Bloodhorse fails to report on Justify story

[War of Will]

How exactly does the industry's top publication not have a single story written on arguably the biggest story of the year in the sport. If they don't report on it do they think it will just magically go away?

The Bloodhorse is a joke of a publication. Time to cancel the subscription.

[spiketoo]

I thought it strange also so I asked them and this is what they did not reply with:

-we're called BloodHorse and its Christmas for us right now with the biggest market for selling blood at KEE.
-there was a $1M sale!
-there was a $1.2M sale!
-squirrel!
-there was an $8M sale!
-we already knew last year and since the CHRB dismissed it we didn't think it was news.

[War of Will]

Originally Posted by spiketoo

I thought it strange also so I asked them and this is what they did not reply with:

-we're called BloodHorse and its Christmas for us right now with the biggest market for selling blood at KEE.
-there was a $1M sale!
-there was a $1.2M sale!
-squirrel!
-there was an $8M sale!
-we already knew last year and since the CHRB dismissed it we didn't think it was news.

[GMB@BP]

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing


seems to very prominent on their site, remember this broke about 8pm last night.

[War of Will]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing


seems to very prominent on their site, remember this broke about 8pm last night.

They waited until Baffert and Winstar put out their statements. Clearly a coordinated effort by the Bloodhorse and the people who own and train justify. This is no different than political candidates working with the media for damage control.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by War of Will

They waited until Baffert and Winstar put out their statements. Clearly a coordinated effort by the Bloodhorse and the people who own and train justify. This is no different than political candidates working with the media for damage control.

Maybe they wanted to get the whole story and not part of the story.

Your probably right but we are in instant media time where checking things out before reporting is not a high priority.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by War of Will

They waited until Baffert and Winstar put out their statements. Clearly a coordinated effort by the Bloodhorse and the people who own and train justify. This is no different than political candidates working with the media for damage control.

Or you could have just posted "Guess I was wrong about Bloodhorse."

Instead, you double-down on stupid.

[AlsoEligible]

The story they have up is a one sentence summary:

The story, based on documents obtained by the New York Times, calls into question how the California Horse Racing Board handled the positive, noting that it took more than a month to confirm the results, the regulator failed to file a public complaint, and the regulator conducted meetings behind closed doors in which decisions on the case were made.

The remaining 800 words are just verbatim quotes from Baffert and his attorney dismissing it as contamination. No mention that the results were 4x over the legal limit. Or that the CHRB may have run afoul of the Brown Act by not discussing this in public. Or that they subsequently changed the rules to lower the consequences of positive tests.

And then comments are disabled, so no one can even discuss it, or bring those points up where someone else may see them.

Seems like everything is on the up-and-up to me.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by AlsoEligible

The story they have up is a one sentence summary:



The remaining 800 words are just verbatim quotes from Baffert and his attorney dismissing it as contamination. No mention that the results were 4x over the legal limit. Or that the CHRB may have run afoul of the Brown Act by not discussing this in public. Or that they subsequently changed the rules to lower the consequences of positive tests.

And then comments are disabled, so no one can even discuss it, or bring those points up where someone else may see them.

Seems like everything is on the up-and-up to me.

Should they have duplicated the NYT article word for word?

They DID provide a DIRECT LINK to the NYT article in the story they have up.

I don't really understand you people. They provided the basic facts from the story, they linked to the story, it's the main story up on their page right now, and you think they are whitewashing it somehow.

Ok.

[AlsoEligible]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

They provided the basic facts from the story

Not really. Or some were omitted, whether intentionally or otherwise.

For example, the amount found in the test is mentioned halfway through the article:

In the report, Dr. Rick Sams, who ran the drug testing lab for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission from 2011-18, said scopolamine can act as a bronchodilator to clear a horse's airway and optimize a horse's heart rate, making the horse more efficient. He also said the amount of scopolamine found in Justify—300 nanograms per milliliter—was excessive.

