The Greatest of All Time - Bob Baffert

[classhandicapper]

Unless I missed it, I wish someone would provide a update on the urine test issue. It sounded close to being resolved, then there was the issue of the lab using more urine that they should have. You would think they'd be back in court at least once since then.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Here's another way of putting it. If you owned a decent 2 year old right now, would you hire Baffert to train it?.......

Why wouldn't you want a trainer who knows exactly what it takes to prepare a horse to win the Derby? Is it necessary for him to be at CD on Derby day? I doubt that decisions have been made predicated on the idea that Baffert will escape punishment.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Why wouldn't you want a trainer who knows exactly what it takes to prepare a horse to win the Derby? Is it necessary for him to be at CD on Derby day? I doubt that decisions have been made predicated on the idea that Baffert will escape punishment.

One thing to bear in mind is that in theory Churchill can ban assistant trainers/trainers associated with Baffert from starting a horse formerly trained by Baffert in the Derby.

People are at least assuming that Churchill will follow the same lax practices on assistant and associate trainers that state regulators follow. And maybe / probably they will. But they don't HAVE to. They can refuse entry to any horse just on the association with Baffert. It's their contest- they determine eligibility.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

One thing to bear in mind is that in theory Churchill can ban assistant trainers/trainers associated with Baffert from starting a horse formerly trained by Baffert in the Derby.

People are at least assuming that Churchill will follow the same lax practices on assistant and associate trainers that state regulators follow. And maybe / probably they will. But they don't HAVE to. They can refuse entry to any horse just on the association with Baffert. It's their contest- they determine eligibility.

I don't think they will allow that, but he has had other big names transferred to Mott and Pletcher. Hard to imagine there would be much issue with that. No way guys of that stature are playing beard for anyone.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

One thing to bear in mind is that in theory Churchill can ban assistant trainers/trainers associated with Baffert from starting a horse formerly trained by Baffert in the Derby.

People are at least assuming that Churchill will follow the same lax practices on assistant and associate trainers that state regulators follow. And maybe / probably they will. But they don't HAVE to. They can refuse entry to any horse just on the association with Baffert. It's their contest- they determine eligibility.

In the 30 years Baffert has been trainingthoroughbreds I bet that he has met some trainers that would not be considered "associated" with him that he could trust with his horses. Eligibility would need to be spelled out very precisely by CD to cover all the possibilities.

[Andy Asaro]

Baffert loaded with stakes-quality juvenile males

https://www.drf.com/news/baffert-loa...juvenile-males

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't think they will allow that, but he has had other big names transferred to Mott and Pletcher. Hard to imagine there would be much issue with that. No way guys of that stature are playing beard for anyone.

Bear in mind, it will be the owners suing CD if a non-associated John Smith is not allowed as the new trainer. I am sure that other trainers have been banned by CD over the years. There must be a policy in place that spells out what is and what isn't allowed for trainer changes.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

In the 30 years Baffert has been trainingthoroughbreds I bet that he has met some trainers that would not be considered "associated" with him that he could trust with his horses. Eligibility would need to be spelled out very precisely by CD to cover all the possibilities.

That last statement is not true. Churchill is a private business. They are running a private contest. Unless they engaged in race discrimination or similar (discrimination against a protected class), they have a legal right to refuse an entry to any horse and no obligation to explain why they did so or to put out any eligibility criteria at all.

Now, in practice, someone might sue and get a sports fan judge who issues a questionable injunction. That happens. But legally, Churchill has a lot of flexibility.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

That last statement is not true. Churchill is a private business. They are running a private contest. Unless they engaged in race discrimination or similar (discrimination against a protected class), they have a legal right to refuse an entry to any horse and no obligation to explain why they did so or to put out any eligibility criteria at all.

Now, in practice, someone might sue and get a sports fan judge who issues a questionable injunction. That happens. But legally, Churchill has a lot of flexibility.

So the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission has no say in how CD operates? I think the flexibility is quite limited. Ultimately it is the owners being punished and if they play by the rules of the KHRC they shouldn't have a problem.

[classhandicapper]

In the mean time Baffert is doing just fine in CA and came away with a win in the one race he was clearly targeting at Saratoga for awhile with Gamine.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

So the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission has no say in how CD operates? I think the flexibility is quite limited. Ultimately it is the owners being punished and if they play by the rules of the KHRC they shouldn't have a problem.

The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission could definitely pass a rule, consistent with Kentucky administrative procedure (which likely means after notice and public comment), requiring Churchill Downs to accept an entry in the Kentucky Derby who was in the care of a trainer Churchill believes to be a cheater. Absolutely, they CAN overrule a track on that, again, as long as they follow the rules applicable to any state administrative agency.

But they haven't done that, will never do that, and them doing that is not something Churchill management has to worry about.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission could definitely pass a rule, consistent with Kentucky administrative procedure (which likely means after notice and public comment), requiring Churchill Downs to accept an entry in the Kentucky Derby who was in the care of a trainer Churchill believes to be a cheater. Absolutely, they CAN overrule a track on that, again, as long as they follow the rules applicable to any state administrative agency.

But they haven't done that, will never do that, and them doing that is not something Churchill management has to worry about.

I am talking about rules and regulations in place today. If an owner is abiding by the rules I doubt that they can be denied entry. I know you think they can but we will see.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Seeing Pinehurst win the Del Mar Futurity impressively yesterday, I wonder what Baffert's endgame here is. He's suspended by Churchill Downs for 2 years. I'm sure his owners would want to point a horse like that for the Derby.

Is the plan to do a trainer switch right before the Derby next year? To bring a lawsuit right before the race and hope to get a judge who is sports-happy and will ignore the deliberate delaying tactic (which should normally be a ground to deny an injunction). To just skip the Derby?

Derby is getting ahead of things regarding Pinehurst, who got loose to run a 79.

yea, if Baffert is returning to being 'Baffert' again, as it seems, he'll be pumping out horses that are generational talents over the next six months.

I don't know what the 'end-game', or how the banning situation (wasn't his NYRA ban challenged/defeated?) plays out, but I made a small futures wager on Jimmy Barnes

[classhandicapper]

Derby is getting ahead of things regarding Pinehurst, who got loose to run a 79.

Forget about Pinhurst and Murray (who is reportedly better than he ran the other day), he sent out Cornich to run a 98 on Saturday in the 10th. He's a Quality Road that came in working like a good one, went off 1-2, and won by just over 4 lengths without being all out. It's a long way from showing blistering speed at 5 1/2F on a track that may have helped him to having the stamina to win at 10F but it was a good start.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am talking about rules and regulations in place today. If an owner is abiding by the rules I doubt that they can be denied entry. I know you think they can but we will see.

Of course they can. Here's the Kentucky regulation on entries. It says a lot of stuff but at no point does it say that a track cannot refuse an entry:

https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/kar/810/004/030.pdf

Bear in mind, if tracks actually aren't allowed to refuse entries, Churchill's CURRENT ban on Baffert would be illegal. The reason Churchill's ban on Baffert is legal is exactly the same as the reason it would have the power to refuse to accept an entry after a trainer change- because no Kentucky regulation prohibits Churchill from refusing entries, and Churchill is a private business running a private contest which has the right to refuse service to anyone other than based on a protected class such as race.