I think that she was just repeating the title of the article. Perhaps, you should let the Bloodhorse know what “imminent” means…
8 Likes
We are not the Bloodhorse.
2 Likes
I suspected a bit of snark, and to me, imminent means IMMEDIATELY
You’ve made that clear. She did NOT write the title to the piece, or the piece. She just posted it. The information in it is currently relevant.
5 Likes
please don’t get all in a tiz. I just made a comment. to me, imminent means immediately.
I would think it depended upon one’s frame of reference.
2 Likes
“Imminent” is somewhat relative. I think of it as being sooner than “soon”.
FWIW, I didn’t take @Larksmom’s original response as directed at me personally.
2 Likes
I thought this was a scary article. It has always been like this in show horses- the trainers find stuff that here are no tests for- and, apparently it’s the same in race horses.
2 Likes
there’s a fair amount of overlap, though the h/j crowd seem to be more interested in “quiet”, while most race trainers want “fast” or to mask pain/unsoundness.
1 Like
the product contained a known illegal substance though. I don’t know about you, but I am not well versed in my drug manufacturing, labelling, and withdrawal periods. But common sense tells me that if I am using a product with known illegal substances in them; I should stop using it well before 24 hours of the country’s’ biggest race. but that’s just me.
1 Like
they are washed once a day.
@Ghazzu; I don’t know about your vet but mine no longer write out instructions on a report for each case but I am a small barn with minimal hands in the pot. If they are prescribing something, they hand me the product and give me verbal instructions. I have more than 1 vet and all of them handle product prescription and direction in this manner I cannot speak for Baffert’s vet or how he handles his cases and any potential documentation trail
Whether or not the DVM clarified any potential withdrawal periods has yet to be proven or discussed and since it wasn’t brought up by the defense in court, leads me to believe they didn’t want to open that can of worms in protection of BB.
The prescription of this ointment, although off label, was not in the wrong of the vet. This stuff is used in horses to treat bacterial/fungal skin issues. and for all we know he could’ve clarified any withdrawal periods to the powers that be and it was either ignored or forgotten. We will never know
But if Baffert was going to sue this veterinarian, me thinks he would’ve already open that door. But perhaps he might figure it best to let sleeping dogs lie. A lawsuit against a vet who could potentially have some dirt might not be in the best interest here.
1 Like
A racing stable is required to keep medication logs. Since you don’t have race horses, you don’t have to keep to those rules.
8 Likes
I am a DVM. And not only does it come up during CE meetings, and newsletters from my liability insurance carrier, but the board of registration and my state VMA regularly point out that record keeping is a requirement for practicing. (And the state recently said, essentially, “LA practitioners, we’re looking at you.”
Food animal DVMs are usually pretty on top of it, as there are serious implications for making medication errors in that sphere, but equine DVMs have a tendency to blow off documenting stuff unless and until they have a bad experience related to same.
I’ve been lucky enough to learn from the mistakes of others.
I also queried a representative of the board pretty closely when I taught in an equine studies program because I wanted clarification about the legalities of dispensing drugs to barn management “to have on hand”, etc. in order to give correct information to the students.
Most of that sort of thing is technically against regulations, but it isn’t a high priority enforcement issue until a case goes pear-shaped, and an owner or insurance company is looking to assign responsibility.
Racetrack practice is similar to food animal wrt knowing what medications are permitted, what are not, what has a withdrawal period before competition, etc.
You can get burnt being sloppy.
I know a colleague who got dinged for having dispensed flunixin for a racehorse they owned, and didn’t think to put a label on it.
You previously said: “At that point; the trainer and barn manager would’ve made the proper withdrawal period judgements on anything they would’ve been administering.”
How in hell would they know what those might be?
I never said it as wrong. I said that, if the DVM indeed did prescribe it, they ought to have documented that fact, as well as making sure that Baffert and co. were aware that it contained a component that would potentially result in a positive drug test. Being the licensed professional with the credentials to prescribe it, he is clearly the person with a responsibility to inform the client of potential ramifications.
You appear to have read my response to your previous post full of rumor and uninformed speculation, and incorporated some of my rebuttal here to claim as your own view on the subject.
The rest you have simply mangled.
16 Likes
The rules do seem to be quite strict as you mention. All hell is breaking loose in California in a very public manner for one very prominent Vet.
1 Like
From the first article:
Four days after Feinstein’s public missive, the veterinary board issued formal accusations against Blea and private veterinarian Vince Baker, one of Baffert’s long-time veterinarians.
again, there is a lot of speculation on what was done, how it was done and who should be liable here. I have not had time to read through all of the court documentation that has been provided thus far. But people posting here saying the vet is liable and BB is going to sue his vet; I don’t agree with BECAUSE NONE OF US KNOW WHAT THE VET DID OR DID NOT DO and it is clear that, thus far, BB is not pursuing his vet has scape goat. that was my point; nothing more.
You’re facts are based on the the theoretical idea that the vet did not follow the proper protocol of administering prescription drugs. Which none of us know what did or did not occur between the vet and BB’s team.
In response to this:
You previously said: “At that point; the trainer and barn manager would’ve made the proper withdrawal period judgements on anything they would’ve been administering.”
How in hell would they know what those might be?
…they would’ve known because of the information provided by their veterinarian to their team at the time of prescription. If it wasn’t given then the trainer should’ve asked for clarification to protect his interests. It’s a steroid. They own racehorses. This isn’t the local county fair lawnmower races.
All this coming from someone who speculated that an entire dispensing container of Otomax would be applied at once…
12 Likes
The California Veterinary Board has issued formal accusations against Dr. Baker.
There has not been any “court documentation” for you to read regarding the presence of betamethasone in Medina Spirit. There was an NYRA hearing about their right to ban Baffert for his many drug overages.
The KHRC and the Stewards will be the entities that examine the positive tests and make the decisions about the Derby results, and they have yet to have a hearing (or to make it public if they have.) I wish they would get it over with and disqualify the horse.
What we do have, are statements from Baffert that the ointment was used, that Dr.Baker prescribed it, and that they were both surprised that it contained betamethasone.
As @Ghazzu said, the vet is held to a much higher standard than the trainer. She knows what the liabilities are, being a veterinarian and an educator herself.
That ointment recommendation was an error by the vet, and he’d better hope his error was documented or he’ll be in trouble for that as well. The vet could be sued by Baffert (he does like litigation.) I don’t think he’d necessarily win, without exposing his own liability regarding not knowing what was being done with his Derby horse.
Either Dr. Baker or Baffert (or both) could be sued by the owner and the owner might have a good chance. I don’t know if he will. He is not from the U.S. and may not be as litigious as Baffert. ETA :For all we know the owner may be paying Baffert’s legal bills.
Baffert won’t lose his license to train, but the vet could lose his license to practice.
4 Likes
I thought that the hearing in Kentucky was scheduled for today. It turns out I remembered right, but it’s been rescheduled.
1 Like
