Wouldn’t questioning the vet be a logical way to go?
3 Likes
Defense will have the Opportunity to cross the vet. He sounds pretty unimpeachable to me but who am I?
The vet that supposedly prescribed the ointment has not been called to testify and has not yet been named.
The vet that supposedly prescribed the ointment has not testified.
1 Like
If the ointment was prescribed by a vet, then this isn’t one of those poppyseed bagel type of mistakes.
It was a dog ointment that was apparently used off label on the horse.
1 Like
If the DVM prescribed it and failed to point out the possibility of a positive test (which I am having a very hard time believing), I hope they have good liability insurance.
5 Likes
Interesting testimony by the Prosecutions witnesses.
1 Like
I don’t think Velazquez or Smith’s testimony helped Baffert at all. They were essentially character witnesses who had no part in taking care of the horses.
I wonder if Baffert’s attorney is going to attempt push the ointment vs injection issue. I don’t think they will, being that this is not a court of law.
Interesting that Baffert still hasn’t filed suit against Churchill. If he does, we’ll be hearing from the Vet that supposedly prescribed the off label ointment. I have a feeling that issue, plus the other amount of discovery that Churchill would be entitled to, is problematic for Baffert.
It might be helpful to Baffert if the prescribing Vet gave at least a written statement saying that he/she did indeed prescribe an ointment for the horse for off label use. Interesting that there has not been a peep from the Vet.
6 Likes
Wow. This article goes much more into depth about the former NY Steward’s testimony.
2 Likes
I’d guess all of the issues that Baffert’s lawyers are raising in this hearing don’t really matter. The question is, does NYRA have the right to ban anyone they want to, like Churchill has.
The federal judge only said that they can’t ban someone without a hearing, not that they can’t ban a trainer if they choose to.
1 Like
The latest!
1 Like
Baffert speaks!
And, for everyone who has been wondering when the Derby case will be heard, here you go!
3 Likes
Interesting that the NYRA panel can overrule the hearing officer’s decision.
he’s going to walk free. We live in an era where accountability is no longer required. the argument that Baffert’s positive didn’t occur on NYRA property so they should have no say in the ordeal; is very-much a point that could be driven home in the decision making . Not only is Baffert’s reputation on the line but the ability for tracks to uphold the expectations they set forth for those who race on their grounds.
If this case was being made in KY, it would be a different story.
The bottom line is the horse had the drugs in its system and it should’ve never been there ; regardless if it was cream or injection.
I think that NYRA’s attorneys are attacking this from the standpoint of his overall drug-positive history and complete lack of responsibility for the horse’s in his stable and I do hope they win this to set an example. But i have my serious doubts and this will set a precedent for what occurs in KY and drug infractions going forward.
How untouchable is BB?? Time will tell.
1 Like
it seems if KY had just made a decision earlier it would have helped NY immensely.
9 Likes
The NYRA hearing won’t set any precedent for what is done in Kentucky, neither in the decision of the stewards regarding the probable Derby disqualification, nor in the outcome if Baffert is dumb enough to sue Churchill. The NYRA hearing is not a court of law and it can’t set precedent in another state for another entity that has its own rules.
The ability of private companies, such as Churchill, to exclude people from their property (as long as they aren’t a protected class) is well established in law.
It is bizarre, but apparently not unusual, that Kentucky stewards and racing authorities move at such a glacial pace when making decisions about sanctioning trainers. Perhaps they feel they have time because Baffert horses won’t be running in the Derby for a few years?
More on Bafferts testimony
Dr. Maylin has been in the drug testing business for a LONG time.
