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

MySaladDays
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Sat Sep 21, 2019 6:35 pm

I've decided to take a break from U.S. racing after all this.

Over the pond you can "depend" on horses that are stayers to BE stayers.....Stradivarius, etc. They can actually repeat themselves. I believe it's because they are racing cleaner, recuperate better, and have more patient training regimes.

Here, it's become a true crapshoot. I didn't put Improbable on my ticket for the PA Derby, he's won exactly ONE G1 race and that was back in 2018.....he's not a 1-1/8 horse, I think he's a 1-1/16th horse and the all the rest is "Baffert factor". War of Will is thoroughly inconsistent, you never know if he's going to show up to run his best with his glue-on shoes. The entire 3 year old division is entirely muddy (except for CoH who has such classy breeding) and I just decided finally, although I've felt this way for some time, that I'm a good handicapper, I'm even good at eye-balling horses on the track in person..........BUT I CANNOT HANDICAP DRUGS.

(And I especially can't handicap drugs IF I don't have a vet report in front of me.)

So, Hong Kong and Japan and some of the other euro races for me now. I feel kinda depressed about it but I can't wager into this anymore. At least 5 of my close racing buddies have already left the sport this year. Hard-core gambers don't care about this stuff.......they need the "action" and will bet anyway. And the racing media and talking heads that makes its money off all this has never interested me in the first place. I haven't listened to any of them for at least 10 years, since I don't watch TV.

I live by Oaklawn, 7 min away to be exact. I will still GO to the live racing, but only to look at the beautiful horses in the paddocks and on the track. I won't put even $2 on any of them until Horse Racing Integrity Act gets passed and they get the drugs (and the cheaters with chemical horses) out of our sport.


I WILL enjoy Barbara Livingston's photographs and the foaling/breeding stuff but no longer into wagering races here.
stark
Posts: 5932
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:58 am

Curious to hear from anybody that saw this interview yesterday, as recapped in the LA Times newsletter today.....

NBC’s telecast of the Pennsylvania Derby addressed the Justify issue by bringing in veteran journalist Tim Layden to discuss it with Nick Luck. I’ll state up front that Tim and I are friends, so I might be prejudiced. We’ve spent a lot of time on the backstretch waiting for trainers to come out and talk to us. Most of Tim’s career has been at Sports Illustrated and Newsday before that. He recently left SI to work fulltime for NBC.
Luck did his best to bait Layden into saying this was a massive controversy but Layden stuck with the facts. He pointed out:
--Justify wasn’t the only positive, there were six others.
--Scopolamine is not a performance-enhancing drug.
--He explained why Justify had such a high level in his system.
--While bringing up the slow process of the California Horse Racing Board, it fit with how it has done things in the past.
Now, these were all factors brought out in our coverage in the Los Angeles Times after the New York Times first broke the story. Now, it’s unclear how many of these factors were kept from the New York Times but in the subsequent days it was good to see that a journalist as respected as Layden brought up many of the same conclusions that we did.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
User avatar
Equipoise
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:30 am

Sun Sep 22, 2019 11:55 am

stark wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:58 am
Curious to hear from anybody that saw this interview yesterday, as recapped in the LA Times newsletter today.....

NBC’s telecast of the Pennsylvania Derby addressed the Justify issue by bringing in veteran journalist Tim Layden to discuss it with Nick Luck. I’ll state up front that Tim and I are friends, so I might be prejudiced. We’ve spent a lot of time on the backstretch waiting for trainers to come out and talk to us. Most of Tim’s career has been at Sports Illustrated and Newsday before that. He recently left SI to work fulltime for NBC.
Luck did his best to bait Layden into saying this was a massive controversy but Layden stuck with the facts. He pointed out:
--Justify wasn’t the only positive, there were six others.
--Scopolamine is not a performance-enhancing drug.
--He explained why Justify had such a high level in his system.
--While bringing up the slow process of the California Horse Racing Board, it fit with how it has done things in the past.
Now, these were all factors brought out in our coverage in the Los Angeles Times after the New York Times first broke the story. Now, it’s unclear how many of these factors were kept from the New York Times but in the subsequent days it was good to see that a journalist as respected as Layden brought up many of the same conclusions that we did.
Genuinely asking here, if scopolamine isn’t a PED, why is it banned?
CorridorZ75
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:45 am

Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:43 pm

Why get a journalist to explain rather than a veterinary pharmacologist or toxicologist?
Why not tell exactly how much was found in the other horses- I got the impression from quotes that these other horses might not have even tripped the threshold?
Still hasn't answered the question if it can be performance enhancing at that level, then it should not matter whether or not it was intentionally given- he should have been DQed.
Quite frankly CHRB wouldn't have been so ridiculously secretive if they didn't think there was a problem, and now have made the whole situation infinitively worse then what it would have been with the public.

