No. If you reread my entire post you will see that is not what I said at all.
1 Like
PB, I don’t know which racing jurisdiction you’re familiar with but in Kentucky a trainer with a bad test will find out about it 10 days to 2 weeks later (when the lab results come back.) Then a split sample is tested and another 2 weeks passes. That is acting in a timely manner. In Kentucky, that’s how long it takes. Could be it’s the same time frame in CA.
The answer to your next question is in the piece I quoted from Dr. Rick Arthur (above).
Right - but the CHRB got the test results on 4/18, and did not notify Baffert until 4/26. And considering that Justify was by then one of the favorites for the Derby, it’s incomprehensible that they would not act immediately. That positive test was HUGE considering multiple factors:
-points needed to get into the Derby
-possible purse money redistribution for the SA Derby - $400,000
-all that is at stake for the horse and connections that win the Derby
-the betting public
-the image of racing
The CHRB had a duty owed to many people and they failed. I am convinced they delayed notifying Baffert to delay confirmation of the positive test and allow Justify to run in the KY Derby. It doesn’t matter that he was the best horse, and it doesn’t matter how the contamination occurred, what matters is that they with held crucial information from the public, and from KY, in an obvious cover up. It’s a breach of trust and a breach of integrity and heads should roll.
And I bet the farm that Hollendorfer is laughing hysterically at all this, thinking the devil is getting his due.
That Bloodhorse article made me lay down my torch and pitchfork after hearing the blood level was low. Still not happy about the lack of transparency with the entire process as it should have been handled publicly every step of the way, but feel like this likely was a case of environmental exposure that he metabolized differently than most horses would.
4 Likes
Regardless of how the substance entered his system he was positive for a banned substance that is considered performance enhancing. He should have been disqualified from the Santa Anita Derby.
2 Likes
WHAT IF the test results came back and showed that it was NOT contamination? Aw shucks, too late, he already ran in the Derby? From the time line, it looks very very unlikely that this whole “investigation” was complete, and solid conclusions drawn, until AFTER the Derby. That is NOT RIGHT. CHRB dropped the ball on this one.
Again, let’s have all the test reports published - showing dates - and emails, meeting minutes, documentation of trainer interviews, hay/straw supplier interview, etc. that shows the CHRB conducted a timely and thorough investigation and the positive test was deemed environmental contamination BEFORE the KY Derby ran.
The CHRB decided to bury this positive test as soon as they got the results.
As LaurieB said, not what she said.
If Justify was a DQ in the SA Derby due to positive test, then Justify, the horse, would not have sufficient points to get into the KD gate regardless of the status of his trainer.
1 Like
What organization do you suggest should be the one that is independent enough and with enough clout to perform this investigation??
Lance Armstrong was initially accused by USADA (US Anti-Doping Agency). I suspect USADA doesn’t extend to cover non-human athletes. The stripping of his 7 TdF titles was done by UCI (the international pro cycling entity).
BH also has another article today.
day after a bombshell report in the New York Times that Justify failed a drug test after his victory in the 2018 Santa Anita Derby (G1), an industry participant, regulatory umbrella group, and former prominent regulator questioned the California Horse Racing Board’s handling of the case.
The CHRB also saw some praise from its staff members and the connections of Justify on its decision not to move forward following the Santa Anita Derby drug test after its equine medical director, Dr. Rick Arthur, and executive director, Rick Baedeker, advised not to call a positive because they believed the post-race test’s findings for scopolamine were triggered by environmental contamination. Arthur said the board unanimously approved that recommendation.
Mick Ruis, who owned and trained 2018 Santa Anita Derby runner-up Bolt d’Oro , said Sept. 12 he was considering legal options, noting Bolt d’Oro not only would have picked up a bigger check that day if Justify had been disqualified, but his colt would have had a grade 1 win at 3 to go along with his two grade 1 wins at 2, which would have increased his value going to stud.
While a court room many not be the appropriate “best” place to really figure out what happened and where the culpability, if any, lies, I suspect that’s where it will end up.
Article on scopolamine, which is a class 4C drug as of 2019 (I think)
"The alphabetical classifications include consideration of the pharmacologic classification (1-5) and additional factors such as the indications for medication use, potential for misapplication, and FDA-approval status. Class A is associated with the most severe penalties, whereas Class D is associated with lesser penalty recommendations.
The ARCI’s recommended penalties for a first time 4/C violation include a minimum fine of $1,000 (absent mitigating circumstances). In consideration of the facts of the case, the horse may be disqualified."
Did the CHRB have the facts prior to the KY Derby? No. I just checked ownerview, and Baffert had two class 4 drug violations within the past 18 months of the SA Derby. I do not know if this would have been a consideration, or the point/class system in CA.
IMO should also be factored in that CA seems to have a higher percentage of scopolamine positives than other locations. Is/should that be part of the consideration.
Baffert has horses that run in other racing jurisdictions… any scopolamine positives in states other than CA?
And, as I was sitting here, I was wondering if the Baffert/scopolamine issue is just the latest shiny object and Hollendorfer is sitting back with his feet up on a desk chuckling at the latest round of misdirection :lol:
Interestingly The AAEP came out with a statement, that Jimson Weed while bitter in the field lost most of that bitterness when hayed.
Remembering a horse that was fond of green bedstraw, which most horses won’t touch. I can see why the CRB with the numbers they had in front of them of serial contamination, and blood and urine tests, decided to Pass.
