Quote:
Originally Posted by King Glorious
I think that's because of how few people care enough about it to read it. The article says that she had 27 picograms. A picogram is one trillionth of a gram. That's .000000000001 of a gram of substance. Who really cares? If this was reported after her Acorn or Test wins, it might, MIGHT get a little more of a reaction but I doubt it. That they say this violation occurred in a loss, again, who really cares? I don't think any reasonable person believe that small amount affected her performance. I understand that the flip side of that argument is that if it doesn't do anything, why do it? I don't believe that it was intentional. Not with that miniscule amount.
|
The problem here is not the amount of the overage of a medication which is, according to its veterinary description, a "potent" NSAID (hence its 14-day withdrawal time as opposed to a Bute or Banamine), but the fact that within the past 18 months, arguably the top trainer in the country has had medication "mistakes" occur with odds-on favorites in such high-profile races as the Santa Anita Derby, Arkansas Derby and now the Kentucky Oaks. I am not aware of any other trainer having a positive in a Grade I race during that time frame.
As Dahoss said, why is this such a recurrent problem for this barn? I have had many times where we've had to pass a race because one of our trainers (all with far less resources than Baffert) was concerned that a horse was treated too close to a race to risk a medication positive, so you'd think the top barn in the country would be able to avoid these issues.
As someone who represents professionals in licensing matters before the State of New York, professional misconduct that could lead to far more serious suspensions or loss of license in other occupations is defined as gross negligence on one occasion or simple negligence on more than one occasion. Even assuming that Baffert is not intentionally juicing (a proposition of which there is considerable debate), he has been negligent in the operation of his barn on more than a dozen occasions. Should he continue to have a license given that record?
And let's keep in mind that this positive comes on the heels of a CHRB rule change to curb the use of Thyroxine in horses and a report that more than half of SoCal's prescriptions for the medication came from two barns. What is the likelihood that Baffert is one of those two barns, despite the fact that his indiscriminate use of Thyroxine was reportedly linked to the seven horses that died suddenly under his care back in 2013?