NYRA: Baffert and Vitali are detrimental to the sport of T-Bred Racing

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by azeri98

Federal EEO laws prohibit employers from discriminating when they use criminal history information. If a convicted felon walks into a restaurant how would the owner know? Do they have their mug shot on their shirt?

Wrong. That's only true when the crime is not related to the job and not a business necessity.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/ca...a-felony-33817

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

My position has nothing to do with Baffert hate. My position is that in other sports, a first offense is 2 years and a second offense is a lifetime ban, and the result of that is that a lot of people are far more afraid to dope than they are in horse racing.

I think similar rules would be good for the sport of horse racing. It's not about Bob Baffert specifically. I supported the 10 year ban for Rick Dutrow too. I support everything that is happening to Servis and Navarro. It has nothing to do with any one person. I just think that the only rule that deters doping is one that doesn't allow trainers any room for explanation- the trainer's job is to find a way for this stuff to NEVER get in the horses' system, and to leave the sport when they fail to do it.

They have tapes of Servis and Navarro talking about using illegal performance enhancers and they found syringes in Dutrow's barn with an illegal substance in them.

Baffert has series of overages for legal therapeutics.

They aren't the same thing except that you think Baffert is bad for the sport and want him out.

What I want is for the punishment to fit the crime while taking into account his overall record and his propensity for being a pain the ass in these matters. If he's actually a Servis/Navarro level cheater using illegal drugs, I want him to get caught and tossed out, but not before then. For now, I'll take DQ and 2 year suspension.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

You actually have no idea what was given to Medina Spirit. The only thing you have is what the liar Bob Baffert SAYS was given to him.

And you also have no idea whether it was any sort of legitimate therapy, or purely for performance enhancement. You only know what the liar Bob Baffert SAYS on that subject.

You are saying things as fact that are credited to one source, a man who we shouldn't believe about anything. If Bob Baffert said the sun is out, I'd look up anyway.

The point is no on else knows with 100% certainty either.

You are starting with the assumption of guilty until proven innocent because you suspect he does a lot worse than using legal therapeutics inside the window and hoping they are out of the horse's system by race day. You want him out.

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Against informed opinions speaking freely?

They most definitely are.

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

7 years for a second offense is totally fair. The fact that horse racing regulators CAN'T IMAGINE doing something like that is precisely the problem.

Exactly, dilanesp. It's like there aren't other competent Trainers out there.

I swear...sometimes, it seems like they absolutely do NOT want this to get any better.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

They have tapes of Servis and Navarro talking about using illegal performance enhancers and they found syringes in Dutrow's barn with an illegal substance in them.

Baffert has series of overages for legal therapeutics.

They aren't the same thing except that you think Baffert is bad for the sport and want him out.

What I want is for the punishment to fit the crime while taking into account his overall record and his propensity for being a pain the ass in these matters. If he's actually a Servis/Navarro level cheater using illegal drugs, I want him to get caught and tossed out, but not before then. For now, I'll take DQ and 2 year suspension.

They are the same thing.

In every other sport, they are the same thing. Track and field has suspended athletes two years for taking cold medication. Why? Because athletes used it to enhance performance.

What you are missing is that in a world of highly untrustworthy actors, you have to set the rules very strict. ANY allowance of "therapeutics" will be abused to enhance performance. Don't believe me? Look at Lasix. Heck, look even at Bute- which was used to fix the 1968 Derby, the last time we were in this mess.

There's no such thing as "legitimate therapeutic medicine" administered by a trainer or a private vet. They cannot be trusted. They will cheat.

It has NOTHING to do with Baffert specifically. It has to do with the sport, and the entire attitude that is so pervasive that every PED is explained away as some sort of "treatment". Screw that. Give them hay, oats, and water, and if they need anything else, let a veterinarian employed by the state administer it in a detention barn.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The point is no on else knows with 100% certainty either.

You are starting with the assumption of guilty until proven innocent because you suspect he does a lot worse than using legal therapeutics inside the window and hoping they are out of the horse's system by race day. You want him out.

No, I am saying that the rule isn't that he may use legal therapeutics. It says nothing about legal therapeutics. It says ANY positive test is a violation of the rules.

And I'm further saying that since no trainer will EVER say that they doped a horse, a trainer's testimony is worthless as evidence. It's like hearing a criminal defendant make a not guilty plea and saying "well then I guess he's not guilty".

The positive test is evidence of doping. We have no competent evidence of anything else- just the statements of a man who will and has to lie. So as of right now, the evidence pushes strongly in the direction of guilt.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by azeri98

The only reason why is because the high profile of the Derby. It shouldn't matter when in actuality the low claimers are the ones that break down more often and are treated much worse by trainers because they need them to run every 3 weeks. The top horses are treated with kid gloves and get the best care. The black eye before Baffert's overage were all the breakdowns at Santa Anita and those were mostly claimers who probably shouldn't have been racing or trainers ignored their condition in order to get them to run.

If your top priority is justice for the horses then the $10,000 claimers are more important. I believe that all of the horses should be cared for with the best of care. That issue is not the topic being discussed.



The topic is the integrity of the game. A cheat in the biggest race of the year does more to harm the integrity than a cheat in every $10,000 claiming race run for the entire year. Not only is the integrity harmed but all of the non-winning bettors and owners are cheated.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by AndyC

If your top priority is justice for the horses then the $10,000 claimers are more important. I believe that all of the horses should be cared for with the best of care. That issue is not the topic being discussed.



