The Greatest of All Time - Bob Baffert

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Actually, the rule is stand down time that makes the horse ineligible to run. It is not a withdrawal guideline to avoid a positive but rather a safety measure to minimize racehorse injuries.

It's both.

You don't want extra positives because a few horses metabolize it slower.

As is, 14 days is probably not enough anyway. If they were just interested in the horse, they would make longer (a vet would know). The benefits of using it while training probably last longer than the 14 days.

The rule is begging trainers that would consider cheating to cheat because they know they have a window where they can give it closer to race time and still pass the test.

mo these kinds of therapeutics should probably be used very short term and the horse should be training clean for awhile before racing. After that it's just a debate about how to enforce it.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Shireffs is kind of ridiculous. He says he lives in fear of the trainer responsibility rule and someone accidentally doping a horse, but he literally never has a positive test. In other words, no, there aren't people running around the barns giving unauthorized stuff to horses and doping them.

The trainer responsibility rule PROTECTS the John Shireffs of the world. Without it we would have even more doping.

does explain why he wasnt, and still isnt, a big fan of shipping horses.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

From what I can tell, the rules will allow Baffert to enter and run Medina Spirit in the Preakness on Saturday, since we're weeks away from getting the test results back from the split sample (per this article):

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...iled-drug-test

While we can argue the pros and cons of the current rules, this will be a make the PR disaster for racing even worse, as the coverage of the race will be dominated by this story.

In the spirit of pointing fingers at what might have been, it's my opinion that racing took a HORRIBLE step in the wrong direction back in 1995 when NYRA allowed lasix, to "be in line" with the rest of the country. Think where the sport could be today, had the decision makers then not thrown the future of racing under the bus to protect field sizes, and used the logic of "well, they'll cheat anyway". Andy Beyer wrote up an article which seems haunting this week:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...875-story.html

Had the industry instead back in 1995 opted to bring North America in line with the rest of the world and displayed the wise course to ban all race day medications and clean up other aspects of racing, we'd have avoided the controversy we'll see this weekend.

Of course you may say hindsight is 50-50 and who could have known, but the road taken by greed and not in the best interest of the horses was obviously not the way to go....

Kentucky taking eight weeks to test a split sample is itself an overly-friendly "good old boys" rule. You can test a split sample in a day with 2021 technology. Why do we have a rule giving dopers eight weeks time to continue cheating?

Churchill basically had to rule him off the grounds.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by pandy

This is typical of horsemen, they don't like to point fingers or be called a snitch, which is one of the reasons why racing has declined so much.

So true. Horsemen almost invariably close ranks and protect their own. Even to the detriment of honest rule-abiding members of their own ranks. Good luck convincing them that doping, protection claiming, bad-faith entries earmarked for scratching (which, in my opinion, amounts to purse theft , if not race-fixing) in large part constitute horsemen on horsemen crime.

[mountainman]

Invoking cancel culture will not help Mr Baffert's cause. NOW he has unleashed fury of an entirely different nature upon himself.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by mountainman

So true. Horsemen almost invariably close ranks and protect their own. Even to the detriment of honest rule-abiding members of their own ranks. Good luck convincing them that doping, protection claiming, bad-faith entries earmarked for scratching (which, in my opinion, amounts to purse theft , if not race-fixing) in large part constitute horsemen on horsemen crime.

This sort of tribalism is a fact of human psychology. How many bad cops remain on police forces because the cops who aren't involved in their BS don't report them?

My own profession has this problem too. Lawyers almost never report other lawyers to the bar, even for egregiously unethical conduct.

There's just something about human psychology that condemns being a snitch. But we need snitches!

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Kentucky taking eight weeks to test a split sample is itself an overly-friendly "good old boys" rule. You can test a split sample in a day with 2021 technology. Why do we have a rule giving dopers eight weeks time to continue cheating?

Churchill basically had to rule him off the grounds.

I've never seen a split come back negative. I'm sure it has happened, but not where I work, and not in a very long time.

[cj]

Don't even know what to say any more...

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...medina-spirit/

[mountainman]

I just spoke at length with a highly respected and experienced state-vet. He finds it very likely that Medina Spirit has a problem knee or ankle and they cut it too close with an injection.

He outright scoffed at the notion that any ped would "false test" as this corticosteroid.

In addition, he has never-in a career spanning some 40 years- seen a split return negative.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by mountainman

I've never seen a split come back negative. I'm sure it has happened, but not where I work, and not in a very long time.

Yeah.

A story from the legal annals. In the OJ Simpson murder case, before trial the defense demanded splits of all the blood and DNA samples, so they could do their own tests. The prosecution dutifully provided all the splits.

At trial, it came out- the defense never tested them. They knew which way the tests would come out.

[VeryOldMan]

Originally Posted by cj

Don't even know what to say any more...

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/t...medina-spirit/

I have this image of his team frantically thumbing through some veterinary supply catalog looking for all the stuff which contains the drug and might plausibly be used on a horse. "Nothing in the N's, let's turn to O . . . Bingo! Otomax!!"

Not that there was much doubt, but it doesn't sound like the split sample is going to be his salvation.

[cj]

Originally Posted by VeryOldMan

I have this image of his team frantically thumbing through some veterinary supply catalog looking for all the stuff which contains the drug and might plausibly be used on a horse. "Nothing in the N's, let's turn to O . . . Bingo! Otomax!!"

Not that there was much doubt, but it doesn't sound like the split sample is going to be his salvation.

Sadly, this was my first thought too. I hope I'm wrong. I would guess there should be documentation that drug was being given, but who knows?

If true, how ridiculous is it that they would give this the day before the Derby? Like between the SA Derby and Kentucky Derby, nobody read the label?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by VeryOldMan

I have this image of his team frantically thumbing through some veterinary supply catalog looking for all the stuff which contains the drug and might plausibly be used on a horse. "Nothing in the N's, let's turn to O . . . Bingo! Otomax!!"

Not that there was much doubt, but it doesn't sound like the split sample is going to be his salvation.

Right, and that gets back to "why does racing wait eight weeks?".

The split sample is about one defense only- the defense that there's no way that chemical got into the horse and there must have been contamination at the drug lab. Any defense that relies on "yes, the test was positive, but it doesn't mean what they say it means" doesn't rely on the split sample.

So why does horse racing not authorize immediate punishment unless the trainer is going to rely on a lab contamination defense? I'll tell you why- because the "eight weeks for a split sample" rules were written by buddies of the horsemen who dope their horses.

Here's how the rule should work instead:

"You have the right to a split sample. However, the split sample will not stay your suspension unless you waive all defenses other than that the test was contaminated.

"If you wish to assert a defense other than the test being contaminated, you may still have a split sample, but if your defense is rejected, your suspension will run while we are awaiting the results of the split. Better find a lab that tests quick."

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by mountainman

I just spoke at length with a highly respected and experienced state-vet. He finds it very likely that Medina Spirit has a problem knee or ankle and they cut it too close with an injection.

I thought that was far and away the most likely scenario. The thing that made no sense to me was that unlike Gamine where he admitted using it, he denied using it this time and says that the vet records will verify that. So something is still missing unless he's telling the truth.

[Bigadam119]

Well the truth is starting to come out. Now there’s at least and admission that Medina Spirit was given the drug in the form of fungal cream. Not buying the explanation, but we’re moving past the denial stage.