Meanwhile, they still don't actually do the studies to figure out an appropriate threshold for PED effects. They just say, whelp, this can be in hay so we won't bother punishing for it, even if it might give a random horse help in a race.
katmandu
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:16 am

Sun Sep 22, 2019 2:16 pm

stark wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:58 am
Curious to hear from anybody that saw this interview yesterday, as recapped in the LA Times newsletter today.....

NBC’s telecast of the Pennsylvania Derby addressed the Justify issue by bringing in veteran journalist Tim Layden to discuss it with Nick Luck. I’ll state up front that Tim and I are friends, so I might be prejudiced. We’ve spent a lot of time on the backstretch waiting for trainers to come out and talk to us. Most of Tim’s career has been at Sports Illustrated and Newsday before that. He recently left SI to work fulltime for NBC.
Luck did his best to bait Layden into saying this was a massive controversy but Layden stuck with the facts. He pointed out:
--Justify wasn’t the only positive, there were six others.
--Scopolamine is not a performance-enhancing drug.
--He explained why Justify had such a high level in his system.
--While bringing up the slow process of the California Horse Racing Board, it fit with how it has done things in the past.
Now, these were all factors brought out in our coverage in the Los Angeles Times after the New York Times first broke the story. Now, it’s unclear how many of these factors were kept from the New York Times but in the subsequent days it was good to see that a journalist as respected as Layden brought up many of the same conclusions that we did.
Then again, maybe the interview was constructed to answer the media questions. Why would NBC want to sabotage their horse racing coverage?

"We/our"?? You work for the LA Times?
User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:34 pm

Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:12 am

stark wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:58 am
Curious to hear from anybody that saw this interview yesterday, as recapped in the LA Times newsletter today.....

NBC’s telecast of the Pennsylvania Derby addressed the Justify issue by bringing in veteran journalist Tim Layden to discuss it with Nick Luck. I’ll state up front that Tim and I are friends, so I might be prejudiced. We’ve spent a lot of time on the backstretch waiting for trainers to come out and talk to us. Most of Tim’s career has been at Sports Illustrated and Newsday before that. He recently left SI to work fulltime for NBC.
Luck did his best to bait Layden into saying this was a massive controversy but Layden stuck with the facts. He pointed out:
--Justify wasn’t the only positive, there were six others.
--Scopolamine is not a performance-enhancing drug.
--He explained why Justify had such a high level in his system.
--While bringing up the slow process of the California Horse Racing Board, it fit with how it has done things in the past.
Now, these were all factors brought out in our coverage in the Los Angeles Times after the New York Times first broke the story. Now, it’s unclear how many of these factors were kept from the New York Times but in the subsequent days it was good to see that a journalist as respected as Layden brought up many of the same conclusions that we did.

The only thing your post makes me question is how you are swallowing this hook, line, and sinker.
MySaladDays
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:50 am

CorridorZ75 wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:43 pm
Why get a journalist to explain rather than a veterinary pharmacologist or toxicologist?
thank you
stark
Posts: 5932
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:41 am

MySaladDays wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:50 am
CorridorZ75 wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 12:43 pm
Why get a journalist to explain rather than a veterinary pharmacologist or toxicologist?
thank you
I'm guessing you would be okay with a journalist explaining things if only you agreed with his findings.'
After all, it was a journalist who introduced you to this story.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
Somnambulist

Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:02 am

Your mind is just as made up as you're claiming everyone else's to be.

There is no answer as to why the horse had any level in his system. I thought the jimson weed as offered as a possible. There are some facts about a seemingly arcane issue that no one knows much about.

I am truly baffled by a number of responses to this. People are unhappy that people are asking questions and want to understand this better. Actually, that doesn't surprise me because that's how America arrived at it's current political situation. It's better just to hate and point fingers than it is to actually expose yourself to information that might challenge you and make you uncomfortable.

Why do people in and around this industry feel that the sport offers a product that should not be improved on? The distrust is so high and people would rather do anything then fix it. It's so infuriating. I know that doing your job and bettering a product in today's work is unheard of and outlandish but what are industry leaders being paid for? I can't believe that they care so little about their livelihood that no one wants to clean this game up.
stark
Posts: 5932
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:11 am

Racing's problems really haven't changed a whole heckofalot in the past 60 years, the one big change is the WWW Internet and the increasing number of experts doing the analyses.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
MySaladDays
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:42 am

stark wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:41 am
I'm guessing you would be okay with a journalist explaining things if only you agreed with his findings.'
After all, it was a journalist who introduced you to this story.

A journalist BROKE the story.

