Charlatan Stripped Of Arkansas Derby??

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

That's true, but two things:

(1) it is entirely possible he was using from the start, and

(2) even if he wasn't, he then bulked up and hit 70....

OP said McGwire "all of a sudden became Babe Ruth".

[Fightingirish51195]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

The reason it's called a split sample is because they when they take urine and or blood after a race. They draw enough specimen that should a positive be detected they have enough saved to send more off to the second lab. Which BTW is chosen and paid for by the trainer.

Ahhhhhh makes sense. I wasn’t even aware it was called a split sample. Who takes the sample and sends it in though?

[v j stauffer]

Originally Posted by Fightingirish51195

Ahhhhhh makes sense. I wasn’t even aware it was called a split sample. Who takes the sample and sends it in though?

The sample is collected after a race by technicians who work for the Arkansas Racing Commission. The specimen is sent to a laboratory and tested anonymously. The lab doesn't know which sample is from which horse.

If the test comes back positive the trainer is notified and given the option to send a split sample to a different lab which the trainer chooses.

That test is also anonymous. The 2nd lab doesn't know whose horse it is. Or what it tested positive for.

If it doesn't confirm the positive the case never existed. If it confirms the finding an investigation is conducted.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by the little guy

You sure are the king of baseless accusations.

There's plenty of evidence that Baffert is a cheater. But he's been protected by CHRB throughout his career. When those 7 horses died they didn't even fine him. And then there was Justified, who tested positive but it was swept under the rug.

[pandy]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Mark McGwire hit a record 49 home runs as a rookie...

That doesn't change the fact that he was a good player that all of a sudden became the greatest home run hitter of all time, because he was using steroids.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

If it doesn't confirm the positive the case never existed.

This must be why Baffert was upset.

At this stage, no one should know about this case. Let's assume the split test comes back negative, then Baffert's name has been dragged through the mud for "a case that never existed".

[groupie doll]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

This must be why Baffert was upset.

At this stage, no one should know about this case. Let's assume the split test comes back negative, then Baffert's name has been dragged through the mud for "a case that never existed".

another +1.
That begs the question why everybody and their proverbial brother not only knows about it, but also knows all the details including the specific horse and drug. Something's rotten somewhere alright... maybe on multiple levels and fronts.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by groupie doll

another +1.
That begs the question why everybody and their proverbial brother not only knows about it, but also knows all the details including the specific horse and drug. Something's rotten somewhere alright... maybe on multiple levels and fronts.

Remember, the secrecy of the positive test is just something horse racing does to keep horsemen happy.

In other areas of law enforcement, people get publicly identified as suspects or even get charged, and later get cleared, all the time. Arguably, a first positive test is a public record and the public should know about it.

And I think Baffert, who, after all, won a TC by cheating and having the CHRB cover it up for him, is not in a position to complain about this being publicized. He is the poster boy for why the entire process should be public.

[Racetrack Playa]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Remember, the secrecy of the positive test is just something horse racing does to keep horsemen happy.

In other areas of law enforcement, people get publicly identified as suspects or even get charged, and later get cleared, all the time. Arguably, a first positive test is a public record and the public should know about it.

And I think Baffert, who, after all, won a TC by cheating and having the CHRB cover it up for him, is not in a position to complain about this being publicized. He is the poster boy for why the entire process should be public.

Racing needs fixing , it's very obvious.

[cj]

As a bettor, I would argue a positive should be made public ASAP becasue the horses can run, often a few times, while the cases play out. If you want to keep it quiet, bench the horse until it is resolved.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by cj

As a bettor, I would argue a positive should be made public ASAP becasue the horses can run, often a few times, while the cases play out. If you want to keep it quiet, bench the horse until it is resolved.

Joe Sharp at the Fairgrounds, as a example.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

As a bettor, I would argue a positive should be made public ASAP becasue the horses can run, often a few times, while the cases play out. If you want to keep it quiet, bench the horse until it is resolved.

That's a reasonable compromise. Pending the 2nd test, the horse shouldn't be allowed to run because his prior PPs can be misleading. That really argues for a much faster testing process because we can't have connections dragged through the mud on a false positive and we can't have horses sidelined for too long if they were clean.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

That's a reasonable compromise. Pending the 2nd test, the horse shouldn't be allowed to run because his prior PPs can be misleading. That really argues for a much faster testing process because we can't have connections dragged through the mud on a false positive and we can't have horses sidelined for too long if they were clean.

Want to cut the time down. Send a split sample out at the same time as the original. If the first comes back positive, have the other one done.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Remember, the secrecy of the positive test is just something horse racing does to keep horsemen happy.

In other areas of law enforcement, people get publicly identified as suspects or even get charged, and later get cleared, all the time. Arguably, a first positive test is a public record and the public should know about it.

And I think Baffert, who, after all, won a TC by cheating and having the CHRB cover it up for him, is not in a position to complain about this being publicized. He is the poster boy for why the entire process should be public.

You're a lawyer.

Assume I'm a trainer, get a positive, it becomes public, I get dragged through the mud in the media and on social media, and my reputation gets damaged. Then it turns out the 2nd test does not verify the first. That second result isn't going to be put on blast the same way the positive was and doesn't necessarily prove I was 100% clean. That could be damaging to my business and reputation long term. In this case because it's Baffert and Charlaton it's going to get a lot of coverage either way, but I see some potential problems with announcing these positives until they are verified.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

You're a lawyer.

Assume I'm a trainer, get a positive, it becomes public, I get dragged through the mud in the media and on social media, and my reputation gets damaged. Then it turns out the 2nd test does not verify the first. That second result isn't going to be put on blast the same way the positive was and doesn't necessarily prove I was 100% clean. That could be damaging to my business and reputation long term. In this case because it's Baffert and Charlaton it's going to get a lot of coverage either way, but I see some potential problems with announcing these positives until they are verified.

Such is life, no? People get charged with murder...HUGE headlines. Charges get dropped, second page news, if that.