Why only Baffert and not Assmussen?

[Bustin Stones]

There is an anti-universe where time spins backwards, In that universe, Baffert is removing drugs from his horses.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I doubt anyone said or thinks ALL the bad actors are out of the game.

It's a matter of putting people in the correct category and thankfully having some evidence before making accusations or punishing them for suspicions.

If we left it up to the average horseplayer, virtually every jockey is fixing races, virtually every trainer is juicing, and every steward is blind as a bat. So they should all be in jail or thrown out of the industry.

If you're a serious handicapper, you cannot say the results Bob Baffert has had just since 2015 is anywhere near normal, even for the highest echelon of horses. If you are a serious handicapper and say these results are due to the acumen of the trainer (a trainer, by the way, that according to his own admission, didn't know what his Kentucky Derby entrant was given days before the race) or due to the stock he gets, you're being dishonest. Whether you are overtly dishonest to the public, or just dishonest to yourself in order to validate your involvement in this game, is unknown.

I'm not at all saying Baffert isn't a good trainer (maybe great) or that his horses aren't of the highest quality. It's impossible to know how much weight to give those things in the face of chemicals that improve performance. Maximum Security was entered in a 16,000 claiming race in his debut. Not because the owners are idiots but because he was a 16,000 claimer. In my opinion, the drugs made him something else.

I honestly take no pleasure in calling it like I see it. For the first 15 years I followed this game the exploits of the great horses were exhilarating to me and catapulted my fascination. I'd much rather believe the performances by horses are mostly due to their innate ability. But proven cheating in this game has solidified the fact that many of the results are aided and we're not talking about an extra vitamin. We're talking about PED's.

Call it like honestly and stop excusing it.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

If you're a serious handicapper, you cannot say the results Bob Baffert has had just since 2015 is anywhere near normal, even for the highest echelon of horses. If you are a serious handicapper and say these results are due to the acumen of the trainer (a trainer, by the way, that according to his own admission, didn't know what his Kentucky Derby entrant was given days before the race) or due to the stock he gets, you're being dishonest. Whether you are overtly dishonest to the public, or just dishonest to yourself in order to validate your involvement in this game, is unknown.

IMO, there is an area between Navarro/Servis (which is using illegal PEDs) and having great stock, being a great trainer, and using LEGAL therapeutics for off label benefits or in a timing that will typically produce a negative test for an edge. Both need to be addressed, but imo they are two different things.

Maybe we disagree on whether they are different. You are putting Baffert into the former category.

In another thread I said that IMHO the best way tell the difference is to examine trainer changes to and from the trainer in question. Naturally, some trainers are just better than others and will move some horses up due to better horsemanship. However, when someone is taking horses from other top trainers and moving them up very noticeably consistently (or vice versa), that's when I start getting suspicious. I don't see a lot of evidence of that when it comes to Baffert. I often see his lightly raced expensive horses jump up and I see peaks on important days, but imo that's not evidence of Servis/Navarro type juicing. If I see evidence of real juicing (and I've been betting those types of trainer changes for decades) I'll change my opinion. I'm allowed to be wrong too.

[Robert Fischer]

We have to remember that this is a tough game.

It's necessarily true with a lot of highly competitive markets.

This is the Sport of Kings.

It offers a chance for casual fans to see a Disney story. Or a weekend warrior fan can enjoy the greatness of the sport's stakes action and big cards.

If you get some of you guys ( us guys? ), who are obsessively emersed into the action, those of us who still have our wits about us and are eyes open, notice some things that are a little more hardcore than what appeared at the surface. It's not for everyone. Denial, acceptance, philosophy..
We all have to find our balance with the game if we enjoy the game and the culture.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

IMO, there is an area between Navarro/Servis (which is using illegal PEDs) and having great stock, being a great trainer, and using LEGAL therapeutics for off label benefits or in a timing that will typically produce a negative test for an edge. Both need to be addressed, but imo they are two different things.

Maybe we disagree on whether they are different. You are putting Baffert into the former category.

There is a difference. Yes. But I don't believe the "made for TV" excuses like rash ointment, jimson weed, pissing on hay, groom on cocaine contamination and a myriad of other convenient deflections.

Unearth said trainers positives. Review the excuse and see if you can find the same excuse used IN CALIFORNIA (successfully) within 5 years of his infraction.

[AskinHaskin]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

IMO Baffert is more in that grey area of trying to use legal therapeutics to maximize performance and get an edge.

Uh, there...

Now it's a grey area

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

Uh, there...

Now it's a grey area

The only grey area that exists is between the fact that it's happening and the fact that he doesn't want it to happen.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by AskinHaskin

Uh, there...

Now it's a grey area

IMO anyone that doesn’t acknowledge the difference between the Navarro/Servis level illegal PED case and a positive for using a legal therapeutic is being ridiculous.

The cleanest trainers occasionally get therapeutic positives due to mistakes or withdrawal issues. They typically get a slap on the wrist because it’s understood that these are legally prescribed medications intended for the care of the horses. Now, if trainer uses them without careful control or particularly for off label benefits, he/she may wind up getting more positives and get more than a slap on the wrist as we see with Baffert’s 90 day suspension. But simply using approved drugs prescribed by vets is not illegal. It’s way different than the Servis/Navarro case.

If you want to argue for quicker and tougher penalties for overages to reduce off label and excessive use and broaden the list of illegal drugs and procedures, that’s a different issue, but we aren’t going to take the treatment of horses with legal drugs out of the game.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

IMO anyone that doesn’t acknowledge the difference between the Navarro/Servis level illegal PED case and a positive for using a legal therapeutic is being ridiculous.

The difference would be using legal therapeutic medications for non-medical reasons, i.e. to improve performance. In my opinion, there isn't a big gap between that and PEDS when it comes to abusing horses for me.

[Tom]

For the sake of arguement (like we need an excuse!) if Baffert is knowingly doing this for the purpose of stealing our biggest races, doesn't that put Servis/Navarro to shame as amatures?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

The difference would be using legal therapeutic medications for non-medical reasons, i.e. to improve performance. In my opinion, there isn't a big gap between that and PEDS when it comes to abusing horses for me.

I agree with you. That's the kind of gray I am talking about.

A specific example (and correct me if I'm wrong on the details) was giving a thyroid medication to horses without a thyroid condition.

It's not too unusual in human medicine for doctors to prescribe approved medications for things other than what they are officially approved for because studies have found other benefits. There must be some off label benefits to that thyroid medication also, but it was prescribed by a vet and not illegal to use more broadly (at least at that time).

I'm going to give him and the vet the benefit of the doubt and assume they thought there was little or no risk because they were using it for 5 years before it became a suspect in the 7 horse deaths. But either way, we may need better rules regarding the use of therapeutics over and above testing. IMO, you shouldn't be giving thyroid medication to a horse without a medical need for it even if it's generally considered safe.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by cj

The difference would be using legal therapeutic medications for non-medical reasons, i.e. to improve performance.

Like using Thyro-L!!

[Thomas Roulston]

Not that I'm a fan of his overall, Bill O'Reilly was definitely onto something when he said that you can't use someone else's bad behavior to justify your own bad behavior.

[Someday Silent]

Maybe because Asmussen has the good graces to not smirk and blame every single member of his stable staff for eating poppy seed bagels, drinking cough syrup, wearing Salonpas patches, or peeing in stalls when a horse comes up with a bad test.

[Gamblin4ever]

Originally Posted by ubercapper

Like using Thyro-L!!