The topic is the integrity of the game. A cheat in the biggest race of the year does more to harm the integrity than a cheat in every $10,000 claiming race run for the entire year. Not only is the integrity harmed but all of the non-winning bettors and owners are cheated.

Good post bringing both sides of the coin into play....

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

They are the same thing.

In every other sport, they are the same thing. Track and field has suspended athletes two years for taking cold medication. Why? Because athletes used it to enhance performance.

What you are missing is that in a world of highly untrustworthy actors, you have to set the rules very strict. ANY allowance of "therapeutics" will be abused to enhance performance. Don't believe me? Look at Lasix. Heck, look even at Bute- which was used to fix the 1968 Derby, the last time we were in this mess.

There's no such thing as "legitimate therapeutic medicine" administered by a trainer or a private vet. They cannot be trusted. They will cheat.

It has NOTHING to do with Baffert specifically. It has to do with the sport, and the entire attitude that is so pervasive that every PED is explained away as some sort of "treatment". Screw that. Give them hay, oats, and water, and if they need anything else, let a veterinarian employed by the state administer it in a detention barn.

IMO your goal of things being similar to human athletes won't work.

Horses are treated for minor issues all the time so they can remain in training. The authorities and vets classify various drugs and treatments that can and cannot be used and the penalties for overages are related to the classification. The idea being being that everyone should use the legal stuff responsibly and have the welfare of the horse in mind too.

But mistakes are made.

So they leave room for a case where someone like Shug, Mott, Motion etc... get a rare positive for an accidental therapeutic overage and it doesn't end their careers. If someone has accumulated a lot positives they can step up the punishment if they want. If someone uses a banned substance they can be thrown out of the sport.

If they had a zero tolerance or near zero tolerance policy, you are correct that everyone would be way more careful and trust would be higher, but we might also have 3 horse fields, 3 days a week, and 10 trainers with a license because so many horses missed some training and so many trainers got thrown out of the sport or left because they went broke.

IMO, they have to find some balance where the punishment fits the crime with due consideration for the long term record of the trainer. Maybe it's way too lenient now, but you can't start tossing everyone that treated a little inflammation in an ankle to get a horse back in training quicker and then ooops we screwed up.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

No, I am saying that the rule isn't that he may use legal therapeutics. It says nothing about legal therapeutics. It says ANY positive test is a violation of the rules.

And I'm further saying that since no trainer will EVER say that they doped a horse, a trainer's testimony is worthless as evidence. It's like hearing a criminal defendant make a not guilty plea and saying "well then I guess he's not guilty".

The positive test is evidence of doping. We have no competent evidence of anything else- just the statements of a man who will and has to lie. So as of right now, the evidence pushes strongly in the direction of guilt.

Everyone on planet earth including Baffert already knows the horse tested positive. No one on earth says otherwise.

Everyone on planet earth including Baffert knows a positive test like this breaks the rules and he has to be punished.

The only thing that's disputed is the "how" of the positive and the appropriate punishment.

No one on planet earth is going to accept Baffert's explanation of ointment, which is why I had no problem with him asking for urine tests even though they probably won't shed any more light on the "how". But it was at least a reasonable request given there is some small chance he's telling the truth this one time and it might have a mitigating impact on the punishment. The judge agreed. So let it play out.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The point is no on else knows with 100% certainty either.

You are starting with the assumption of guilty until proven innocent because you suspect he does a lot worse than using legal therapeutics inside the window and hoping they are out of the horse's system by race day. You want him out.

You are starting to sound like SandyW.

[SandyW]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You are starting to sound like SandyW.

Do I know you?

i guess you think guilty until proven innocent is the new American way.

We are in big trouble.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You are starting to sound like SandyW.

I don't want to come off as an apologist for any Hall Of Fame trainers that have a long list of positives (and there are plenty), but in my mind there's a difference between altering your bets and assumptions about improvement because you "suspect" a trainer is probably cheating with illegal drugs (which I do for a few major guys), throwing him out of the sport because you finally catch him using illegal drugs, and throwing him out of the sport because he has therapeutic positives. I'm comfortable with a DQ and a 2 year suspension no matter what the consensus is. It's extreme enough to do some serious damage and be a strong deterrent but not up to the level of Navarro, Servis and guys like that.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I don't want to come off as an apologist for any Hall Of Fame trainers that have a long list of positives (and there are plenty), but in my mind there's a difference between altering your bets and assumptions about improvement because you "suspect" a trainer is probably cheating with illegal drugs (which I do for a few major guys), throwing him out of the sport because you finally catch him using illegal drugs, and throwing him out of the sport because he has therapeutic positives. I'm comfortable with a DQ and a 2 year suspension no matter what the consensus is. It's extreme enough to do some serious damage and be a strong deterrent but not up to the level of Navarro, Servis and guys like that.

Look...our sport has a tarnished reputation, and it's battling for survival against some powerful newly-legalized forms of gambling. In order to restore the confidence of the betting public...the game has to start implementing extreme measures of punishment for the offenders, otherwise it won't be taken seriously by the gamblers of the new generation. I am a compassionate guy...but sympathy is misplaced when wasted on the Bob Bafferts of the world, IMO. Throw the bum out, I say, and teach a memorable lesson to the other miscreants of the backstretch out there...who have gotten used to the "slap-on-the-wrist" fines.