The Greatest of All Time - Bob Baffert

[Psychotic Parakeet]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The official second test hasn't been released- though we know what it is going to show.

Oh, wait. You are right. I kept thinking the recent test that came back positive was the second one. It was just the split sample. Thank you!

[cj]

Originally Posted by Psychotic Parakeet

Oh, wait. You are right. I kept thinking the recent test that came back positive was the second one. It was just the split sample. Thank you!

Same thing, but KHRC hasn't released the results yet, the Baffert team did unofficially.

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I realize that this audience pretty much hates him and already has him marked down as a high level performance enhancing cheater, but suspension or not if he shows it was Otomax, imo that does less to damage his reputation, the accomplishments of the horse's he has trained, and maybe even the sport than an injection positive would. If I was him and I knew it was an Otomax positive I'd be doing everything in my power to prove that no matter what else was going to happen.

In my opinion...if that was the case, he should have been doing just that. And a Hell of a lot sooner.

Hubris...

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Elkchester Road

In my opinion...if that was the case, he should have been doing just that. And a Hell of a lot sooner.

Hubris...

And guilt.

One of the reasons why people act like they are guilty is because they are guilty.

Let's say I apply an ointment innocently to a horse which might cause a false positive. First thing I would do is CLEAR IT IN ADVANCE WITH THE STEWARDS. Tell them exactly what I'm doing. Especially if it is the Kentucky Derby we are talking about. Do everything on the up and up.
'
And if the positive test happens, the first thing I do is release all my vet records showing exactly what was done and when and explaining how it caused the positive test.

Baffert didn't do any of this because he's GUILTY. There's just a huge difference between how someone acts when an actual innocent act caused a positive test, and how someone acts when they are grasping at straws to avoid punishment for something they did. Baffert is clearly in the latter category.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree.

I made a note of that earlier in the thread. It could be a case of 3D chess where he only used the Otomax to treat the skin condition because it was a good cover for an injection. He knew "if" by some crazy chance the horse came up positive he could always say it was the Otomax and mitigate the problem.

Detective Classhandicapper...I think you have solved this case. I couldn't agree more.

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

And guilt.

One of the reasons why people act like they are guilty is because they are guilty.

Let's say I apply an ointment innocently to a horse which might cause a false positive. First thing I would do is CLEAR IT IN ADVANCE WITH THE STEWARDS. Tell them exactly what I'm doing. Especially if it is the Kentucky Derby we are talking about. Do everything on the up and up.
'
And if the positive test happens, the first thing I do is release all my vet records showing exactly what was done and when and explaining how it caused the positive test.

Baffert didn't do any of this because he's GUILTY. There's just a huge difference between how someone acts when an actual innocent act caused a positive test, and how someone acts when they are grasping at straws to avoid punishment for something they did. Baffert is clearly in the latter category.

Absolutely spot-on, dilanesp.

[Psychotic Parakeet]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

And guilt.

One of the reasons why people act like they are guilty is because they are guilty.

Let's say I apply an ointment innocently to a horse which might cause a false positive. First thing I would do is CLEAR IT IN ADVANCE WITH THE STEWARDS. Tell them exactly what I'm doing. Especially if it is the Kentucky Derby we are talking about. Do everything on the up and up.
'
And if the positive test happens, the first thing I do is release all my vet records showing exactly what was done and when and explaining how it caused the positive test.

Baffert didn't do any of this because he's GUILTY. There's just a huge difference between how someone acts when an actual innocent act caused a positive test, and how someone acts when they are grasping at straws to avoid punishment for something they did. Baffert is clearly in the latter category.

You and classhandicapper nailed it.

[outofthebox]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I agree.

I made a note of that earlier in the thread. It could be a case of 3D chess where he only used the Otomax to treat the skin condition because it was a good cover for an injection. He knew "if" by some crazy chance the horse came up positive he could always say it was the Otomax and mitigate the problem. But the positive really blew up in his face this time. Of course he could just be telling the truth this time but is running a slipshod barn.

You are giving BB way to much credit. It's been a long time since BB has been a hands on trainer. He spends a few minutes in his office, and then it's off to Clockers Corner. I doubt he ever heard of Otomax until the aftermath of the positive. Remember this is the trainer who took out Justify for a spin in front of the press after the Derby, not realizing the colt had a cracked heal and was sore that morning..

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

And guilt.