Follow-up on a story, involving facts and numbers, is what many people are looking for and not getting. Sorry you think it's odd that some of us want numbers on what the other horses tested at, and have the results examined and explained by an equine toxicologist.

It's called wanting to wager into a system that has integrity. Hong Kong would be an example.

When we begin with the premise that a horse failed a drug test, and then that information was covered-up, anyone with critical thinking skills is going to want more information and transparency.

Just shut up and bet, right?
Somnambulist

Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:02 pm

stark wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:11 am
Racing's problems really haven't changed a whole heckofalot in the past 60 years, the one big change is the WWW Internet and the increasing number of experts doing the analyses.
This is a terrible stance. The game needs fixing and in a bad way. What good is it to be against bettering it? Even if something is perfect it should always be actively trying to better itself.

It's pretty easy to get a dopamine fix from a lot of other things.
greyhorse
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 2:53 pm

Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:01 pm

stark wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:58 am
Curious to hear from anybody that saw this interview yesterday, as recapped in the LA Times newsletter today.....

NBC’s telecast of the Pennsylvania Derby addressed the Justify issue by bringing in veteran journalist Tim Layden to discuss it with Nick Luck. I’ll state up front that Tim and I are friends, so I might be prejudiced. We’ve spent a lot of time on the backstretch waiting for trainers to come out and talk to us. Most of Tim’s career has been at Sports Illustrated and Newsday before that. He recently left SI to work fulltime for NBC.
Luck did his best to bait Layden into saying this was a massive controversy but Layden stuck with the facts. He pointed out:
--Justify wasn’t the only positive, there were six others.
--Scopolamine is not a performance-enhancing drug.
--He explained why Justify had such a high level in his system.
--While bringing up the slow process of the California Horse Racing Board, it fit with how it has done things in the past.
Now, these were all factors brought out in our coverage in the Los Angeles Times after the New York Times first broke the story. Now, it’s unclear how many of these factors were kept from the New York Times but in the subsequent days it was good to see that a journalist as respected as Layden brought up many of the same conclusions that we did.
A) I don't care if the horse was drugged with scopolamine or Skittles, if it was intentional or not, who did it, nor if it has a performance enhancing effect.

B) I don't care if the case would have been handled quickly enough to disqualify him and keep him from the Derby. I don't care if he ever ran a single race again.

Focusing on the drug and timing is diverting attention away from the real issue that no one can argue is problematic. The CHRB changed the rules instead of enforcing them because of who broke the rules. They did it in a first-ever, closed-door meeting. And they tried to keep it hidden forever. They're corrupt, and all need to come down, along with the people they conspired with.
User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:34 pm

Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:28 pm

greyhorse wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:01 pm
stark wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 10:58 am
Curious to hear from anybody that saw this interview yesterday, as recapped in the LA Times newsletter today.....

NBC’s telecast of the Pennsylvania Derby addressed the Justify issue by bringing in veteran journalist Tim Layden to discuss it with Nick Luck. I’ll state up front that Tim and I are friends, so I might be prejudiced. We’ve spent a lot of time on the backstretch waiting for trainers to come out and talk to us. Most of Tim’s career has been at Sports Illustrated and Newsday before that. He recently left SI to work fulltime for NBC.
Luck did his best to bait Layden into saying this was a massive controversy but Layden stuck with the facts. He pointed out:
--Justify wasn’t the only positive, there were six others.
--Scopolamine is not a performance-enhancing drug.
--He explained why Justify had such a high level in his system.
--While bringing up the slow process of the California Horse Racing Board, it fit with how it has done things in the past.
Now, these were all factors brought out in our coverage in the Los Angeles Times after the New York Times first broke the story. Now, it’s unclear how many of these factors were kept from the New York Times but in the subsequent days it was good to see that a journalist as respected as Layden brought up many of the same conclusions that we did.
A) I don't care if the horse was drugged with scopolamine or Skittles, if it was intentional or not, who did it, nor if it has a performance enhancing effect.

B) I don't care if the case would have been handled quickly enough to disqualify him and keep him from the Derby. I don't care if he ever ran a single race again.

Focusing on the drug and timing is diverting attention away from the real issue that no one can argue is problematic. The CHRB changed the rules instead of enforcing them because of who broke the rules. They did it in a first-ever, closed-door meeting. And they tried to keep it hidden forever. They're corrupt, and all need to come down, along with the people they conspired with.
I think this is what bothers me the most. Not only did CHRB change the rules to protect him, but so many people are explaining it away like he is an innocent victim.

It's not the "drugging" (bc lets face it, as long as any sport exist someone is gonna try to cheat) that bothers me the most but the corruption that allows it to continue
djnorth
Posts: 184
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:52 am

Tue Sep 24, 2019 8:21 am

Exactly this.
stark
Posts: 5932
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:22 am

The problem with identifying corruption within the CHRB and demanding they all be fired is, well.....

