Derby Aftermath

[parsixfarms]

The look is awful. These media members have an opinion on everything in a sport built on opinions. However, when issues like these arise, they get tongue tied. Is it that hard to say that Bob Baffert and his ilk are bad for the sport?

[Left Bank]

Originally Posted by jms62

We now have a chance to straighten this sport out.

If you want to straighten out this sport a class action lawsuit vs. Baffert , Owners and Churchill Downs seeking to return EVERY LIVE BET into Kentucky Derby. I am going To get slaughtered here for saying this I am-sure.

At this point Drugs are cost of doing business for these guys. Get caught and return purse money and pay a fine... How many times have they not been caught. with the dollars in the derby pool make this hurt and send a message.

The reason Include the track and owners is I feel both know or suspect but turn a blind eye. Penalize owners and you can be certain owners will not want to take chances in the future.

Far from likely to happen. I think all this is going to do is get the Feds involved a lot deeper. And we know what kind of S _ it show that will bring.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The look is awful. These media members have an opinion on everything in a sport built on opinions. However, when issues like these arise, they get tongue tied. Is it that hard to say that Bob Baffert and his ilk are bad for the sport?

This is an extremely dopey narrative that gets repeated constantly on the Internet. The VAST majority of members of the media are NOT opinion writers, and thus should NOT be voicing opinions in their articles.

It's not about me ( obviously ), though I am comfortable in the positions I have taken on these and related issues in the past. However, some rush to judgement, just because maybe it makes you feel better or helps you pander to the masses, isn't going to help in the long run.

Bottom line, blaming others that are completely innocent is nonsensical and only works to obfuscate the real issues.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is an extremely dopey narrative that gets repeated constantly on the Internet. The VAST majority of members of the media are NOT opinion writers, and thus should NOT be voicing opinions in their articles.

It's not about me ( obviously ), though I am comfortable in the positions I have taken on these and related issues in the past. However, some rush to judgement, just because maybe it makes you feel better or helps you pander to the masses, isn't going to help in the long run.

Bottom line, blaming others that are completely innocent is nonsensical and only works to obfuscate the real issues.

You're correct that I was not directing this comment towards you. If you think Baffert deserves more due process, that's a reasonable position. As far as I am concerned, he's already had plenty of process and, after having numerous horses die in his care back in 2013 (he's lucky it wasn't 2019 when Hollendorfer was given the boot for that reason), and then had repeated and adjudicated medication positives over the past two years, it is long past time to show him the door.

One of the problems that modern journalism has as a whole is that the lines between news and opinion have been completely blurred, with reporters appearing on networks as "contributors" and voicing their opinions on the events of the day. I am not suggesting that writers should be voicing their opinions in their news articles. Matt Hegarty's article in DRF yesterday, for example, was fair news reporting.

That said, other beat writers for that publication are rather generous with their opinions on a whole host of racing-related topics, whether it be on social media or on shows such as "At the Races." When these sort of issues arise, they are far less open about their views.

[moses]

Is Churchill’s ban on Baffert going to be honored by other tracks or is it not a true suspension where reciprocity would apply since the case has not been fully adjudicated? Anyone know?

[LITF]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is an extremely dopey narrative that gets repeated constantly on the Internet. The VAST majority of members of the media are NOT opinion writers, and thus should NOT be voicing opinions in their articles.

It's not about me ( obviously ), though I am comfortable in the positions I have taken on these and related issues in the past. However, some rush to judgement, just because maybe it makes you feel better or helps you pander to the masses, isn't going to help in the long run.

Bottom line, blaming others that are completely innocent is nonsensical and only works to obfuscate the real issues.

Perception is the consumers reality. This is not just about opinions. And it goes beyond drug violations.

For example, something as simple as asking the losing jock aboard the race favorite why he made decisions that were made would be a major benefit to the vast majority of people that consume horse racing on a day to day basis. But those questions are rarely asked, thus, giving the impression that the horse racing media is trying to protect their reputation with the horse racing community over reporting on their sport. Other sports journalist routinely interview losing sides, why doesn't horse racing do the same?

When something like this happens and little to no substantial questions are being asked it just feeds into the perceived reality of the consumers. The frustration with the majority of the media will grow and they will take a portion of the blame for something they clearly had no involvement in.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by moses

Is Churchill’s ban on Baffert going to be honored by other tracks or is it not a true suspension where reciprocity would apply since the case has not been fully adjudicated? Anyone know?

We will see, it was dealt with on Steve's show earlier by Alan Foreman.

[Alabama Stakes]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Can't bite the hand that feeds you

Tough to be journalist and pitch man both

[robfla]

You know your in trouble when OJ sticks up for you.

