Charlatan Stripped Of Arkansas Derby??

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

According to the BloodHorse article by Frank Angst:


Imo, thresholds are there for a reason.

I don't care who the trainer is. When a trainer has a horse test at 9X the threshold and and another test at 2X the threshold:

The best decision the sport can make is simply enforce the rules.



-jp

.

Right. You don't get to argue out of a speeding ticket on an empty interstate by saying "there was no traffic so it was safe to go 90".

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Honestly, I think the chances this was intentional are pretty close to zero.

If you are Bob Baffert and you are trying to cheat, you don't use something you know they will test for and it's almost certainly not a variation of Icy Hot. The story his lawyer is telling may be true or maybe it's used by Baffert in training and they got the withdrawal timing wrong etc... Who knows?

But that's a completely different issue than whether the horses should be disqualified and some sort of penalty should be imposed on the trainer according to the rules.

I think we should treat all drug positives as intentional.

If we did that, the trainers would take strong precautions to ensure their horses never got "accidentally" doped.

[JayTris07]

Originally Posted by groupie doll

So the accidental overage (9x in Gamine) was caused by an OTC, topical human product that somehow "accidentally" got onto two different animals each weighing roughly 7-8 times that of the average human that the product was designed to treat. Since the product is topical this trace amount just happened to be rubbed off onto two different horses and managed to be absorbed through the dermal layer, plus likely a haircoat (depending on where it accidentally wound up on the horse's body) to such an extent that it caused an overage in one horse 9 times above the allowed amount.

Yeah, I have a large bridge on the market as well...

[groupie doll]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think we should treat all drug positives as intentional.

If we did that, the trainers would take strong precautions to ensure their horses never got "accidentally" doped.

I am not sure that a negative stance is required...they probably should be viewed in a neutral light. I think that if TPTB just enforced the actual rules it would cut down on these accidental overages tremendously. The reasoning/excuse given by the Baffert camp in this particular instance seems bogus, but it also doesn't mean it was necessarily intentional, in terms of overage.

My best guess is the horses were treated with lidocaine therapeutically either to reduce pain (maybe to avoid taking the horse out of training?) or to locally numb a spot for another injection (Lasix, etc....). Lidocaine is sometimes used at the operating site or an injection site in order to reduce local pain resulting from a clinical procedure (usually surgery, but I suppose also a painful injection, etc.). I've used Emla cream and local lido blocks on animals to numb the area for injections and to remove skin growths and such, mainly on dogs and it works great; they usually don't feel a thing. It also has a very short half life (around 2-3 hours), but I am not sure how fast it would clear a horse's system.
The main concern imho is that it appears Baffert was trying to keep at least one horse in training that possibly should not have been (i.e. Charlatan).

[Tom]

So I have to ask, if we are dealing with healthy, sound horses, why are we allowing them to train on drugs they cannot race on?

Should not all drugs banned for racing be banned for training as well, and have a threshold of 0 allowed?

Thanks, Jeff P,. for that post about overages of 9x and 2x - opened my eyes on a topic am admittedly not all that familiar with.

I assumed lidocane was not a performance enhancer and was surprised to see there was a limit on it at all. I thought - Icy Hot when I read about it!

[Andy Asaro]

Excerpt:

"We have limited ability to prosecute out-of-competition testing with current regulations. ... In reality, horse racing does not have a robust anti-doping program," Arthur said. "It can be best described as a medication control program. Medication control is very important and necessary. We not only need to test for performance-enhancing drugs, as is the focus in human sport testing, but for drugs that impact horse welfare and horse and jockey safety. ... Horse racing must also deal with performance-hindering drugs that could be used to stop a horse from its best performance, which is not generally considered a problem in human sport.

Arthur continued to point out the need for out-of-competition testing because "races are won in training," where he said doping is most effective.

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...sting-proposal via @BloodHorse

[Robert Fischer]

A lidocaine overage like this is a bit like celebrating that we found 'pine-tar' two inches too high on a Barry Bonds' bat.

Rules are there for a reason. We can't go along ignoring infractions.

Pretty much any decision by the sport here would be fine by me, although I'd be less favorable of giving a trainer a pass to break rules such as this in the past or future. We can't let top training/owning/breeding parties weasel out of the rules with silly excuses.

"the Bat Boy was practicing the violin, so rosin that was on the bow, got accidentally rubbed on my bat..."

If we go twelve or nineteen miles-per-hour over the speed limit, that 'open-road' excuse won't hold up in court, for us.

