Article in New York Times states Justify failed a drug test before the Derby

User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:34 pm

Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:02 am

Just because a vet would “never” use it as a PED because if side effects doesn’t mean the man with 7 dead horses wouldn’t.

The amount of blind eye people are using to explain this away is annoying and slightly disturbing.

Even if given by an accident there is a reason it’s banned over a certain limit, intention shouldn’t matter.

My question about 330 ng/ml being accidental from food still stands. Seems like a hella large amount.
MySaladDays
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:56 am

Charlie wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:02 am

The amount of blind eye people are using to explain this away is annoying and slightly disturbing.
boom!
Equipoise
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:30 am

Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:48 am

MySaladDays wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 2:56 am
Charlie wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:02 am

The amount of blind eye people are using to explain this away is annoying and slightly disturbing.
boom!
Yeah, I wish we had a Like button. Business as usual in racing, though.
User avatar
CoronadosQuest
Posts: 1621
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:44 pm

Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:55 am

Until they list the other horses/trainers involved and the amounts they had in their system, we will never know if it was contamination or intentional.
Vandalay
Posts: 171
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:17 pm

Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:54 am

Bottom line;
1) it was a positive for an illegal substance...

2) Baffert appears to be getting away with it
User avatar
Curtis
Posts: 1240
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 am
Location: Monroe, WA
Contact:

Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:53 am

Charlie wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:02 am
Just because a vet would “never” use it as a PED because if side effects doesn’t mean the man with 7 dead horses wouldn’t.

The amount of blind eye people are using to explain this away is annoying and slightly disturbing.

Even if given by an accident there is a reason it’s banned over a certain limit, intention shouldn’t matter.

My question about 330 ng/ml being accidental from food still stands. Seems like a hella large amount.
The man with seven dead horses either stopped using thyroxine after he saw the damage it was doing or found a way to mitigate the side effects. If Joe Drape wants to go after Baffert like the Cycling Council did Lance Armstrong, more power to him. It’s not Baffert’s first rodeo, though, and he can afford just about and legal council he needs. To be successful, horse racing would need to be much more organized than they are. Sometimes you just need to cut your losses and move on. It’s not that there is nothing to see here, it’s just that it’s sensory overload.
MySaladDays
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:47 pm

Curtis wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:53 am
If Joe Drape wants to go after Baffert like the Cycling Council did Lance Armstrong, more power to him. .

Wow, Curtis ........ I'm amazed that you see Joe Drape as the person who wants to "go after" Baffert. :o

All he did was report on a story that was given to him. That is what reporters do.

Surely you realize that it was the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) who launched the investigation against Lance Armstrong and Armstrong also had to settle with the Dept. of Justice? And that there were many lawsuits before that, this went on for years and years.

Doping is race fixing. Serious stuff.


It sounds like you are blaming Joe Drape and he was only the messenger.....somebody gave the information to him and he reported it, which is the responsible thing to do. . And BTW, neither CHRB, Baffert, or his attorneys disagreed with any of the bombshells that were presented in the article. But they did a very poor job of responding to them.

And BTW, the first incidence was that Armstrong was originally "outed" in a book, by the authors of the book...., and then the Sunday Times picked up on it and reported on it. There were also whistleblowers along the way. And many more news articles.

That's how these things work. Yet, you are blaming the messenger, or seem to be?

Just like Joe Drape reported on information he was given.
Ziggypop
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 9:45 pm

Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:21 pm

stark wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:16 pm
Ziggypop wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 1:27 pm
Katewerk wrote:
Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:11 pm


It's the New York Times. It's not an unreasonable position.
So we should believe Baffort’s attorney. Got it.
Tough choice, one of them relies on click bait to make a living while the other tries to operate within the legal system while admittedly pushing the edge of the envelope.
Forced to make a decision,? I'd go with the law firm of Shapiro and Cochran errr whatever their names are.
wow. No wonder horse racing has become a joke.
FlyToTheStars
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 8:20 am

Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:47 pm

Charlie wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:02 am
Just because a vet would “never” use it as a PED because if side effects doesn’t mean the man with 7 dead horses wouldn’t.

The amount of blind eye people are using to explain this away is annoying and slightly disturbing.

Even if given by an accident there is a reason it’s banned over a certain limit, intention shouldn’t matter.

My question about 330 ng/ml being accidental from food still stands. Seems like a hella large amount.
Agreed
User avatar
Curtis
Posts: 1240
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 am
Location: Monroe, WA
Contact:

Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:55 pm

MySaladDays wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:47 pm
Curtis wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:53 am
If Joe Drape wants to go after Baffert like the Cycling Council did Lance Armstrong, more power to him. .

Wow, Curtis ........ I'm amazed that you see Joe Drape as the person who wants to "go after" Baffert. :o

All he did was report on a story that was given to him. That is what reporters do.

Surely you realize that it was the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) who launched the investigation against Lance Armstrong and Armstrong also had to settle with the Dept. of Justice? And that there were many lawsuits before that, this went on for years and years.

Doping is race fixing. Serious stuff.


It sounds like you are blaming Joe Drape and he was only the messenger.....somebody gave the information to him and he reported it, which is the responsible thing to do. . And BTW, neither CHRB, Baffert, or his attorneys disagreed with any of the bombshells that were presented in the article. But they did a very poor job of responding to them.

And BTW, the first incidence was that Armstrong was originally "outed" in a book, by the authors of the book...., and then the Sunday Times picked up on it and reported on it. There were also whistleblowers along the way. And many more news articles.

That's how these things work. Yet, you are blaming the messenger, or seem to be?

