Baffert Derby Prospects Moved to New Trainers

[johnnym]

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.

[Fairmount1]

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.  

[shanahan]

loved your last line.
BTW - Ty is now 0/11 at FGDS.
See you next week.

[Fairmount1]

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.

[johnnym]

I'm sure all of this could be put to rest if someone here was a "biologist".
Sorry couldn't resist

[TGJB]

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?

[Strike]

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.

[TGJB]

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.

[Fairmount1]

You are correct on what you have said for 15 years.  

Freeze and re-test samples is something I agree 100% about with you.