But Baffert tried to wriggle out of lidocaine positives for Gamine and Charlatan using the assistant trainer’s pain patch contamination as an excuse. He may not have succeeded, but he tried. Should not even have been able to try–so for MS get split done (in a timely fashion, please!). Positive? DQ.
1 Like
The Arkansas ruling is typical Bob Baffert gaming the system.
For one thing, although the Oaklawn stewards DQ’d the horses when the race happened (April 2020) the Arkansas Racing Commission overturned the DQs in April 2021–a year later when they hoped no one was still paying attention.
From an article in the BloodHorse:
"After closing arguments, Arkansas Racing Commission chairman and horse owner Alex Lieblong called for a motion to uphold the stewards’ findings, dismiss those findings, or modify the findings.
The only motion put forward was to leave the failed post-race drug tests in place but modify the sanctions for Baffert and eliminate the disqualifications of Gamine, owned by Michael Lund Petersen; and Charlatan, owned by SF Racing, Starlight Racing, Madaket Stables, Stonestreet Stables, Fred Hertrich III, John Fielding, and Golconda Stables. It was the only motion considered and it was adopted."
(If any of those people sound like they might be friends, you didn’t hear it from me.)
Same article:
“In testimony Tuesday, Baffert said he’s convinced that positive tests indicating lidocaine in a pair of his horses were caused by environmental contamination and that the finding was not necessarily caused by anyone in his stable.”
*"At Tuesday’s hearing, Cynthia Cole, director of the University of Florida Racing Laboratory which oversees testing of racehorses in Florida, testified that lidocaine is present in many over-the-counter medications, and horses are being tested to a very precise level. *She acknowledged that Baffert, as the ultimate insurer of the horse, was responsible if an assistant trainer wore a pain patch that resulted in contamination, but noted that at the level of lidocaine discovered, it also could have been caused by contamination in the testing barn.
"Horses don’t live in bubbles; they live in the real world," Cole said.
“The possibility that the contamination could have been caused outside of the Baffert barn played into the larger chain of custody arguments made by Baffert’s attorneys throughout the two-day hearing that started Monday.”
And thus, the Arkansas Racing Commission overrode the absolute insurer rule.
The complete article can be read here: Arkansas Regulator Restores Wins by Charlatan, Gamine - BloodHorse
2 Likes
It’s been fascinating watching Baffert in the last week. My musings and speculations which have no basis other than me:
Otomax isn’t the issue and may not have even ever been used. Bob initially came down unequivocally that nothing was used and he doesn’t know how this happened. Originally he made a show of the split sample and possible contamination in the lab. When he backed away from that and he seems to be in no hurry to get that second test, my suspicion was that he knows that second test isn’t going to help him. Then it became the groom peeing on the straw. When that didn’t fly, it became the Otomax.
First of all, I understand from people way more plugged in than me that Otomax is not a common prescription for horses and certainly not in horses that are in training. Who was the vet who made that genius move? Baffert’s vet is Vince Baker. He knows what tests and what doesn’t. Why hasn’t Baffert produced the prescription if he wants to be exonerated? Why hasn’t Baker talked to the media (with Baffert’s permission)?
Isn’t it more likely that the horse was injected? I understand Betamethasone has a 14 day window. Unfortunately part of the job of big time trainers is to know what the testing windows are and step up as close to the line as you can and not trip on it. Sometimes they miscalculate (see Masochistic) Doesn’t it make more sense that Baffert, with a horse that has a bit of a funky way of going behind, had his hocks injected right after the second to last work? Of course then Baffert would have to admit that he lied coming out of the gate and he won’t do that.
For someone who is supposed to be so media savvy, Baffert has sure looked pretty flat footed lately. I also think that the NYRA thing is devastating. While he may have not had a horse for the Belmont, he had Charlatan for the Met Mile and other horses for the Belmont undercard. If I am the owner of Gamine or Charlatan, I would be looking hard at Bob because I just lost access to a big circuit to race on not to mention the rest of the Baffert baggage right now.
Do I think that the betamethasone affected the horse in any way that caused him to move up in the race? No I don’t. Do I think Bob needs to learn to read the room and stop being so cavalier with testing and regulation? Absolutely. The relief in the sport when Rombauer won was palpable. If Bob is the symptom of a disease, McCarthy was the (temporary) antidote.
My armchair prediction is that this nightmare isn’t over. If there is no resolution, Breeders Cup is going to get involved. No one wants to put on million dollar races and be embarrassed. The Teflon is peeling off.
22 Likes
We used to get panalog at the track for cracked heels. I haven’t read the label but my understanding is it is very similar if not identical to Otomax. There is a horse version that I can’t remember the name but like most things with a horse label on it, it is more expensive.
Panalog has nystatin, neomycin sulfate, thiostrepton and triamcinolone in it.
similar recipe–anti-inflammatory, anti-fungal, anti-bacterial elements.
2 Likes
Panalog was the cure all back in the day. We used it for ear infections and inflamed anal glands and any sort of minor injury. I even used it on myself for minor cuts and scratches. Great stuff.
What I don’t understand is, if the horse had a minor fungal infection. Seems to me that an otc fungal medication like tinactin or vagisil would have been more effective and wouldn’t have been illegal.
