The Greatest of All Time - Bob Baffert

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by foregoforever

Thanks for the reply.

CD did not rule him off. They opted to "suspend Bob Baffert, the trainer of Medina Spirit, from entering any horses". I'm not sure where that falls between a rule-off and a normal suspension, but it seems closer to the latter.

Can you recall a case where a trainer was sanctioned, in any form, on the basis of a single, unconfirmed drug positive for a legal drug? (Note that CD's statement only referred to this incident, not any previous incidents).

As for the Preakness, Dancer's Image was allowed to run in it after his Derby positive.

As an aside, you have to feel sorry for TSG and the Maryland Jockey Club. The Laurel track is screwed up, and now they've decided to move all the horses (and barn cats) off-site to deal with a rodent problem. And now this gets dumped on them as well.

On your last point, I do feel sorry for all the Maryland people and the track. This was definitely dumped on them, and they are going to have to deal with it.

Having said that, Dancer's Image was a very different era. It was the beginning of drug testing. At that point, nobody really knew what was going to happen to Fuller's court case. So allowing him to run was the right decision under those circumstances.

But now, it's a lot different. It's perfectly clear that any Derby DQ will hold up (look at how badly the Wests lost in court on Maximum Security if you have any doubt about this). So definitely, if the KHRC disqualifies Medina Spirit, the Preakness has very little to worry about in terms of denying a TC winner if they decide not to accept his entry.

Finally, I don't think it's accurate to talk about Baffert as a single unconfirmed positive test. If the only positive Baffert ever had was this test, that would be one thing. But a track is totally within its rights in ruling Baffert off based on his prior conduct alone! Heck, the fraud regarding Justify would stand up as a reason for Churchill never to accept another Baffert entry.

Racetrack powers are EXTREMELY broad. Certainly broad enough to refuse entries from ANY repeat drug offender.

[foregoforever]

Originally Posted by cj

A normal suspension is followed by other jurisdictions. This is closer to a rule off in that he can run elsewhere (for now, at least), just not at Churchill. Maybe other CD owned tracks too, not sure on that one.

As for "single" violation, well not really. He just had a positive in the Oaks just eight months ago for the same exact drug.

But a rule-off usually means "banned from the premises", doesn't it? Not the case here, at least so far.

And again, CD's statement made no mention of any earlier incidents.

I think we're in uncharted waters here. Foul, stinking waters.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by foregoforever

But a rule-off usually means "banned from the premises", doesn't it? Not the case here, at least so far.

And again, CD's statement made no mention of any earlier incidents.

I think we're in uncharted waters here. Foul, stinking waters.

Churchill is not a court. They literally do not need to say anything more than "we exercise our right to refuse to do business with Bob Baffert". That's how broad their powers are.

The operators of racetracks- with the exception of a few governmental entities like NYRA and the California Association of Racing Fairs- are private companies. They no more need to explain themselves than a local hardware store who kicks someone out of the store who is acting suspiciously has to explain themselves. Trainers literally have zero legal rights to run their horses in a particular race or particular racetrack, unless either the stabling contract or some state regulation provides for such rights.

And there's nothing "foul" about this. The management of Churchill Downs has to protect the integrity of their product. Having these broad powers allows them to eject people who might be attempting to fix the races, which is crucial to be able to assure the wagering public that the goings-on at the track are fair. There are decades of court cases affirming the power of racetracks to do this.

If racetracks decide they don't want to take Bob Baffert's entries, for any reason or for no reason at all (although we all know it is not for no reason, it's because he has repeatedly been caught cheating), it's tough cookies for Bob Baffert. And separately, he may get suspended by the Racing Commission.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by ReplayRandall

A Picogram is exactly 0.000000000000001 kilograms (SI unit). As per the prefix pico it is a trillionth of a gram....11 picos is 1.1 milligram.

Let's damage the face of horse racing with a HOF trainer of 2 Triple Crown Winners over a millionth of a gram of a legal substance...

Don't be "that" guy...