As with any elected/appointed officials in California there is plenty of finger pointing to go around.
From state taxes,
to water shortages
to oil shutdowns
to homeless,
to delta smelt,
to sanctuary status,
to public education....
well you get the idea,
a lot of people are not happy, many move away to other states because of it and when all is said and done, the CHRB appointments rank 77th on the lists of things needing review and overhaul.
Should we ( especially those of us who live in California) really attack them first when they're just as bad following in the footsteps of everybody else in charge?
(***note, this is not a political statement, it's a way of life)
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
MySaladDays
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:40 am

stark wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:22 am
The problem with identifying corruption within the CHRB and demanding they all be fired is, well.....

As with any elected/appointed officials in California there is plenty of finger pointing to go around.
From state taxes,
to water shortages
to oil shutdowns
to homeless,
to delta smelt,
to sanctuary status,
to public education....
well you get the idea,
a lot of people are not happy, many move away to other states because of it and when all is said and done, the CHRB appointments rank 77th on the lists of things needing review and overhaul.
Should we ( especially those of us who live in California) really attack them first when they're just as bad following in the footsteps of everybody else in charge?
(***note, this is not a political statement, it's a way of life)
WAY to move the goalposts, Stark.

Let's stick with the subject matter.

CHRB covered up a 4x threshold drug positive, changed the rules in a closed door meeting, and Baffert and his pals commited fraud and cheated, and we still don't know the readings for the other 6 positives.

And by the way, any other forum I"m on, moving the goal posts is considered bad form, and trollish. We aren't discussing oh my how the whole world is not perfect.......we are discussing 1) CHRB and 2) Baffert

We are discussing the sad matter that crooks are policing the game. They don’t get to pick and chose which positive tests are punished and which aren’t depending upon who the connections are and they did it with a trainer who has already gotten in trouble for (egregious) over administering "unusual drugs for which horses have no medical diagnosis" before. CHRB changed the rules after they knew full well that the rules had been broken.

Obviously you're an apologist for baffert, chrb, or the racing industry (for whatever reason, I have no idea why) but I think it's time to stop now because it's looking foolish how you are trying to change the subject and move the goalposts and engage in moral and social relativism.

HOw about next time a crime gets committed in your neighborhood, we just say to you "oh, it's everywhere, it's a way of life, what is the big deal?" .


Fraud has been committed, and a cover up. It's dangerously close to race fixing. Many of us put $$ into the sport. If it was the stock market people would be awaiting trials. It's not okay.
Last edited by MySaladDays on Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
stark
Posts: 5932
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:54 am

I'm not moving any goal posts Salad.
But I will point out that horse racing is basically the same sport you fell in love with, if it was the 60s, the 70's, the 80's, the 90's, or the 2000's. Some of the names have changed but that's about all.

The fact that you now have the internet and want to read autopsy reports for yourself is laughable.

Figure out a way to fall in love again, were you just stupid back then, head in the sand, or devoid of the WWW? Whatever it was, life was good once upon a time.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
MySaladDays
Posts: 1121
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:16 am

Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:01 am

stark wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:54 am
I'm not moving any goal posts Salad.
But I will point out that horse racing is basically the same sport you fell in love with, if it was the 60s, the 70's, the 80's, the 90's, or the 2000's. Some of the names have changed but that's about all.

The fact that you now have the internet and want to read autopsy reports for yourself is laughable.

Figure out a way to fall in love again, were you just stupid back then, head in the sand, or devoid of the WWW? Whatever it was, life was good once upon a time.

More moral relativism I see. Quit while you're ahead okay?

As for "the good old days" I was never in the dark about drug positives.

You don't seem to quite get the disintction that in this case, a drug positive was covered up by the very board that is supposed to be in charge of policing cheaters.............and unfortunately for them, there were emails and memos and that information got out.

When it is dumped into your lap and you turn your head, then you have a problem. That is what makes you an apologist.
stark
Posts: 5932
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:12 am

MySaladDays wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 11:01 am

More moral relativism I see. Quit while you're ahead okay?

As for "the good old days" I was never in the dark about drug positives.

You don't seem to quite get the disintction that in this case, a drug positive was covered up by the very board that is supposed to be in charge of policing cheaters.............and unfortunately for them, there were emails and memos and that information got out.

When it is dumped into your lap and you turn your head, then you have a problem. That is what makes you an apologist.
Actually, I've learned over time to pick my battles, you can't win 'em all and I've placed a high priority on enjoying life.
If I were you though and wanted to go to war, I'm thinking 27 deaths this year at Belmont might be a worthy cause.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
Post Reply