Op/Ed | Horse Racing Free Tips

Op/Ed: In Extending Baffert Ban, Churchill Downs Has Gone Too Far

With the Churchill Downs spring meet, which was moved over to Ellis Park, winding down, it appeared that Bob Baffert would soon be able to put the worst of his problems behind him. Baffert was serving a two-year suspension from Churchill Downs that came in the aftermath of Medina Spirit (Protonico) testing positive for a substance banned on race day after crossing the wire first in the 2021 GI Kentucky Derby. The suspension forced Baffert to sit out the 2022 and 2023 runnings of the Derby, the race that is at the core of his operation. It was a huge price to pay. The end of the meet on Sunday was supposed to mark the end of his ban and give Baffert the green light to run at Churchill, the other tracks owned by the company, and in the 2024 Derby.

Instead, Churchill announced Monday that Baffert's ban had been extended through the calendar year 2024. The decision, Churchill said in a statement, was “based on continued concerns regarding the threat to the safety and integrity of racing (Baffert) poses to CDI-owned racetracks.”

It was a stunning announcement, and not just because it was unexpected. To extend the ban, based on what are best described as flimsy accusations, is overkill. Baffert served his time, his punishment was up and it was time for him to prepare for his return to the Kentucky Derby next year. Justice was not served here.

Baffert's problems began before the 2021 Derby. He had accrued a number of positives over a short period, including one with Gamine (Into Mischief) in the 2020 GI Kentucky Oaks. When Medina Spirit tested positive for betamethasone, Churchill Downs clearly had had enough.

“Failure to comply with the rules and medication protocols jeopardizes the safety of the horses and jockeys, the integrity of our sport and the reputation of the Kentucky Derby and all who participate. Churchill Downs will not tolerate it,” read a statement issued by the track at the time.

A two-year suspension followed. Baffert's problems only mounted. He received a 90-day suspension from the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission and New York Racing Association banned him for what turned out to be a year.

Baffert vowed to fight the charges “tooth and nail,” and that's what he did. He and his legal team based their defense on the supposition that the betamethasone got into Medina Spirit's system, not through an injection. but through an ointment used to treat a skin rash. That, they contended, meant that the positive should have been excused. That never seemed like a winning argument. The betamethasone was in the horse's system. That's all that mattered, and not how it got there. But Baffert kept fighting and contested every one of the suspensions as what seemed like a never-ending series of appeals worked their way through the legal system. As late as this year's GI Belmont S., Baffert was still out there stating his case. In an interview with Fox he said that if he had to do things over again regarding the Medina Spirit matter he wouldn't have done anything differently and that he didn't break any rules.

That apparently didn't go over well in the Churchill Downs corporate suites.

“Mr. Baffert continues to peddle a false narrative concerning the failed drug test of Medina Spirit at the 147th Kentucky Derby from which his horse was disqualified by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission in accordance with Kentucky law and regulations,” Monday's statement from Churchill read. “Prior to that race, Mr. Baffert signed an agreement with Churchill Downs which stated that he was responsible for understanding the rules of racing in Kentucky and that he would abide by them. The results of the tests clearly show that he did not comply, and his ongoing conduct reveals his continued disregard for the rules and regulations that ensure horse and jockey safety, as well as the integrity and fairness of the races conducted at our facilities. A trainer who is unwilling to accept responsibility for multiple drug test failures in our highest-profile races cannot be trusted to avoid future misconduct.”

There's no doubt that Baffert could have been handled the situation better and that a more prudent strategy would have been to shut up, take his lumps and wait patiently on the sidelines for his suspension to run its course. Had he done so, it's likely that Churchill Downs would have reinstated him Monday rather than extending the ban.

Whether Baffert “peddled a false narrative” or not, no one deserves to be penalized–and penalized severely–for exercising their right to defend themselves. And that's what Churchill has done to Baffert. Put in the same situation, most anyone would have done the same. By no means does anything he did constitute a case of “continued disregard for the rules and regulations that ensure horse and jockey safety…”

Another troubling aspect to this latest twist in the Baffert-Medina Spirit saga is that there's no telling what Churchill will do next. In its statement, Churchill gave no assurances that it will drop the ban at the end of 2024. Rather, it said that it will re-evaluate Baffert's status at the time. Do we know that they will ever welcome Baffert back at their tracks? We don't.

Baffert is far from perfect and he never deserved to get a free pass for what he did. He should have been far more careful, not only with Medina Spirit, but with all the horses he had that tested positive. Instead, and at the very least, he was sloppy and took his eye off the ball. How did he and his veterinarian not know that treating Medina Spirit with the ointment Otomax could result in a positive? All of this would have been an issue with any trainer in any race, but when it comes to the biggest name in racing and the sport's marquee race, you definitely have a problem.

