Class C Positive Reported on Oaks Day

[Dahoss]

I refuse to link to anything Joe Drape writes but he is reporting that two people close to the situation are saying it was Gamine....again. If true, not sure what to say. Why is it so hard to follow the rules?

Here is the story from TDN

https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.co...4D5V6g.twitter

[cakes44]

Gamine is a damn junkie!

[parsixfarms]

It is absolutely incredible how few members of the racing media have even acknowledged this story.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

It is absolutely incredible how few members of the racing media have even acknowledged this story.

Unfortunately I don’t think many even care.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Unfortunately I don’t think many even care.

Probably true.

What they do always seem to care about is that Drape is the one "breaking" these stories. Don't they realize that their silence/complicity on these issues is the cause of Drape being the messenger of these inconvenient facts.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

It is absolutely incredible how few members of the racing media have even acknowledged this story.

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. I think these two comments from Baffert's attorney make perfect sense:

"Importantly, the veterinarian followed established medical and regulatory guidelines in administering the medication. The withdrawal guidelines published by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission recommend that the medication not be given within 14 days of a race. In this instance, as an additional layer of protection, Gamine’s veterinarian last treated her with betamethasone 18 days before the Oaks."

And

"Trainers and veterinarians must be able to rely on guidelines given them by racing officials. If they are told by regulators that a medication will clear a horses system in 14 days, they must be able to rely on that information.”

[Dahoss]

Somehow all of the other trainers on both days were able to be clean. But Baffert wasn’t again. Intentional or not...isn’t it time the face of the sport cleans up a little?

How many positives are enough?

The problem is that people don’t care. That’s why he keeps pushing the envelope as much as possible. The rules are in place for a reason.

Think about how little you have to care about rules to have two horses DQ’d on Arkansas Derby Day and then have one of those horses also have an overage on Oaks Day....in the Oaks.

Of course his attorney blamed someone else. What was he going to say? My client has never cared about rules, still doesn’t and no one cares so he’s going to keep doing it? That would’ve read well...but at least it would’ve been the truth.

[parsixfarms]

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?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

The article says that she had 27 picograms. A picogram is one trillionth of a gram. That's .000000000001 of a gram of substance. I don't think any reasonable person believe that small amount affected her performance.

The 27 picograms is not an absolute amount, but rather a concentration (i.e. 27 pg/mL) measured in a single body fluid/compartment. There was much more than 27 picograms of the substance in the horse at the time of sampling.

Furthermore, the concentration of a substance in one body fluid does not necessarily reflect the substance's concentration or its physiological effect in another compartment--so one cannot state that there was no drug effect in one compartment based on the concentration in another.

"Importantly, the veterinarian followed established medical and regulatory guidelines in administering the medication. The withdrawal guidelines published by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission recommend that the medication not be given within 14 days of a race."

This is incorrect. The guidelines (http://khrc.ky.gov/new_docs.aspx?cat...=30#details242) state that it is a violation if the medication is given within 14 days of a race. The 14 days is not listed as a recommended withdrawal time, it notes it as a required "stand down period".

"Trainers and veterinarians must be able to rely on guidelines given them by racing officials. If they are told by regulators that a medication will clear a horses system in 14 days, they must be able to rely on that information.”

The guidelines and thresholds are based on specific dosing. If the horse was treated with the same medication but in a different way from how the guidelines were developed then the connections need to consider that when deciding on when to treat.

In this case, it looks like they attempted to do this but came up short (or high as it were).

[King Glorious]

I spoke incorrectly when I said it wasn't intentional. You guys are correct in pointing out how it's the same guy getting caught multiple times on days when nobody else is getting caught. So it's obvious that he pushes the envelope. I should have said that I don't feel like he's trying to cheat but that he's trying to walk right up to the line and occasionally, he steps over it. What it makes me think of is how many times he comes right up to the line, within inches (or picograms) of crossing it but gets away with it and ends up winning a major race. His successes keep owners sending their horses to him. I mean just look at Maximum Security, for example. They weren't interested in going to someone with a reputation for being clean. They wanted one that wouldn't get caught. His record will keep them coming and the risks are worth the reward when the penalties are so light. Honestly, why should he stop doing what he's doing?

You guys ask and answer your own questions. He obviously doesn't care but I wouldn't say he's negligent because that implies he's not aware. I think he's completely aware and complicit.