The Greatest of All Time - Bob Baffert

[The_Turf_Monster]

Originally Posted by mlyles1

Attachment 29669

Lol so now he’s going to blame one of his employees? He’s still the trainer of record and he still owns the overage

[foregoforever]

From Matt Hegarty at DRF:

https://www.drf.com/news/preakness-2...t-entry-denied

The attorney for Bob Baffert is prepared to file a temporary restraining order that would prohibit Pimlico Race Course from denying Baffert the ability to enter Medina Spirit in Saturday’s Preakness Stakes, the attorney, Craig Robertson, said on Monday morning.

[Elkchester Road]

Has any Trainer in the History of Racing ever had 5 positives in a one-year period (with the majority of those in high-profile Graded Stakes Race) and continue to be allowed to race???

This Lowlife is making a mockery of the Business, his opponents, his own Horses, the Tracks he is racing at, and any supporters he has...or Objective people looking at this situation.

No other Trainer has "contamination issues". Only Baffert. GTFOH

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by foregoforever

From Matt Hegarty at DRF:

https://www.drf.com/news/preakness-2...t-entry-denied

LOL.

The only possible ground would be if Pimlico has a stable contract like Del Mar did, that requires arbitration of these disputes- that was how Hollendorfer won his TRO. But I highly doubt that they do- Santa Anita successfully banned Hollendorfer, and it is a Stronach track (and I suspect Baffert hasn't even signed Pimlico's stable contract given he normally does not stable horses there).

So what's left? What's the legal principle that gives you a right to enter a horse in a sporting contest?

And what judge is going to grant this? Do Baffert and his lawyers think that judges are itching to help out trainers who have doped horses and are presenting numerous contradictory explanations for why?

And if they did get a TRO, won't an appellate court just immediately stay it?

I give the TRO 5% or less chance of success.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I am all in favor of precedent generally (how could I not be? I'm a lawyer), but I would caution that when you are talking about a highly regulated industry where the public interest is involved, precedent shouldn't necessarily carry as much weight.

For instance, if there's an insurance company in California that is redlining (charging minorities higher rates), I don't want the California Insurance Commissioner to look at precedent and say "well we had these previous redlining situations and they were given relatively light penalties, so I will follow that precedent". That sort of precedent is never binding- regulators can make examples of people, and there's no principle of law that says just because people before you got a slap on the wrist, you get one too.

Churchill is entitled to say "enough is enough". So can the various horse racing regulators. And there's no requirement that they tailor Baffert's punishments to whatever was done in the past. Maybe this is in part a recognition that too many people in this industry protected the "good old boys" in the past.

I felt the same way about the Rick Dutrow suspension, which outraged a lot of industry types. The only way to start being serious about threats to the sport is to stop adhering to precedents and get out and do something bold.

I applaud Churchill (though, I will repeat, if the second split comes back legal, I would hope they quickly rescind the decision).

There indeed is a requirement that the stewards and racing commission-the people actually empowered to resolve this issue and direct purse distribution- act in accordance with applicable regulations and guidelines. And one official consideration is a horseman's history of offenses. There is even a "point" system that defines the parameters of punishment.

But simply for purposes of clarification, and so that this discussion can proceed with more clarity, a sharp distinction should be made between state-licensed officials and mere "operating" officials. And once that distinction is clearly established, the utter uniqueness of this incident stands out starkly against historical backdrop and certain repercussions become even more compelling fodder for discussion.

I have spoken clearly and strictly from my experience as a racing official, not in condemnation OR defense of any party involved. Hopefully, that has added to this discussion.

Thanks for sharing your own expertise.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by mountainman

There , indeed, a requirement that the stewards and racing commission-the people actually empowered to resolve this issue and direct purse distribution- act in accordance with applicable regulations and guidelines. And one official consideration is a horseman's history of offenses. There is even a "point" system that defines the parameters of punishment.

But simply for purposes of clarification, and so that this discussion can proceed with more clarity, a sharp distinction should be made between state-licensed officials and mere "operating" officials. And once that distinction is clearly established, the utter uniqueness of this incident stands out starkly against historical backdrop and certain repercussions become even more compelling fodder for discussion.

I have spoken clearly and strictly from my experience as a racing official, not in condemnation OR defense of any party involved. Hopefully, that has added to this discussion.

Thanks for sharing your own expertise.

1. Unless the "point" system is in a statute, it can be changed. (If it is in a published regulation, it may have to go through notice and comment. If it is not in a published regulation, you can change it with a memo.)

2. There's a huge "regulatory capture" problem in horse racing. "Regulatory capture" occurs when the industry gets control over the regulators. For instance, back to the insurance issue, often times state insurance commissioners come from the insurance industry, and issue insurance-friendly rulings.

Accordingly, part of what needs to happen here is that state horse racing commissions need to have fewer industry members and get rid of rules like the "point system" that lead to lenient punishment. And again, unless the state legislature literally requires you to use a point system, it can be eliminated.

There are no due process rights involved here except that a state regulator's suspension must be on adequate notice and with a post-suspension hearing. That's it. Everything else is up to legislatures and racing commissions. And they need to start making examples of people and stop thinking there is any notion of equality that requires continued lenience, forever. It doesn't.

