Here’s the article from the Times.
8 Likes
good for them!
4 Likes
I doubt it. I don’t think that his due process argument will work in this case.
From the NYT article:
Carstanjen said the threatened case was “completely meritless.” He said that Churchill Downs Inc. is a private company and that on April 7, 2021, Baffert signed an agreement — as the track requires all horse trainers to do — that he would follow its conduct and medication rules.
“We are considering any and all legal options available to us to set the record straight and ensure Mr. Baffert is held accountable for all the reputational damage he has caused us,” Carstanjen said. “The irony is not lost on us that despite all of his violations, he is the one threatening to file lawsuits claiming to be aggrieved.”
Carstanjen emphasized that Baffert was a repeat offender. Medina Spirit tested positive for betamethasone, a corticosteroid. It is the same substance that was found in the Baffert-trained filly Gamine after she finished third in the 2020 Kentucky Oaks, a showcase for 3-year-old fillies at Churchill Downs. Baffert’s horses have failed 30 drug tests over four decades, including five in a recent 13-month period.
6 Likes
I applaud Churchill Downs attorneys bravado. However, I would simply ask how many trainers who are still able to have horses at Churchill Downs have records in the drug positives equal to or exceeding Baffert? I think there are a bunch of issues that are going to be thrown at the wall.
Interesting article:
1 Like
how many have tarnished the Derby though?
Baffert has 2 asterisks now.
Justifed as well…
4 Likes
As long as the money keeps coming, they will be his friends. When he stops paying, the friendships will end.
3 Likes
He wants millions in damages from Churchill as well as the right to race there. No doubt his attorneys will try to make every excuse why he shouldn’t be banned, but unlike the NYRA, Churchill is a private company, and there’s the rub.
Private companies can ban anyone they want to, as long as it isn’t for reasons of race, religion, gender etc… This will be interesting to watch. No doubt Churchill will raise the fact that Baffert has violated the agreement he signed, that stated he would abide by their medication rules. He has waited for a long time to bring the issue to court, so any urgency he claims now will be difficult to argue. It will be interesting to see if Baffert’s attorneys actually file the complaint.
Churchill seems to think they could have a case against Bob for damaging their reputation. The whole mess could end up costing Baffert a lot of money.
10 Likes
Just being Devil’s Advocate…
Bafferts legal eagles will state that he violated nothing- it was his employees, and THEY did it. He will try and say that he instituted measures to prevent these issues after he became aware of them.
He has been waiting for the final decision on MS’s blood work to come out, so that he could fight the ban in that vein. No real delay, as far as waiting for the process to come to fruition. Of course, he did not do anything to cause this “violation”. And, of course there was no intent…
We’ll see what they come up with!
That won’t work. The trainer is always responsible for the horses that run in his name. 
Baffert really blew it by going on National television and proving that he had no idea what medications were being given to a Derby horse that he trained.
8 Likes
Please understand- I am throwing out what I feel that his legal team may try. It’s a guess, and whether I agree, or not, isn’t my point. I am simply guessing where this will go next.
Even in USEF the trainer is responsible. I may not race horses, but I get it.
1 Like
I do understand. I know that you aren’t making excuses, just playing devil’s advocate as you said. 
I have not been keeping up on all aspects of this.
Did Churchill Downs ever announce one way or the other whether the results of the Derby would stand? Or whether the owner of the horse would have to return the prize money? That race was a long time ago by now. Maybe I missed the official announcement.
And of course, now it could literally be called beating a dead horse. Poor thing.
1 Like
It’s interesting that Baffert is threatening to sue Churchill and not just suing them. I think if he does sue he is opening up a can of worms that won’t do him any favors, and his attorneys know it.
If I am not mistaken (I’m not an attorney), Churchill would have, through discovery, access to all of Medina Spirit’s medical records, would be able to question the vet who prescribed an ointment containing Betamethasone to a Derby horse, be able to show Baffert’s weird TV interviews, and have access to Gamine’s veterinary records as well.
Baffert really has no defense other than incompetence.
8 Likes
I noticed that as well.
1 Like
I don’t think that Churchill is the entity that can disqualify the horse. That is up to the Kentucky racing authorities. So far they haven’t made a decision. 
From the NYT article:
"Baffert’s lawyer, Clark Brewster, said: “The complaint was sent as a centerpiece for discussion. It was intended to generate honest discussion and avoid litigation. There is nothing wrong with the complaint. The facts are in our corner. It has been rebuffed and they have invited litigation, and that’s where we will be.” “He did not say when or where the complaint would be filed”.
It seems as if Churchill called Baffert’s bluff.
Edited to clarify NYT words from mine.
5 Likes
Wow, that’s a long time to wait for a decision.
1 Like
It is. The split sample came back positive, so you’d think it would be an easy call.
2 Likes
I’ve discussed the issue between Churchill and Baffert with my retired attorney friend, who is not horsey.
His opinion is that Baffert hasn’t a leg to stand on, and even a preliminary injunction would be most unlikely due to Churchill’s status as a for profit “Inc” as well as their having trainers sign to agree with Churchill’s drug rules.
He thinks Baffert’s attorneys would be doing their client no favors if they advised him to proceed, because (a.) Baffert has no defense except for incompetence and (b.) the discovery information that Churchill would be entitled to could be problematic for Baffert.
We’ll see.
11 Likes
