Interesting that they admitted to giving Bute to horses that didn’t need it. Rather a catch 22. If you say they needed Bute you admit they were sore. If you say they weren’t sore but you gave it anyway you admit to medicating the horse for no reason.
This whole debacle is so complicated. I don’t know how they can get around the positive betamethasone test when the type wasn’t specified in the rules. Wouldn’t that require a post race, retroactive rule change?
Dancing on pin heads and splitting hairs. The drug is illegal. The results were positive. Does it matter if it comes from an injection or from a medication - even if the rules don’t specify source? Why should the rules be that specific? Neither injection or ointment should have been used on the horse at that time. BB appears to be a very slap dash, lackadaisical sort of trainer.
I’ve always wondered if he mixed it in DMSO and used it on a joint.
It might have been detectable by the smell in that case! 
Duh…it sure might:grinning:! ( I love “duh” 
.). Edited to add…how long does the smell of DMSO last? If it was used on a joint two weeks out, would it still smell??
(Bolding mine)
From the Paulick Report Article:
“Baffert has said Medina Spirit’s positive test was the result of Otomax treatment for a troublesome skin rash on the horse’s hindquarters. He said on Thursday that the rash was at various times also on the horse’s girth area and neck. Initially, Baffert said veterinarian Dr. Vince Baker suggested using a couple of shampoos to try, and when those didn’t work on the rash, Baker prescribed Otomax and Dermacloth. Dermacloth is an over-the-counter grooming wipe product designed to combat certain types of skin problems in horses.”
Baffert said one of his first calls after learning about the test was to Baker, but that Baker did not suggest to him that Otomax could be the source of the betamethasone until Monday afternoon, the day after Baffert’s press conference announcing the positive test. Baffert represented that Baker was as surprised as Baffert was by the positive test. Baffert said that after Gamine tested positive for the same drug following the 2020 Kentucky Oaks, he ordered his veterinarians to stop using betamethasone for joint injections and that he wanted the drug “out of my barn” after that."
My old boss was fond of intoning, “if it wasn’t written down, it never happened.”
A proper V-C-P relationship would mean that there is documentation in the medical record of this, and that the container of Otomax is properly labeled with patient/owner/dosage etc.
Again, if the DVM indeed “prescribed” the medication, it would have been prudent to document that Baffert was advised of the fact that it contained betamethasone, that it was ELUD, and that no published withdrawal period existed.
Personally, IMHPO, both Baffert and the DVM would be responsible if the Otomax is truly the reason for the positive test.
But my comment was more directed at the potential liability of the DVM if it was not expressly mentioned.
Because it looks as though Baffert likes to sue people.
What, the vet didn’t realize what was the active ingredient in the ointment he prescribed/recommended? For a Derby horse?
Surely their medication logs include topical substances… I wonder if the vet had actually seen the horse (and his rash.)
It will be interesting see how it shakes out.
Obviously I do not know anything about Dr. Baker, but I reading the above makes me wonder about his expertise as a racetrack vet. The vet I used for years did work at racetracks. Every time he prescribed something that would test (and he seemed to know about everything that would test), he stated that, as in, “This will test positive”. I think it was almost a reflex. And he was prescribing for my 12 to 20-year old pleasure horse, knowing I had never and would never take him to any sort of competition.
So far though, we have nothing directly from Baker–only what Baffert claims he said. I’d take that with a grain or two of salt.
Very true that we have not heard from Dr. Baker. Perhaps I have done him an injustice. Perhaps he needs to make a statement.
I would imagine his liability insurance carrier would smite him if he said a word without a subpoena.
but would the DVM be liable? I don’t think so. The horse was not in Kentucky and getting ready to walk in the starting gate when the ointment was starting to be used. There was likely no discussion and no guarantee that the horse was heading to the Derby. At that point; the trainer and barn manager would’ve made the proper withdrawal period judgements on anything they would’ve been administering.
There would’ve also been a paper trail if the DVM did subscribe this ointment to be used. And to the best of my knowledge, that sort of documentation hasnt been used as a defining document?
