2021 kentucky derby | Horse Racing Free Tips

National Media Reacts To Medina Spirit Scandal With Skepticism, Outrage

As the situation surrounding Medina Spirit's positive betamethasone test has evolved through the course of this week, racing and mainstream media have covered the story extensively. The revelation that the 2021 Kentucky Derby winner failed an initial post-race drug test has also garnered op/eds from industry and non-industry publications. Most of those headlines express little patience for trainer Bob Baffert's explanation of the drug's presence.

In the interest of understanding how racing and its issues are viewed in the broader, non-racing world, the Paulick Report staff has compiled a sampling of those opinion and analysis pieces here, along with observations therein that we found particularly interesting. We encourage you to click the underlined links to read the full op/eds.

The Kentucky Derby Deserves Better Than This Butt Rash Of A Mess, WDRB
Writer Eric Crawford mourns the reputation of the Run for the Roses, which he says will be tarnished in the future by what he calls Baffert's “clear negligence.” Crawford also points out that both Baffert and his veterinarian were required to sign a document as a condition of stabling acknowledging their intent to follow rules and regulations laid out by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, including the body's medication regulations.

No, Failed Derby Drug Test Is Not 'Cancel Culture.' But Racing Needs Culture Change, Lexington Herald-Leader
Columnist Linda Blackford, writing before Baffert's Tuesday statement attributing the betamethasone test to an anti-fungal ointment, took exception to Baffert's declaration on Fox News Monday that Churchill's immediate ban on his entries constituted “cancel culture.” Blackford also pointed out that the Baffert case demonstrates the need for the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), under which medication rules will be the same across the country, reducing the likelihood of therapeutic drug positives.

Bob Baffert's Leaking Credibility Reaches Saturation Point After Derby Drug Positive, Sports Illustrated
Pat Forde sees Baffert's history of drug positives — albeit, therapeutic positives — as eroding confidence in America's most recognizable trainer, particularly when his explanations for them seem designed to excuse them. Individually, Baffert's explanation for each positive seems plausible, but together they begin to sound hollow to Forde.

“Ultimately, this very much seems like the same sad song, different verse, when it comes to drug testing and sports,” he writes. “The denials are always vigorous. They are often fanciful. They are rarely compelling.”

Opinion: As Another Excuse Arises, Pimlico Won't Hold Bob Baffert Accountable For Medina Spirit's Positive Test, USA Today
Dan Wolken expresses frustration that Pimlico did not follow the lead of Churchill Downs and decline to allow Baffert entries until the scandal over the betamethasone overage is resolved. He points out that without Baffert's two runners — Medina Spirit and Concert Tour — this year's Preakness would have a historically weak field. If either horse wins, racing will be in an especially awkward position in the event Medina Spirit's Derby victory is eventually stripped. Wolken makes clear that he doesn't expert racing commissions to take significant action against the trainer even if that disqualification happens.

“True accountability, in the end, is going to have to come from within,” he wrote, pointing out that Spendthrift has removed horses from Baffert's care.

Baffert In Spotlight For Wrong Reasons Going Into Preakness, Associated Press via Seattle Times
While Baffert and his team couldn't get enough of the media Sunday and Monday, Associated Press reporter Stephen Whyno writes that assistant Jimmy Barnes has refused to answer questions about the ongoing Medina Spirit debacle. And while the atmosphere at Pimlico is different this year, Whyno said one fixture, trainer D. Wayne Lukas, is still lingering outside the stakes barn and giving his opinion to whoever wants to hear it.

Lukas, for his part, believes the commission should raise the threshold for therapeutic substances “to what's realistic” and said he wishes he was still on the Kentucky commission to impact the outcome of any hearing Baffert may go through.

“I would absolutely today tell my colleagues that we need to just dismiss this, throw it out, put the Derby winner back on the throne and move on,” he said. “Obviously (21) picograms or whatever that horse had had no effect on the race or his performance. And every vet and every scientist and every lab will tell you that. You almost think the lab should probably have poured it down the sink in the first place.”

Sullivan: Bob Baffert Needs New Strategy After Betamethasone Claims Backfire, Louisville Courier-Journal
Tim Sullivan, who has been covering the scandal since the beginning, anticipates that Baffert's legal strategy will be to attack the credibility of the regulation guiding betamethasone withdrawal. Unfortunately for him, Sullivan believes Baffert's intent behind using an anti-fungal cream containing betamethasone isn't relevant based on how the rules are written. He points out that the phenylbutazone rule that resulted in the disqualification of Dancer's Image in 1968 wasn't changed until 1974, and in the meantime the Kentucky Supreme Court validated the stewards' decision to disqualify Dancer's Image under the rules in place when the horse ran.

