Actually, there were at least 3 posts talking about how Monmouth was accepting Baffert there, and some of the hypocrisy of that track. .
I was responding to those posts… which were written in this very topic.
.And which I feel is germaine to the subject matter, as the most notorious drug positives (Navarro and Servis) plied their trade at that track as everyone knows.
Maybe they want more like that.
Maybe those posts should be “flagged” by you as well. I was just responding to them. But I see you’ve edited your post since I started writing this reply. It sounded like you were telling me that my post had no relationship to the topic, yet there were several other posts about Monmouth, so I thought it was okay to put in my own 2 cents.
I have “flagged” one, or perhaps two, posts in the many years (10?) that I have been a member of the COTH forums.
None of them have been on the racing forum, so I have no idea why you would suggest that I would flag your post.
Hollendorfer was banned by Stronach, not having had a positive medication violation, while Baffert has not. I am trying to understand your point, but am obviously failing.
I received a reply which seemed to put me on notice that this topic was “only for drug positives” or something to that effect. Which I took to mean my post was out of order here. That’s what I meant by “flagged”. I did not note who I was responding to…if it was you or someone else. It was changed somewhat by the time I started to respond. I felt the Monmouth subject was germaine, since it had already been brought up, and I simply made further comments about that track…and them accepting Baffert does not please me. It was rather coincidental that the filly was a Hollendorfer…I was just commenting on stuff I “saw” there, which means I do not agree with how they do stuff there on many levels. .
Baffert is now doubling down on Otomax as the source.
Other than that, I guess I don’t understand the point they are trying to make.
There is a rule against betamethasone. Like all racing rules regarding prohibited levels, it’s a level. Does it matter if it’s topical or injectable when it comes to the dq? You’re over the level and it was confirmed by the split sample. They want more testing to prove it was not an injectable. I hope the owner understands that the only relevance that would be as to the potential punishment of Baffert. Medina Spirit will still be DQ’d because a confirmed overage is pretty cut and dried.
I also have my doubts if anything will move the needle (no pun intended) with Churchill who really hold the cards here as I see it. Baffert peed all over his own Golden Goose. If he was stupid enough to use a substance that could potentially test then shame on him. Churchill’s statement made it clear that part of the action they took was due to the increasingly dumb things that came right out of Bob’s mouth.
I keep bringing up Masochistic because I think there are parallels. Whatever can be said about what Ellis chose to do before the BC that year, at least he copped to it fairly gracefully.
Bob wanted to be bigger than the game. He wanted celebrity beyond the backside. And now that he has it, it doesn’t seem to fit him too well. Unfortunately he took the rest of us along for his ride.
The arrogance to think you should be exonerated despite knowingly breaking the rules just because you don’t think you broke them in the wrongest of ways…
With all due respect, it’s been the theme most of his career.
He seemed more humble and genuine after his heart attack, even up through American Pharoah’s campaign. I honestly believed he had changed. Nope. One Arrogate and Justify later and we were back to Baseline Bob.
Good point. A racetracker friend of mine thought a motivating part of Churchill’s response happened initially when Baffert held that press conference in the Churchill barn area trying to get ahead of the story before Churchill had a chance to comment. Baffert didn’t seem to appreciate what a big transgression this was–Churchill is the biggest publicly traded company in racing and the beating heart of the whole structure is the Kentucky Derby. That has to remain above suspicion. Churchill is navigating a social media atmosphere which increasingly is looking upon racing negatively. For Baffert to try to control the message on Churchill’s own property was the height of arrogance. Then to look like a buffoon with the glib cancel culture stuff causing him and the sport to be parodied on SNL was just the cherry on top.
If my math is right, Baffert has had 5 overages and positives in Grade 1 races all in the last 12 months or so. Yeah he runs a lot but so does Chad, Todd, Asmussen and Casse and do they even have 1 in the last 12 months? I’m not a big fan of the super trainer model but there is only one that keeps messing up this way time after time and it’s the one that always seems to find a spare Derby horse when the better prospects peel away due to injury. It’s not a good look and Churchill seems to be reacting to that.
I feel like all the “super trainers,” whether they are running in G1s or just dominating the claiming ranks, employ variations of the same model:
Begin with a good eye for horses, a good vet, and savvy for the condition book. Then spend more than average on veterinary work (whether it be transparently on the books or clandestinely off the books). Condition your horses like everyone else.
It’s rare that a big stable varies from that formula. It’s generally the smaller operations with the out-of-the-box methods.
All of them have had their share of overages at one time or another. Yet none of the ones regularly appearing in graded stakes races have been as egregious about it as Baffert. I feel like most of the top ones have made a concerted effort to prevent it from happening over the past decade. Being the pessimistic, jaded horse person I am, I doubt they are running a clean act. Yet I appreciate they at least seem to understand the repercussions of flagrantly cheating the system.
Well, this is interesting. For those who are saying “who cares?”, the explanation is in the article. This judge has thrown out decisions from officials before, as in the Graham Motion case. He may well do it again, if they can actually prove that MS was treated with Ottomax.
I just don’t get it.
Betamethasone is the prohibited substance.
It doesn’t really matter what form it was in, it isn’t bloody allowed.
In the final analysis, it is entirely irrelevant whether it was a joint injection, topical ointment, or whether the horse snorted it.
It is Not. Supposed. To. Be. There.