3. As for Churchill, as you note they are a private actor. They can basically do whatever they want, unless it's prohibited by contract or a state rule. And as long as racing commissions are feckless and wedded to leniency, a lot of the needed reforms may have to come out of powerful track owners like Churchill and Stronach.

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

1. Unless the "point" system is in a statute, it can be changed. (If it is in a published regulation, it may have to go through notice and comment. If it is not in a published regulation, you can change it with a memo.)

2. There's a huge "regulatory capture" problem in horse racing. "Regulatory capture" occurs when the industry gets control over the regulators. For instance, back to the insurance issue, often times state insurance commissioners come from the insurance industry, and issue insurance-friendly rulings.

Accordingly, part of what needs to happen here is that state horse racing commissions need to have fewer industry members and get rid of rules like the "point system" that lead to lenient punishment. And again, unless the state legislature literally requires you to use a point system, it can be eliminated.

There are no due process rights involved here except that a state regulator's suspension must be on adequate notice and with a post-suspension hearing. That's it. Everything else is up to legislatures and racing commissions. And they need to start making examples of people and stop thinking there is any notion of equality that requires continued lenience, forever. It doesn't.

3. As for Churchill, as you note they are a private actor. They can basically do whatever they want, unless it's prohibited by contract or a state rule. And as long as racing commissions are feckless and wedded to leniency, a lot of the needed reforms may have to come out of powerful track owners like Churchill and Stronach.

Crazy times, dilanesp.

Track Owners "policing" Racing Commissions. It is what it is.

[barbaro123]

You would have to be dumber than a box of rocks, which Baffert is not. I do not believe he is guilty of this allegation.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

1. Unless the "point" system is in a statute, it can be changed. (If it is in a published regulation, it may have to go through notice and comment. If it is not in a published regulation, you can change it with a memo.)

2. There's a huge "regulatory capture" problem in horse racing. "Regulatory capture" occurs when the industry gets control over the regulators. For instance, back to the insurance issue, often times state insurance commissioners come from the insurance industry, and issue insurance-friendly rulings.

Accordingly, part of what needs to happen here is that state horse racing commissions need to have fewer industry members and get rid of rules like the "point system" that lead to lenient punishment. And again, unless the state legislature literally requires you to use a point system, it can be eliminated.

There are no due process rights involved here except that a state regulator's suspension must be on adequate notice and with a post-suspension hearing. That's it. Everything else is up to legislatures and racing commissions. And they need to start making examples of people and stop thinking there is any notion of equality that requires continued lenience, forever. It doesn't.

3. As for Churchill, as you note they are a private actor. They can basically do whatever they want, unless it's prohibited by contract or a state rule. And as long as racing commissions are feckless and wedded to leniency, a lot of the needed reforms may have to come out of powerful track owners like Churchill and Stronach.

You speak in large part about "problems" that need addressed and the need to "get rid of certain regulations." Again, I get it and appreciate your point of view. But I speak from tons of real-world experience as a racing official of some 30 years. I have focused on the way things are, you weighed in on the way things should, and can, legally be.

Thus in principle, we don't even disagree. So let's not take the next step and begin boring fellow posters by debating semantics.

I'm no fan of long drawn out debates won by attrition.

Right now the discussion is still fresh and vibrant.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Elkchester Road

Crazy times, dilanesp.

Track Owners "policing" Racing Commissions. It is what it is.

It frustrates me. Everyone here knows I am politically pretty liberal. So I'd tend towards preferring nice legalistic government regulation with clear rules to some private businesses doing whatever they want.

But in the real world, we can't seem to get the state racing commissions to be tough enough. Maybe if we had a national racing commission it would be different, but in the world we live in right now, the tracks may be the best option for serious enforcement.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

LOL.

The only possible ground would be if Pimlico has a stable contract like Del Mar did, that requires arbitration of these disputes- that was how Hollendorfer won his TRO. But I highly doubt that they do- Santa Anita successfully banned Hollendorfer, and it is a Stronach track (and I suspect Baffert hasn't even signed Pimlico's stable contract given he normally does not stable horses there).

So what's left? What's the legal principle that gives you a right to enter a horse in a sporting contest?

And what judge is going to grant this? Do Baffert and his lawyers think that judges are itching to help out trainers who have doped horses and are presenting numerous contradictory explanations for why?

And if they did get a TRO, won't an appellate court just immediately stay it?

I give the TRO 5% or less chance of success.

cant he just run the horses in someone elses name?

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It frustrates me. Everyone here knows I am politically pretty liberal. So I'd tend towards preferring nice legalistic government regulation with clear rules to some private businesses doing whatever they want.

But in the real world, we can't seem to get the state racing commissions to be tough enough. Maybe if we had a national racing commission it would be different, but in the world we live in right now, the tracks may be the best option for serious enforcement.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

cant he just run the horses in someone elses name?

Churchill's suspension prohibits that, I believe. We will find out what Pimlico does tomorrow at 4 Eastern.

[dilanesp]

They decided to let him run.

Can't wait to hear the boos Saturday.

https://mobile.twitter.com/HorseRaci...17442813485058

[classhandicapper]

So what happens if the 2nd test comes back negative.

If Pimilico bans him, that's still at least some small possibility.

Would Baffert and the owner of Medina Spirit have some ability to sue anyone?

What about Concert Tour?

Can those owners switch to another trainer this week?