Listen...

[Boscar Obarra]

what takes 4 weeks, and why

 slow first class delivery, the test has to sit there for 4 weeks to complete, or the track is too cheap to pay the express servis(sic) fee .

[Bet Twice]

I believe he was responding to Strike, not you.  Agree that was not a jump up by any stretch of the phrase.  The horse improved 2 points off of pairing his tops.....as a 3 year old.

[moosepalm]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no dog in this fight. But someone please
> explain to me why a guy would use a drug
>
> a) that doesn\'t move a horse up
>
> b) that he knows there\'s a test for
>
> c) because he\'s had a positive for it before,
> after which he swore publicly they would never
> allow it in the barn again.
>
> Walk me through the risk/reward on this. I have no
> idea whether Baffert is using something, but if he
> is it ain\'t this stuff. He\'s not an idiot.


JB, without putting all that on the scale for a moment, I wanted to highlight your seminar comment:

\"a lot of Baffert horses move forward when they leave California.\"

Is this common?  Has it been true for John Sadler or Pete Miller when they bring a string to Arkansas?  I\'m not asking this with an edge, just trying to add to a meager knowledge base.  However, to be fair, it could be asked with an edge.

To your main contentions, above, if all the answers favor Baffert, and it still comes down to a violation, however clean his hands might have been, he will still take the fall if he\'s crossed the wrong people.  It\'s no different than in law enforcement where, if they want to get you on a technicality, and they can hurt you by doing so, they will.

[TGJB]

It’s on occasion been true with Pete and O’Neill- check out the figures from that BC at CD a few years ago.

Everybody seems to be forgetting the details of my original statement. I’m not offering any opinion about Baffert using something. I’m saying he didn’t use this drug, in the Derby. The closest analogy I could come up with is that closer on the Mets who got nailed three times for the same easily testable steroid, and eventually got banned for life. That’s how dumb this would be. Worse- Baffert has more to lose, and the steroid has a much bigger benefit.

I’ve said here for years that California is the cleanest of any major jurisdiction in the country, they actually pulled a quote of mine saying that and used it in one of their ads a few years ago. The reason is Rick Arthurâ€" he is one guy that is not messing around.

[statuette]

🥸🤬

[moosepalm]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It’s on occasion been true with Pete and
> O’Neill- check out the figures from that BC at
> CD a few years ago.
>
> Everybody seems to be forgetting the details of my
> original statement. I’m not offering any opinion
> about Baffert using something. I’m saying he
> didn’t use this drug, in the Derby. The closest
> analogy I could come up with is that closer on the
> Mets who got nailed three times for the same
> easily testable steroid, and eventually got banned
> for life. That’s how dumb this would be. Worse-
> Baffert has more to lose, and the steroid has a
> much bigger benefit.
>
> I’ve said here for years that California is the
> cleanest of any major jurisdiction in the country,
> they actually pulled a quote of mine saying that
> and used it in one of their ads a few years ago.
> The reason is Rick Arthurâ€" he is one guy that is
> not messing around.


I wasn\'t offering an opinion on him using something either.  But cases are not always decided on the merits.  You\'re familiar with Kentucky justice.  Baffert doesn\'t have the home court advantage.  He\'s not a sympathetic defendant.  And just because it would be stupid to do something doesn\'t mean that some stupid things aren\'t done.  My point being even if your argument is grounded in logic and sound analysis, it can win a debate, but won\'t necessarily win a fight.

[johnnym]

According to Thoropattern he had a 31% chance for a new top

[Dana666]

I was thinking along similar lines. If what he said in that press conference is accurate (if he\'s lying there, it\'s like a whole Michael-Corleone-Senate-hearing thing--and he\'d be REALLY stupid, which we know he is not), it should be easy enough with time to get to the truth, esp. regarding the hair analysis. The whole thing seems like some kind of set up, or dare I use the \"C\" word. None of this makes any sense. I\'m not defending him, but until the second split sample gets tested, this isn\'t official anyway. And labs do make mistakes by the way--any important tests for horses or humans should be repeated and double-checked. I\'m not saying this is true, but there are enough elements who\'d like to do away with racing and will take any chance they can get to take a free shot at the stumbling giant, like the Lilliputians harassing poor Gulliver. I can\'t remember the story, did Gulliver have it coming? I don\'t think so. Anyway, on to the Preakness, for now anyway. Poor Bob won\'t be able to show his face in Baltimore. Jimmy Barnes is all he needs anyway. I\'m thinking a 1-2 finish will quell the critics.