So maybe Baffert deserved some of the penalties, especially the one handed down by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. But at some point, the crime and the punishment need to fit. We no longer need to debate whether or not Churchill Downs was justified in banning Baffert for two years. That ship has sailed. The relevant issue now is the extension of the ban and for what reason. Since the original suspension was announced, Baffert has done nothing wrong and has not violated any rules or had any more positives. He should be on his way back and that he's not suggests that Churchill Downs has a vendetta against him. It's not right.

The post Op/Ed: In Extending Baffert Ban, Churchill Downs Has Gone Too Far appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letters to the Editor: The St Leger

A selection of correspondence in response to Emma Berry's Op/Ed 'Long May The Leger Run':

I read your article about the St Leger in the TDN with interest and I agree totally that it would be a great loss to British racing to see the Leger distance changed. When I started training I had horses for Lord Weinstock and Dick Hollingsworth, who only bred middle-distance horses, and I really enjoyed being able to allow their horses the time to develop and mature; they also improved significantly from two to three, so if they showed any real ability at two they were going to be useful at three.

I remember, in the early days, having two two-year-olds for Dick Hollingsworth and not ringing him for ages, as I didn't know what to say. April came and I rang him one Sunday to say I was pleased with them and they were coming along nicely, to which he replied, “How on earth do you know? I hope you haven't done any work with them.”

He went on to say that there was no point ringing him before July, as his two-year-olds shouldn't be doing anything before then. Not many owners would say that to you these days!

I love the St. Leger, not only as a test of stamina but as a test of a horse's bravery–they have to be tough to win it. It produces horses that go on and mature, having longevity, which is great for the sport and audience participation.

Best wishes,

Neil Graham
(Trainer of the 1988 St Leger winner Minster Son, now director of racing at Chelmsford City Racecourse)

Shortening Classic races, doping, railing against HISA, the US (more than any other nation, in my opinion) clinging to the ridiculous notion that fillies/mares can't compete with colts/geldings simply based on their gender–so many things sadden me in regards to racing these days.

I don't want any races shortened. If anything, I'd like to see some lengthened. This is especially pertinent in the US where many 'Classic' filly and mare races are shorter even than their male counterparts. I'd love to see both the Kentucky Oaks and Breeders' Cup Distaff (just to name two) go back to being 1 1/4 races.

One of the brightest spots (again, in my opinion) is Japan. They keep showing the rest of the world what proper breeding and care can produce–and all drug free. They keep my faith and hope alive.

For me, the biggest light is the horse. Watching these beauties run (especially in the longer races) is what hooked me on the sport and keeps me coming back for more.

Jean B.

I read with interest your article of 8th March published in TDN.

This brought back memories because the question of the St Leger distance, and also if it should be open to older horses, was a much discussed question late 1970s and early 80s. In recent years I had just accepted the race as a NH stallion maker. Interestingly, I once read Tony Morris suggesting his love of thoroughbred breeding may not have developed if this had been the case in his earlier years.

I was always horrified by any thoughts of lowering the distance of the St Leger. However, I was never certain my argument was based on anything but being a traditionalist. Although Peter Willett's argument is sound from a British breeding perspective, the move from the perception I had had in the 1970s that Australian racing was stamina laden to the current sprint-dominated racing and breeding seems to have worked in extreme and ultimately to, what Australians would consider, the detriment of their more prestigious races.

The other point of interest in your article was why a picture of The Minstrel should be on the copy of a June 1980 copy of Pacemaker. The indexing of my literature clearly works better than I thought and note it was a Richard Stone Reeves painting. Incidentally, on the changing face of racing, note the advert for Moyglare Stud selling a draft of yearlings at Keeneland (and they also sold in Europe as I recall).

Kind Regards,

Neville Sibley

EB replies: Yes, indeed, The Minstrel portrait was in regard to the publication of 'Decade of Champions' by Richard Stone Reeves and Patrick Robinson, a really special book.

The post Letters to the Editor: The St Leger appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Op/Ed: Long May The Leger Run

While conducting a long overdue tidy-up of my office I came across a copy of the brilliant Pacemaker International magazine of June 1980. (For the avoidance of doubt, it had not been on my desk all that time.)

There were some throwbacks, such as an advert for Leslie Combs II's draft of yearlings from Spendthrift, and another for Rover cars (imagine that in a racing publication nowadays!), as well as items that served as a reminder that the more things change, the more they stay the same. To this effect, the first advertisement in the magazine was claimed by Coolmore and featured a large roster of stallions, while later in the publication the headline on the sales review exclaimed, 'Upward Trend Continues at Newmarket'. I think I may have used that one myself on more than one occasion.

There was one article, however, that stopped me in my tracks. Here was Peter Willett, bloodstock journalist of great repute and the man who, only a decade earlier, could be credited as being the architect of the Pattern, stating that the St Leger should be reduced in distance by four furlongs.

