Will Justify get DQ'd?

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Good Magic got beat fair and square (more than fair and square given the dynamics of the race).

They have no argument. The SA Derby participants are the only ones with a case.

Read the points rules, there is nothing in there about a subsequent DQ of a points race rendering the results of a Triple Crown race void. Nothing. Read them.

It's NOT quite this simple.

The actual rule that matters is the same one that kills the legal claims of Maximum Security's owner- that results of races in Kentucky are deemed final when declared official by the stewards.

But let's assume for a second Kentucky didn't have that rule. Well, in that situation, Good Magic's owners might be able to sue, because Justify's eligibility for the race would have possibly been obtained by fraud, and but for that fraud, Good Magic's owners could at least argue that their horse won the race.

Similarly, if Kentucky didn't have that rule, it wouldn't matter what the points rules say. It is well established- in ALL of athletics, with many precedents- that a competitor can be made retroactively ineligible. For instance, my high school once lost an entire season of football games when it was discovered after the fact that one of our players had failed a class and shouldn't have been eligible. USC was declared the loser of every single game that Reggie Bush played in after the date of his ineligibility, including the bowl games that the team qualified to play in in part due to his play. Usain Bolt lost one of his Olympic Gold Medals because one of the other runners on his team was found to have been using PED's before the Games and should not have been allowed to run.

Now, if the points rules literally said "a horse will be eligible to run in the Kentucky Derby even if he is later discovered to have procured his points to run in the race by cheating", that would be a different issue. But they don't say that. They just don't address this issue.

There's one other thing, too. I don't think there's any rule that requires the TC tracks, in their own promotions, to accept the official results of the stewards. In other words, no matter whether the stewards vacate the race result or not, THEY can for their purposes. They can simply announce that as far as they are concerned, Justify is now the last place finisher in the 2018 Kentucky Derby and did not win the TC. He won't be on any banners, he won't be on any trophies, if another horse wins the TC he will be announced as the 13th Triple Crown winner, if Justify's owners use the TC trademark in commercial advertising, they will be sued for trademark infringement, etc.

Obviously, none of this will happen. Business will go on as usual. But don't let any racing officials tell you their hands are tied. They aren't.

[jimmyb]

Sounds so much like the bad ice cube defense in a dui case.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This is another example of the phenomenon of writers trying to minimize everything and draw every inference in the CHRB's favor. There is no reason anyone should do this and racing writers should not be spending their reputational capital on this project.

I didn't come away feeling that way about the Finley article. I actually thought it was the most balanced piece I've read on the subject.

He harshly criticized the lack of transparency and conflict of interest on the board, but said there are multiple sides to the story when it comes whether the drug is performance enhancing, whether a trainer would actually intentionally use it for that reason, how much was in his system, what the exact rules were at the time, and who knew what etc...

It went beyond the typical attack piece from Drape at the NY Times.

Most importantly it's saying there's still a lot more we need to know before drawing a conclusion beyond speculation. That's all OK by me. Then again, I don't trust the NY Times to do an unbiased investigation on anything.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I didn't come away feeling that way about the Finley article. I actually thought it was the most balanced piece I've read on the subject.

He harshly criticized the lack of transparency and conflict of interest on the board, but said there are multiple sides to the story when it comes whether the drug is performance enhancing, whether a trainer would actually intentionally use it for that reason, how much was in his system, what the exact rules were at the time, and who knew what etc...

It went beyond the typical attack piece from Drape at the NY Times.

Most importantly it's saying there's still a lot more we need to know before drawing a conclusion beyond speculation. That's all OK by me. Then again, I don't trust the NY Times to do an unbiased investigation on anything.

He didn't harshly criticize the lack of transparency. He mildly criticized it, and avoided drawing any conclusion as to why they weren't transparent. His position was "well, it was a mistake to not be transparent, but they weren't actually hiding anything wrong".

When a journalist sees an agency acting like this, the controlling impulse should be "OK, what were they hiding". And then you go find out. Under no circumstances would a serous journalist write Finley's story, accepting all of their explanations. Finley was clearly determined to accept whatever false cover story they gave.

[Fightingirish51195]

Originally Posted by sammy the sage

What about THE OTHER horses in B's barn at THE time....oh wait...Justify is the ONLY one that ate THE brownie....got it....

Also...surely some of THE OTHER trainer's used THE SAME hay...hhhmmmm....but no positives there....hhhmmmm

You B' lover's keep defending the thyroid killer...I call THAT...disgusting...

