Will Justify get DQ'd?

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by bob60566

So they were correct in sweeping it under the carpet and keeping the public in the dark.?

I guess its not uncommon according to this article from DRF.

https://www.drf.com/news/california-...g-justify-test


and these cross contamination cases are often thrown out due to how hard they are to prove.

Again, not to defend these crooks but it was a bit of a no win situation.

[46zilzal]

Originally Posted by sandpit

A decade or so ago at the Breeders' Cup I had an hour-long discussion with a Kentucky Derby winning trainer about many things, including drugs in the sport. He told me point-blank, and reeled off several names that we all know, that there are people that he just can't beat because of what they do to their horses.

.

I worked with a vet's assistant at the standardbred meeting which overlapped the T-breds. She worked in the T-bred clinic during the day, and then was up on the roof as a director of the various playback shots for the stewards in the evenings. She used to tell me astonishing tales of a trainer getting hold of a new medication and saying something to the effect: "Let's try it and see what it does." She was flabbergasted as many of these occult meds were for odds uses like equine cancer and they were seeing what it would do..LUCKILY most of the trainers took her expertise to heart but she did relate to me several names of chronic abusers.

"Watch as the season goes on," ......"These trainers cannot win later in the season as they cannot overcome the wear and tear hidden by previous drug usage that would allow the chronically sore to participate at anywhere near 100%....They are all used up."

The Canadian Parimutuel Agency kept about 20 horses in training over the year and repeatedly tested them on drug clearance times per dose and summarized their findings each season in a small booklet that anyone (I wrote away for one) could get through Ottawa. Many trainers were masters as THERAPEUTIC drug use that cleared and did not get a positive test based upon this published research. Others did not.

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I guess its not uncommon according to this article from DRF.

https://www.drf.com/news/california-...g-justify-test


and these cross contamination cases are often thrown out due to how hard they are to prove.

Again, not to defend these crooks but it was a bit of a no win situation.

Yes they will be a full disclosure in the morning from Bob and the committee and will put this thing to rest and will make us all happy again. Might be called circling the wagons day.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I guess its not uncommon according to this article from DRF.

https://www.drf.com/news/california-...g-justify-test


and these cross contamination cases are often thrown out due to how hard they are to prove.

Again, not to defend these crooks but it was a bit of a no win situation.

If the CHRB has made a regular habit of violating the Brown Act, the members should be prosecuted and imprisoned. This is NOT a technicality. EVERY member of every regulatory body in California knows the rules.

Also, it's rich for the DRF to be publishing this unrebutted, sycophantic defense of the CHRB. If this was really business as usual, how come the Form hadn't informed its readers about it in the past?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

It was stopped because the horse won the triple crown and tested clean subsequently in those races. I guarantee you had he not tested clean they would have no swept this under the rug.

Its a bit of a no win situation for them, months after the triple crown you are going to come out with some ruling saying the TC winner was doped up in the SA Derby. Again it would have ONLY resulted in his DQ from the SA purse in October when the ruling would have been official.

It is not a "no win situation". Unless you think that the job of California state employees is to protect the economic interests of people who own expensive racehorses. Anyone who thinks that's their job has no business working for the State.

There's a "win" and a "lose" here. The CHRB wins by doing its job and disqualifying the horse and disciplining the connections. It loses by doing what it did.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It is not a "no win situation". Unless you think that the job of California state employees is to protect the economic interests of people who own expensive racehorses. Anyone who thinks that's their job has no business working for the State.

There's a "win" and a "lose" here. The CHRB wins by doing its job and disqualifying the horse and disciplining the connections. It loses by doing what it did.

Isnt this a volunteer board, I dont think they are employees of the State.

They are horse people in a difficult spot for horse people, and lets be frank here, its not exactly like racing boards make good decisions (takeout raises for example).

[The_Turf_Monster]

I don't want to give the org enough credit to put 2 and 2 together, but this is red meat for the PETA crowd. You have the org appointed to oversee horse racing in the state turning a blind eye to a drug infraction to allow the horse to continue on to Kentucky

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Isnt this a volunteer board, I dont think they are employees of the State.

They are horse people in a difficult spot for horse people, and lets be frank here, its not exactly like racing boards make good decisions (takeout raises for example).

