The Greatest of All Time - Bob Baffert

[Andy Asaro]

From The Next Gen Handicapper • 43 minutes ago • edited in the comments section


https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...conspiracy_123

New Jersey, huh.

Maybe it's just a coincidence or maybe the inspiration behind the venue is Jeffrey Tretter v. Robert Bresnahan Jr/J.L. Sadowsky in a similar case relating to a harness race also held in New Jersey. Tretter accused defendants of pretty much of the same things: fraud and racketeering.

It was an interesting case in many ways:

-- Tretter claimed he would have won some $32k if not for the originally winning horse, who was later DQ'd as a result of EPO findings.

-- The litigation went on for two years

-- P.E.T.A. financed the litigation.

-- The defendants were not major figures in harness racing and had far fewer resources.

After a two year legal battle a settlement was reached and the defendants agreed to pay Tretter $20,000, and Tretter agreed to donate $7,500 of that sum to a racehorse adoption program. One of the terms of the agreement stipulated that the agreement does not constitute an admission of liability.

Andrew Benedict, one of Bresnahan’s lawyers, described the case as “a David vs. Goliath type thing,” with PETA able to finance extensive litigation against two defendants who were not major figures in harness racing and had far fewer resources.

“It was rough for us to defend this case on all fronts, because of the amount of money that PETA was pouring into it,” he said. “It shows they had no evidence of criminal wrongdoing or they wouldn’t have settled so cheaply.”

Way to go Beychok, two thumbs up. Here's hoping you stick to your guns.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by azeri98

Why should being count in big races count more. He's being singled out because he's the best, just like Bonds and Clemens in baseball while other PED users are in the HOF. It shouldn't matter if it's the Derby or a 5k claimer. It is not irrelevant how others are punished. It's very relevant. It should be a standard penalty for all. Since the Derby there have been many trainers with drug offences regarding their horses. None were suspended from Churchill Downs. Therein lies the problem. It lacks credibility when you don't punish equally for the same crime. They will never ban Asmussen or guys like McPeek or Romans. They run too many horses at Churchill. Baffert was an easy target for 2 reasons. He's dominated the Derby lately and doesn't run a string at Churchill Downs.

1. I think cheating in a big race brings more shame to the industry and is more visible to the public. Plus there's more money at stake. So there are plenty of good reasons to hit a cheater in a big race harder.

2. Take your Bonds and Clemens example. Do you really think that if they caught a high school baseball player using steroids, that this is an equally big deal to catching Alex Rodriguez? Because I don't and I don't think baseball generally does.

3. It is irrelevant how others are punished and I am frankly sick of this argument. There are thousands of unsolved MURDERS in the United States. Thousands of them. All over the country. We still don't know who sent out that Anthrax in the months after 9/11. We never found out who killed the Black Dahlia.

And other murderers, such as OJ Simpson, beat the rap at jury trials.

So, we shouldn't prosecute murderers then? Some murderers aren't punished. They don't get the "standard penalty".

I cannot express the level of contempt I have for this argument. Here's a guy who cheats and administers dangerous drugs to a horse in the Kentucky Derby and people come out and say that he should just go on and keep doing what he is doing because we aren't good at catching people who do this? Really?

Would you accept this argument if someone committed a serious crime against you, or someone you love? Would you say "that's OK, the perpetrator should get away with it because other people get away with it"? Or would you, correctly, want them to throw the book at the person.

4. Baffert is (hopefully going to be) punished because he was caught cheating in the Kentucky Derby. When they caught Peter Fuller, a much lesser name in racing, cheating in the Kentucky Derby, they punished him too- indeed, they did it a lot faster than they have with Baffert. Your thesis that they are going after him because he is big is wrong.

[Vinnie]

Perhaps BB has always been one of those individuals that is strongly reminiscent of the folks that were involved with the shameless individuals such as BALCO, Inc. It would appear that when you have a lot of money it isn't all that difficult to somehow manage to always stay a step or two ahead of the established testing procedures and anti-doping programs that exist in various sports in our sports world today.