PREACH

[Elkchester Road]

Originally Posted by AlsoEligible

Sure there is. We have confirmation from the CHRB and others besides the NYT that Justify failed a post-race drug test.

I don't understand why it's even relevant how it got there. Maybe he was especially hungry and did eat a crapton of contaminated weed. Okay. He still went out and ran (and won) a race with an excessive amount of a banned substance in his system.

That should be the only relevant fact here, and resulted in a DQ.

The how should only matter when it comes to whether or not to take further action against Baffert. Whether it was intentional or not, the horse was tainted.

Absolutely true. This is the situation being described in Black and White. Unfortunately, Black and White doesn't work well with agendas. That color would be Gray.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Elkchester Road

Absolutely true. This is the situation being described in Black and White. Unfortunately, Black and White doesn't work well with agendas. That color would be Gray.

I think he should be dq'd from the SA Derby.

The rest of his races he was clean. Seems right to me for everyone involved.

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I think he should be dq'd from the SA Derby.

The rest of his races he was clean. Seems right to me for everyone involved.

Would they payout on the second horse if you had record on your account as win bet.?

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by bob60566

Would they payout on the second horse if you had record on your account as win bet.?

racing board rulings do not affect the result of the race parimutuel wise.. Could you imagine the can of worms that would create.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

I think he should be dq'd from the SA Derby.

The rest of his races he was clean. Seems right to me for everyone involved.

Nah, seems right that only eligible horses can win the KD

[clicknow]

Wasn't Ron Ellis banned from entering any horses into the 2017 BC races due to a posiitve for a trace amount of banned substance when his horse ran 2nd the year before?

Will baffert be allowed to have horses in the bc races? (since they are always bragging about integrity)

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

He didn't harshly criticize the lack of transparency. He mildly criticized it, and avoided drawing any conclusion as to why they weren't transparent. His position was "well, it was a mistake to not be transparent, but they weren't actually hiding anything wrong".

When a journalist sees an agency acting like this, the controlling impulse should be "OK, what were they hiding". And then you go find out. Under no circumstances would a serous journalist write Finley's story, accepting all of their explanations. Finley was clearly determined to accept whatever false cover story they gave.

I didn't read it that way, but I understand what you are saying.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

He didn't harshly criticize the lack of transparency. He mildly criticized it, and avoided drawing any conclusion as to why they weren't transparent. His position was "well, it was a mistake to not be transparent, but they weren't actually hiding anything wrong".

When a journalist sees an agency acting like this, the controlling impulse should be "OK, what were they hiding". And then you go find out. Under no circumstances would a serous journalist write Finley's story, accepting all of their explanations. Finley was clearly determined to accept whatever false cover story they gave.

Unfortunately, hes not the only one. Some people on the internet are even in worse denial. I see some clowns crying "fake news" and others practically sticking their fingers in their ears like a little kid and going, "Na, Na, Na, Na." One lady on another forum insisted nobody talk about this any more. Ignorance is bliss....lol.....I guess.

But any good journalist knows better than this. Some people that write racing pieces are so close to the game, well, I don't see how anyone can call it objective and on the other side you have others that are harsh critics of the game.....and that's really where you have to run things in daylight. Cause some day (if they are good) they are going to get you. Not rocket science but you really gotta wonder.

As any investigator or good journalist knows, there are other implications here also. What else has been swept under the rug? With everything that's been going on in California this "Board" better hope theres not more cause now the dogs are probably digging deep. That's kind of how life works.

Sometimes you really have to wonder, are they begging for an intervention? Or is someone "tanking" ?

[bob60566]

Intresting article on drug testing.

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/a...re-failing-us/

From the article

In trying to identify a pool of possible trainers for a new program of OOCT, I would suggest using the trainer stats from the Daily Racing Form and prioritizing those trainers that have achieved and maintained over three to six months a percentage of 25 percent or higher in the following categories:

First time starters in both MSW or MCL
First back off a layoff of 90 or more days
First race off a claim
Race after a win

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by bob60566

Intresting article on drug testing.

https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/a...re-failing-us/

From the article

In trying to identify a pool of possible trainers for a new program of OOCT, I would suggest using the trainer stats from the Daily Racing Form and prioritizing those trainers that have achieved and maintained over three to six months a percentage of 25 percent or higher in the following categories:

First time starters in both MSW or MCL
First back off a layoff of 90 or more days
First race off a claim
Race after a win

Yup. Though I would discount turf races compared to dirt races. Those categories are harder to win at on dirt in my opinion.