Will Justify get DQ'd?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by clicknow

I think someone in pharmacology will need to be consulted because at the level that was reported, Justify would have had to consume an unprecedented amount of jimsom-contaminated hay to test at 3x the threshold.

Source?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by clicknow

Unless it wasn't a contamination......

Justify tested at 300ng/mL

The threshold in europe is 30ng/mL That would be environmental contamination.
The threshold here is 75ng/mL based on studies of what constitutes environmental contamination in feed.

Putting this here so people have a comparison.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24440440


It would be pretty hard for a horse to eat as much plant material as was in this study.

So even between Europe and US, there is a BIG difference.

Maybe it's really 100ng/ml and Justify was really only 3x over...

See what I'm getting at here? This shouldn't be that hard to pin down.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by horsefan2019

1) Look at who participates in the sport....the rich, successful people in this country. They own stuff, land, property, companies etc....they also have the means to make donations to a political candidate which has much more sway.

I think people overstate, by far, the amount of influence that rich people in horse racing have. They certainly have that influence in Kentucky state politics. But nationally? There are actually probably far more rich people who hate horse racing or even think it is barbaric than there are rich people who are involved in the sport.

There are reasons Congress doesn't get involved in horse racing, but I don't think it's really a matter of lobbying and influence. I would think that outside of Kentucky and a few scattered congressional districts, most members of the House and Senate would have very little to fear in taking on the horse racing establishment.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

So even between Europe and US, there is a BIG difference.

Maybe it's really 100ng/ml and Justify was really only 3x over...

See what I'm getting at here? This shouldn't be that hard to pin down.

The thing is, a regulatory agency that was acting properly would document all this stuff. You are going to change the rule and allow a larger amount? You build an administrative record. Find some studies that show that the larger amount can be a result of contamination. Hold public hearings. Bring scientists in to testify about it. That way, you have a nice big public record that you can point to if anyone questions why this was done or claims you were currying favor with powerful owners or trainers.

We've actually seen this process play out in the past when substances were ruled legal.

In contrast, here, even if one were inclined to defend the CHRB decision, you are left to guess as to what, exactly, the scientific or evidentiary conclusions were that supported the decision, because the Board did it all in secret. Obviously, there was some other, overriding reason why they wanted to do it that way rather than the proper way.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

So even between Europe and US, there is a BIG difference.

Maybe it's really 100ng/ml and Justify was really only 3x over...

See what I'm getting at here? This shouldn't be that hard to pin down.

I'm sure that someone with equine pharmacology expertise can and will explain all this in a logical way in the coming days. All I can think of is that maybe Justify ate too much that day.

The sticking point for me, and probably others right now is: If it was a miniscule amount, and not a big deal, why was there a cover up?

[clicknow]

I thought this was pretty funny:

Woops guess i don't know how to post a tweet sorry

It was from Eric Guillot, about how Hollendorfer Fined in Scopolamine Case back in 2008.

[Sea Hero]

It's moot. They aren't going to take any action against Baffert.



Ever.

[Tom]

After reading more about it, I concluded it is the NY TImes Joe D - nothing to see here, move along.

The guy has a habit of piss poor "reporting" on horse racing.
He is a hack and he publishes garbage.

Don't even legitimize him by talking about his writing.

[AlsoEligible]

nothing to see here, move along.

Sure there is. We have confirmation from the CHRB and others besides the NYT that Justify failed a post-race drug test.

I don't understand why it's even relevant how it got there. Maybe he was especially hungry and did eat a crapton of contaminated weed. Okay. He still went out and ran (and won) a race with an excessive amount of a banned substance in his system.

That should be the only relevant fact here, and resulted in a DQ.

The how should only matter when it comes to whether or not to take further action against Baffert. Whether it was intentional or not, the horse was tainted.

[NY BRED]

Do the math;

One of the most successful trainers in our generation, who already won the
Triple Crown with American Pharaoh, and represents some of the most wealthiest owners with tremendous support and buying power to race quality horses now goes all in to win another Triple Crown?


The deeper question is improving track and barn security in an effort to protect
the thoroughbred and the betting public.

[clocker7]

Originally Posted by Tom

After reading more about it, I concluded it is the NY TImes Joe D - nothing to see here, move along.

The guy has a habit of piss poor "reporting" on horse racing.
He is a hack and he publishes garbage.

Don't even legitimize him by talking about his writing.

One of the sorriest journalism breakdowns ever was during the Duke Lacrosse hoax. Oddly, Joe Drape early on figured it out that it was sketchy. One of the earliest, in fact.

However, his news organ was determined to sell a political narrative instead, at the expense of 3 innocent college kids facing prison for 30 years. The Times replaced Drape with Duff Wilson, the media creature who (later than anyone) propped up the crooked prosecutor. A month after Ed Bradley anchored his last 60 Minutes episode which exposed the scandal, the Times and Wilson still gave Nifong a positive platform to spread his lies. Two months later, DNA ended the fiasco.

None of them ... the editors, Wilson, or Drape ever apologized for their dirty work. Drape could have resigned in protest. Instead, he still works for the scum. As we see by this episode, he told a half story, when a full story and technical material would have made it a nothingburger.

[tubesockshakur]

Is it true this can be found in everyday feed?

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by tubesockshakur

Is it true this can be found in everyday feed?

No.

[Fred Mertz]

This happened in 2018?


Criminal IMO.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by Tom

After reading more about it, I concluded it is the NY TImes Joe D - nothing to see here, move along.

The guy has a habit of piss poor "reporting" on horse racing.
He is a hack and he publishes garbage.

Don't even legitimize him by talking about his writing.

Tom, I think it just depends on one's perspective........was the person(s) who leaked the story to Drape trying to save racing, or to further it's demise?

There are certainly people in both camps. Some say that cleaning up racing (and that would include how racing commissions handle things) will help save racing. Others say it's an effort to further cut the head off the dog.


FWIW, I am in the former camp. I believe more transparency will help save racing, as will more standardized practices and decisions.