Were all of the BIG performances in the past from his barn on the level? Are we ever going to really know? One way or another, it is a sad state of affairs for Horse racing.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

1. I think cheating in a big race brings more shame to the industry and is more visible to the public. Plus there's more money at stake. So there are plenty of good reasons to hit a cheater in a big race harder.

2. Take your Bonds and Clemens example. Do you really think that if they caught a high school baseball player using steroids, that this is an equally big deal to catching Alex Rodriguez? Because I don't and I don't think baseball generally does.

3. It is irrelevant how others are punished and I am frankly sick of this argument. There are thousands of unsolved MURDERS in the United States. Thousands of them. All over the country. We still don't know who sent out that Anthrax in the months after 9/11. We never found out who killed the Black Dahlia.

And other murderers, such as OJ Simpson, beat the rap at jury trials.

So, we shouldn't prosecute murderers then? Some murderers aren't punished. They don't get the "standard penalty".

I cannot express the level of contempt I have for this argument. Here's a guy who cheats and administers dangerous drugs to a horse in the Kentucky Derby and people come out and say that he should just go on and keep doing what he is doing because we aren't good at catching people who do this? Really?

Would you accept this argument if someone committed a serious crime against you, or someone you love? Would you say "that's OK, the perpetrator should get away with it because other people get away with it"? Or would you, correctly, want them to throw the book at the person.

4. Baffert is (hopefully going to be) punished because he was caught cheating in the Kentucky Derby. When they caught Peter Fuller, a much lesser name in racing, cheating in the Kentucky Derby, they punished him too- indeed, they did it a lot faster than they have with Baffert. Your thesis that they are going after him because he is big is wrong.

You're missing a lot of points.
1. it shouldn't matter what race you're in. If you cheat you cheat and should be punished equally for the same violation.

2. I don't know why you brought high school baseball into the debate. They are not professionals playing for money whereas every horse race involves money. Pointless comparison.

3.You brought up unsolved murders, another pointless comparison. The authorities DON'T know who did it. In horse racing if a horse tests positive, we know who the trainer is.

4. I'm not saying Baffert shouldn't be punished. He should but I think it's excessive. He should be held to the same standard as others. If they ban Asmussen, Mcpeek and Romans Etc. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[exactatom]

Originally Posted by azeri98

Why should being count in big races count more. He's being singled out because he's the best, just like Bonds and Clemens in baseball while other PED users are in the HOF. It shouldn't matter if it's the Derby or a 5k claimer. It is not irrelevant how others are punished. It's very relevant. It should be a standard penalty for all. Since the Derby there have been many trainers with drug offences regarding their horses. None were suspended from Churchill Downs. Therein lies the problem. It lacks credibility when you don't punish equally for the same crime. They will never ban Asmussen or guys like McPeek or Romans. They run too many horses at Churchill. Baffert was an easy target for 2 reasons. He's dominated the Derby lately and doesn't run a string at Churchill Downs.

Exactly, his recent sudden dominance asks a huge question. He went almost 15 years without a Derby win and suddenly gets them in bunches. Did he all of a sudden hire a hot shot assistant trainer? No Did he change training methods? No (given his workout patterns) He never has been known as a trainer who gets to the barn early. So, how do you explain it?
Baffert has never once just admitted "hey we messed up". Making an error happens all the time, no matter the industry. The good companies admit the errors, do not hide behind excuses and make legitimate plans to resolve the situation (example Tylenol CEO appearing on 60 Minutes).
Given the large number of drug violations with little attempt (judging by the results) to correct the errors, how would Baffert survive a discovery in a trial? The repeated pattern of violations with no remorse (judging by his ridiculous excuses) makes him a stain on this industry. This gives Churchill the rare opportunity to play the good guy and rid the industry of a problem.
I have often asked a few questions about Baffert:
1. Why does he never produce good trainers the way Wayne Lukas, Charlie Whittingham or Bobby Frankel has?
2. Why has he never moved a string or relocated to Kentucky as Lukas and other trainers have? The sport and breeding is in Kentucky not California.
Another reason Baffert is different than the other mentioned trainers is his horses do not pass the eye test. His horses do not get tired, they get stronger as the race goes on. However, some times later the same "speed" horse returns a "normal" style of fading in the stretch.
This sport is based on public trust. If people stop betting on larger races that he is involved in, then the racetracks suffer, the purses will shrink and the sport will eventually erode away.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by azeri98

4. I'm not saying Baffert shouldn't be punished. He should but I think it's excessive.

I remain on the 50 yard line with this.