Let's just keep it in perspective. If an 'edge' existed, this wasn't the one. This is a rather trivial infraction that should be upheld, but it's not anyone's edge.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

A lidocaine overage like this is a bit like celebrating that we found 'pine-tar' two inches too high on a Barry Bonds' bat.

Rules are there for a reason. We can't go along ignoring infractions.

Pretty much any decision by the sport here would be fine by me, although I'd be less favorable of giving a trainer a pass to break rules such as this in the past or future. We can't let top training/owning/breeding parties weasel out of the rules with silly excuses.

"the Bat Boy was practicing the violin, so rosin that was on the bow, got accidentally rubbed on my bat..."

If we go twelve or nineteen miles-per-hour over the speed limit, that 'open-road' excuse won't hold up in court, for us.

Let's just keep it in perspective. If an 'edge' existed, this wasn't the one. This is a rather trivial infraction that should be upheld, but it's not anyone's edge.

I don't think we should even think about whether it wasn't an edge. I will put it this way: almost all of this "accidental" stuff amazingly happens to occur in barns that are doing lots of intentional stuff.

At WORST, a long suspension for Baffert would be like nailing Capone for tax evasion.

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I think we should treat all drug positives as intentional.

If we did that, the trainers would take strong precautions to ensure their horses never got "accidentally" doped.

Agreed, dilanesp. Racing could fix this problem anytime they wanted to. They CHOOSE not to. They only want to rule with an iron fist when it comes to certain trainers. Kind of why some of these trainers act the way they do. While we are busy assuming some of them are above the law...they KNOW it.

[classhandicapper]

Charlatan and Gamine ruled unplaced and Baffertt got 15 days. Stories coming at DRF soon.

Enforced the rules.

[Appy]

Surprised, and encouraged at he same time.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Charlatan and Gamine ruled unplaced and Baffertt got 15 days. Stories coming at DRF soon.

Enforced the rules.

Fair news.

Feel good for the sport, and also empathetic to the connections for the purse monies.

Trainer suspeneded, but, our 'trainer suspensions' more closely resemble an award to top assistants, than they do a punishment to guilty Trainers and Owners.

Does Charlatan (who is out, at least until Preakness/later big purse stakes anyway with injury) lose the 100pts? Basin , Gouverneur Morris, Winning Impression, and Anneu d'Or stand to gain derby points, in that scenario.

Suspension starts August 1-15 per the article.
An assistant would have to get a special day of promotion, with an appearance, and his name in print, if team Baffert aims for Derby Points in the Shared Belief/Travers/Ellis Stakes (ellis is surprising 50-20-10-5pts this year).

Looking forward to seeing Authentic run a brilliant race, as he's been pointed to the July 18th Haskell, and has kind of inherited the position of Baffert's 'ace' 3yo for the time being.

[Tom]

Be interesting to see if this has happened to other trainers, just not well known enough to rise to national news......seems impossible it has never happened before.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Fair news.

Feel good for the sport, and also empathetic to the connections for the purse monies.

Trainer suspeneded, but, our 'trainer suspensions' more closely resemble an award to top assistants, than they do a punishment to guilty Trainers and Owners.

Does Charlatan (who is out, at least until Preakness/later big purse stakes anyway with injury) lose the 100pts? Basin , Gouverneur Morris, Winning Impression, and Anneu d'Or stand to gain derby points, in that scenario.

Suspension starts August 1-15 per the article.
An assistant would have to get a special day of promotion, with an appearance, and his name in print, if team Baffert aims for Derby Points in the Shared Belief/Travers/Ellis Stakes (ellis is surprising 50-20-10-5pts this year).

Looking forward to seeing Authentic run a brilliant race, as he's been pointed to the July 18th Haskell, and has kind of inherited the position of Baffert's 'ace' 3yo for the time being.

The 100 points don't matter, he isn't running anyway. But yes, he loses them and the others gain. At this point will they even have a full gate for the Derby? Feels like a longshot to me.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by cj

The 100 points don't matter, he isn't running anyway. But yes, he loses them and the others gain. At this point will they even have a full gate for the Derby? Feels like a longshot to me.

I have no idea, as far as a full gate. Number of contenders have injuries or have gone out of form. Also things just plain different, being later in the 3yo season.

Pros and Cons both ways

10-15 may even be 'safer' , also less random trouble

I know there may be a couple from overseas filling out the gate, but prefer to also see a few early-speed horses entered if there is a full gate.