Hi Ho No Pimlico

[Alabama Stakes]

No Preakness for Baffert . Maryland on board with suspension

[moses]

Originally Posted by Alabama Stakes

No Preakness for Baffert as Maryland suspends him

Poor Bob. #2022sucks

[freddymo]

Is racing better off without Baffert? Perhaps the very best dirt trainer ever banished forever?

[Kasept]

Why did anyone think he could run at Pimlico during the 90 day suspension?

[Kasept]

Do people not remember when Steve Asmussen had two consecutive six-month suspensions? Or when Pletcher had an extended (45?) one when the horses ran in Anthony Sciametta’s (sp?) name? Suspensions like these are universally honored by jurisdictions. There was never a question that Baffert would run in Maryland.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Do people not remember when Steve Asmussen had two consecutive six-month suspensions? Or when Pletcher had an extended (45?) one when the horses ran in Anthony Sciametta’s (sp?) name? Suspensions like these are universally honored by jurisdictions. There was never a question that Baffert would run in Maryland.

I'm with you, I'm not sure why anyone would think Baffert would be running anything in Maryland. But in the cases you mention the horses ran in the assistant trainer name. This is quite a bit different.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Is racing better off without Baffert? Perhaps the very best dirt trainer ever banished forever?

Is it better with him? That's not me giving an opinion either way. I'm just wondering if racing as a whole has been better with him.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

I'm with you, I'm not sure why anyone would think Baffert would be running anything in Maryland. But in the cases you mention the horses ran in the assistant trainer name. This is quite a bit different.

One rule that has changed (or come into play anyway) is requirement of dispersing barn during suspensions of more than 60 (I think it’s 60) days.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Is it better with him? That's not me giving an opinion either way. I'm just wondering if racing as a whole has been better with him.

It's definitely not better with him if he violates the rules and refuses to accept responsibility.

I'll refrain from saying, however, that nobody is bigger than the game. We all know the OP of this thread disproves that.

[Alabama Stakes]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Why did anyone think he could run at Pimlico during the 90 day suspension?

Maybe because he ran at Hot Springs last week and at Nyra less than a month ago. You trying to tell me there was no talk of him running in the Preakness ? Maryland ? They’ve been real leaders in the field as far as policing drug cheats.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Alabama Stakes

Maybe because he ran at Hot Springs last week and at Nyra less than a month ago. You trying to tell me there was no talk of him running in the Preakness ? Maryland ? They’ve been real leaders in the field as far as policing drug cheats.

KHRC suspension, which is then respected by all other jurisdictions, began April 4. Baffert's last starters (at Oaklawn or elsewhere) were on April 2.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Alabama Stakes

They’ve been real leaders in the field as far as policing drug cheats.

Well, they posture as real leaders and on health and welfare they've done a number of good things, particularly in California. But while they ruled a few pieces of low-hanging fruit off, they seemingly allow a cartel to operate in Florida with impunity. They're a fugazy outfit.

[jms62]

I realize I'm a broken record but truly believe what I am saying.
The NCAA bans the entire school from Post season and TV Money for violations not just the coach. Everyone is penalized. If Horse racing wants to be serious they ban trainer, all horses of trainer and owner of horses under trainer that were caught. Is it stiff? Yes. Is it fair? No. Will it Deter by evening out the Risk/Reward ? Yes. As of now the rewards of cheating FAR outweigh the cost of getting caught. We would be very naïve to think owners have no idea what is going on here. At this point their only real risk is returning purse money. After getting popped they just run under assistant or transfer to another trainer. You can be certain that putting them at real financial risk of their aging asset missing the Triple crown and unable to earn money in any race will incentivize them to pressure trainers to be clean or avoid them all together.

[Kasept]

Just to show how damaging their publicity stunt is, note these vile victory lap tweets from active opponents of the sport, fund raising as they pretend they had a hand in Baffert's exclusion..

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Just to show how damaging their publicity stunt is, note these vile victory lap tweets from active opponents of the sport, fund raising as they pretend they had a hand in Baffert's exclusion..

Why would the executive director of the Maryland Racing Commision write a letter like that?

[Konk]

Originally Posted by jms62

I realize I'm a broken record but truly believe what I am saying.
The NCAA bans the entire school from Post season and TV Money for violations not just the coach. Everyone is penalized. If Horse racing wants to be serious they ban trainer, all horses of trainer and owner of horses under trainer that were caught. Is it stiff? Yes. Is it fair? No. Will it Deter by evening out the Risk/Reward ? Yes. As of now the rewards of cheating FAR outweigh the cost of getting caught. We would be very naïve to think owners have no idea what is going on here. At this point their only real risk is returning purse money. After getting popped they just run under assistant or transfer to another trainer. You can be certain that putting them at real financial risk of their aging asset missing the Triple crown and unable to earn money in any race will incentivize them to pressure trainers to be clean or avoid them all together.

I agree. Suspensions, imho, shouls include the owner and all the horses in the trainer's barn. Harsh, yup. Easy to avoid? Yup....don't cheat.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

I'm not on board with: all the horses in the trainer's barn.

Example: You hire a particular trainer for the 1st time. Same trainer is caught cheating with my horse a week later.
Exactly, why should your horse be kept from running?

Does owner in your hypothetical have an inkling which trainers are sketchy or just claim ignorance and insult our collective intelligence? Would the trainer cheat if he knew the consequences of it? Would you as owner ever use him again if this happened? Would you as a deep pockets owner consider suing him for damages of your horses not running? If you really want to clean up the game the penalties need to be severe and the risk/reward at least evened out. As of now it simply is a cheating tax. Cheat 100 times get caught 5 and give up 5 purses and let your assistant run the horses.

[blackthroatedwind]

Drug overages are not necessarily cheating. We don't further the argument by mislabeling things. Any trainer can get an overage once, as many honest trainers have, and conflating that with cheating muddies the conversation.

I'm not defending anyone, and think every trainer needs to take their responsibility extremely seriously ( as most do ). However, we have to think about our responsibilities to the outside world. Conversations are furthered by accuracy not mistruths.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by cmfhb411

So every owner who hires a trainer who eventually cheats
with their horse, or NOT their horse, knew the trainer was
going to cheat ahead of time? Every one ?

Nope and it makes no difference. Caveat Emptor. The model is broken currently. As I stated my idea isn't fair however it will disincentivize chronic cheaters and owners that employ them and I believe it will do it quickly. Right now there is incentive to find and use a trainer that cheats and take the slap on the wrist if caught.

But to Andy's point on simple overages. That is a fly in the ointment. How to distinguish the difference between obvious cheating and simple overages?

[Konk]

Good point. It is critical to any sucess full drug policy that it be clearly defined,
I'm no vet, but I assume that finding an overage of a theraputic drug would have to classified and handled differently than finding snake venom.

Take the ~25% top trainers for fewest drug incidents anually and set that as the minimum standard goig foreward. If 1/4 of the population can do it, demand the rest do it too.