I don't care what they are compensated. If they don't like obeying the law, they should quit.

And takeout issues are nothing like this. They have statutory authority to set takeout. Not to hold secret proceedings to absolve drug test positives to protect rich people.

[clicknow]

Before the SA Derby, Justify did not have any points with which to enter the KY Derby. He received 100 points by winning.

I guess one question would be if he had been disqualed, would it have allowed another horse on the bubble to enter the KY Derby that year.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by clicknow

Before the SA Derby, Justify did not have any points with which to enter the KY Derby. He received 100 points by winning.

I guess one question would be if he had been disqualed, would it have allowed another horse on the bubble to enter the KY Derby that year.

Exactly what i was thinking.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by clicknow

Before the SA Derby, Justify did not have any points with which to enter the KY Derby. He received 100 points by winning.

I guess one question would be if he had been disqualed, would it have allowed another horse on the bubble to enter the KY Derby that year.

Well, by the time the split sample came back twice confirmed the race was over, so it would be tough to state that somehow a horse was usurped a chance to run in the race.

He should have been dq'd from the SA Derby, and still may be, after an investigation. It would not change the outcome of the triple crown races as he did not test positive in those races (unless there is something in the rules that say a horse who was dq'd from a points race and subsequently did not have enough points, would be disqualified, something I highly doubt is in the rules).

In the end this is more a case of CHRB not doing whats right for racing rather than anything Justify or his connections are going to have to worry about, again unless the rules are very specific to what happens in this situation.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by clicknow

Before the SA Derby, Justify did not have any points with which to enter the KY Derby. He received 100 points by winning.

I guess one question would be if he had been disqualed, would it have allowed another horse on the bubble to enter the KY Derby that year.

My guess is that second place horse gets the points and would be in the Kentucky Derby. It was a D' Oro horse, can't quite remember the exact name.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Well, by the time the split sample came back twice confirmed the race was over, so it would be tough to state that somehow a horse was usurped a chance to run in the race.

He should have been dq'd from the SA Derby, and still may be, after an investigation. It would not change the outcome of the triple crown races as he did not test positive in those races (unless there is something in the rules that say a horse who was dq'd from a points race and subsequently did not have enough points, would be disqualified, something I highly doubt is in the rules).

In the end this is more a case of CHRB not doing whats right for racing rather than anything Justify or his connections are going to have to worry about, again unless the rules are very specific to what happens in this situation.

Well if he is DQ'd from the SA Derby he is no longer an undefeated TC winner so that is something.

Beyond that, I doubt Churchill with its ties to the breeding industry would want to act. But from a pure legal perspective, there are several potential claims that could actually be used to strip Justify of his Derby title, because implied in the points system is that the points were obtained honestly and in compliance with all the rules applicable to the prep race.

In other words, if Churchill really wanted to, yes it could strip the horse of the Kentucky Derby and TC titles.

I hope the media puts the pressure on everyone in this situation. The great desire of everyone is going to be to allow this to blow over.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

He should have been dq'd from the SA Derby, and still may be, after an investigation. It would not change the outcome of the triple crown races as he did not test positive in those races (unless there is something in the rules that say a horse who was dq'd from a points race and subsequently did not have enough points, would be disqualified, something I highly doubt is in the rules).

So a horse who is DQed in a race still gets 100 points, for "winning"? Is that what you're saying? That sounds crazy and absurd.

Justify had ZERO points before the SA Derby.

It was the only race he ran to qualify for the KY Derby. His other races were an allowance and a maiden. So "subsequently" he would have no points at all, unless he ran another race after the SA Derby, to get into the KY Derby gate.

Originally Posted by jay68802

My guess is that second place horse gets the points and would be in the Kentucky Derby. It was a D' Oro horse, can't quite remember the exact name.

D'Oro was already in I think? As for Justify, a horse with a drug positiive isn't like interference during a race!!! They don't get put 2nd or 3rd.. They should be DQed altogether, for a drug positive. (which is what should have happened).

Even Lance Armstrong was stripped of his titles over drug use

[clocker7]

So the evidence is that only the SA Derby tests produced a positive, while the others didn't?

That seems odd.