But carry on with your torches pickaxes, and cudgels.
3 Likes
The voice of reason. What I would like to know is how often this comes up with horses not named Justify. Once a month? Twice a year? We know about the 7 that were positive with Justify. Were there another 7 the previous month? I understand that jimsonweed is much more common out here than back East–hence the two tier test.
The CHRB went down this road before when super sensitive testing first came in and people like Richard Mandella got positives and had to fight their way out of it. Since Drape didn’t ask these questions, I’ll ask them–how often does this come up in a typical year in Southern California? I’m going to guess multiple horses and more than once.
1 Like
The NY Times article made it appear that because the horse was Justify, the case was handled differently than past cases. That is my beef - the CHRB is tasked with upholding the integrity of the sport, and apparently that did not happen. What do the memos and emails say? You simply cannot have a regulatory agency play favorites and cover problems up.
Well that is the Drape bias in play. Logically if there were 7 other horses and none of them were given positives, Justify wasn’t handled differently.
I would imagine that there was pressure on the CHRB given who the horse was not to go down the road of even announcing a positive but the pressure was internal. Justify has one chance in his life to go for a Triple Crown. At the very least, he has one shot at the Derby. Do you CHRB announce a positive–along with 7 other “positives”–at the worst possible moment and jeopardize that chance? Especially as the rules are written, a positive isn’t a positive until they say it is–the initial test, the split sample test and ruling out outside contamination, all of which will happen after the Derby?
is “our bad” a sufficient response then?
I’m no apologist for the CHRB. I thought how they handled Masochistic was bush league but I am sympathetic to this. If it wasn’t jimsonweed and there were not other horses, hang 'em high. But it was and there were and, if he is going to break this story and retain any scrap of credibility as a journalist, Drape should have asked these questions and put the context into his story. What was the rush–the Triple Crown was a while ago.
2 Likes
Which is why we need to see the emails and memos. Did they only discuss Justify, or did they talk about all 7 horses? If they handled all 7 cases the same, why haven’t the other trainers stepped up and disclosed that they also had positives, and their cases progressed along the same timeline through to dismissal? Did Joe Drape slant his story to make it seem that Justify got preferential treatment and the case was handled in secrecy?
The CHRB is charged with upholding the rules and integrity of the sport. Did they do that?
:rolleyes:
1 Like
The bolded part - this is also the case with tansy. Bitter and avoided in the field but if baled and dried in hay or straw, suddenly appetizing to some. We lost a gelding here due to tansy poisoning many years ago. Out of 23 horses, he was the only one who apparently developed a taste for tansy - there had been some outside the fence that year that was taken care of - but did he find some dried remnants somewhere? Or did he find it in the bedding or hay? Regardless of how he injested it, months later the symptoms manifested and in time, he had to be euthanized. We immediately ran blood work on every other horse when he was diagnosed to see if there was anything showing up - all were fine - then and to this day.
This is far less of an issue when one takes a step back and actually reads all the info from all sides… which is not to paint Baffert as an angel. It is simply to remind people that sometimes when you hear hoofbeats approaching from around the corner, expect to see a plain old bay horse - and not a zebra… or a Skittles-eating, rainbow farting Magical Unicorn…
4 Likes
I understood that the other horses’ scopolamine levels were beneath the concentration that was considered a “positive” test. In other words, the amount of scopolamine in those horses was allowed. Though it was there, it was in a very small amount, not reaching the prohibited level.
Justify however, was 4x over the allowable level.
1 Like
The IFHA derive their residue limits based on urine, not plasma/blood.
(I suspect because 1/2 life in plasma is very short).
Yet Dr. Arthur seems to be saying that going by urine levels is irresponsible.???
Is he saying that the thresholds that were put in place by IFHA are malarky?
Mostly I am amazed that they don’t realize there are many independent forensic equine pharmacologists out there, looking at these statements. There are studies available. There are many people who can explain these readings and what they mean, and all the differences between plasma and urine levels and tests…and they are not putting down their pitchforks. As a matter of fact it’s keeping them up at night.
What “reading” are you referring to? Press releases?
Statements from the very people who are involved in this unfortunate scandal?
This isn’t about personal biases with Drape, Baffert, CHRB, Stronach, etc. This is about intergrity and facts that need to be made public.
Not spin and public relation statements from both sides.
Explain to me what independent pharmacologists, NOT Dr. Arthur, have said, and exactly who has weighed in. Because many of us are not interested in carefully worded press releases put out by those who are parties to the very incident itself.
Im sure you can understand why that is. 
Not saying guilty not guilty how can anyone at this point, when we don’t even have all the facts? I’m just asking if everyone is comfortable receivng information from the very people who are party to this incident??
Right now, we do know that 300 ng/ml of scopolamine is 4x the allowed limit and that constitutes an infraction.
I don’t even care if it was or wasn’t a banned substance (although it is) or if it is a PED. The issue is that it IS banned and that the tests were covered up. There’s no way to explain that away.
I also want to know if the tests in the other TC races specifically included scopolamine.
1 Like
Winter Triangle-[Quote]-“I also want to know if the tests in the other TC races specifically included scopolamine.”[Unquote]
A question like that shows how utterly clueless you are about testing. :lol::lol::lol:
Don’t set your hair on fire with your torch.
3 Likes