But there's no context given. Is 300ng a lot, or a little? You can't tell from this. You just have one guy saying it is, and two guys (Baffert and Robinson) saying it's not.

Just adding one more sentence to this paragraph to say "The amount of scopolamine that needs to be detected to trigger a positive result is 75 nanograms." lets the reader know Justify was 4x over that. They can then decide whether that's relevant or not.

Surely the BH writers have that information available (or if not, should know where and how to look it up). Instead that detail is buried, and no one can even leave a comment to mention it. Which is another issue altogether - why are comments disabled on one of the biggest racing stories of the year?

Bloodhorse is covering the story, but the way it's written, and the amount of column space given to Bob's own quotes, is clearly slanted towards his defense. Which should not really be a surprise...."racing publication wants to defend racing" isn't exactly tin-foil stuff.

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by AlsoEligible

but the way it's written, and the amount of column space given to Bob's own quotes

And the most to Dr. Arthur's quotes (his opinion); Dr Arthur who is the medical director of the very organization who has been accused of acting with impropriety.

So we have an article with details mostly coming from Baffert, his attorneys, and the medical director of the CHRB.

Looks a tad one-sided to me.

I realize this is only their "initial" article and I had no problem with their article being "late to the party." That seemed logical and responsible to me. So I will give them a chance to look further

but still not sure why they didn't report when the CHRB dismissed the case, which they apparently knew about?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by AlsoEligible

Not really. Or some were omitted, whether intentionally or otherwise.

For example, the amount found in the test is mentioned halfway through the article:



But there's no context given. Is 300ng a lot, or a little? You can't tell from this. You just have one guy saying it is, and two guys (Baffert and Robinson) saying it's not.

Just adding one more sentence to this paragraph to say "The amount of scopolamine that needs to be detected to trigger a positive result is 75 nanograms." lets the reader know Justify was 4x over that. They can then decide whether that's relevant or not.

Surely the BH writers have that information available (or if not, should know where and how to look it up). Instead that detail is buried, and no one can even leave a comment to mention it. Which is another issue altogether - why are comments disabled on one of the biggest racing stories of the year?

Bloodhorse is covering the story, but the way it's written, and the amount of column space given to Bob's own quotes, is clearly slanted towards his defense. Which should not really be a surprise...."racing publication wants to defend racing" isn't exactly tin-foil stuff.

I deleted my post right after I posted it...once I realized it was Baffer's lawyer saying some of that stuff....you're just too damn quick for me I guess.

[Someday Silent]

My question is why people are still expecting The Blood-horse to report any serious news matter in a proper and fair manner.

The Steve Haskin/Dina Alborano fiasco should have been a wake-up for everyone.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Someday Silent

My question is why people are still expecting The Blood-horse to report any serious news matter in a proper and fair manner.

The Steve Haskin/Dina Alborano fiasco should have been a wake-up for everyone.

It's still worth stating.

One of the problems the sport has- and it even has it among some on this board- is this notion that if we just bury the bad news everything will be wonderful.

And another problem the sport has is that its elite institutions receive substantial revenue from the breeding industry and try very hard not to step on their toes.

And a third problem the sport has is that even to the extent that 1 and 2 are not applicable, our major journalistic outlets just seem to have no stomach for investigative reporting. Handicapping and writing and broadcasting about other things are more interesting.

All three of those principles are operative with The Blood-Horse.

(It's also worth remembering all of the above whenever somebody trashes Joe Drape. If we were tending our own house, Joe Drape wouldn't have to break stories about the industry.)

[clicknow]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

(It's also worth remembering all of the above whenever somebody trashes Joe Drape.......)

Too late! He's already being dragged across the coals in the other topic.

Is there anyone else who is doing true investigative reporting w/in the horse racing community (I mean the real kind of investigative reporting) because it seems that anyone from the outside doing so will just have their credibility attacked.