If this piece had been written by almost anyone else, the magazine would have been swiftly consigned to the bin in disgust despite its rather lovely cover image of The Minstrel. But, along with Arthur Budgett and Lord Oaksey, Peter Willett happens to be one of my all-time racing heroes. His words are always worth reading and, typically, such a potential bombshell of a topic was dealt with in his knowledgeable, analytical and reasoned manner.

Willett had been prompted to write on this controversial subject after studying data put forward by Professor Paddy Cunningham showing a deterioration in race times for the St Leger since the 1930s. Willett then conducted his own examination, comparing the decades 1920-29 and 1970-79, which showed that the average Derby time was 2.5 seconds faster in the '70s, but the average time for the St Leger was more than 3 seconds slower.

Willett wrote, “The Classic Races…form a series of races suited to the purpose of indicating the best three-year-olds over various distances, and they have provided the criteria of selection on which the evolution of the British Thoroughbred rested for nearly 150 years up to the middle of the 20th century. But, when one race in the series ceases to be an automatic target for the best horses, that race is no longer acceptable as a 'Classic Race', according to the definition.”

After suggesting a swingeing cut to 1m2f, he added, “This distance would complete a Classic series designed to assist in adapting the British Thoroughbred to a trend which, whether we like it or not, is firmly established in the final quarter of the 20th century. British breeding now accounts for only a tiny fraction of the world Thoroughbred population, and cannot exist out on a limb.”

Stirring stuff. We are now firmly established in the first quarter of the 21st century and, arguably, the sliding scale of horses being bred for a certain distance has moved even more significantly towards a great proportion of them now not even being able to stay a mile. But the St Leger is still run at one mile, six furlongs and 127 yards. Is tradition holding sway over sense?

I had only just celebrated my first birthday when Nijinsky won the Triple Crown. Since then, the only horse who has come close was Camelot in 2012, an heroic attempt that prompted a very early departure from Newmarket to Doncaster on Leger day to get a spot on the rail by the winning post in the hope of witnessing history in the making. Alas, it was not to be, but that hope remains.

Camelot is the only Derby winner this century to have run in the St Leger–a scenario that would have been unthinkable 100 years earlier– and perhaps if he hadn't won the 2,000 Guineas he would have followed a number of the others by being dropped back in trip for their next runs, for the Eclipse, or Juddmonte International, and swerved Doncaster altogether.

The list published on Tuesday of the 83 horses remaining in the reckoning for this year's Derby showed that 29 of them are in training with Aidan O'Brien. There are two ways of viewing this. On the one hand such domination of major stables, on the Flat and over jumps, dilutes some of the interest of racing's 'narrative', to use a loathed term. But on the other, here is an operation which, despite standing stallions across the range of distances and disciplines, still appears to have winning the Derby as its central aim. One could say, at its heart.

And amen to that, because we know that, if an O'Brien-trained and Coolmore-owned Guineas winner goes on to land the Derby then there is a very good chance that colt will be set on a path towards following one of Ballydoyle's greatest incumbents in attempting to achieve what is starting to seem more and more like the impossible. Perhaps though, these days, it is not so much mission impossible as mission undesirable, especially when considering the rarity of a St Leger or Gold Cup winner being given a spot at a major Flat stud. Stradivarius is a shining outlier in this regard.

There is, however, at least one glimmer of hope to be gleaned for those in favour of retaining the status quo when it comes to the St Leger, and that is when considering another of Willett's comments in the article.

Nijinsky, Lester Piggott, and Vincent O'Brien at Ascot | Getty Images

“The trend away from stamina is evident in important racing and breeding countries as diverse as the United States and Australia,” he wrote. “[…] It would be unrealistic to try to isolate the British Thoroughbred from this trend in an age when the racehorse has become a kind of international currency.”

To an extent the British (and Irish) Thoroughbred has not been isolated from this trend in the intervening years, but the continuing prestige of Europe's middle-distance races has meant that among owner-breeders at least they remain the key targets. And, as sales returns in recent years have shown, there is a growing number of American and Australian buyers flocking to Europe in pursuit of more stamina-laden blood, both in the form of proven horses in training and, increasingly, as young stock. The Thoroughbred is indeed an international currency.

This trend in itself presents an entirely different problem in raising the possibility of an eventual drain of key bloodlines in Europe, but it also suggests that in some ways our friends in those nations have gone too far in their pursuit of speed.

Another change since 1980 has been the emergence of Japan as a major force in world racing. The difference in Japanese breeding compared to other regions is that there has been no move away from producing horses along middle-distance and staying lines. In fact, Japanese breeders' adherence to these principles has seen their horses playing an increasingly dominant role at international meetings, which in turn has increased the general appreciation of stamina.