1. This is a therapeutic positive. It's not the same thing as the Navarro and Servis cases.

2. Unless I'm going to believe the picture of the horse's rash, the latest lab report his lawyer is talking about, and any vet treatment reports that exist are all phony, it seems more likely the overage in this case was not from an injection.

3. He's had so many overages and deaths over time (and in the most prestigious races) he's clearly either wildly irresponsible or playing with fire looking for an edge. It may be both. That doesn't even count the possibility that he's doing things we don't know about and/or can't prove.


IMO, the horse should get DQ'd and he should have gotten a suspension far beyond the typical one for an infraction like this because of his long term record and because it was the Derby. But I think 2 years, no points for his wins etc.. is probably excessive. It's understandable though. He's giving the sport a major black eye. I think people are finally saying "enough is enough". That's why they went too far. Now everyone is dug into their positions and it's a mess.

I don't blame him for fighting the DQ even though I think the horse should get DQ'd, but if he had accepted responsibility for the overage right from the start and showed some remorse, maybe the punishment would have been one year or even 6 months and we'd be past this already.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I remain on the 50 yard line with this.

1. This is a therapeutic positive. It's not the same thing as the Navarro and Servis cases.

2. Unless I'm going to believe the picture of the horse's rash, the latest lab report his lawyer is talking about, and any vet treatment reports that exist are all phony, it seems more likely the overage in this case was not from an injection.

3. He's had so many overages and deaths over time (and in the most prestigious races) he's clearly either wildly irresponsible or playing with fire looking for an edge. It may be both. That doesn't even count the possibility that he's doing things we don't know about and/or can't prove.


IMO, the horse should get DQ'd and he should have gotten a suspension far beyond the typical one for an infraction like this because of his long term record and because it was the Derby. But I think 2 years, no points for his wins etc.. is probably excessive. It's understandable though. He's giving the sport a major black eye. I think people are finally saying "enough is enough". That's why they went too far. Now everyone is dug into their positions and it's a mess.

I don't blame him for fighting the DQ even though I think the horse should get DQ'd, but if he had accepted responsibility for the overage right from the start and showed some remorse, maybe the punishment would have been one year or even 6 months and we'd be past this already.

I agree with most of what you said. He has given the sport a black eye but also elevated it with his two triple crown victories. The ratings were extremely high for those races elevating the sport. I think the horse deaths at Santa Anita a few years ago involving multiple trainers gave the sport a bigger black eye than any drug offences. They had to close the track for weeks. He does have a lot of drug offences and deaths but I believe most of the deaths attributed to him are because he trains his horses harder than anyone else thus getting the most out of them. Some horses are more fragile than others and possibly couldn't handle his training methods. I could be wrong. If he's doping horses all the time that is also a contributing factor. We know horse racing is a dying sport but I don't attribute that to him. Even the casual fan knows Baffert and not because of the drug offences. I think Baffert is a minor problem in racing, I just think there should be a standard penalty for each offence depending on the severity. If they injected Medina Spirit then the penalty should be higher but if it was just a cream. It's overblown. If Churchill knows this at this point they are just covering their butts because they made a big deal out of it.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by azeri98

I agree with most of what you said. He has given the sport a black eye but also elevated it with his two triple crown victories. The ratings were extremely high for those races elevating the sport. I think the horse deaths at Santa Anita a few years ago involving multiple trainers gave the sport a bigger black eye than any drug offences. They had to close the track for weeks. He does have a lot of drug offences and deaths but I believe most of the deaths attributed to him are because he trains his horses harder than anyone else thus getting the most out of them. Some horses are more fragile than others and possibly couldn't handle his training methods. I could be wrong. If he's doping horses all the time that is also a contributing factor. We know horse racing is a dying sport but I don't attribute that to him. Even the casual fan knows Baffert and not because of the drug offences. I think Baffert is a minor problem in racing, I just think there should be a standard penalty for each offence depending on the severity. If they injected Medina Spirit then the penalty should be higher but if it was just a cream. It's overblown. If Churchill knows this at this point they are just covering their butts because they made a big deal out of it.