Just like Joe Drape reported on information he was given.
The information looks as if it was given by someone with an ax to grind. Most of the juice behind it is the fact it happened to a Baffert horse. I don’t think Drape had much more than that to create click bait, but then that’s part of job as well. I’ve been accused of protecting and attacking Baffert in this thread now which I guess means I'm unbiased—which is the truth.

The various cycling and drug agencies banded together and outlasted Armstrong. His constant defense of screaming from the rooftops, “I did nothing wrong.....prove it!”, is exactly what Baffert is doing and the CHRB is condoning. The difference is Racing is not an organized front. I know doping is race fixing. If it is to be changed, it’ll have to be no meds whatsoever and zero tolerance, no matter what the circumstances of the appearance in the horse’s system. It’s the gray area that’s the problem.
Equipoise
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:30 am

Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:31 pm

I hope Baffert is hiring a good PR firm. It doesn’t matter how innocent he is. His reputation could take a serious hit with things like this. He’s the face of the sport and already I’ve had a few non-racing fan acquaintances ask me about this.
User avatar
Katewerk
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:30 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:45 pm

Ziggypop wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:21 pm
stark wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:16 pm
Ziggypop wrote:
Sun Sep 15, 2019 1:27 pm


So we should believe Baffort’s attorney. Got it.
Tough choice, one of them relies on click bait to make a living while the other tries to operate within the legal system while admittedly pushing the edge of the envelope.
Forced to make a decision,? I'd go with the law firm of Shapiro and Cochran errr whatever their names are.
wow. No wonder horse racing has become a joke.
Did you hear about the Kavanaugh story *cough* "correction" yesterday?

"The correction notes that friends of the woman allegedly involved in the incident with Kavanaugh during college say she does not recall it."

They're so sleazy they can't even come clean when a hit job falls apart in their hands.
User avatar
Curtis
Posts: 1240
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 am
Location: Monroe, WA
Contact:

Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:48 pm

Equipoise wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:31 pm
I hope Baffert is hiring a good PR firm. It doesn’t matter how innocent he is. His reputation could take a serious hit with things like this. He’s the face of the sport and already I’ve had a few non-racing fan acquaintances ask me about this.
Baffert knows how to spin it clockwise and counter clockwise. Let’s just say the bullets he fires are coated with Teflon.
User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:34 pm

Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:19 pm

Sadly it doesn’t seem to be affecting his reputation. Even respected vets are trying to “explain away” Justify’s positive. Why people want to protect Baffert is beyond me. I imagine if this was another trainer no one would be so protective.

I agree, the big issue is that no one in racing is actually upset/doing anything about it. They’re just letting CHRB do what they want. A central governing system could help with this in the future or could still be as uncaring as everyone else is now.
User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:34 pm

Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:44 pm

Curtis wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:53 am
Charlie wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:02 am
Just because a vet would “never” use it as a PED because if side effects doesn’t mean the man with 7 dead horses wouldn’t.

The amount of blind eye people are using to explain this away is annoying and slightly disturbing.

Even if given by an accident there is a reason it’s banned over a certain limit, intention shouldn’t matter.

My question about 330 ng/ml being accidental from food still stands. Seems like a hella large amount.
The man with seven dead horses either stopped using thyroxine after he saw the damage it was doing or found a way to mitigate the side effects. If Joe Drape wants to go after Baffert like the Cycling Council did Lance Armstrong, more power to him. It’s not Baffert’s first rodeo, though, and he can afford just about and legal council he needs. To be successful, horse racing would need to be much more organized than they are. Sometimes you just need to cut your losses and move on. It’s not that there is nothing to see here, it’s just that it’s sensory overload.
Or that man just doesn’t care and went “meh unlucky 7 horses” and kept things going as usual. I don’t know him but I find it very naive that a vet would assume he wouldn't give his horse a drug bc “side effects”.
stark
Posts: 5183
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:47 pm

Charlie wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:19 pm
I agree, the big issue is that no one in racing is actually upset/doing anything about it. They’re just letting CHRB do what they want. A central governing system could help with this in the future or could still be as uncaring as everyone else is now.
What do you think a central governing system would have done differently after the Santa Anita derby?
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
Equipoise
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:30 am

Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:21 pm

Charlie wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 6:19 pm
Sadly it doesn’t seem to be affecting his reputation. Even respected vets are trying to “explain away” Justify’s positive. Why people want to protect Baffert is beyond me. I imagine if this was another trainer no one would be so protective.
It seems like it’s not affecting him now, you’re right. But Lance Armstrong was once the golden boy too.
User avatar
CoronadosQuest
Posts: 1621
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:44 pm

Mon Sep 16, 2019 7:59 pm

Charlie wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 12:02 am
Just because a vet would “never” use it as a PED because if side effects doesn’t mean the man with 7 dead horses wouldn’t.

The amount of blind eye people are using to explain this away is annoying and slightly disturbing.

Even if given by an accident there is a reason it’s banned over a certain limit, intention shouldn’t matter.

My question about 330 ng/ml being accidental from food still stands. Seems like a hella large amount.
https://twitter.com/GrahamMotion/status ... 0833709056 here is Graham Motion's thoughts on the whole thing.
User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:34 pm

Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:10 pm

I don’t know why what Graham said matters? The limit is 75 and he had 300.

It’s not like the 75 limit is measured different than Justify’s 300.

He was wayyyy over the limit and if I read Tessa’s articles right that’s an insanely high level for just “accidental food contamination”

I also stated that I don’t know if a central governing body would help, just saying it could. It also could not care just as much as CHRB does now.
Somnambulist
Posts: 7755
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:59 pm

Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:17 pm

The idea that we should look the other way is a lot of desensitization. The CHRB has really offered no facts to combat anything.

I hope all the board members have D&O!
"Life's no piece of cake, mind you, but the recipe's my own to fool with."
Post Reply