The Greatest of All Time - Bob Baffert

[Vinnie]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Anxious to accuse?

He failed a post-race drug test.

I don't make the rules.

Weren't the other 18 horses clean post race?

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Anxious to accuse?

He failed a post-race drug test.

I don't make the rules.

And he the trainer of the horse okayed the administration of the banned drug.

Obviously Kentucky has a zero tolerance policy.

Horse was drugged, doesn’t matter how it happened.

He ran with a banned drug in his system in the Kentucky derby.

Allan

[GMB@BP]

Baffert cheats, pushed the limits, tries to gain whatever advantage he can....

Its a very long line of trainers doing this. Only reason this is 21 pages is that this was the Derby winner that got caught. I guess it makes people feel better that they got the guy....racing should have been on top of this a very very long time ago. They get what they deserve.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by SG4

With all the talk about picograms & how that amount can't affect performance etc, I have never once seen someone say what pp/ML would indicate an obvious drugging? If a horse got a shot of betamethasone today, would their drug test tomorrow show up as 50,000 pp/ML, 5000, 50?? It'd be nice if there was context to this just once.

The concentration of a drug in the blood stream on its own cannot tell you the route of administration (how), the dose (how much), or the timing of treatment (when).

Based on the rules in Kentucky, however, "it shall be a violation for therapeutic medications to be present in excess of established threshold concentrations..."

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Baffert cheats, pushed the limits, tries to gain whatever advantage he can....

Its a very long line of trainers doing this. Only reason this is 21 pages is that this was the Derby winner that got caught. I guess it makes people feel better that they got the guy....racing should have been on top of this a very very long time ago. They get what they deserve.

There's going to be very big pushes, behind the scenes, to sweep this under the rug just like Justify, or to make the punishment so minor that Baffert is back to his old ways soon. And the eight week "split" test delay seems tailor made for that strategy.

Nobody has gotten what they deserved yet.

[Half Smoke]

...................

it's hard to believe a Vet wouldn't know what was in an ointment he was either applying himself or recommending for a Derby horse and that the ointment contained a banned substance


maybe he got his degree from an online university


*

[taxicab]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The decision by CD and Baffert's response to a potential DQ is going to be interesting.

IMO, there's no question he has to take responsibility for the overage (assuming the 2nd test is positive and all the other tests check out like everyone expects). Some kind of significant fine (lidocaine was 5k per horse) or even a suspension seems inevitable.

The DQ is more interesting because unlike Gamine where he admitted he injected her 18 days before the race but she was still over and ultimately DQ'd, he's claiming this horse was not even injected.

Is an accidental contamination of some kind (like the lidocaine cases) considered different?

Will they follow through on a DQ when it seems most horse people agree the level we are talking about didn't impact the horse's performance and it might be an accidental contamination?

The original statement by CD didn't sound like they left themselves any wiggle room. A DQ is probably coming.

Will this go to court?

@ Class:
Churchill will fine and suspend him.......no doubt.
They will also ban him for life.
In their eyes Baffert has damaged their product and is bad for business.
It's a business decision,no two ways about it.
Bottom line:
Baffert needs Churchill.........but they don't need him.

[taxicab]

Originally Posted by paulbenny

This is not a performance enhancer. This is a drug to eliminate inflammation.


It does not improve the horse but allows it to not be inflamed. My question is really, do people really believe that BB is like JN? or JS? If they do, then who is left?


I do not believe they are even comparable situations. Not even close.



I once downloaded the 600 page document by the horse racing commissioners. I was exhausted just scanning it. Maybe the VET did mess up. Again, I still think the DQ is OK. The complexity of a lot of things is not that easy to understand. If you have a skin rash, it is possible it could be absorbed into the bloodstream.



There is a point that some of these rules are a bit absurd too. Where is the line drawn. Then lets have pre race testing for Graded stakes.

If the medication ends with an e it's a blocker.

[taxicab]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Routine procedure just slightly mistimed and or sloppily performed. Not sexy or satisfying to the aggrieved masses-but none the less true, in my opinion.

Missing a joint even partially, btw, and hitting some subcutaneous would effect this substance's presence in a horse's system. Again, not sexy.

Whatever the case, life will never be the same for Bob Baffert.

What about the other times ?
He's had plenty of hot tests.

[taxicab]

Originally Posted by paulbenny

If he had bothered to mention that this is also a topical steroid, or gotten into some details, maybe I would respect the guy. He characterizes this once again as a doping scandal. Moreover, the Armstrong thing is mentioned. Lets then elevate this even more to:


Baseball
Football
College sports (why exclude any)


The point is, there is a fine line with the wording here. Doping is not steroids one to one in this case. It is an anti inflammatory agent used even for face cream and I have a permanent scar because of this, which is why I hesitate all medications, etc.


Now lets add a list of every trainer who had a horse die under their care. I suspect we must include Ruffian's trainer. It must have been Whitley's fault, because she was too young to race that fast.

Pretzel Logic....

[cj]

Originally Posted by Half Smoke

...................

it's hard to believe a Vet wouldn't know what was in an ointment he was either applying himself or recommending for a Derby horse and that the ointment contained a banned substance


maybe he got his degree from an online university


*

University of American Samoa.

[Augenj]

Originally Posted by taxicab

If the medication ends with an e it's a blocker.

Do you mean it masks other substances?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Augenj

Do you mean it masks other substances?

Pain blocker.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by taxicab

What about the other times ?
He's had plenty of hot tests.

Yes. But my post addressed this violation only. Not his history or resultant ramifications of any sort.

I'm not sufficiently versed on his other offenses to add much to that discussion.

[taxicab]

Originally Posted by Augenj

Do you mean it masks other substances?

@ Augenj
That would be right up the lasix alley.
When "blocker" is referenced it's a medication that blocks pain in a certain area of a horse.