Baffert: Kentucky Horse Racing Commission Has Hearing Scheduled In Medina Spirit Case For Feb. 7

Hall of Fame trainer Bob Baffert confirmed in a Jan. 27 hearing proceeding that the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission has scheduled a hearing for Feb. 7 in the case of a positive drug test from Medina Spirit after last year's Kentucky Derby.

The Jan. 27 hearing was part of the ongoing proceeding held by the New York Racing Association before a hearing officer to determine whether NYRA can suspend the trainer on a private property basis.

Baffert did not specify whether the Feb. 7 date was a stewards' hearing or a hearing before the full commission. Stewards' hearings in Kentucky are not open to the public.

Eight days after the Kentucky Derby, Baffert held a press conference to announce that he had been informed Medina Spirit had tested positive for the corticosteroid betamethasone. A split sample test later confirmed the presence of the drug. For many months afterwards, Baffert's legal team worked with drug testing experts to do further examinations of the remainder of the split sample to establish whether the betamethasone came from an injected treatment or a topical administration of Otomax. Attorneys have recently indicated that testing has provided results consistent with exposure to Otomax.

The post Baffert: Kentucky Horse Racing Commission Has Hearing Scheduled In Medina Spirit Case For Feb. 7 appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

‘Social Licensing’ The Day Two Focal Point of Baffert/NYRA Hearing

The concept of perception versus reality has been a core plank on both sides of the highly publicized “detrimental conduct” case ever since the New York Racing Association (NYRA) first tried to banish trainer Bob Baffert eight months ago. On Tuesday, the second day of a hearing process that could lead to Baffert's exclusion from New York's premier tracks, the murky interpretation of who should be considered the true victim and which entity is in need of protection from harm rose to the forefront in the form of arguments over “social licensing” that at times played out in tense and pointed fashion.

Although Baffert is the most easily identifiable Thoroughbred trainer in North America, the key witness who testified Jan. 25 was not at all a recognizable name within the sport. Some 7 1/2 hours of testimony and cross-examination from four witnesses were anchored by about 90 minutes of debate regarding the opinions and PhD expertise of Dr. Camie Heleski, a University of Kentucky equine sciences professor who specializes in what the general public thinks of as horse racing.

“If somebody carries a lot of weight, if they have a strong visual branding in a certain piece of the industry, that's going to be noticed by a larger group of the public, a larger group of, let's say, horse racing fans than if it was not such a memorable person,” Heleski testified. She later added that, “Anybody that's paying attention to racing is going to know who Bob Baffert is.”

Heleski explained that in general, the public tends to regard any highly publicized news about pharmaceuticals in horse racing as something that could be damaging to the sport's social licensing, which is a way of terming general acceptance.

“Most of the time, they're simply feeling if there was a drug or a medication violation noted, they feel like it's bad. They kind of put it all under the umbrella of doping,” Heleski said.

And when Kelly McNamee, a lawyer representing NYRA, asked her to tie in the public's collective thought process and how it relates to Baffert's history of equine drug positives, his trainee Medina Spirit's betamethasone overage when winning the 2021 GI Kentucky Derby, and the “over 70 horses that have died under the care of Mr. Baffert,” Heleski didn't hesitate to answer that all of those things combined could adversely affect racing's social license to operate.

“I think drug and medication [positives] from a very prominent person carry more weight than people that are not followed as closely…” Heleski said. “[And] if a trainer has a large number of deaths in their stables, that's going to be looked on poorly.”

But under stern cross-examination from Baffert's lead lawyer, W. Craig Robertson III, the University of Kentucky professor at times seemed overwhelmed when challenged to explain how it could be Baffert's fault that the general public doesn't understand the difference between therapeutic medications and doping.

Robertson also hammered home points about Baffert's history of awards for sportsmanship and good deeds within the industry, plus his well-documented contributions to aftercare. He wanted Heleski to explain how, if Baffert is such an allegedly detrimental presence who could hurt NYRA, why didn't any activists protest his presence at Saratoga last summer, and why did the track enjoy record betting handles at that meet despite Baffert trainees being in the entries?

