Article in New York Times states Justify failed a drug test before the Derby

User avatar
Starine
Posts: 5129
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:39 am
Location: South Carolina

Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:36 pm

stark wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:39 pm
I didn't want to ruin the Penn Derby thread....

So, here it goes....

Any chance Max Security's colon problems can be a reaction to something he ate, or was provided by his trainer?
https://twitter.com/ShamIAmNot/status/1 ... 13152?s=19
User avatar
Curtis
Posts: 1436
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 am
Location: Monroe, WA
Contact:

Tue Sep 17, 2019 10:44 pm

stark wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:39 pm
I didn't want to ruin the Penn Derby thread....

So, here it goes....

Any chance Max Security's colon problems can be a reaction to something he ate, or was provided by his trainer?
Sure, yes and yes. So if you were at Lake Como in April of 1945, would you have said, “Why you be hatin’ on Benito.....don’t forget about Adolf!”?
User avatar
Treve
Posts: 4610
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 5:12 pm

Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:22 am

Charlie wrote:
Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:10 pm
I don’t know why what Graham said matters? The limit is 75 and he had 300.

It’s not like the 75 limit is measured different than Justify’s 300.

He was wayyyy over the limit and if I read Tessa’s articles right that’s an insanely high level for just “accidental food contamination”

I also stated that I don’t know if a central governing body would help, just saying it could. It also could not care just as much as CHRB does now.
And per that thread, that amount is 12x the legal limit in Australia.
A filly named Ruffian...

Eine Stute namens Danedream...

Une pouliche se nommant Trêve...

Kincsem nevű kanca...


And a Queen named Beholder
MySaladDays
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:23 am

Tessablue wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:06 pm
And while I suppose people can decry the messenger as much as they want, three things remain absolute truths that have not been disputed by any party involved:

1. Baffert has a history of giving horses potentially harmful substances for non-veterinary reasons.
2. Justify tested well above the legal limit for a potentially harmful substance.
3. The CHRB, whose chairman owned horses trained by Baffert, elected to privately do nothing about it.

You can either accept those above facts and move on, or you can demand that we do better in the future. Only one of those options gives this sport a chance at long-term survival.
I think you encapsulated the situation quite well here.
stark
Posts: 5950
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:25 am

Can somebody here who doesn't believe the "hay theory" please tell me how it did happen, thanks.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
MySaladDays
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:44 am

and to add to what Tessa said, knowing how the other horses tested is something we need to know.

As has been brought up, a contamination level as high as Justify had........that would have called for a broad announcement to each and every horseman and barn at SA.......to not do so showed a complete lack of interest in the safety of the horses there at SA.......

and if the feed/bedding supplier to the premises is supplying stuff that are that highly contaminated, then they need to be informed, and also looked into .

Holy cow, I can't believe people don't realize this.
Catalina
Posts: 3695
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:08 pm
Location: South Texas

Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:52 pm

stark wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:25 am
Can somebody here who doesn't believe the "hay theory" please tell me how it did happen, thanks.
Irrelevant. The horse had more than the permitted amount of this performance-enhancing substance in his system, and therefore must be disqualified. Now, if you can prove that this over-the-limit substance was intentionally administered to Justify, then the horse not only needs to be disqualified, but the trainer ADDITIONALLY needs to be fined.
User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:34 pm

Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:06 pm

stark wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:25 am
Can somebody here who doesn't believe the "hay theory" please tell me how it did happen, thanks.
I mean my grandmother told me that my grandfather was given scopolamine by doctors some time ago for a reason I can't remember. I imagine it may be available in a liquid IV form?
User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:34 pm

Wed Sep 18, 2019 6:07 pm

MySaladDays wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 10:44 am
and to add to what Tessa said, knowing how the other horses tested is something we need to know.

As has been brought up, a contamination level as high as Justify had........that would have called for a broad announcement to each and every horseman and barn at SA.......to not do so showed a complete lack of interest in the safety of the horses there at SA.......

and if the feed/bedding supplier to the premises is supplying stuff that are that highly contaminated, then they need to be informed, and also looked into .

Holy cow, I can't believe people don't realize this.
The fact NONE of this happens tells me that everyone involved knows it was not contamination.
stark
Posts: 5950
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:13 pm

I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
katmandu
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:16 am

Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:31 pm

stark wrote:
Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:39 pm
I didn't want to ruin the Penn Derby thread....

So, here it goes....

Any chance Max Security's colon problems can be a reaction to something he ate, or was provided by his trainer?
Highly unlikely. See PA Derby thread. IF there is anything to question, the weak link would be if that was indeed his problem.
User avatar
Starine
Posts: 5129
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:39 am
Location: South Carolina

Wed Sep 18, 2019 9:17 pm

Under the Micro-Scopolamine - By Evan Hammonds
http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/wgoh/arc ... monds.aspx
stark
Posts: 5950
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:04 am

Final poll results from the LATImes....

There were about 1,000 voters

1. It was much ado about nothing—35.4%
2. The CHRB did nothing wrong but could have handled it better—23.6%
3. The test results should have been made public immediately—21.8%
4. CHRB was doing trainer Bob Baffert a favor—12.2%
5. Justify should not have been allowed to race in the Kentucky Derby—7%

What say you?
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
MySaladDays
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:37 pm

stark wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:04 am
What say you?
About the poll itself, or are you asking for opinions.......if the latter, everyone pretty much already gave their opinions and thoughts about the irregularities that they perceive in this situation.

As for the poll, if you want the right answers, you have to ask the right questions.

Creating a really good poll is both a science and an art.......as well as psychologically engineered. Most people responding to polls haven't given the questions more than a brief look. .

