Court Overrules CHRB -- Justify Matter to Go Forward

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

lol no, Justify met the eligibility requirements based on Derby points

If Ruis wins his suit, he didn't, and Baffert arguably defrauded Churchill by not notifying them that he had
doped the horse and his Santa Anita Derby win was illegitimate.

It's a quite viable theory if Ruis wins.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

If Ruis wins his suit, he didn't, and Baffert arguably defrauded Churchill by not notifying them that he had
doped the horse and his Santa Anita Derby win was illegitimate.

It's a quite viable theory if Ruis wins.

Justify had the requisite points to qualify, it won the SA Derby, Baffert did not enter based on points Justify was not awarded. There’s nothing viable about your theory

[burnsy]

None of that is correct. But look at the posters. Askin Haskin is a kin to asking a rock. Yes, eligible by standards and points. But if the California court rules the points were fraudulent by way of group’s conspiring. You open that legal door . Churchill can most likely throw all entities involved under the bus. Ruis Racing LLC is going for the jugular here…… if the ball rolls and they (Churchill) carry on. Only one to try it. Probably got some secretly rooting and others wanted them gone. Dicey move by them.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

Justify had the requisite points to qualify, it won the SA Derby, Baffert did not enter based on points Justify was not awarded. There’s nothing viable about your theory

Again, if Ruis wins his suit, legally, there would now be a court decision that Justify never won the SA Derby and that Baffert engaged in deceptive conduct to claim the victory. That would have preclusive effect in a later suit. "My horse really won the race" would be unavailable to Baffert as an argument.

It's worth noting that Baffert really did defraud Churchill. They let his horse run ONLY because he was concealing that he cheated to win the SA Derby. Had he told them the truth, Churchill would have surely said "you can't run". That's fraud by concealment.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Still digging here I see, I don’t expect to see any link between a doped up horse and Baffert doing it nor is that even in question here in the current legal proceeding

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Again, if Ruis wins his suit, legally, there would now be a court decision that Justify never won the SA Derby and that Baffert engaged in deceptive conduct to claim the victory. That would have preclusive effect in a later suit. "My horse really won the race" would be unavailable to Baffert as an argument.

It's worth noting that Baffert really did defraud Churchill. They let his horse run ONLY because he was concealing that he cheated to win the SA Derby. Had he told them the truth, Churchill would have surely said "you can't run". That's fraud by concealment.

I'm not following this part of it - I've always understood that the reason the CHRB decided not to disqualify Justify from the SA Derby was because there were multiple horses with the overage on scopolamine (though not to the extent of Justify).

The issue became that it should not have mattered what caused the overage - but that an overage should have resulted in the disqualification if the CHRB had followed its rules rather than making them up as they went along. (We're dealing with somewhat the same situation in KY with the Derby - whoop-de-do that the overage came from an ointment not an injection - it's betamethasone STOP that is not allowable at detectable levels on raceday, not just one form of betamethasone.)

I'm definitely not defending Baffert here - I am quite ready for him to be away from the game, if not for good, at least for a while. You are also welcome to believe he somehow caused the scopolamine to be in Justify's system. But based on the reports of how this case was adjudicated - it seems like any Baffert nefarious activity would revolve around pressure on the board not to disqualify.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by BarchCapper

I'm not following this part of it - I've always understood that the reason the CHRB decided not to disqualify Justify from the SA Derby was because there were multiple horses with the overage on scopolamine (though not to the extent of Justify).

The issue became that it should not have mattered what caused the overage - but that an overage should have resulted in the disqualification if the CHRB had followed its rules rather than making them up as they went along. (We're dealing with somewhat the same situation in KY with the Derby - whoop-de-do that the overage came from an ointment not an injection - it's betamethasone STOP that is not allowable at detectable levels on raceday, not just one form of betamethasone.)

I'm definitely not defending Baffert here - I am quite ready for him to be away from the game, if not for good, at least for a while. You are also welcome to believe he somehow caused the scopolamine to be in Justify's system. But based on the reports of how this case was adjudicated - it seems like any Baffert nefarious activity would revolve around pressure on the board not to disqualify.

The final adjudication did not come for many months, well after the Ky Derby. How can you be defrauding CDI in any manor when the matter was not even settled. The biggest issue is that they were not transparent, again, thats not the defendants issue but that of the CHRB.

The CHRB has been a trash organization for a long time doing little to nothing for California racing.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

Still digging here I see, I don’t expect to see any link between a doped up horse and Baffert doing it nor is that even in question here in the current legal proceeding

Then you think Ruis can't win his suit. You are wrong of course-we already know Baffert doped Justify. But if you are right, Ruis doesn't win.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by BarchCapper

I'm not following this part of it - I've always understood that the reason the CHRB decided not to disqualify Justify from the SA Derby was because there were multiple horses with the overage on scopolamine (though not to the extent of Justify).

The issue became that it should not have mattered what caused the overage - but that an overage should have resulted in the disqualification if the CHRB had followed its rules rather than making them up as they went along. (We're dealing with somewhat the same situation in KY with the Derby - whoop-de-do that the overage came from an ointment not an injection - it's betamethasone STOP that is not allowable at detectable levels on raceday, not just one form of betamethasone.)

I'm definitely not defending Baffert here - I am quite ready for him to be away from the game, if not for good, at least for a while. You are also welcome to believe he somehow caused the scopolamine to be in Justify's system. But based on the reports of how this case was adjudicated - it seems like any Baffert nefarious activity would revolve around pressure on the board not to disqualify.