Robertson also attempted to dismantle Heleski's “amorphous” concept of social licensing, which, she admitted, has nothing to do with an actual “license” that a person or entity could apply for based on regulated standards, like a racing license.

But assuming such a concept exists, Robertson asked Heleski if it wasn't also part of NYRA's obligation to treat all trainers fairly as part of that social license to operate.

“They should treat trainers fairly, yes,” Heleski agreed.

And if NYRA singled out one trainer–like Baffert–for allegedly unfair punishment, Robertson wanted her opinion on whether “the public might not like that, either. That could hurt a social license to operate, couldn't it?” Robertson queried.

NYRA's legal team objected to that line of questioning, and hearing officer O. Peter Sherwood wouldn't allow Heleski to answer the question.

Baffert himself was not called upon to speak during the day-long proceedings in New York City. On the Zoom webcast made available by NYRA to the media, the Hall-of-Fame trainer could occasionally be glimpsed sitting alongside his lawyers in a conference room, dressed in a dark sport coat and open-collared white shirt.

Although his facial expressions were hidden behind a mask for pandemic precautions, Baffert's posture suggested tedium more than anxiety. He generally kept his hands folded in front of him, sometimes absently working his thumbs together repetitively while occasionally reaching up to flick his thick, silver-white hair off his forehead. For the most part, he looked more like a gent waiting for a bus than a seven-time Derby-winning trainer waiting to find out if he'd be exiled from one of America's most prominent racing circuits.

In previous legal pleadings that failed to keep Baffert's hearing from happening at all, his attorneys have described these proceedings as a “fait accompli.” Yet despite the fact that NYRA came up with the newly invented process for holding the hearings, the list of charges against Baffert, and was responsible for selecting the hearing officer who will decide Baffert's fate, a federal judge ruled last week that NYRA has a right to move ahead in that manner.

NYRA had outright banished Baffert May 17, 2021, in the wake of Medina Spirit's still-not-adjudicated Derby drug positive, noting that four other Baffert trainees had tested positive for medication overages in roughly the year before that. On July 14, a federal judge granted Baffert a preliminary injunction that allowed him to race at Saratoga, Belmont and Aqueduct. That injunction has since been made permanent, but with the legal stipulation that NYRA must afford Baffert a hearing process before deciding whether to kick him out or not.

NYRA is charging that Baffert's alleged conduct is or has been “detrimental” to three entities: 1) The best interests of racing; 2) The health and safety of horses and jockeys; 3) NYRA business operations.

Dr. Pierre-Louis Toutain, a France-based veterinarian considered an expert in pharmacology and toxicology, testified earlier Tuesday for 1 3/4 hours.

Some of Toutain's testimony tended to drag, in part because he was asked to offer definitions of and uses for phenylbutazone, lidocaine and betamethasone, three of the substances that NYRA purports are related to Baffert's alleged wrongdoing. Toutain also good-naturedly apologized a number of times for English not being his first language as he testified remotely while on a six-hour European time difference.

Toutain provided one of the lighter moments of the day when he politely interrupted a drug question from one of Baffert's attorneys, Clark Brewster, to ask, “Are you a scientist or a lawyer?”

When Brewster replied that he was a lawyer, that cued Toutain to know he shouldn't give too technical an answer,

“Ah, so I have to explain simply–okay!”

General laughter broke some of the inherent tension.

But there was no hint of humor from anyone in the room when a NYRA attorney, Hank Greenberg, asked Toutain if the presence of 21 picograms of betamethasone in Medina Spirit's post-Derby blood would have had the capacity to affect his performance.

“Yes, definitively,” Toutain replied.

But Toutain had been talking strictly about an intra-articular injection of betamethasone, which he said was the prevailing way that drug is administered to horses. So when it was Brewster's turn to cross-examine Toutain, he made sure to ask about betamethasone contained within a topical salve or ointment for a skin rash, which is how Baffert has alleged that the betamethasone found its way into Medina Spirit.