"I believe that Bob Baffert is a stand-up guy"

https://twitter.com/TheRealOJ32/stat...997697545?s=20

[Kitan]

Now Baffert is blaming America's cancel culture

The way he's had his excuses and lawyers instantly prepared for this isn't fishy at all. I guess he's just had some practice for this moment over the course of his previous 30 (known) positive tests.

[knickslions2]

Originally Posted by Kitan

Now Baffert is blaming America's cancel culture

The way he's had his excuses and lawyers instantly prepared for this isn't fishy at all. I guess he's just had some practice for this moment over the course of his previous 30 (known) positive tests.

Ya he knows what happened. The levels were nearly same as gamines were. They obviously are using this within the 14 day window after a workout to help with inflammation. They probably thought it would be gone based on their experience using the drug.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Kitan

Now Baffert is blaming America's cancel culture

The way he's had his excuses and lawyers instantly prepared for this isn't fishy at all. I guess he's just had some practice for this moment over the course of his previous 30 (known) positive tests.

You mean the Groom pissing in the stall after taking cough syrup and the horse eating the hay are out the window?

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by robfla

You know your in trouble when OJ sticks up for you.

"I believe that Bob Baffert is a stand-up guy"

https://twitter.com/TheRealOJ32/stat...997697545?s=20

I guess He cashed in his ticket.

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by Kitan

Now Baffert is blaming America's cancel culture

The way he's had his excuses and lawyers instantly prepared for this isn't fishy at all. I guess he's just had some practice for this moment over the course of his previous 30 (known) positive tests.

That is 30 POS+ over 40 years. Even if got away with 40 more that is still pretty light considering the sport we are discussing. However it is still totally unacceptable by a highly profiled trainer.

This report doesn't even scratch the surface of the problem but it is still ridiculously bad.
https://www.paulickreport.com/tag/trainer-suspensions/

[moses]

Obviously for bettors who wagered through the track or an ADW, the results are final. Vegas casinos took bets outside of the parimutuel pools though. I wonder if their payout rule is different than what tracks do in the case of a DQ after the fact. I’m guessing no...but there was also this dispute between them and Churchill. I wonder how much they’d lose if they did payout following a DQ and whether that would draw gamblers to wager outside of the parimutuel pools.

[ADJMK]

Every trainer uses therapeutic drugs as part of their training regime.
But obviously most don't push the envelope like Baffert. When is the last time you heard Shug, Mott or Chad getting a positive.
Even if Baffert is totally innocent here, he has used up any goodwill and nobody is going to believe him.

[moses]

Originally Posted by ADJMK

Every trainer uses therapeutic drugs as part of their training regime.
But obviously most don't push the envelope like Baffert. When is the last time you heard Shug, Mott or Chad getting a positive.
Even if Baffert is totally innocent here, he has used up any goodwill and nobody is going to believe him.

If I recall correctly, Shug had a positive test in like Ohio a year or two ago, served his suspension, and moved on. Other than that, I can’t recall a positive test from him any time recently.

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by richard burch

That is 30 POS+ over 40 years. Even if got away with 40 more that is still pretty light considering the sport we are discussing. However it is still totally unacceptable by a highly profiled trainer.

This report doesn't even scratch the surface of the problem but it is still ridiculously bad.
https://www.paulickreport.com/tag/trainer-suspensions/

Neglecting any others that were definitely missed, I don't think an average of a positive test every 16 months can be considered "light".

Would Irish racing let Aidan O'Brien get away with a positive test every 16 months for 40 years? No.
Would GB racing let Sir Michael Stoute get away with a positive test every 16 months for 40 years? No.
Would Australian racing let Gai Waterhouse get away with a positive test every 16 months for 40 years? No.

As ADJMK said, after 30+ positive tests, you lose the benefit of the doubt, even if completely innocent this time. Even if it was contamination from e.g. a groom, at the end of the day it is his racing stable and he is responsible for all contact made between workers and horses. It's not a one off "mistake".

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by Kitan

Neglecting any others that were definitely missed, I don't think an average of a positive test every 16 months can be considered "light".

Would Irish racing let Aidan O'Brien get away with a positive test every 16 months for 40 years? No.
Would GB racing let Sir Michael Stoute get away with a positive test every 16 months for 40 years? No.
Would Australian racing let Gai Waterhouse get away with a positive test every 16 months for 40 years? No.

As ADJMK said, after 30+ positive tests, you lose the benefit of the doubt, even if completely innocent this time. Even if it was contamination from e.g. a groom, at the end of the day it is his racing stable and he is responsible for all contact made between workers and horses. It's not a one off "mistake".

Well then that is a punishment problem within the sport itself in the U.S. If you let them off with a slap on the wrist they will keep doing it. 3 Strikes and ban them for life, fine with me.

[senator L]

What I noticed is no other trainers
are coming forward voicing their support
for Bob. That says a lot to me