5 Likes
I don’t understand why you would continue to use the same thing for a month when it isn’t getting any better but of course that assumes that is actually the cause of the positive test. My gut tells me it was a joint injection that he didn’t clear in time but that doesn’t make sense either since it would be on his vet records. Not really sure what the truth is.
8 Likes
Due to the rampant lying/changing of story and the fact that he’s been busted for this same medication recently, my suspicion would be that it was a joint injection that wasn’t “on the books.” Meaning either:
a) he has been tapping the horse’s joints with a frequency exceeding recommended practice and doesn’t want a record of that.
or
b) he went into the joint mere days before the date of the race, disregarding the 14 day threshold.
My problem with the latter scenario is who would be so cavalier (read: stupid) to risk that in the freaking Kentucky Derby of all races? If he did indeed inject the horse only a handful of days before the race, what was the thought process? Does he push that window regularly and not get caught? Did he think the horse truly had no chance of winning or ending up in a situation where he would get tested (secondary question: who would think like that in horse racing)? Or is he truly that dumb? That’s what I can’t resolve.
7 Likes
What I also don’t get about this is – does a long acting steroid like betamethasone really act quickly enough to yield a positive effect in the horse that quickly?
I’ve had wicked steroid flare following joint injection of shorter acting steroids like triamcinolone and there’s no way in hell that I was running anywhere. That shit hurts before it feels better. I’ve always understood it that the longer acting steroids have a higher risk of painful flare, and that the painful flare takes longer to resolve, and that the analgesic effect takes longer to kick in (but lasts longer.)
I just can’t reconcile that with tapping a horse a couple days before expecting it to do ANYTHING.
3 Likes
I don’t know the answer to your question. But my experience is the reason we have rules about corticosteroid joint injections needing to be 2 weeks out from a race is because people were abusing them right up until race day.
I believe it was Dr. Scollay who suggested the levels of drug in the test were consistent with an injection within 3 days, but who is to say that applies to this situation.
2 Likes
There is an article in the May 24th issue of the New Yorker entitled “Blood on the Tracks”. The title is rough, but it is pretty fairly written. (You must be a subscriber to the magazine to read it.)
Article mentions that in ancient Rome, “The punishment for cheating in races was reportedly crucifixion”. Wow, those Romans did not kid around.
(Hope this does not offend anyone, this is intended to be a light-hearted comment on a serious issue.)
6 Likes
Sharing this despite the fact that it is absolutely incorrect. The sample is not now, nor was it ever, nor will it ever be in the hands of Medina Spirit’s connection. Maybe they meant the ball is in their court? Regardless you can’t expect results anytime soon if the sample hasn’t been sent out yet.
1 Like
So, in theory, the split sample doen’t have to be tested. BB could just not select a lab.
I guess but I don’t see that happening. Since the TC and it’s prep races are his bread and butter he will for sure want to get all this settled in time for next year. My guess is he will time the appeals so he can take his days after the breeder’s cup.
But BB doesn’t have the sample, as you say Horse Racing Nation is wrong? That seems to be so wildly wrong. Trainers don’t get the sample in the first place, do they? If they don’t get the first sample, surely they don’t get the second one.
It’s completely wrong like I said. No one from Baffert’s barn has even seen the samples let alone had them in their possession since they signed the slip witnessing the collection. This is true for a $2500 claimer or the Derby.
4 Likes
Not necessarily.
The situation I was involved in was different in that the CD meet had just closed when my friend’s positive test was announced, but when she asked for a split sample to be tested, she was told to pick up the sample and arrange to have it done. I know this because she was out of the state at the time and I’m the one who went to CD, picked up the sample, and mailed it to the lab.
My friend’s race was nothing like the Derby and I have no idea how BB’s case was handled. But the case I was involved in was the same state, the same track, and the same issue. So I wouldn’t be so quick to say that Horse Racing Nation is completely wrong.
2 Likes
How do they maintain chain of custody in cases like this?
4 Likes
Article regarding why testing split sample can take so much time;https://www.paulickreport.com/horse-care-category/your-questions-about-split-sample-testing-and-more-answered/
1 Like
Hair testing is becoming quite common in horse racing, especially for anabolic steroids, corticosteroids, beta antagonists that don’t test in a urine/blood test, but show up with the hair’s more “long term” report.
I’m sure this topic is dead but I got on today, days after my rambling rants and glanced in again. You’re right! What I should say is that there are specific tests chosen for identifying drug use and we don’t willy-nilly switch from the standard operating procedure because Mr. Big Name says he wants this test, not that test. Everybody gets the same tests. Period. Honestly? The hair test would go worse because you’re right! It’s a “long term” report and it’s imperfect at that! So, you applied Otomax to your horse but stopped using it in time for a clear drug test and you request a hair test for another drug? When we get your test back and find the drug we already identified in the serum test plus betamethasone, we’ve got to ask more questions, not less!
A friend had to be totally clear of alcohol for a year and it was a nightmare because they didn’t breathalyze her, they hair tested her! Do you know how much alcohol is in the topical products you use?! And yes, it will show up in a hair test, and no, they don’t have a sense of humor about it and they won’t take your word for it. You tested positive for alcohol. They’ve got to assume you were imbibing it. She used to call me up and angrily read shampoo or make-up labels to me while I made empathetic sounds of dismay. 
