DRF reporting that four of Baffert's Kentucky Derby prospects have been moved to different trainers in advance of upcoming stakes, with the hope they can earn enough points to run in the Derby.
Doppelganger, McLaren Vale, and Messier are going to Tim Yakteen, while Blackadder is going to Rodolphe Brisset
https://www.drf.com/news/messier-three-others-kentucky-derby-prospects-moved-bafferts-barn (https://www.drf.com/news/messier-three-others-kentucky-derby-prospects-moved-bafferts-barn)
BREAKING NEWS HEADLINE COMING SOON:
Jimmy Barnes accepts 120 day contract to work as assistant trainer for Tim Yakteen. LOLOLOL.
Fairmount1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BREAKING NEWS HEADLINE COMING SOON:
>
> Jimmy Barnes accepts 120 day contract to work as
> assistant trainer for Tim Yakteen. LOLOLOL.
Over/Under on how many times Baffert and Yakteen phone each other daily? I say 3... . Zero is allowed but that is hard to monitor without a court order.
Strike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fairmount1 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BREAKING NEWS HEADLINE COMING SOON:
> >
> > Jimmy Barnes accepts 120 day contract to work
> as
> > assistant trainer for Tim Yakteen. LOLOLOL.
>
> Over/Under on how many times Baffert and Yakteen
> phone each other daily? I say 3... . Zero is
> allowed but that is hard to monitor without a
> court order.
I should have said \"enforceable\" court order.
For me, the real question is if the same people that \"treat\" the horse whether vets or Jimmy or whomever will still be able to have access and treat the horse under Bob\'s prior directives (or current).
I find it interesting he kept them in his barn seemingly as long as possible. 45 days prior to the Derby.
On an unrelated note . . . how long before the BC did Ellis treat Masochistic with steroids? More than the 60 days if I recall . . .there are some interesting tricks of the trade.
Not sure Ellis has come up with any terrific horses since?
The timing of the so called move coincides- to the minute- with Baffert seeking an " emergency" preliminary injunction seeking a Stay of his suspension on the grounds, among others, that he will be irreparably harmed by loss of business. Hmmmm!
rezlegal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The timing of the so called move coincides- to the
> minute- with Baffert seeking an " emergency"
> preliminary injunction seeking a Stay of his
> suspension on the grounds, among others, that he
> will be irreparably harmed by loss of business.
> Hmmmm!
All the while he desperately tries to repair his reputation by acting as the good guy by saying this --
\"I encouraged the owners to move them, not only because it is best for these horses and their future in racing, but also for fans of the sport who are excited to watch them run. I know that they are in good hands training with Tim and Rudy, and I look forward to cheering them on.\"
At least the proper words are finally leaving his mouth even though nobody believes a word he says anymore.
Just to be clear where we are, in the real world:
What this is about, with no dispute from CD, is a Class C positive, for a drug that was in an ointment, not injected. It's not a true performance enhancer, and it may not even count as a positive if it's administered that way (according to Baffert's attorney, we'll see). And CD is refusing to stay his suspension, which they have never done before— they are singling him out, by definition.
I'm going to say it again— I'm not saying Baffert is an angel, or has never used something, or isn't now. But this thing is a bunch of crap. Put away the rope.
I've had my own experiences with the courts in Ky. CD is a huge player down there. I'm shocked they ruled against Baffert. Just shocked.
You left out the part about \"repeat offender.\"
If it's true that it was an ointment (no longer disputed), given by a vet who reported it at the time, and it's possibly not even an infraction, 1- so what, 2- they have absolutely no excuse for not giving him the stay.
This is the difference between a personal (every day) foul and a flagrant one, let alone a flagrant two. Meanwhile, all you people screaming over this seem not to care that 4 trainers in Florida got nailed for using a true performance enhancer. Those 4 combined enter far more races combined that people bet their money on than Baffert.
Baffert\'s problems are heightened due to his arrogance. Possibly you feel that should not matter but it does. Most people are tired of Baffert -- his positives -- his lame and ridiculous excuses -- his army of lawyers. When someone gets caught (repeatedly) and the powers that be do not like them -- there are consequences.
Baffert has been treated with kid gloves for decades...until now. No sympathy for the guy.
You're right. Im going to say it shouldn't matter. They're supposed to be treating everyone the same way.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meanwhile, all you people screaming over this
> seem not to care that 4 trainers in Florida got
> nailed for using a true performance enhancer.
Jerry, this assertion that people \"seem not to care\" is woefully unfounded. Come on, man.
I'll rephrase. There have been 50 posts screaming about Baffert and none about the Florida Clenbuterol positives. Except mine.
You guys ever handicap Parx? Look in the RBR some time. See what you think of Jamie Ness, move up guy du jour.
Every one of his starters is in a race where there is parimutuel wagering. And every racing office has access to that tool McKinsey developed using our data to identify persons of interest.
Just effin saying. Last thing I'm worried about is some guy who used an ointment by mistake that can't move up a horse.