He did not elevate the sport with Justify's TC victory. Justify was one of the worst episodes of cheating in the history of American sport, on a par with the 1919 World Series and Lance Armstrong.

Justify was ineligible for the Derby (and thus the TC). He was doped to win the Santa Anita Derby in his 3rd start, his first in a stakes race. Without that cheating, he never makes the Derby field because he doesn't have the points.

Justify's doping was detected- he tested positive. Bob Baffert and some very corrupt doctors and horse racing board members than conspired, in violation of California law, to have secret meetings where they agreed to secretly change the rule and make Justify's win in the SA Derby retroactively legal. This allowed the horse to complete the TC, at which point the connections discovered a fake "injury" and retired him, obviously wanting to ensure that there were no opportunities to fail any more drug tests.

The fact that you think this episode, probably the single biggest disgrace in the history of the American turf, "elevated" the sport really disqualifies you from being taken seriously on any issue relating to Bob Baffert.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

He did not elevate the sport with Justify's TC victory. Justify was one of the worst episodes of cheating in the history of American sport, on a par with the 1919 World Series and Lance Armstrong.

Justify was ineligible for the Derby (and thus the TC). He was doped to win the Santa Anita Derby in his 3rd start, his first in a stakes race. Without that cheating, he never makes the Derby field because he doesn't have the points.

Justify's doping was detected- he tested positive. Bob Baffert and some very corrupt doctors and horse racing board members than conspired, in violation of California law, to have secret meetings where they agreed to secretly change the rule and make Justify's win in the SA Derby retroactively legal. This allowed the horse to complete the TC, at which point the connections discovered a fake "injury" and retired him, obviously wanting to ensure that there were no opportunities to fail any more drug tests.

The fact that you think this episode, probably the single biggest disgrace in the history of the American turf, "elevated" the sport really disqualifies you from being taken seriously on any issue relating to Bob Baffert.

The fact that you think Justify's TC win is the biggest black mark on the sport disqualifies you from being taken seriously with regards to anything about horse racing. It exposes you as the Baffert hater that you are. Was Justify doped for any of the TC races? Was he not the best 3 year old that year? How do you know it was a fake injury. Using your premise I'll Have Another did the same thing. Did he not run anymore because his trainer was also a doper? Funny you never mentioned that incident. In your answer you highlighted one of the major problems. It's not Baffert but the racing authorities who let him off the hook. California is known for allowing cheating with little to no penalties. Just ask Drug O'Neill, Peter Miller, Jerry Hollendorfer and John Sadler but you only fixate on Baffert

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by exactatom

Exactly, his recent sudden dominance asks a huge question. He went almost 15 years without a Derby win and suddenly gets them in bunches. Did he all of a sudden hire a hot shot assistant trainer? No Did he change training methods? No (given his workout patterns) He never has been known as a trainer who gets to the barn early. So, how do you explain it?
Baffert has never once just admitted "hey we messed up". Making an error happens all the time, no matter the industry. The good companies admit the errors, do not hide behind excuses and make legitimate plans to resolve the situation (example Tylenol CEO appearing on 60 Minutes).
Given the large number of drug violations with little attempt (judging by the results) to correct the errors, how would Baffert survive a discovery in a trial? The repeated pattern of violations with no remorse (judging by his ridiculous excuses) makes him a stain on this industry. This gives Churchill the rare opportunity to play the good guy and rid the industry of a problem.
I have often asked a few questions about Baffert:
1. Why does he never produce good trainers the way Wayne Lukas, Charlie Whittingham or Bobby Frankel has?
2. Why has he never moved a string or relocated to Kentucky as Lukas and other trainers have? The sport and breeding is in Kentucky not California.
Another reason Baffert is different than the other mentioned trainers is his horses do not pass the eye test. His horses do not get tired, they get stronger as the race goes on. However, some times later the same "speed" horse returns a "normal" style of fading in the stretch.
This sport is based on public trust. If people stop betting on larger races that he is involved in, then the racetracks suffer, the purses will shrink and the sport will eventually erode away.