Just looking at the sheer size of the skin condition in question; it’s hard for me to believe that a DVM would prescribe this particular ointment to take care of that amount of surface area in this case. Especially when the horse is washed everyday. Has anyone actually seen the bottle size available for Otomax? 215grams is the largest size which is under a half a pound. The entire bottle would virtually be used daily on that much surface area of the horse for that kind of treatment which makes only to be washed away every several hours. It is used to treat Bacterial and Fungal infections, That is truth. BUt it is clearly labeled a steroid. The prescription for this particular use is fish to me which has been throwing up the red flag warnings since the beginning.
[quote="snaffle1987, post:1116, topic:759608, full:true**"]**
but would the DVM be liable? I don’t think so. The horse was not in Kentucky and getting ready to walk in the starting gate when the ointment was starting to be used. There was likely no discussion and no guarantee that the horse was heading to the Derby. At that point; the trainer and barn manager would’ve made the proper withdrawal period judgements on anything they would’ve been administering.
There would’ve also been a paper trail if the DVM did subscribe this ointment to be used. And to the best of my knowledge, that sort of documentation hasnt been used as a defining document?
Just looking at the sheer size of the skin condition in question; it’s hard for me to believe that a DVM would prescribe this particular ointment to take care of that amount of surface area in this case. Especially when the horse is washed everyday. Has anyone actually seen the bottle size available for Otomax? 215grams is the largest size which is under a half a pound. The entire bottle would virtually be used daily on that much surface area of the horse for that kind of treatment which makes only to be washed away every several hours. It is used to treat Bacterial and Fungal infections, That is truth. BUt it is clearly labeled a steroid. The prescription for this particular use is fish to me which has been throwing up the red flag warnings since the beginning.
[/quote]
From the Paulick article:
"Baffert has previously said the rash appeared some time after the Santa Anita Derby, several weeks before the colt’s victory in Louisville. He has also said the Otomax treatment ended the day before the Kentucky Derby."
I think Ghazzu is right, we only have Baffert’s word. The medical records should show the actual use and timeline.
ETA I think this was an off label use, so there would be no withdrawal time info available for horses.
There are 2 different but related issues here–
–did the DVM adhere to regulations on prescribing/dispensing prescription medication, particularly with respect to ELUD? This would likely be a matter which could be filed as a complaint with the board of registration of veterinary medicine in the state where the activity took place.
–Baffert seems to be indicating that the DVM did not mention any potential issues with said medication, and that failure may have cost him a race and substantial financial resources, given all the hearings, suspensions, etc.
He might very well file suit against the DVM for that–the DVM, as a professional licensed to prescribe drugs should theoretically be held to a higher standard than the trainer or owner to whom the drugs were provided, and any failure to note potential positives could be seen as negligent.
And just how would they have such information unless provided by the prescriber of such treatment?
There should be, which is why I’m curious as to whether there was.
All we have thus far is allegations from Baffert.
IANAL, so I don’t know whether hearsay is admissible in the hearings.
It isn’t applied with a trowel. A little goes a long way.
That size is intended for use in dispensing smaller quantities into containers–something the pharmacist or DVM would keep on the shelf.
On what basis do you make such a claim?
It’s licensed/approved for the treatment of chronic otitis media in dogs. But it is a fairly shotgun recipe for skin funk. I could see why it might be used to treat same.
The questions here are:
was it being used for that purpose?
If so, was it prescribed, or did Baffert and company have it on hand and made the decision to use it?
Or was it employed after the fact as a convenient excuse to explain the presence of betamethasone?
If it was prescribed, was Baffert informed/cautioned about the presence of betamethasone in the medication?
We don’t have much in the way of answers yet.
From what I understand, TBs in training are not “washed every several hours.”
I am trying to understand your post but it is difficult.
@Ghazzu The old saying that “if it wasn’t written down it didn’t happen” was de rigueur in the human medical professions as well.
I wonder if the Veterinarian’s statements (if any) and the med logs could be the issues that are keeping the KRHC from releasing any information about evidence due to (their stated) fear of “compromising the investigation by influencing potential testimony.”?
What a mess. 
This is interesting!
Expected in about a week. The CHRB is going to ask permission from the owner before making the results public, which is odd. I thought the results would belong to the board.
thank you for this. But if it isn’t due for a week, it isn’t ‘imminent.’
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use