Let's not forget that Deep Impact ran to the top level over two miles, and if his son Auguste Rodin manages to clinch the 2,000 Guineas and Derby this season, you know exactly where you will find me on the afternoon of Saturday, Sept. 16.

In the matter of reducing the distance of the St Leger, I do not agree with Peter Willett, despite his very well argued piece which provides much food for thought. But I would be interested to hear the views of TDN readers if you feel agreeable or disagreeable enough to drop me a line on emmaberry@thoroughbreddailynews.com.

The post Op/Ed: Long May The Leger Run appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Op/Ed: Robert M. Beck, Jr.

During one of the most politically polarizing times in our country's history, Congress passed the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 (HISA) with bipartisan support. What did this rare display of unity say about the health of the Thoroughbred racing industry? To say it kindly: the industry needed help. HISA handed over the reins for regulating Thoroughbred safety and anti-doping and medication control matters to a private, self-regulatory organization named the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (Authority). Before HISA, Thoroughbred racing in the United States was regulated by a patchwork of individual state racing commissions with different, and often conflicting, rules. HISA represents a significant change for an industry used to parochial and inconsistent governance–and even more disorderly enforcement. Perhaps more important, HISA is the solution to stop horse racing from going the way of the circus and dog racing, as many commentators and animal rights activists have warned.

Sadly, some in the industry have chafed at Congress' mandate that Thoroughbred racing must be safe, clean, and fair. Since the passage of HISA, the Authority has been attacked on all sides through meritless lawsuits that willfully ignore more than 80 years of binding legal precedent. Nothing about HISA or the Authority's structure is unique, let alone legally questionable. HISA is modeled after a law called the Maloney Act of 1938, which designated what would later become the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to oversee financial regulation under the oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Like FINRA, the Authority is self-funded, independent, and overseen by a federal agency. In other words, the Maloney Act and HISA are constitutional for the same reasons: Congress is well within its power to delegate its regulatory authority to private entities so long as a government agency retains ultimate decision-making authority as to rules and enforcement; Private organizations such as the Authority and FINRA are not subject to constitutional restraints on appointments and removal of board members; and Private self-funding of such organizations does not unconstitutionally compel states to enforce federal law.

For those keeping score, the Authority is winning the battles against its detractors. Two Federal District Courts–one in Kentucky and another in Texas–have soundly rejected the constitutional challenges lodged against HISA and the Authority, and the reviewing appellate courts are expected to affirm these decisions. No court has found HISA unconstitutional. Having lost their challenges to the Authority's constitutionality, the Authority's opponents have resorted to nitpicking the Authority's implementation of its rules. Thus far, these attempts have also failed. In one case, filed in Louisiana Federal District Court, the plaintiffs argued that the Authority failed to satisfy certain technical requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Significantly, the Louisiana Federal District Court found zero constitutional violations, but it did initially agree with the plaintiffs that the Authority's definition of “covered horse” and its search and seizure rule expanded beyond the scope the statute ever so slightly. Practically speaking, this portion of the ruling has no impact, because the Authority has already revised one of the rules and the other rule is revised in the ADMC rules. The District Court also questioned the Authority's rule on funding and the length of the notice and comment period, though it recognized that any of the claimed deficiencies could be easily remedied by the Authority even if the Authority is ultimately unsuccessful on the merits. It was perhaps not surprising then that the Authority recently sought and received an emergency stay of enforcement of a Louisiana Federal District Court's order halting implementation of the Authority's rules in Louisiana and West Virginia. This stay makes clear that the Authority's safety rules will continue to be enforced nation-wide.

Unfortunately, during the interim, the Authority's enforcement of its rules in Louisiana and West Virginia was delayed. Racing in both states suffered. For example, one jockey in Louisiana whipped a horse 17 times in one race, 11 times more than the Authority's strike limit. Under the Authority's rules, such behavior is prohibited and would have been swiftly and uniformly punished. But horses are not the only ones suffering as a result of these meritless lawsuits. A fourth federal lawsuit challenging the Authority and HISA was filed in Texas at the end of July. It recycles many of the failed legal claims. Like the cases that came before it (and those that will come after it), the new lawsuit merely serves as a distraction and a waste of industry resources. Ironically, under HISA, horsemen and racetracks will be the ones who bear the brunt of these additional legal costs. It is clear that litigation against the Authority will continue to burden the industry and threaten the safety and integrity of our equine and human athletes. The Authority is doing this good work despite the distractions of the ongoing litigation, and it continues to win the courtroom battles. Sadly, the Authority's legal costs to defend these lawsuits will only increase the costs to all racing participants, horsemen included.

Beck is an equine lawyer and member of Stites & Harbison, PLLC in Lexington, Kentucky. He previously served 7 1/2 years as the Chairman of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission.

The post Op/Ed: Robert M. Beck, Jr. appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post