One of the reasons why people act like they are guilty is because they are guilty.....

Is this Critical horse Race Theory?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Is this Critical horse Race Theory?

He said "ONE of the reasons". Another would be that they might be INNOCENT.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

He said "ONE of the reasons". Another would be that they might be INNOCENT.

Baffert isn't behaving like someone who is innocent.

[classhandicapper]

Looking at his record, almost everyone will conclude that at a minimum Baffert pushes the envelop as far as it can possibly go, but I can't get past the feeling that he would have to be an absolute brain damaged idiot to gamble that this drug would be out of the horse's system when almost everyone agrees it wasn't even performance enhancing. It still feels like the most likely explanation in this specific case is that he's telling the truth because imo he's not an idiot or crazy. It may be Karmic payback.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Looking at his record, almost everyone will conclude that at a minimum Baffert pushes the envelop as far as it can possibly go, but I can't get past the feeling that he would have to be an absolute brain damaged idiot to gamble that this drug would be out of the horse's system when almost everyone agrees it wasn't even performance enhancing. It still feels like the most likely explanation in this specific case is that he's telling the truth because imo he's not an idiot or crazy. It may be Karmic payback.

I think the most likely explanation is that he uses all sorts of PED's, that many of them generally don't show up in tests, but that he somehow screwed up this time.

I base this not only on his behavior in this case, and his prior conduct, but also on how numerous other PED users in different sports behaved.

One of the biggest lies in the whole PED debate is this notion that people have accidentally positive tests. I'm not saying it's never happened in history, but 99.9 percent of the time a positive test happens because of PED use. If you want an analogy, in the annals of drunk driving arrests, has there ever been a case where someone failed field sobriety tests and blew .08 or higher? Sure. And we absolutely should have some level of due process so that people can make those arguments.

But it's a 1 in a thousand or less thing. It's not like statistically significant numbers of innocent people get wrapped up in these things.

And importantly, when someone IS innocent, they are completely transparent. The facts are your friend when you are innocent, and you find a way to get all the facts out to the judge or regulator. If you really are the athlete who tested positive because of a cold medication, you are in there with all the receipts from the Rite-Aid and the dates and times and amounts of every dose and witnesses who saw you coughing and everything else.

When you have a person who is not immediately completely transparent and trying to immediately and fully clear his name when a test comes back positive, with a consistent story and making all of the records and facts available, it's because the person is guilty. You can raise that 99.9 percent of the time to 100 percent.

There's simply no such thing as a person who suffers an accidental positive and then hires a bunch of lawyers, suing the racing commission before they make the decision, coming up with different stories, throwing something up on the wall until something sticks. That's not something that actually innocent people do in this world. Te only people who do that are guilty people who have nowhere to turn but their lawyers and PR flacks.

[dilanesp]

And one other thing. Never forget what Medina Spirit's Derby actually looked like. Three horses, including the favorite, a horse who later went on to win the Belmont in 2:27 and change, looked like they were going to swallow him at the top of the stretch after he had led all through the race and set fast fractions. He then pulled away from those horses.

He RAN like he was doped. 2 weeks later, presumably without the dope, he tired in the stretch at Pimlico (losing to a horse who was soundly beaten in the Belmont).

There's zero reason to make any excuses for Baffert. He cheated to win the Kentucky Derby. We need to be able to say that and not pretend there's this never-never land where he just got caught up in an honest mix-up.

[VeryOldMan]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Looking at his record, almost everyone will conclude that at a minimum Baffert pushes the envelop as far as it can possibly go, but I can't get past the feeling that he would have to be an absolute brain damaged idiot to gamble that this drug would be out of the horse's system when almost everyone agrees it wasn't even performance enhancing. It still feels like the most likely explanation in this specific case is that he's telling the truth because imo he's not an idiot or crazy. It may be Karmic payback.

Embrace the power of "both". Could be just the Otomax but, as others (e.g. Spaulding) have noted, that doesn't exclude the possibility of Otomax plus something joint related.

Dilanesp has also noted that Baffert certainly isn't acting like someone who is innocent here (I have a basis for having a legal opinion). Seems to be a lot of chaff being scattered by his team.

We haven't heard yet from the world's most incompetent vet who prescribed Otomax for a skin condition - who should know it contains a substance which is banned at micro levels and could get a horse disqualified at the most important US race during the calendar year.

Who gets thrown under the bus next by Team Baffert?