I see what you\'re saying here, but when I look at this situation, I\'m reminded of Al Capone. Everyone knew all the stuff he did, but they could only get him on tax evasion. They\'re nailing Baffert on something far less worse than what he\'s done in the past. Like Mor Spirit in the Met Mile and a bunch of other horses in NY. Plus I still recall somebody posting in this forum a strong case that Triple Crown winner Justify was on a program of PEDs to race on and steroids to recover. And then there\'s all those horses of his that died a few years ago on some thyroid treatment without a diagnosis of a thyroid problem. And CA did nothing about that. So with all that in mind, I have no problem with what they\'re doing to Baffert now. And I\'m guessing a lot of people here fell the same.
Thing with Baffert is his timing on this one.
An allowance race at Santa Anita on a Thursday afternoon probably nothing.
Kentucky Derby, now you really stirred the pot.
On March 9th, I posted about Ness\' excellent skills so I\'m certain I\'m not one of the 50 posts you mention screaming about Baffert that isn\'t looking elsewhere at issues in the game.
I think where you and I differ on this Medina Spirit case is that you are looking at in isolation. You are looking at it based on the facts that have been put forth by Baffert\'s camp. And you are basing it on the positive test for Betamethasone.
As others have pointed out, CDI is protecting its brand based on Baffert\'s history, based on the Kentucky Derby (and Oaks) being the biggest race in the world (and the biggest 3yo filly race of the year). Also, I\'m not so certain the ointment story has been agreed to by Kentucky. If you go back and watch the Baffert presser at the barn to announce the DQ, it is clear that Baffert did NOT KNOW of ANY drug or cream that would have caused this. Then, many days later the topical cream story comes forward from his camp. Am I really supposed to believe that the greatest trainer in the world did not know what the winner of the Derby that he trained just days before had put on or in his body? Sorry, I\'m not buying it. I\'ve made clear where I think Dex and Beta positives come from. I understand that you are taking the Beta positive as a Beta positive. But others have made the leap of faith likely based on the Navarro/Servis information. So while they can\'t nail him on speculation they are trying to slow down what they believe involves an edge that he has on the field whether legal or not. After all, he has popped positives in the Santa Anita Derby, the Ky Oaks, the Kentucky Derby, and Ark Derby. Races where he ran 1st, 3rd, 1st, and 1st respectively when testing positive.
So, I hear you and understand your position. But I don\'t believe the Beta positive is a Beta positive the way you do. I think you genuinely believe the horses tested positive for Beta and I think it was a false positive. Either way, it was a positive and CDI/Kentucky decided this time, enough is enough and they are not backing down. I think it is good for the game they are going after him this time. So, that\'s where we head down different paths and why we and others view it so differently. If I have couched this incorrectly, my apologies as not my intent. Truly trying to clarify why me and others view it so harshly compared to you. Far more to this but a condensed answer I thought was deserving based on your posts.
Good to see your friend Elliot getting the win at Dubai. Jimmy Barnes was in Dubai for the Baffert barn. Life is Good was nowhere. He couldn\'t get the distance apparently. Maybe in his prior barn he could have made it all the way around there. :)
loved your last line.
BTW - Ty is now 0/11 at FGDS.
See you next week.
I\'m going to do all I can to make it. I might arrive at post time of the 1st race but hoping to be there.
I'm sure all of this could be put to rest if someone here was a "biologist".
Sorry couldn't resist
Yes, I'm telling you a guy who trains lots of horses does not know everything a vet does, especially when the vet thinks it's something innocuous. From what has come out and not been disputed, 1- the vet recorded the use of the cream at that time, 2- tests show it was not an injectable.
And again— this was not a legit performance enhancer. You seriously think the guy would risk getting DQ'd (forget all the rest of this), for an innocuous drug, that he had a positive test with in the Oaks last year? Which is more likely, that or a screwup?
OK -- one final comment from me on this. What, in your opinion, should be the remedy regarding the positive (and I agree if it is topical -- not a performance enhancer)? In other words, let\'s just say it was a screwup as you say. The rules being the rules -- so, just ignore the positive even though the allowed tolerance is zero -- (no matter how it got into the horse\'s system)? Amend the rules after the fact? No suspension? No fine? No DQ and purse redistribution? Just wondering.
No. As I said when this subject first became a thing here, the horse has to lose the purse, and Baffert should get whatever the usual penalty is for a Class C positive. My problem is with the misguided outrage— much worse is going on, and those in charge are doing virtually nothing about it (including in some cases not testing). This is an attempt to deal with appearances, not the actual problem. Again.
I've been saying the same thing for 15 years. Freeze and retest samples— the cheaters are ahead of the testers, but not ahead of where they will be in 5 years, which is a powerful deterrent. Publish test results on a timely basis, so we know it's being done— what drug, what test, what result (actual readings). Make a vet of record whose name appears in the program, anyone else touches the horse they get ruled off. Nobody allowed to bring any meds on to the backside, you have to request them from the track dispensary (which they do in Hong Kong).
In other words, act like you really mean it.
You are correct on what you have said for 15 years.
Freeze and re-test samples is something I agree 100% about with you.