They can be created to elicit certain responses........I generally don't like polls unless I know who formulated them and how they arrived at the questions, so I can figure out the biases included in the poll.
stark
Posts: 5950
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:47 pm

MySaladDays wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:37 pm
stark wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:04 am
What say you?


As for the poll, if you want the right answers, you have to ask the right questions.
......I generally don't like polls unless I know who formulated them and how they arrived at the questions, so I can figure out the biases included in the poll.
I think the biases held by the general public in this case far far outweigh any prejudice that could've been injected into the poll itself. Most who voiced an opinion had their mind up well ahead of time, in fact they're already ready for a public hanging the next time backstretch news is reported.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
MySaladDays
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:25 pm

stark wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 1:47 pm
. Most who voiced an opinion had their mind up well ahead of time, in fact they're already ready for a public hanging the next time backstretch news is reported.
Are you talking about voiced opinions HERE?

Many of the posts, esp. by Tessa, were very indepth and involved far more critical thinking than most john q public, and I actually didn't form my opinion totally until I read thru some of the more complex issues that this event involves.

I'm sure there are just "anti baffert" or "anti calif racing" types who may fit your description, but I sure didn't see any of that here on this forum.

If you are in the camp where you believe that bettors, who are putting actual $$ into a sport are not entitled to transparency then I will have to disagree stroingly with you. Reports for some trainers being public, and for others not being made public, is generally a disgraceful practice, and most people don't much cotton to it.

Esp. not in a case where a veterinarian NOT on the CHRB board says that said substance that could act as as bronchodilator and optimize a horse’s heart rate, and which was found in 4x the amount allowed by the legal thresholds...........and that information was covered up?. This would constitute illegal PEDs and certainly close to race fixing by not reporting it or penalizing it.

WHat do you keep trying to say here?

What you seem to be calling "public bias" is really just people not wanting to be duped. Watergate wasn't about a 'break-in' and Martha Stewart didn't go to jail because of 'insider trading'....these were both cover-ups and lies told to investigators.


MOst people, unless they gleefully invested with Bernie Madoff and didn't feel ripped off afterwards, do expect some integrity and ACCOUNTABILITY in the things they participate in with their $$.


As for me, I'm still in the investigative stage. We still need to know values the other horses who tested positive levels were, and we need more information of a forensic nature (independently rendered) to have it explained. The only thing right now that is a known "not acceptable" to me is the COVER UP by the CHRB of a positive banned substance report........... Of this they are guilty without a doubt.

Of course, when more information comes out we will also be able to have more of an opinion on accidental or purposely administered angle. That part is still not solved....
katmandu
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:16 am

Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:32 pm

Does anyone know what the basis for "legal thresholds" are on drugs? Does it have anything to do with efficacy? Or is it just a measure of whether or not the horse has seen a particular drug within the limits of the testing system? (with the understanding that a horse could be exposed to a substance (as in this particular case), but still test below legal limits). Does the efficacy question vary on a case by case scenario? This question has nothing to do with Justify specifically, just a ? that came up for me in some comments I've seen regarding it.
Tessablue
Posts: 4195
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:05 pm

Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:03 pm

katmandu wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 3:32 pm
Does anyone know what the basis for "legal thresholds" are on drugs? Does it have anything to do with efficacy? Or is it just a measure of whether or not the horse has seen a particular drug within the limits of the testing system? (with the understanding that a horse could be exposed to a substance (as in this particular case), but still test below legal limits). Does the efficacy question vary on a case by case scenario? This question has nothing to do with Justify specifically, just a ? that came up for me in some comments I've seen regarding it.
Tough to say as a general rule and you probably know way more than I do, but from what I've seen and read, there isn't all that much research out there so it involves a lot of case-by-case educated guessing. In the specific case of scopolamine, the 75ng/mL appears to have been based on the levels observed during prior studies and incidents of known feed contamination (for example, the 90's cluster was all within 15-65ng/mL or so). However, all we really know is that <75ng/mL is likely to be environmental contamination whereas microgram levels can lead to colic and acute toxicity. Everything in between is, as best I can tell, a pharmacological unknown in racehorses.

Coupled with the relatively recent banning of thyroxine, it gives the impression that a lot of these regulations are far more reactive than proactive.
MySaladDays
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:58 pm

Tessablue wrote:
Fri Sep 20, 2019 5:03 pm

Coupled with the relatively recent banning of thyroxine, it gives the impression that a lot of these regulations are far more reactive than proactive.
I did not know thryroxine was on the banned list.

Is it even banned for horses DIAGNOSED with a thyroid disorder who are being treated for such----i.e. when could the horse ever race then, i.e, a horse with a bonafide metabolic disorder?

I know in Baffert's case, the 7 horses were *not* being treated for a thryroid disorder, and had not been diagnosed with thryroid disorders.


I can see your point about regulations being reactive rather than proactive, but there is no way to know what the pharamceutical guys who run chemical horses are going to try next. We can't be proactive about stuff we don't know about yet. These people are 1 step ahead of the testing technology, and will probably always be, esp. with the undetectables.
katmandu
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:16 am

Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:25 pm

MySaladDays wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:58 pm
I can see your point about regulations being reactive rather than proactive, but there is no way to know what the pharamceutical guys who run chemical horses are going to try next. We can't be proactive about stuff we don't know about yet. These people are 1 step ahead of the testing technology, and will probably always be, esp. with the undetectables.
Thanks, for your thoughts, Tessa. I agree, they're chasing the chemists, and even they are chasing speculation to varying degrees. . .
Post Reply