[foregoforever]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It's perfectly clear that any Derby DQ will hold up (look at how badly the Wests lost in court on Maximum Security if you have any doubt about this). So definitely, if the KHRC disqualifies Medina Spirit, the Preakness has very little to worry about in terms of denying a TC winner if they decide not to accept his entry.

What if TSG bars the horse from the Preakness, and then the split sample comes back negative?

Or, do you think (as taxicab suggested) that CD already has tested the split sample? Or is somehow very certain that it's a positive.

I don't disagree with your points, and I have no fondness for Baffert. If all this were going on with a confirmed split sample, everything would be reasonable. But labs do screw up occasionally.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by [B

stlseeeek[/B];2721677]If you stick your head any further up your own ass, you might end up hitting sunlight

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Don't be "that" guy...

You must be talking to "this" guy....

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by foregoforever

What if TSG bars the horse from the Preakness, and then the split sample comes back negative?

Or, do you think (as taxicab suggested) that CD already has tested the split sample? Or is somehow very certain that it's a positive.

I don't disagree with your points, and I have no fondness for Baffert. If all this were going on with a confirmed split sample, everything would be reasonable. But labs do screw up occasionally.

I don't think TSG will, or should, refuse his entry to the Preakness until the test is confirmed. I assume that is why they are delaying the entries.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I don't think TSG will, or should, refuse his entry to the Preakness until the test is confirmed. I assume that is why they are delaying the entries.

If they let his horses run and they get a positive what then? The Stronach Group will be crucified.

And it's doubtful that the split will come back before the Preakness. Sometimes takes months

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

If they let his horses run and they get a positive what then? The Stronach Group will be crucified.

And it's doubtful that the split will come back before the Preakness. Sometimes takes months

Medina Spirit is not winning anyway, so what's the problem?....

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

If they let his horses run and they get a positive what then? The Stronach Group will be crucified.

And it's doubtful that the split will come back before the Preakness. Sometimes takes months

This split isn't taking months. FWIW, Pimlico is acting like we will know tomorrow.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This split isn't taking months. FWIW, Pimlico is acting like we will know tomorrow.

Baffert chooses where to send the split. Pretty sure he doesn't want the result till after the Preakness

[paulbenny]

The security on these horses is strong. However, it does not take much of an issue if a person has eczema to cause a problem, and it is very logical to have it on your elbow or something and a trace gets on the horse, etc etc and it is in the blood. Not a crazy idea, really. It makes no sense that he would do this with such a borderline amount. Why even bother. It was likely human contact that passed it along. Look up the drug, and the amount he is over is not even measurable.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Baffert chooses where to send the split. Pretty sure he doesn't want the result till after the Preakness

He can't control the timing, only the location. If he obstructs the second test in any way, he can be suspended for that.

Again Pimlico is acting as if we get the confirmation tomorrow or Tuesday morning. It is well within the realm of possibility TSG's counsel has informed Baffert that if there is no second test result by the time they take entries (delayed one day to 4pm EDT Tuesday), his horse doesn't enter.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by paulbenny

The security on these horses is strong. However, it does not take much of an issue if a person has eczema to cause a problem, and it is very logical to have it on your elbow or something and a trace gets on the horse, etc etc and it is in the blood. Not a crazy idea, really. It makes no sense that he would do this with such a borderline amount. Why even bother. It was likely human contact that passed it along. Look up the drug, and the amount he is over is not even measurable.

You have to evaluate a trainer's prior record in evaluating any excuse.

Plus, this wasn't a trace amount. Someone gave this horse this drug.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

He can't control the timing, only the location. If he obstructs the second test in any way, he can be suspended for that.

Again Pimlico is acting as if we get the confirmation tomorrow or Tuesday morning. It is well within the realm of possibility TSG's counsel has informed Baffert that if there is no second test result by the time they take entries (delayed one day to 4pm EDT Tuesday), his horse doesn't enter.

Do you have a link to the quote? That would be the smart thing to do.