Bob Baffert

[IamNewt]

Originally Posted by denniswilliams

Been at this over 50 years now. Seen a lot of good horses and a lot of not so good horses. Would like to think I have a reasonable sense of what's 'normal' running 'behavior' for thoroughbreds.



Have also seen a lot of high quality juicers. Interestingly, their horses were also able to re-break. Didn't need irrefragable 'evidence' to know that these trainers were juicing. Clearly, that's what seems to be required these days. Of course, the issue does not exactly lend itself to such a determination. Thus, while having an opinion that Oscar and Pete and any number of other trainers (some with significantly better stock) were clearly cheating, I wouldn't dare even think this to be the case for Baffert. I need definitive evidence: Experience be damned!!

I read and re-read your post and I can't quite understand why you can state Ferriola and Barrera clearly cheated and give the pass to Baffert.

What am I missing?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by IamNewt

I read and re-read your post and I can't quite understand why you can state Ferriola and Barrera clearly cheated and give the pass to Baffert.

What am I missing?

I believe he's being sarcastic. He does believe Baffert is cheating. He's more or less complaining that when gamblers believed Ferriola and Barrera were cheating they dealt with it because there was no proof. But almost no one came out and defended them just because there was no proof. Similar was true of Navarro and to a lesser extent Servis. I think he's questioning why so many people still believe Baffert is not cheating despite what he views as similar qualities as the other "suspect" trainers among his horses.

I think the answer is that he gets the best stock in the country every year, trains his horses hard (which works but also probably leads to more injuries) and is not really what I would consider a move up trainer. The evidence of horses magically improving beyond what would be considered normal development after he first gets them is limited compared to the others.

I'm on the 50 yard line. I see things that make me suspicious, but he could just as easily be using legal veterinarian methods and treatments, taking gray area risks that have seemingly already gotten him in trouble, and just be a great trainer with the best horses.

[IamNewt]

Thanks for the clarification. I generally get sarcasm but sometimes miss it in this format.

FWIW, having watched some of the trainers mentioned in this thread go from zeros to heroes, I agree with him.

[denniswilliams]

I got tired of small fields, ugly dirt racing and all the nonsense (cheating, off the turf bullshit, constant track biases, etc.) in North American racing. The following, from the Incident Report of the results charts, is an example of how a REAL RACING ENTITY conducts business.


'After the race, M L Yeung reported that his instructions were to take up a forward position. He said when RUNNING AHEAD held its position to his inside, ROYAL PRIDE was obliged to race wide and without cover for the majority of the event. Trainer C Fownes confirmed the instructions issued. Trainer C Fownes will be interviewed relative to ROYAL PRIDE being presented and racing with a hood, not part of its approved racing gear. <10/3/2024 – 6 March 2024 Happy Valley Racemeeting – Race 3 (477)> The Stewards today conducted an inquiry in relation to ROYAL PRIDE being presented and racing with a hood, not part of its approved gear in the abovementioned race. Evidence was taken from Mr C Fownes, trainer of ROYAL PRIDE, Mr Fownes’ assistant trainer Mr C K Chung and Mr W L Tsang, stables assistant of ROYAL PRIDE. The evidence established that ROYAL PRIDE was transported to the Happy Valley Racecourse with a black hood. Upon arrival the horse was attended by Mr Tsang and a yellow pre-race hood, part of ROYAL PRIDE’S approved gear, was inadvertently placed over the black hood by Mr Tsang before ROYAL PRIDE was taken to the saddling stalls to be saddled by Mr Fownes. Mr Fownes advised that as the pre-race hood was covering the black hood he did not detect that the black hood was fitted to ROYAL PRIDE. As ROYAL PRIDE was presented in the Parade Ring with a yellow pre-race hood covering the black hood, gear inspections performed by the Stewards in the Parade Ring had not identified that the black hood had been fitted to ROYAL PRIDE as the yellow pre-race hood, in accordance with standard practice, had not been removed from ROYAL PRIDE until once at the starting gates. Mr Fownes pleaded guilty to a charge under Rule 96 in that he did negligently present ROYAL PRIDE to race in Race 3 at the Happy Valley racemeeting on 6 March 2024 in a hood, which was not part of that horse's declared gear, which resulted in ROYAL PRIDE wearing a hood in the said race. Mr Fownes was fined the sum of $15,000. The Stewards have now updated their standard operating procedures to minimise the risk of such error occurring again. A report will be made to the Head of Dual Site Stables Operations in respect to Mr Tsang erroneously applying a hood to ROYAL PRIDE.'