“Topical? I am not sure they use it [that way],” Toutain answered.

Toutain then seemed to be confused about whether Brewster was asking if betamethasone was sometimes administered via patch, like lidocaine (which the attorney was not asking).

Brewster then quickly ended his cross-examination of Toutain.

The post ‘Social Licensing’ The Day Two Focal Point of Baffert/NYRA Hearing appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Sides Coming Out Swinging in Baffert-NYRA Hearing

Attorneys in the hearing pitting NYRA vs. Bob Baffert made their opening statements Monday in what turned into a sparring session, with one side claiming NYRA Board members had a vendetta against Baffert and the other contending that the Hall of Fame trainer was responsible for a “rampage of doping violations” and is deserving of a temporary suspension.

The hearing, expected to last from three to five days, will determine whether or not NYRA's attempts to suspend Baffert over a rash of medication positives, including one in the 2021 GI Kentucky Derby, should be allowed. The hearing is being held before O. Peter Sherwood, a retired New York Supreme Court Justice. Baffert was present at the hearing.

Representing NYRA, attorney Hank Greenberg spoke first and zeroed in on the six medication violations Baffert accrued from July 27, 2019 through May 1, 2021, the date of last year's Derby, arguing that so many violations in such a short period of time was unprecedented.

“In the modern history of Thoroughbred racing, we can't find anyone who can recall anything like this by a prominent trainer,” Greenberg said.

Greenberg said that Baffert “took a wrecking ball over a two-year period to the integrity of the sport that was so good to him.”

He paid particular attention to Baffert's violations in the Derby, the GI Kentucky Oaks and the GI Arkansas Derby.

“In 2021 and 2020, the only Triple Crown he is responsible for is destroying three Grade I races,” Greenberg said.

After Baffert revealed that he had been informed by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission that Medina Spirit (Protonico) had tested positive for betamethasone, the trainer conducted several interviews, and Greenberg said he never once took responsibility while chalking his problems up to a matter of “cancel culture.”

“He gets on the Dan Patrick Show, he's on SportsCenter, he's on Fox and his attacks on everyone continue,” Greenberg said. “He says he doesn't believe in conspiracy theories and then he begins to float one. The damage that was done to Thoroughbred racing on these two days was incalculable.”

Greenberg's assertion that Baffert's actions were damaging, not just to NYRA, but to the sport of racing was a recurring theme during his opening argument. He said that NYRA has an obligation to act and to protect the sport and that was among the reasons it was taking action against Baffert. To do otherwise, he suggested, could mean that horse racing could go the same way as dog racing.

“What happens if those institutions do not give their best effort or do everything in their power to protect the safety of the animals, in this case horses?” he said. “What happens is what happened to greyhound racing, which you no longer see. It's what happened to the circus, where there were lion tamers. They don't exist anymore.”

Greenberg said that a lengthy suspension was in order so that, “NYRA can protect racing, protect the horse, protect the jockeys and protect itself.”

Representing Baffert, attorney Craig Robertson argued that Baffert's violations were not of a serious nature and that using terms like “doping” when it comes to Baffert were inaccurate and unfair.

“I suspect that you are going to hear a lot of inflammatory words from NYRA,” Robertson said. “You're going to hear the words 'doping' and 'illegal substances' and 'performance-enhancing.' Nothing could be further from the truth. Everything you're going to hear, all of the matters that Mr. Greenberg is going to discuss, involve lawful, allowable therapeutic medications that are used every day. Doping refers to the use of illegal substances such as anabolic steroids to gain a competitive advantage. There will be no evidence of any of that in this case.”

Regarding his argument that none of Baffert's violations were of a serious nature, Robertson questioned why NYRA would seek to ban the trainer. He suggested that certain influential members of the NYRA Board of Directors were out to get his client.

