The Greatest of All Time - Bob Baffert

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

...If you want an analogy, in the annals of drunk driving arrests, has there ever been a case where someone failed field sobriety tests and blew .08 or higher?...

Imo, failing a breathalyzer test probably isn't the best analogy.

Mouthwash’s Effect on a Breathalyzer:
https://www.duicentral.com/blog/mout...-breathalyzer/

The answer is “yes.” Mouthwash, along with a number of other things, can cause a breathalyzer to produce an incorrect blood alcohol reading which, in turn, can cause a person to be falsely arrested for DUI.

That said, I fully agree with the rest of your post.


-jp

.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Imo, failing a breathalyzer test probably isn't the best analogy.

Mouthwash’s Effect on a Breathalyzer:
https://www.duicentral.com/blog/mout...-breathalyzer/




That said, I fully agree with the rest of your post.


-jp

.

I phrased it carefully. You need a case where the person (1) fails the field sobriety tests AND (2) blows over .08. 99.9 percent of the time, such folks are guilty.

Mouthwash is a bit of an urban legend anyway, because you would need to have gargled mouthwash while you were driving or something (it doesn't stay in your mouth very long) AND you would have had to be too dumb to actually tell the cop that you gargled mouthwash and request a blood or urine test instead.

The reality is the statement I made about DUI is true. Protection of the innocent is crucial, and we absolutely do need to force the government to prove people guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and afford due process. It's not totally impossible to be falsely implicated for a DUI. But it isn't common. It's actually extremely rare.

[classhandicapper]

His appearances on TV were a huge error, but other than that he's mostly doing what I would do if I did NOT inject the horse but got a positive.

First, the difference between him injecting the horse and lying about it or telling the truth and it coming back positive due to a topical lotion are huge. I don't care what the rules say about DQs and suspensions. The perception changes a LOT.

If I did not inject the horse I'd immediately hire a lawyer to help prevent a DQ and suspension while I tried to figure out what happened. I'd publicly say I didn't inject the horse with the drug, provide the vet records, and try to figure how/what could have caused the positive. If I found a possible explanation I'd tell everyone what I think happened and then do everything I legally could to find out if I was right. In this case that means doing a urine test that would show whether the Otomax got into his system. Then I'd accept the decision and outcome.

The DQ is practically a foregone conclusion.

Just do the damn urine test and then make a decision on his suspension. They don't have to accept that the result proves he didn't inject if it comes out that way. Blocking it smells bad too.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

His appearances on TV were a huge error, but other than that he's mostly doing what I would do if I did NOT inject the horse but got a positive.

First, the difference between him injecting the horse and lying about it or telling the truth and it coming back positive due to a topical lotion are huge. I don't care what the rules say about DQs and suspensions. The perception changes a LOT.

If I did not inject the horse I'd immediately hire a lawyer to help prevent a DQ and suspension while I tried to figure out what happened. I'd publicly say I didn't inject the horse with the drug, provide the vet records, and try to figure how/what could have caused the positive. If I found a possible explanation I'd tell everyone what I think happened and then do everything I legally could to find out if I was right. In this case that means doing a urine test that would show whether the Otomax got into his system. Then I'd accept the decision and outcome.

The DQ is practically a foregone conclusion.

Just do the damn urine test and then make a decision on his suspension. They don't have to accept that the result proves he didn't inject if it comes out that way. Blocking it smells bad too.

You're leaving some things out.

The biggest is this. If he was innocently using a cream that could cause a positive test, HE WOULD HAVE INFORMED THE STEWARDS BEFORE THE RACE. This is crucial. This is the Kentucky Freaking Derby! Indeed, his owners can sue him for millions of dollars if in fact the horse gets DQ'd because he applied an ointment that can cause a positive test and didn't inform the stewards or check if this was OK.

The fact that he insisted on giving the ointment secretly- THAT FACT ALONE- establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If it was all on the up and up, and he was acting as a good fiduciary towards his owners, he clears it with the stewards. He doesn't take the risk of a positive test. There's no way.

The second biggest is this. The first thing he would have done when the horse tested positive was release all his vet records on the horse, publicly, showing when the ointment was applied and who applied it. Why? Because it's literally his ONLY shot to avoid a disqualification. Again, if he is truly innocent, and he did not do this, he's facing a lawsuit for millions of dollars from his owners when the horse gets disqualified.

If you're innocent, you do everything you possibly can to IMMEDIATELY clear the air and you INVITE scrutiny of everything. Because you have nothing to hide. You're innocent.

And the third is the lawsuit. You're innocent! Why would you file a premature lawsuit that can only have the effect of angering the KHRC and making them more likely to reject your defense? Even if you are going to sue, don't you wait until they issue the ruling and then file your lawsuit asserting they failed to give proper weight to your innocence defense?

He's not innocent, class. We don't know ALL the details, but we know with 100 percent certainty he is not innocent and he cheated to win the Kentucky Derby.

[VeryOldMan]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

And the third is the lawsuit. You're innocent! Why would you file a premature lawsuit that can only have the effect of angering the KHRC and making them more likely to reject your defense? Even if you are going to sue, don't you wait until they issue the ruling and then file your lawsuit asserting they failed to give proper weight to your innocence defense?

This right here.

Baffert got ahead of the general sports wave yesterday on ESPN, e.g., with the microscopic contamination, etc., etc. defense. And that was what he and his defense team were after.

There's an expression: if the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts on on your side, pound the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table.

We're seeing table pounding.

[Robert Fischer]

betamethasone or lidocaine etc... are TERRIBLE to give if they are banned, and of course, TERRIBLE, if you are covering up a lame horse (not inferring that he was doing this, just extrapolating the betamethasone, lidocaine stuff), and probably bad for other reasons.

however, these overages, and medication failed tests, while possibly terrible, or at best a disregard to the rules that we all have to play by, - They are not what is making a horse not get tired. They aren't making a horse train 6f with a 2f gallop out faster than the same type of horse in another barn that only cheats a little bit and runs 5f with a fading gallop out..
They aren't the substances that are helping a trainer and group of trainers have generational talents every year, or win 30% of the number of races they have entries within.

Medina Spirit may or may not have had stuff like betamethasone when he defied the laws of pace in the Robert B. Lewis, but it's not the substances that 'powered' his tremendous performance that day.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

betamethasone or lidocaine etc... are TERRIBLE to give if they are banned, and of course, TERRIBLE, if you are covering up a lame horse (not inferring that he was doing this, just extrapolating the betamethasone, lidocaine stuff), and probably bad for other reasons.

however, these overages, and medication failed tests, while possibly terrible, or at best a disregard to the rules that we all have to play by, - They are not what is making a horse not get tired. They aren't making a horse train 6f with a 2f gallop out faster than the same type of horse in another barn that only cheats a little bit and runs 5f with a fading gallop out..
They aren't the substances that are helping a trainer and group of trainers have generational talents every year, or win 30% of the number of races they have entries within.

Medina Spirit may or may not have had stuff like betamethasone when he defied the laws of pace in the Robert B. Lewis, but it's not the substances that 'powered' his tremendous performance that day.

There are numerous examples from other sports of people using MULTIPLE banned substances and either testing negative for everything (just about everyone in the BALCO scandal was using at least two illegal substances) or testing positive for only one of them.

Baffert has a record with tons of positive tests. He's using all sorts of stuff. He was caught with this substance this time. It's not the universe of what he was likely giving Medina Spirit or anyone else in his barn.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

You're leaving some things out.

The biggest is this. If he was innocently using a cream that could cause a positive test, HE WOULD HAVE INFORMED THE STEWARDS BEFORE THE RACE. This is crucial. This is the Kentucky Freaking Derby! Indeed, his owners can sue him for millions of dollars if in fact the horse gets DQ'd because he applied an ointment that can cause a positive test and didn't inform the stewards or check if this was OK.

The fact that he insisted on giving the ointment secretly- THAT FACT ALONE- establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If it was all on the up and up, and he was acting as a good fiduciary towards his owners, he clears it with the stewards. He doesn't take the risk of a positive test. There's no way.

The second biggest is this. The first thing he would have done when the horse tested positive was release all his vet records on the horse, publicly, showing when the ointment was applied and who applied it. Why? Because it's literally his ONLY shot to avoid a disqualification. Again, if he is truly innocent, and he did not do this, he's facing a lawsuit for millions of dollars from his owners when the horse gets disqualified.

If you're innocent, you do everything you possibly can to IMMEDIATELY clear the air and you INVITE scrutiny of everything. Because you have nothing to hide. You're innocent.

And the third is the lawsuit. You're innocent! Why would you file a premature lawsuit that can only have the effect of angering the KHRC and making them more likely to reject your defense? Even if you are going to sue, don't you wait until they issue the ruling and then file your lawsuit asserting they failed to give proper weight to your innocence defense?

He's not innocent, class. We don't know ALL the details, but we know with 100 percent certainty he is not innocent and he cheated to win the Kentucky Derby.

1. You are assuming he was aware the horse could even get a positive from topical Otomax or that it was being used. From what I gather, he's not exactly hands on these days even if he is ultimately responsible for it. If you think accidental positives don't occur even among totally clean trainers, you are wrong.

2. I just read the other day that the vet records were handed over and they do show the horse was treated with Otomax. Pictures of the horse's hind quarters support the story also.

3. From what I read the lawsuit is related to the urine tests that they don't want to give that would demonstrate the use of Otomax and that it got into his system.

I get it. Some people hate Baffert because they think he's an irresponsible cheater. They want to see him go down. But I think people are mixing up his long term record of positives and horse deaths with the specifics of this case. We are discussing this case. IMO people are wildly overblowing this specific case based on the evidence. This is a legal therapeutic drug, it's not performance enhancing at the level found, and there may be an explanation that can can be shown to be true.

If they want to take him down completely, find the evidence of performance enhancers.

If they want to make the punishment more severe because of his history, that's fine. I have no problem with that. But let's deal with this case.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

1. You are assuming he was aware the horse could even get a positive from topical Otomax or that it was being used. From what I gather, he's not exactly hands on these days even if he is ultimately responsible for it. If you think accidental positives don't occur even among totally clean trainers, you are wrong.

Several points:

a. I think the notion that Bob Baffert, with his record of previous drug positives, has no idea if any particular cream will trigger a positive drug test, is nuts.

b. But I also would say, if he really didn't have any idea about Otomax, he STILL should have cleared it with the Stewards. Why would he use a product he didn't understand on a horses preparing for the Kentucky Derby? Again, the risk is too high! You are basically positing gross negligence on his part that would expose him to millions of dollars of liability.

c. As for accidental positives, I used the 99.9 percent figure above for how often a positive test means actual cheating, and I believe it.

Very simply, ALMOST EVERY PED cheater in every sport claims they weren't cheating. And the way they do it is by claiming accidents. Oh, I took cold medication. Oh, something legal I took just didn't clear out of my system in time. Oh, it was some prescription thing. Oh, it was something that contaminated the horse's barn.

So the starting point is, whatever Racing Commissions have to do, WE should not go into this with the attitude "oooh, accidental positives happen all the time". No, they don't. They happen extremely rarely, and they NEVER happen to trainers with long lists of prior offenses. Not only because you can count on such trainers lying, but also because if such trainers were being honest, their priors would cause them to be extremely cautious.

2. I just read the other day that the vet records were handed over and they do show the horse was treated with Otomax. Pictures of the horse's hind quarters support the story also.

It's not just handing over the vet records. It's WHEN he did it, and what he handed over. He didn't hand over everything, and he didn't hand them over right when the drug test positive was announced. He hired lawyers, and they made some sort of partial disclosure.

3. From what I read the lawsuit is related to the urine tests that they don't want to give that would demonstrate the use of Otomax and that it got into his system.

The lawsuit is claiming two things:

a. That the KHRC be PROHIBITED from suspending him until his lawyers can come up with a test that supposedly shows his "innocence" ("innocence" is in quotes because the regulations say nothing about topical creams and provide that his license can be revoked even if everything Baffert claims is true).

b. That the KHRC cannot be allowed to suspend him because one of the split samples was supposedly "contaminated" (a defense you might remember from the OJ Simpson trial, where it was similarly deployed to try and deflect from massive evidence of guilt).

Plus, the lawsuit is premature. These are both claims Baffert can make AFTER he is suspended or sees his license revoked. There is no reason to sue now (it will anger KHRC and be thrown out) and plenty of reason to wait.

I get it. Some people hate Baffert because they think he's an irresponsible cheater. They want to see him go down. But I think people are mixing up his long term record of positives and horse deaths with the specifics of this case.

That's not right. He cheated here and also cheated in the past. His cheating in the past also makes it more likely that he cheated here.

But he definitely cheated here. All the evidence points to that, and he is not behaving like an innocent person.

As for "seeing him go down", I don't give a **** about Bob Baffert one way or the other. He's rich, and he will be fine if he never holds a trainer's license again.

What I want is the ****ing deterrence. I want the next person who decides he or she wants to cheat in the Kentucky Derby to see what happened to this guy and say "it's not worth it". And I want the sport to see that nobody is indispensible. It doesn't matter how powerful you are, if you do this, you're out.

We are discussing this case. IMO people are wildly overblowing this specific case based on the evidence. This is a legal therapeutic drug, it's not performance enhancing at the level found, and there may be an explanation that can can be shown to be true.

This is not a legal therapeutic drug. The KHRC regulations say that if you test positive, your horse is disqualified and your license can be revoked. It's illegal. It should have never been taken out of Baffert's amply stocked medicine cabinet.

And we should also be VERY skeptical of "it's not performance enhancing". As far as I am concerned, if it is on the KHRC list, it's performance enhancing. This is an industry of people who still lie and say that Lasix isn't performance enhancing. It's not that I totally trust KHRC- as far as I'm concerned, WADA should decide what drugs are legal in horse racing. But certainly anything that ends up on KHRC's list should be considered performance enhancing.

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

And one other thing. Never forget what Medina Spirit's Derby actually looked like. Three horses, including the favorite, a horse who later went on to win the Belmont in 2:27 and change, looked like they were going to swallow him at the top of the stretch after he had led all through the race and set fast fractions. He then pulled away from those horses.

He RAN like he was doped. 2 weeks later, presumably without the dope, he tired in the stretch at Pimlico (losing to a horse who was soundly beaten in the Belmont).

There's zero reason to make any excuses for Baffert. He cheated to win the Kentucky Derby. We need to be able to say that and not pretend there's this never-never land where he just got caught up in an honest mix-up.

None of the Baffert Fanboys want to argue the points made here???

Excellent synopsis, dilanesp.

[classhandicapper]

As for accidental positives, I used the 99.9 percent figure above for how often a positive test means actual cheating, and I believe it.

We agree on many things, but in this case I think you hate Baffert so passionately you aren't thinking like an unbiased observer of this case.

Let me tell you a short story.

I'm part of a small partnership. We use a trainer that imo is as clean as there is anywhere in the entire sport. I would object to using him and get out of the partnership if I thought otherwise.

We have a 4yo in training ready to make his first start. Because he had some issues at 2 and 3 and is still unraced at 4, he had to pass a few tests and work for the vet to get the OK to race. He passed the workout, but a blood test came back positive for what I would consider the equivalent of a horse aspirin. There was a mix up between when he was supposed to work for the vet and when he was given the medication. It didn't make feel great that a mix up like that could happen, but it was 100% innocent. We had to have another series of tests and work out for the vet again.

Sh$t happens. People make mistakes.

If you want to crucify someone you have to demonstrate they are "cheating" with performance enhancers. You can't just assert it because you hate him and don't believe his horses are running clean. Medina Spirit is going to get DQ'd and Baffet is going to get suspended, but he's entitled to due process and as strong a defense as he can muster up to try to lower the downsides.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

We agree on many things, but in this case I think you hate Baffert so passionately you aren't thinking like an unbiased observer of this case.

Let me tell you a short story.

I'm part of a small partnership. We use a trainer that imo is as clean as there is anywhere in the entire sport. I would object to using him and get out of the partnership if I thought otherwise.

We have a 4yo in training ready to make his first start. Because he had some issues at 2 and 3 and is still unraced at 4, he had to pass a few tests and work for the vet to get the OK to race. He passed the workout, but a blood test came back positive for what I would consider the equivalent of a horse aspirin. There was a mix up between when he was supposed to work for the vet and when he was given the medication. It didn't make feel great that a mix up like that could happen, but it was 100% innocent. We had to have another series of tests and work out for the vet again.

Sh$t happens. People make mistakes.

If you want to crucify someone you have to demonstrate they are "cheating" with performance enhancers. You can't just assert it because you hate him and don't believe his horses are running clean. Medina Spirit is going to get DQ'd and Baffet is going to get suspended, but he's entitled to due process and as strong a defense as he can muster up to try to lower the downsides.

1. You were part of the 0.1 percent. Baffert is not. And they are two different situations (including two VERY different standards of care being applied in a mom and pop operation vs. a huge trainer with numerous past violations).

2. Due process is great. But it's worth understanding what due process requires here.

Due process requires exactly two things:

a. An immediate post-deprivation hearing where Baffert, after being suspended, can contest his suspension with KHRC.

and

b. Notice of that hearing.

That's it. All this other stuff that lawyers for cheaters call "due process" is not actually due process. It's arguments made up by lawyers.

Baffert should have every right, once he is suspended, to contest the suspension. Not before. After. We don't even know if he is going to be suspended. Maybe he won't be. That would be a travesty, but he has skated before.

But after he loses his license, yes, he can go in and explain himself. And if he tells the absolute truth and the absolute truth were to somehow exonerate him, sure, that's what due process is for. It is crucial, and if a trainer- even one I think is cheating- is ever denied an opportunity to explain his conduct and argue for lenience, I will come in here and defend that trainer's rights. I believe passionately in due process.

But due process doesn't mean "the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission has to follow whatever process my lawyers make up". And it also doesn't mean "the public should pretend that I'm not a cheater when everyone knows I am one" or "the public should pretend that standards that we apply to protect mom and pop operations who accidentally test positive serve to exonerate one of the richest trainers in horse racing who is capable of carefully regulating everything that goes into his horses".

[classhandicapper]

Apparently we are now at the stage where the fight over the urine sample is beginning. Good thread from Janet Patton on Twitter. Here's part of it.


Janet Patton
@janetpattonhl
Hearing on Bob Baffert's request for Medina Spirit's urine to test has begun. Hold tight.

@janetpattonhl
Apparently the actual issue is that Baffert/Zedan want ALL of the urine, not just 2ml, which is what the Ky racing commission has offered. Judge Wingate says he doesn't think that's fair, wants to know why.

@janetpattonhl
Atty Craig Robertson says there are 3 issues: 'That urine needs to remain intact & frozen until gets to lab' (can't be thawed). 2) 'Lab needs to have access to whatever amt needed for tests.' 3) Lab needs to be able to test 'full panoply' of tests (for all ingredients in Otomax)

@janetpattonhl
"Whatever's left, they can have" (meaning send back to racing commission/lab)

@janetpattonhl
Wingate suggest that (Racing Com executive director) Marc) Guilfoyle drive the sample from one lab to another to keep it safe. "This is not a typical case ... this hasn't happened since '68," Wingate says.

@janetpattonhl
Or, Wingate says, they fly it up together, watch it.

The thread continues

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Apparently we are now at the stage where the fight over the urine sample is beginning. Good thread from Janet Patton on Twitter. He's part of it.


Janet Patton
@janetpattonhl
Hearing on Bob Baffert's request for Medina Spirit's urine to test has begun. Hold tight.

@janetpattonhl
Apparently the actual issue is that Baffert/Zedan want ALL of the urine, not just 2ml, which is what the Ky racing commission has offered. Judge Wingate says he doesn't think that's fair, wants to know why.

@janetpattonhl
Atty Craig Robertson says there are 3 issues: 'That urine needs to remain intact & frozen until gets to lab' (can't be thawed). 2) 'Lab needs to have access to whatever amt needed for tests.' 3) Lab needs to be able to test 'full panoply' of tests (for all ingredients in Otomax)

@janetpattonhl
"Whatever's left, they can have" (meaning send back to racing commission/lab)

@janetpattonhl
Wingate suggest that (Racing Com executive director) Marc) Guilfoyle drive the sample from one lab to another to keep it safe. "This is not a typical case ... this hasn't happened since '68," Wingate says.

@janetpattonhl
Or, Wingate says, they fly it up together, watch it.

The thread continues

Same issue OJ's lawyers argued. They argued they should get all the blood to retest. Eventually the Court gave them splits, and they never retested it. Because they knew how the tests would come out.

Remember, on all of this, Baffert knows he is guilty and the lab didn't screw up. The point of all of this is just to plant the seed that he is supposedly being treated unfairly.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Same issue OJ's lawyers argued. They argued they should get all the blood to retest. Eventually the Court gave them splits, and they never retested it. Because they knew how the tests would come out.

Remember, on all of this, Baffert knows he is guilty and the lab didn't screw up. The point of all of this is just to plant the seed that he is supposedly being treated unfairly.

They did NOT test anything for other Otomax compounds yet.

The point of this is to show that the other Otomax compounds are in the urine sample and match the vet records and photos of Medina Spirit that show he had some kind of skin condition that needed treatment.

The goal is to change public perception from Medina Spirit was injected with illegal performance enhancing steroids (which is not even an accurate description even if he was injected) to Media Spirit had a skin condition that was treated with a legal therapeutic ointment that contained betamethasone and caused an accidental positive. In other words, someone just screwed up.

The difference has huge implication for Baffert and may even be better for the sport if true!

Beyond that there may be a Hail Mary pass by the owners to prevent a DQ because of the intent of the rule (they claim to prevent injection), but Baffert is not Doug Flutie. This horse is going to get DQ'd.

Now if they get the required urine sample and don't do the tests, that would indicate that Otomax wasn't used and they are full of crap. But to know that, they have to give him the urine sample first.