Should we venture a guess as to how they'd 'handle' horses constantly re-breaking and outlooking the rest of the field?

Or the other idiot, in the Turf Paradise race, that sticked the horse repeatedly right handed out of the gate until he crashed into the horse to his inside and they both slammed into the rail?

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm on the 50 yard line. I see things that make me suspicious, but he could just as easily be using legal veterinarian methods and treatments, taking gray area risks that have seemingly already gotten him in trouble, and just be a great trainer with the best horses.

50 yard line as if you're on the fence?
Or like you have great tickets to the shit show?

[MJC922]

Originally Posted by denniswilliams

I got tired of small fields, ugly dirt racing and all the nonsense (cheating, off the turf bullshit, constant track biases, etc.) in North American racing. The following, from the Incident Report of the results charts, is an example of how a REAL RACING ENTITY conducts business.


'After the race, M L Yeung reported that his instructions were to take up a forward position. He said when RUNNING AHEAD held its position to his inside, ROYAL PRIDE was obliged to race wide and without cover for the majority of the event. Trainer C Fownes confirmed the instructions issued. Trainer C Fownes will be interviewed relative to ROYAL PRIDE being presented and racing with a hood, not part of its approved racing gear. <10/3/2024 – 6 March 2024 Happy Valley Racemeeting – Race 3 (477)> The Stewards today conducted an inquiry in relation to ROYAL PRIDE being presented and racing with a hood, not part of its approved gear in the abovementioned race. Evidence was taken from Mr C Fownes, trainer of ROYAL PRIDE, Mr Fownes’ assistant trainer Mr C K Chung and Mr W L Tsang, stables assistant of ROYAL PRIDE. The evidence established that ROYAL PRIDE was transported to the Happy Valley Racecourse with a black hood. Upon arrival the horse was attended by Mr Tsang and a yellow pre-race hood, part of ROYAL PRIDE’S approved gear, was inadvertently placed over the black hood by Mr Tsang before ROYAL PRIDE was taken to the saddling stalls to be saddled by Mr Fownes. Mr Fownes advised that as the pre-race hood was covering the black hood he did not detect that the black hood was fitted to ROYAL PRIDE. As ROYAL PRIDE was presented in the Parade Ring with a yellow pre-race hood covering the black hood, gear inspections performed by the Stewards in the Parade Ring had not identified that the black hood had been fitted to ROYAL PRIDE as the yellow pre-race hood, in accordance with standard practice, had not been removed from ROYAL PRIDE until once at the starting gates. Mr Fownes pleaded guilty to a charge under Rule 96 in that he did negligently present ROYAL PRIDE to race in Race 3 at the Happy Valley racemeeting on 6 March 2024 in a hood, which was not part of that horse's declared gear, which resulted in ROYAL PRIDE wearing a hood in the said race. Mr Fownes was fined the sum of $15,000. The Stewards have now updated their standard operating procedures to minimise the risk of such error occurring again. A report will be made to the Head of Dual Site Stables Operations in respect to Mr Tsang erroneously applying a hood to ROYAL PRIDE.'


Should we venture a guess as to how they'd 'handle' horses constantly re-breaking and outlooking the rest of the field?

Or the other idiot, in the Turf Paradise race, that sticked the horse repeatedly right handed out of the gate until he crashed into the horse to his inside and they both slammed into the rail?

I would venture they'd probably ban clen, right? But here in the US from my understanding it isn't banned yet. Raceday banned yes, therapeutic training banned no. So when we're talking about something that allows for rebreaking and it's a legal part of a training program for several decades now
it's kind of hard to say literally any trainer these days is using something illegal. With Oscar for example we could make the illegal assumption because in the 80s in NY nothing was legal then including lasix.

I think the problem is the average horseplayer doesn't have a clue what these people have at their disposal today (which is legal) that's why many trainers are a broken record about so much of this being a fan education problem. Even Navarro/Servis, at the end of the day what was it they were rebranding, administering and distributing? It was Clen and SGF-1000, the latter the FBI had the HK Jockey Club test for, the conclusion I believe they arrived at was the SGF stuff isn't even a PED. So the elephant in the room is Navarro/Servis' misuse of clen was really at the crux of the matter. So I'm curious, where does HISA stand on clenbuterol? I would like to know because I haven't heard anything about banning it nationally aside from Mr. Casse's OP/ED on TDN here https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co...opped-and-now/