“Why are we here? The short answer is we shouldn't be here,” he said. “The long answer is the only reason we are here is that there are a handful of NYRA board members that can answer that question. They have some personal vendetta against Mr. Baffert. Do they not like him? Or perhaps since they own horses that race in New York, they are tired of Mr. Baffert coming to New York and beating them in New York races and they want to eliminate a competitor. Only they can answer that question. Despite the fact they want to ruin this Hall of Famer's career, we asked them to come here to appear, to testify, to tell us why they are doing this to Mr. Baffert. They refused to show up. It's a sad day in horse racing and a sad day when they are trying to punish this good man.”

Calling Baffert, “one of the most accomplished and respected individuals in all of racing,” Robertson asked Sherwood to decide “enough is enough” and prohibit NYRA from suspending the trainer.

The hearing began with the two sides arguing over what could and could not be admitted as evidence, including the Saturday Night Live lampoon of the trainer.

NYRA called its first witness, Rick Goodell, a lawyer who was formerly with the New York Gaming Commission. Goodell was largely asked to explain some of the more technical matters involved in the case, like what is lidocaine.

The post Sides Coming Out Swinging in Baffert-NYRA Hearing appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Judge Dismisses Baffert’s Lawsuit Against NYRA

A federal judge on Friday dismissed Bob Baffert's lawsuit against the New York Racing Association (NYRA) that had alleged the Hall of Fame trainer was injured by NYRA's initial attempt to bar him back in May and again in September when it summoned him to a hearing to adjudicate his “detrimental” conduct related to repeated equine drug positives.

Chief among the reasons that United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) Carol Bagley Amon dismissed the amended complaint were that some of Baffert's claims were not yet “ripe” for a federal court to rule upon them because Baffert has yet to have the NYRA exclusionary hearing that is scheduled to begin Monday, Jan. 24.

Amon also wrote that Baffert could not substantiate his claim that NYRA's actions against him amounted to wrongful interference with his business relationships–such as owners who might have moved horses out of his care–because NYRA's actions were directed at Baffert, and not his clients.

“Baffert fails to explain how a state actor's truthful claims reporting a suspension are criminal or independently tortious,” Amon wrote. “Even though the underlying suspension was allegedly unlawfully undertaken, NYRA's statements about that suspension were entirely accurate and do not constitute a crime or tort.”

Asked via email to comment on the Jan. 21 court order on his client's behalf, Baffert's attorney, W. Craig Robertson III, wrote the following:

“The primary purpose of the federal court action was to obtain an injunction prohibiting NYRA [from] suspending Mr. Baffert without due process of law. We were successful in that regard and Judge Amon issued such an injunction [back in July that preliminarily lifted his suspension]–which she has now made permanent.

“As it pertains to our claims related to the renewed efforts by NYRA to suspend Mr. Baffert, Judge Amon has instructed us that we need to go through that [Jan. 24 hearing] process to see if NYRA actually affords the due process it is legally obligated to provide.”

“While we are skeptical NYRA will do as required given its past conduct, we will go through the hearing as instructed by the Judge. Should NYRA not act fairly and in accordance with the law, we will have the right–and we will be prepared–to once again return to Court to seek justice,” Robertson concluded.

Patrick McKenna, NYRA's vice president of communications, countered with the following emailed statement:

“NYRA is gratified by Judge Amon's decision to dismiss Mr. Baffert's lawsuit in its entirety. As we have said throughout this process, NYRA's focus in this matter is protecting the integrity of the sport of Thoroughbred racing in New York. In furtherance of that goal, the NYRA administrative hearing will begin on Monday morning.”

NYRA had banished the seven-time GI Kentucky Derby-winning trainer 16 days after now-deceased Medina Spirit tested positive for an overage of betamethasone while winning the May 1, 2021, Derby. In the 12 months prior to Medina Spirit's positive, four other Baffert trainees also tested positive for medication overages, two of them in Grade I stakes.

On July 14, the court granted Baffert a preliminary injunction that allowed him to race at New York's premier tracks until his lawsuit got adjudicated in full.