The post National Media Reacts To Medina Spirit Scandal With Skepticism, Outrage appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Report: Derby DQ May Come Down To Legal Phrasing

As discussion around Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit's positive betamethasone test continues, the attorney for owner Amr Zedan seems to already be preparing a legal challenge for a potential disqualification.

Kentucky regulations spell out penalties for trainers and for owners following a drug positive, depending on the number and class of drug violations for the relevant licensee. The penalties for owners include disqualification and loss of purse, as well as a potential requirement for horses to undergo further examination or testing before returning to racing.

As explained in the Louisville Courier-Journal, there seems to be some debate about what will happen if a split sample comes back positive. Dr. Mary Scollay, former equine medical director for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, and Marc Guilfoil, current executive director for the commission, both point out that there is no “mitigating circumstance” language in the owner sanctions for a Class C positive. Stewards are given a range of possible suspensions and fines for trainers with the phrase “absent mitigating circumstances” at the end, meaning they can use discretion within those ranges depending on information they get from the trainer about how the drug became introduced to the horse — i.e., environmental contamination. There is no “mitigating circumstances” language at the end of the penalties outlined for owners in this circumstance.

Attorney Clark Brewster maintains however that the phrase “shall apply” when referring to the disqualification and loss of purse for owners is legally ambiguous. While lay people understand “shall” and “must” to be the same, Brewster points out that there is some variation in interpretation of the two words in legal settings. Brewster argues that stewards should take mitigating circumstances — like whether the drug was intended to advance performance — into account when they make their eventual decision.

Read more at the Louisville Courier-Journal

The post Report: Derby DQ May Come Down To Legal Phrasing appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Show Us The Paper, Bob: Records To Back Up Baffert’s Story Remain A Matter Of Trust

The number of people inclined to nod along when Hall of Fame trainer Bob Baffert says, “Just trust me,” is getting smaller and smaller these days. First there was Justify, then Charlatan/Gamine, then Merneith, then Gamine again, and now Medina Spirit – five drug violations in the past year and six in recent memory. This time, Baffert told media on Sunday, he was getting out in front of the issue, not waiting for a split sample test came back positive before announcing that his horse had failed a post-race test. He has since told mainstream media that he didn't want to repeat his mistakes in the Justify case, where he and the California Horse Racing Board were widely criticized for keeping the colt's test for scopolamine a secret until the New York Times reported on it months later.

The advantage of being transparent about something like this is that you can control the narrative, and since the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission isn't permitted to discuss a positive before a split sample test and a ruling, Baffert and his legal team have arguably been able to do just that. Baffert has made quite the media tour since Sunday morning, appearing on CBS, Fox News, and elsewhere to tell his side of the story, which seemed to mostly amount to 'I don't know what happened but testing is too strict.'

When Baffert's public stance evolved from 'I didn't do it' to 'Ok, I did it, but it was a mistake,' there was ample opportunity to keep a strong public front. On Tuesday, a statement distributed via Baffert attorney Craig Robertson blamed the betamethasone positive on Otomax, an anti-fungal cream made for dogs which contains betamethasone. This, Robertson said, was used on dermatitis on Medina Spirit after the Santa Anita Derby daily until the day before the Kentucky Derby.

“As I have stated, my investigation is continuing and we do not know for sure if this ointment was the cause of the test results, or if the test results are even accurate, as they have yet to be confirmed by the split sample,” read Baffert's Tuesday statement. “However, again, I have been told that a finding of a small amount, such as 21 picograms, could be consistent with application of this type of ointment. I intend to continue to investigate and I will continue to be transparent.”

So, be transparent.

The beautiful thing about the administration of a prescription therapeutic drug in either California or Kentucky is that it should leave quite a paper trail. First, there would be the prescription itself, which would appear on the box the ointment container came in (the same box that lists betamethasone as an ingredient) or possibly the tube itself (which also lists the ointment's ingredients). The prescription would include a date, instructions for use, and the veterinarian's name. Then, administration of a prescription to a horse in California should trigger a daily treatment report to the California Horse Racing Board. Treatment of a Derby horse in Kentucky would also trigger a daily treatment report, given to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. The prescribing veterinarian would also have a record of dispensing the medication – probably more than once, as it comes in a small container intended for dogs – alongside a diagnosis and dates.

Unlike other types of records, veterinary records that are provided in the course of reporting to the state racing commissions do not become subject to public records requests. In general terms, veterinary records are owned by the owner or manager of the animal, not the veterinarian, clinic, or any third party. So Kentucky and California cannot release what records they have (or don't have) about this lengthy prescription treatment, but Baffert could. Likewise, he could authorize the release of his veterinarian's records. In fact, he was asked during Sunday's news conference whether he planned to release his records and his response was that he intended to release them to the Kentucky commission.

When this reporter asked whether there were treatment reports submitted to the CHRB for Otomax, Robertson responded with the following: “I do not know. As you can imagine I have had my hands full. What I do have are the vet records showing the treatment.”

When asked whether Baffert intended to provide evidence of the vet's prescription of Otomax, Robertson replied “We have those vet records and have provided them to Pimlico.”

While it's certainly understandable that Baffert doesn't want the general public, with its lack of veterinary knowledge, rifling through his horse's medical history, he's the one who started this.

When asked whether the prescribing veterinarian, who so far Baffert has declined to name, had a rationale for choosing Otomax as a treatment for skin disease over other treatments that don't contain betamethasone, Robertson said he didn't know.

A photo provided with Tuesday's statement showed an image of a dark bay horse's right hindquarter, dotted with areas of skin irritation characteristic of the dermatitis described by Baffert. What wasn't specified in the statement was the date the photo was taken; since it was provided as evidence of a condition the horse was treated for from around the April 3 Santa Anita Derby until the day before the May 1 Kentucky Derby, one may assume it was intended to show the condition as it appeared during that timeframe. However, metadata on the image indicates it was taken with an iPhone around 7 a.m. on May 11. If Baffert's veterinarian had been made available to the press and the public, it would be logical to ask why four weeks' worth of prescription treatment had apparently not resolved the issue, which was also visible in images and video of the horse taken at Pimlico Wednesday morning.

A follow-up question asking Robertson about the timing of the image was not answered.

As a reporter, I can appreciate any subject's attempts to be transparent – it's supposed to make my job easier. But true transparency, particularly from someone who hasn't always provided it, means more than just “trust me.”

The post Show Us The Paper, Bob: Records To Back Up Baffert’s Story Remain A Matter Of Trust appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Report: Why Regulators Test For Picograms Of Betamethasone

On Sunday morning, trainer Bob Baffert shocked the racing world with his announcement that Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit's post-race test had returned a positive result for 21 picograms of betamethasone. During his press conference, Baffert went on to say that Medina Spirit has never been administered betamethasone.

During the ensuing social media storm, questions have arisen about what exactly betamethasone is, the legitimacy of testing for substances in concentrations as low as a picogram (one trillionth of a gram), and how it got into the horse's system in the first place.

Dr. Mary Scollay, executive director of the Lexington, Ky.-based Racing Medication and Testing Consortium, answered some of those questions in a series with Horse Racing Nation.

Betamethasone is a corticosteriod used to reduce inflammation. It can be utilized in four ways: direct injection into a horse's joint, injection into the bloodstream, subcutaneous injection near soft tissues that may be inflamed, or via topical applications.

Betamethasone “is a medication that has legitimate applications in the care of race horses,” Scollay told HRN. “It's not a heinous substance. But it is a substance that we want to control in proximity to a race, largely to protect the safety and welfare, of course, because anti-inflammatories have the ability to mask inflammation, signs of inflammation, that can be warning signs either to the horse's connections or the horse itself that there is an injury present that could escalate into something far worse if pressured.”

Read more about corticosteroids in the Paulick Report archives here and here.

The recommended withdrawal period in Kentucky for a betamethasone joint injection is 14 days, so no closer than two weeks before a race. The allowable threshold for betamethasone in a post-race test used to be 10 picograms, but that was changed last fall. Now, no trace amount is allowed.

When used as a joint injection, a typical dose of betamethasone would be nine milligrams, Scollay said.

“But then that drug leaves the joint, enters the bloodstream and is distributed throughout the body,” she told HRN. “And remember that a racehorse has upwards of 50,000 mls (milliliters) of blood. So you're not talking about 21 picograms in that entire horse's body. You're talking about 21 picograms in one ml of blood. And there's 49,999 other mls of blood, not to mention all the other tissues, the muscles, the organs, the brain, the skin, all the other tissues of the body. That drug distributes throughout the entire body. So 21 picograms, you know, you can be a little overly reductive and say that's nothing. But when you can contemplate the total sum of medication that may be in the body at that time point? It's a different story.”

If 21 picograms (remember, 21 trillionths of a gram) were found in a single milliliter of blood, that means upwards of 1,050,000 picograms of betamethasone was circulating through the horse's bloodstream at the time of the test. (That translates to 1.05 micrograms, or 0.00105 milligrams.)

Again, that doesn't include the amount of the medication remaining in the horse's tissues.

All of the above leads to the following question: if Medina Spirit was never administered this medication, how did it get into his system?

Scollay doubts that intentional sabotage is a factor in this case for two reasons. First, horses are under 24-hour security beginning on Tuesday of Kentucky Derby week. Second, the choice of a therapeutic medication to sabotage a horse just doesn't make sense.

Read more at Horse Racing Nation here and here

The post Report: Why Regulators Test For Picograms Of Betamethasone appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post