Baffert administered an illegal substance. He should have been dq'd. The CHRB retconned their rules to make it legal.

If Ruis succeeds in his suit, this will change us to a world where the rule wasn't retroactively changed. So instead it will be a world where Baffert doped a horse and was DQ'd.

And the horse's eligibility to run in the Derby was dependent on him being the winner of the SA Derby. He wasn't, if Ruis wins. See the problem?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

The final adjudication did not come for many months, well after the Ky Derby. How can you be defrauding CDI in any manor when the matter was not even settled. The biggest issue is that they were not transparent, again, thats not the defendants issue but that of the CHRB.

The CHRB has been a trash organization for a long time doing little to nothing for California racing.

Baffert absolutely had a duty to tell Churchill if he engaged in any conduct contrary to CHRB rules in winning the Santa Anita Derby. There is no question about that.

[iamt]

A horse runs second in a Maiden.


Three weeks later it breaks it's maiden in its next start.


Subsequent to that the winner of the 1st maiden is disqualified from the race, so the horse has now won two maidens.


It is weird, but there is no issue here, he was eligible for the race when it ran based on the official results at the time.


The KY derby is the4 exact some thing, Justify was eligible to run based on the official results at the time. Nothing changes that.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Then you think Ruis can't win his suit. You are wrong of course-we already know Baffert doped Justify. But if you are right, Ruis doesn't win.

I really don’t care if Ruis wins one way or another. What’s at question is your boneheaded legal interpretation that Baffert can be sued by CDI or the KHRC

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Baffert administered an illegal substance. He should have been dq'd. The CHRB retconned their rules to make it legal.

If Ruis succeeds in his suit, this will change us to a world where the rule wasn't retroactively changed. So instead it will be a world where Baffert doped a horse and was DQ'd.

And the horse's eligibility to run in the Derby was dependent on him being the winner of the SA Derby. He wasn't, if Ruis wins. See the problem?

From John Cherwa’s Aug 27, 2020 LA Times Article:

“At the time of the Justify positive, there were seven cases involving five different barns that showed scopolamine, which is found in jimson weed. The levels of the other five horses, were not as high as those in the Baffert barn. Technically, because of the way the horse allegedly received the drug, it would be classified as a poisoning rather than a drugging.

Dr. Rick Arthur, CHRB equine medical director, would not comment on the Justify and Hoppertunity cases but did give a window in to what may have brought the CHRB to their conclusion.

“If there is just scopolamine, then it is likely pharmaceutical,” Arthur said. “If there is also atropine it is likely environmental, especially when you see it in a number of horses. … It’s not absolute but that is most likely.”

Justify and Hoppertunity had amounts of scopolamine and atropine.

Based on past rulings, the presence alone of a drug, usually brings disqualification regardless of the circumstances.”

Did some of those determinations of the nature of the overage change subsequent to this article? If not, though you (and maybe I) may think Baffert had a hand in what caused the overage - that’s not the basis of the issue here, right? It’s that the CHRB arbitrarily decided not to disqualify a horse with a positive exceeding the legal guidelines. The DQ is supposed to be automatic. The punishment of the trainer is what can be mitigated by the circumstances, from everything I’ve seen in these cases.

It almost feels like the failure of the CHRB to disqualify Justify because of the circumstances of the overage is what has LED to this ridiculous “but it was an ointment” position with regard to Medina Spirit’s potential DQ.

(Yes, there’s also the “we were getting around to it eventually anyway” CHRB reclassification per ARCI guidelines of scopolamine playing into this, but I’m just focusing on the Baffert responsibility factor based on what had been determined.)

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by iamt

A horse runs second in a Maiden.


Three weeks later it breaks it's maiden in its next start.


Subsequent to that the winner of the 1st maiden is disqualified from the race, so the horse has now won two maidens.


It is weird, but there is no issue here, he was eligible for the race when it ran based on the official results at the time.


The KY derby is the4 exact some thing, Justify was eligible to run based on the official results at the time. Nothing changes that.

That's not really correct.

It is true that the sport won't overturn the results of the second race if the test doesn't come back before it.

But:

1. If the test DOES come back beforehand, they will DQ the horse from the first race and scratch the second place finisher from the next maiden race.

2. The racing commission will do nothing to delay the test, and will not conspire secretly with the trainer to legalize whatever cheating and doping resulted in the test.

3. A big difference in your hypothetical is that the connections of the second place horse moved up to first are completely innocent. There's no reason at all that GUILTY connections get the benefit of the same rule.

Baffert knew that he doped Justify and participated in a conspiracy with members of the CHRB to secretly retroactively legalize the cheating. He had legal duties to Churchill to disclose facts that a totally innocent trainer would not have.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

I really don’t care if Ruis wins one way or another. What’s at question is your boneheaded legal interpretation that Baffert can be sued by CDI or the KHRC

It isn't boneheaded, any more than getting Al Capone for tax evasion was a boneheaded theory.

One of the things about criminality is that it can also trigger duties to disclose the criminality, which, of course, criminals don't want to do. This is not boneheaded; this is precisely how the law treats people who do bad things.

Ruis very well may not win his suit. But to win it, he will have to prove a fact that Baffert would have had a legal duty to disclose to Churchill.