In the wake of that decision, NYRA drafted a new set of procedures for holding hearings and issuing determinations designed to suspend licensees who engage in injurious conduct. On Sept. 10, NYRA then summoned Baffert to appear at an exclusion hearing now scheduled for Jan. 24.

Baffert first filed a motion asking the judge to hold NYRA in civil contempt for trying to schedule such a hearing and to stay the hearing itself. When those requests were denied, he amended his original complaint to try and keep the hearing process from moving forward.

That amended complaint was the subject of Amon's order on Friday.

By changing the injunction over Baffert's initial May suspension from “preliminary” to “permanent,” Amon wrote that the civil rights aspect of Baffert's initial complaint is now “fully resolved.”

That left five counts in the amended complaint to be adjudicated. Amon sided with NYRA by dismissing all of them.

NYRA had argued that one of the counts should have been dismissed related to a legal term called the “Younger abstention,” which is a doctrine that mandates federal courts must not hear cases involving federal issues already being decided at the state level.

“Younger abstention is appropriate here,” Amon wrote, noting that NYRA's upcoming administrative proceeding qualifies as a “civil enforcement” proceeding.”

“A Younger-eligible civil enforcement proceeding can be a proceeding or hearing in front of an agency or committee tribunal; it does not need to take place in state court…” Amon wrote.

“NYRA's administrative proceedings resemble criminal prosecutions in the important respects identified in [a precedent],” Amon wrote. “First, the purpose of the proceeding is to determine if Baffert should be sanctioned for alleged wrongdoing…”

“Second, NYRA initiated the proceedings as a state actor. Baffert argues that NYRA cannot call itself a state adjudicative body because it has previously argued that it is not a state actor. Notably, Baffert does not argue that NYRA is not a state actor, since any such argument would be fatal to his [civil rights] claim…”

“Third, NYRA's proceeding was preceded by an investigation that culminated in the filing of formal charges,” Amon wrote. “Baffert does not dispute that the Statement of Charges qualifies as formal charges. Instead, he argues that NYRA failed to conduct a satisfactory, independent investigation before bringing those charges. That argument is not persuasive.”

As for the “ripeness” issue, Amon wrote: “Courts considering prudential ripeness ask first 'whether an issue is fit for judicial decision' and second 'whether and to what extent the parties will endure hardship if decision is withheld.'

“Baffert alleges that proceeding with the hearing violates his due process rights. And as in [a precedent] it is not yet clear that the hearing will deprive Baffert of any property interest. Although Baffert argues that NYRA has targeted Baffert for disparate treatment and that the hearing presents a 'fait accompli' of suspension, the September 10th Letter does not suspend Baffert. Whether NYRA is a biased agency and whether suspension is a 'fait accompli' will certainly be clearer after the hearing has run its course and NYRA has decided whether to suspend Baffert.

Amon also wrote that Baffert did not successfully argue that dismissing his case would cause him significant harm.

“If having to participate in an ongoing administrative hearing counted as per se hardship, courts would routinely find claims ripe while administrative hearings are ongoing,” Amon wrote.

Baffert had argued that even the specter that he might be suspended from racing in New York had caused his business “significant injury.”

But Amon wrote that his amended complaint “does not include allegations that the [letter summoning him to a hearing] has injured his business.”

Amon added that, “Baffert alleges that one client [WinStar Farm] moved its horses because of the May suspension, and that other owners 'have indicated that they may have to move their horses away from Baffert if he cannot race in New York.'

“These allegations do not indicate that Baffert will suffer any business injury from the ongoing hearing now that his original suspension has been lifted. And Baffert has provided no

other evidence indicating an injury accruing from the specter of suspension,” Amon wrote.

Amon wrote that courts can't be expected to be constantly reviewing whether or not the “cloud of official investigation” harms someone's business, because reviewing every such claim of harm would disrupt the administrative process and add to “already overcrowded court dockets.”

The post Judge Dismisses Baffert’s Lawsuit Against NYRA appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights