Will Justify get DQ'd?

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Not over yet.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...-test/2290366/

Well, I think it would be hard to argue that the CHRB did NOT "intentionally fail to discharge its public duty when the board hid and subsequently dismissed Justify's positive drug test in the 2018 Santa Anita Derby."

I mean, nobody was really okay with that part.

Justify still would probably have gone on to win everything.....but that's not the point here......... you don't HIDE, then dismiss a positive drug test, change the rules behind closed doors, and then hide the test results from the betting public.

Imagine if that were done repeatedly, by multiple tracks on multiple horses. Would you trust the integrity of the game? I would not. Do we pick and choose who is allowed to do these things? We are left to wonder if any other horses have been in this same situation and we just never heard about it, since that IS the nature of "cover ups".

Not even faulting Justify here, nor even Baffert. But the CHRB was without a doubt, were wrong in the way they went about this situation.....they covered up a test result, changed the rules after they had the results and did it all behind closed doors.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Not over yet.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/lo...-test/2290366/

He is going to lose...but even if he won it would only give him the winners share of the purse. Proving lost stallion revenue for a medication DQ is never going to happen.

[AskinHaskin]

Originally Posted by clicknow

Well, I think it would be hard to argue that the CHRB did NOT "intentionally fail to discharge its public duty when the board hid and subsequently dismissed Justify's positive drug test in the 2018 Santa Anita Derby."

I mean, nobody was really okay with that part.

Justify still would probably have gone on to win everything.....but that's not the point here......... you don't HIDE, then dismiss a positive drug test, change the rules behind closed doors, and then hide the test results from the betting public.

Imagine if that were done repeatedly, by multiple tracks on multiple horses. Would you trust the integrity of the game? I would not. Do we pick and choose who is allowed to do these things? We are left to wonder if any other horses have been in this same situation and we just never heard about it, since that IS the nature of "cover ups".

Not even faulting Justify here, nor even Baffert. But the CHRB was without a doubt, were wrong in the way they went about this situation.....they covered up a test result, changed the rules after they had the results and did it all behind closed doors.

Your logic is flawed.

The CHRB simply assessed a rogue “test result”, assessed it correctly, and dismissed it for its rogue nature, as was the ONLY appropriate reaction.


They don’t need or require your OK for such a move.



The alternative would be like going to a job interview and accompanying drug test 2 days after consuming a poppyseed muffin and being completely DQ’ed w/o further consideration.


Nobody in all of racing has any right to police Baffert or Justify for either having consumed a poppyseed muffin, especially years after the fact.

Case closed.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by clicknow

Well, I think it would be hard to argue that the CHRB did NOT "intentionally fail to discharge its public duty when the board hid and subsequently dismissed Justify's positive drug test in the 2018 Santa Anita Derby."

I mean, nobody was really okay with that part.

Justify still would probably have gone on to win everything.....but that's not the point here......... you don't HIDE, then dismiss a positive drug test, change the rules behind closed doors, and then hide the test results from the betting public.

Imagine if that were done repeatedly, by multiple tracks on multiple horses. Would you trust the integrity of the game? I would not. Do we pick and choose who is allowed to do these things? We are left to wonder if any other horses have been in this same situation and we just never heard about it, since that IS the nature of "cover ups".

Not even faulting Justify here, nor even Baffert. But the CHRB was without a doubt, were wrong in the way they went about this situation.....they covered up a test result, changed the rules after they had the results and did it all behind closed doors.

+1

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

The CHRB simply assessed a rogue “test result”, assessed it correctly, and dismissed it for its rogue nature, as was the ONLY appropriate reaction.

I don't believe this for a moment, Askin.

The CHRB is governed by the Ralph M. Brown Act. EVERY STATE AGENCY TAKES SEMINARS ON WHAT THIS LAW MEANS. It's not optional.

It is perfectly OK for the CHRB to make a determination that a drug test should not result in a suspension or DQ. That is their job. To make those judgments.

However, IT IS A FELONY to do it in private. And IT IS ALSO A FELONY to change a rule in private. You heard me. A felony. If the CHRB did what it says it did, the members have confessed a to multiple felonies.

And that's why we know they are lying about what they were doing. Because if it were on the up and up, no way do they violate the Brown Act. They just don't. They announce the test, say why it wasn't reliable, and institute a rule change through the normal process with a public hearing.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

He is going to lose...but even if he won it would only give him the winners share of the purse. Proving lost stallion revenue for a medication DQ is never going to happen.

So what.

It brings to the public eye, esp. the handicapping public, that information they may need about a horse has been *covered up*, and a racing board's own rules were broken behind closed doors, in private.

We deserve transparency......so does everybody. Multiply these lack of transparency issues 200x over and you see the problem.......

It speaks to the long history we have that racing can't regulate themselves, and they seem rather insistent to keep repeating it over and over again.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by clicknow

So what.

It brings to the public eye, esp. the handicapping public, that information they may need about a horse has been *covered up*, and a racing board's own rules were broken behind closed doors, in private.

We deserve transparency......so does everybody. Multiply these lack of transparency issues 200x over and you see the problem.......

It speaks to the long history we have that racing can't regulate themselves, and they seem rather insistent to keep repeating it over and over again.

I agree completely, the clowns running the show certainly do more harm than good.

Ruis though probably is looking back at how poorly he mismanaged a very good horse and trying to recoup some of that sick feeling he must have.

[jpren37]

I went back to the thread started 9/11/19 "will justify get DQ'd ". The response and ensuing posts by PA members seems so prescient in light of FBI indictments...as Yogi would say "its deja vu all over again"

[jay68802]

Settlement close?

http://thepressboxlts.com/exclusvive...ng-commission/

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Settlement close?

http://thepressboxlts.com/exclusvive...ng-commission/

That's very bad. Vienna is helping cover up for his old buddies

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

That's very bad. Vienna is helping cover up for his old buddies

This part I saw is good, not sure if it is in the article cited but it is here:

The agreement would include a provision that the CHRB will file a complaint against the owners of Justify and conduct a purse disqualification hearing.

https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co...ta-derby-case/

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by cj

This part I saw is good, not sure if it is in the article cited but it is here:



https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co...ta-derby-case/

The problem with a settlement is we will never litigate, in court, what the CHRB did. And that's what needs to be litigated.

[cj]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The problem with a settlement is we will never litigate, in court, what the CHRB did. And that's what needs to be litigated.

I mean I understood that, I'm at least of average intelligence.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by cj

I mean I understood that, I'm at least of average intelligence.

Wow, CJ. Giving a fastball down the middle here, and I am taking. Probably the main reason for the settlement is to avoid the courtroom on this. Seems typical of the sport, immunity from consequences runs deep.