Lukas only had 3 winners in TC races from 1980 to 1988 then had 11 from 1994 on. What happened did he change his training methods? You also have to have good horses and good owners who shell out a lot of money for stock. In the last few years owners who paid a lot for their horses have been giving their horses to him. During those lean years he lost Overbrook and The Thoroughbred Corp as owners. He just didn't have the horses. He was very successful from 1996-2002. Was he doping then and then stopped? If he did stop doping, do you think he would wait 15 years to start again. A guy with his ego wouldn't wait that long. As far as assistants go Barnes has been with Baffert for 22 years. How could he develop any when his top guy doesn't leave? He did have Eoin Hardy. Other than Chad Brown who did Frankel have? He like Baffert had two main assistants for 20 plus years. Baffert also has a smaller stable than most of the other "super" trainers allowing him and his staff to concentrate more on the smaller stable than other trainers who are spread out everywhere With bigger stables relying on assistants more. He ships when he needs to and keeps the rest in California where he likes it.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by azeri98

The fact that you think Justify's TC win is the biggest black mark on the sport disqualifies you from being taken seriously with regards to anything about horse racing. It exposes you as the Baffert hater that you are. Was Justify doped for any of the TC races? Was he not the best 3 year old that year? How do you know it was a fake injury. Using your premise I'll Have Another did the same thing. Did he not run anymore because his trainer was also a doper? Funny you never mentioned that incident. In your answer you highlighted one of the major problems. It's not Baffert but the racing authorities who let him off the hook. California is known for allowing cheating with little to no penalties. Just ask Drug O'Neill, Peter Miller, Jerry Hollendorfer and John Sadler but you only fixate on Baffert

I don't hate Baffert. FFS, I cashed a big ticket on his first BC race winner, Thirty Slews. I was excited when he moved over from quarter horse racing. I loved Silver Charm. Loved Game on Dude- and thought Baffert did an amazing job with him. Had no problem whatsoever with American Pharoah.

I'm not anti-Baffert. But he stole the Triple Crown with Justify, and the sport conspired with him to let him do it. When the history of this era is written, that's going to be 1919 World Series-like in how it gets viewed.

As for I'll Have Another, I have my problems with O'Neill, but I praised him, in several fora, when he scratched him from the Belmont. That was a real injury.

But yes, Justify's injury was fake, in the sense that it was not something that would have stopped them from running the horse before he won the TC.

[azeri98]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I don't hate Baffert. FFS, I cashed a big ticket on his first BC race winner, Thirty Slews. I was excited when he moved over from quarter horse racing. I loved Silver Charm. Loved Game on Dude- and thought Baffert did an amazing job with him. Had no problem whatsoever with American Pharoah.

I'm not anti-Baffert. But he stole the Triple Crown with Justify, and the sport conspired with him to let him do it. When the history of this era is written, that's going to be 1919 World Series-like in how it gets viewed.

As for I'll Have Another, I have my problems with O'Neill, but I praised him, in several fora, when he scratched him from the Belmont. That was a real injury.

But yes, Justify's injury was fake, in the sense that it was not something that would have stopped them from running the horse before he won the TC.

Do you have proof of your claims for either? You just sound like a conspiracy theorist. Baffert didn't steal anything. The same people who you say conspired with him to get Justify the Triple Crown are now trying to get rid of him. How does that work? Smarty Jones didn't race after the Belmont, neither did Big Brown who was trained by Dutrow who was banned for 10 years. There have been many drug cheats who have won TC races.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by azeri98

Smarty Jones didn't race after the Belmont, neither did Big Brown who was trained by Dutrow who was banned for 10 years. There have been many drug cheats who have won TC races.

Big Brown won the Haskell and the Monmouth Stakes after the Triple Crown.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Big Brown won the Haskell and the Monmouth Stakes after the Triple Crown.

This is NOT the thread for facts!

[GMB@BP]

I also think people are confusing performance enhancing versus therapeutics, a lot of the lines that are being crossed are taking unhealthy horses and keeping them running. A shame no less but isnt going to make them run faster.