio steward with considerable experience training racehorses told me it is highly unlikely that this instance constituted intentional rule bending or proffered the horse any competitive edge.

How unfortunate for all involved that this occurred on racing's biggest stage. Now CD "officials" with no say WHATSOEVER in the final disposition of this purse must rattle sabers in an absolutely unprecedented manner and act preemptively to defend the brand.

As a racing official of some 30 years, I am simply astounded to see a horseman banned from the entry box for an offense like this and at this point in the process. Surreal. But I get it. And probably would feel compelled to act likewise were I in their position.

[mlyles1]

BDC1AD8D-1BFD-48B9-AB0A-9FFC34DA24D6.jpeg

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by mountainman

I've spoken out numerous times advocating the imposition of draconian penalties on drug offenders. And I know given Baffert's history and the current climate of thoroughbred racing that this observation comes across as politically incorrect, to say the least. But minus the incendiary context, his offense constitutes the racing equivalent of jaywalking, or throwing a taco bell container out of a car window.

I've seen overages on similar substances come across my desk showing 10x the threshold limit. And a respected Ohio steward with considerable experience training racehorses told me it is highly unlikely that this instance constituted intentional rule bending or proffered the horse any competitive edge.

How unfortunate for all involved that this occurred on racing's biggest stage. Now CD "officials" with no say WHATSOEVER in the final disposition of this purse must rattle sabers in an absolutely unprecedented manner and act preemptively to defend the brand.

As a racing official of some 30 years, I am simply astounded to see a horseman banned from the entry box for an offense like this and at this point in the process. Surreal. But I get it. And probably would feel compelled to act likewise were I in their position.

This is the final straw.

Remember, the final straw is often a piece of straw.

[cutchemist42]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Too much effort is expended on "why would he do this?" and "it doesn't make sense". Those are modes of analysis that apply when someone with a clean record gets into trouble.

But we already know Baffert cheats. So why the search for the innocent explanation? He's the trainer, it's in the horse's system, he's responsible, period.

Yep.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This is the final straw.

Remember, the final straw is often a piece of straw.

I get it. Completely. But having had lots of real world experience in witnessing drug offenses from close up and acting in accordance with their consequences, I wanted to weigh in as a racing official, from the standpoint of cold fact and long established precedent. Not to act as an apologist for any offender under the sun. I've gone on record many times as in favor of harsh penalties.

[jimmyb]

Originally Posted by mlyles1

Attachment 29669

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Too much effort is expended on "why would he do this?" and "it doesn't make sense". Those are modes of analysis that apply when someone with a clean record gets into trouble.

But we already know Baffert cheats. So why the search for the innocent explanation? He's the trainer, it's in the horse's system, he's responsible, period.

No matter what happened, he's responsible.

I am simply trying to understand how this could happen with this drug.

Personally, I think there are two problems.

1. Trainers that are using hard to detect illegal performance enhancers, pain killers and the like.

2. Trainers that are using legal testable therapeutics to enhance their training and gain an advantage (sometimes off label advantages), go right up to the edge of a positive test to maximize that advantage, but sometimes do get a positive because of miscalculation.

They are both a problem, but to me one feels more like an ethical problem that can be fixed with tighter rules and harsher punishments. The other is even worse because it's criminal and harder to catch and stop them.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by mountainman

I get it. Completely. But having had lots of real world experience in witnessing drug offenses from close up and acting in accordance with their consequences, I wanted to weigh in as a racing official, from the standpoint of cold fact and long established precedent. Not to act as an apologist for any offender under the sun. I've gone on record many times as in favor of harsh penalties.

I am all in favor of precedent generally (how could I not be? I'm a lawyer), but I would caution that when you are talking about a highly regulated industry where the public interest is involved, precedent shouldn't necessarily carry as much weight.

For instance, if there's an insurance company in California that is redlining (charging minorities higher rates), I don't want the California Insurance Commissioner to look at precedent and say "well we had these previous redlining situations and they were given relatively light penalties, so I will follow that precedent". That sort of precedent is never binding- regulators can make examples of people, and there's no principle of law that says just because people before you got a slap on the wrist, you get one too.

Churchill is entitled to say "enough is enough". So can the various horse racing regulators. And there's no requirement that they tailor Baffert's punishments to whatever was done in the past. Maybe this is in part a recognition that too many people in this industry protected the "good old boys" in the past.

I felt the same way about the Rick Dutrow suspension, which outraged a lot of industry types. The only way to start being serious about threats to the sport is to stop adhering to precedents and get out and do something bold.

I applaud Churchill (though, I will repeat, if the second split comes back legal, I would hope they quickly rescind the decision).