[BB]

moosepalm Wrote:
 You\'re familiar with Kentucky justice.

Ouch! Damn, Rog, but good point.

[hellersorr]

moosepalm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And just because it would be stupid to
> do something doesn\'t mean that some stupid things
> aren\'t done.

This.  Stupid things are done all the time.  You might even call it a fundamental characteristic of the human race.

[jma11473]

Dana666 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was thinking along similar lines. If what he
> said in that press conference is accurate (if he\'s
> lying there, it\'s like a whole
> Michael-Corleone-Senate-hearing thing--and he\'d be
> REALLY stupid, which we know he is not), it should
> be easy enough with time to get to the truth, esp.
> regarding the hair analysis. The whole thing seems
> like some kind of set up, or dare I use the \"C\"
> word. None of this makes any sense. I\'m not
> defending him, but until the second split sample
> gets tested, this isn\'t official anyway. And labs
> do make mistakes by the way--any important tests
> for horses or humans should be repeated and
> double-checked. I\'m not saying this is true, but
> there are enough elements who\'d like to do away
> with racing and will take any chance they can get
> to take a free shot at the stumbling giant, like
> the Lilliputians harassing poor Gulliver. I can\'t
> remember the story, did Gulliver have it coming? I
> don\'t think so. Anyway, on to the Preakness, for
> now anyway. Poor Bob won\'t be able to show his
> face in Baltimore. Jimmy Barnes is all he needs
> anyway. I\'m thinking a 1-2 finish will quell the
> critics.


I love how Baffert, who has skated through more drug violations and mysterious deaths while winning more races than 10 trainers put together, is somehow being persecuted. The argument for his innocence is that he\'s too smart to do something stupid, which if it worked as an argument would clear out the prisons in the country. Oh, and the split sample coming back negative, which happens about .00001% of the time, but of course should happen here.

This is typical horse racing---we whine endlessly about illegal drugs, then flip out when someone is actually punished because, what, we like him and he does good interviews? Just baffling why this sport is dying a 40-year slow death, isn\'t it? With fans like us, who needs enemies?

[Rich Curtis]

\"I can\'t remember the story, did Gulliver have it coming?\"

Think of Baffert\'s groom in the stall--only Gulliver was putting out a fire, and Baffert\'s groom was starting one.

[TempletonPeck]

TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no dog in this fight. But someone please
> explain to me why a guy would use a drug
>
> a) that doesn\'t move a horse up
>
> b) that he knows there\'s a test for
>
> c) because he\'s had a positive for it before,
> after which he swore publicly they would never
> allow it in the barn again.
>
> Walk me through the risk/reward on this. I have no
> idea whether Baffert is using something, but if he
> is it ain\'t this stuff. He\'s not an idiot.

You\'re starting out from a false premise - roughly, that Baffert sees the world and comes to his decisions in a way more or less similar to the way that you do. My experience as a criminal defense attorney leads me to think that you should reconsider the assumptions you\'ve made above: that Baffert is intelligent, that Baffert understands risk/reward calculus the way you do, that Baffert has any degree of concern for previous positives he\'s had or statements he\'s made regarding those tests/medications, that you know everything the horse was given or what provoked this test or what effect it can have on the horse, and so on, and so forth.

(And by the way, the statements he has made publicly in the last 48 hours alone very seriously belie your assertion that Baffert is not an idiot.)

Since you invited the speculation, I\'ll take a shot: he otherwise had no chance to win the race, the horse was worth $50,000 or $500,000 before the race and about $50,000,000 after, and he has absolutely no reason to believe he\'ll ever suffer a consequence for any misdeed performed by himself or anyone urinating in the corner of a barn under his control - said another way, it is in fact you who misunderstands the risk/reward presented to him by this situation, and not Bobby!

[Paolo]

Irony:
  Cox gets the Derby win via a failed drug test?

Karma:
  BB nailed for one thing he didn\'t do?

Clarity:
  Test is picograms per milliliter of blood.

Infinity:
  Detected amount divided by allowable level.

Justify:
  No justifying this as a \"Garbage Test\" since it applies to all.