Familiar Arguments at Hearing for Baffert’s Stay of Suspension

The hearing on the motion for a stay to be granted for Bob Baffert's 90-day suspension by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (KHRC) was held on Thursday, Mar. 16 in the Franklin County (Ky) Circuit Court, with both sides repeating what are now familiar arguments about the initial ruling.

Thursday's court hearing was held after the original hearing scheduled on Mar. 2 was postponed when it became apparent that the KHRC would be holding a special meeting two days later to consider and rule on Baffert's request for a stay. This meeting was held on the appointed day and the KHRC voted 10-0 to deny stays of penalties while Baffert and owner Amr Zedan appeal the drug positive rulings related to the disqualification of Medina Spirit in the 2021 GI Kentucky Derby. These penalties include a 90-day suspension and $7,500 fine for Baffert while Zedan was ordered to forfeit Medina Spirit's purse winnings.

After the KHRC board denied Baffert's appeal for a stay on Mar. 4, the matter was taken to the circuit court before judge Thomas Wingate, who did not give an indication of his final decision after Thursday's hearing but said a ruling would be determined by Monday, Mar. 21.

Baffert attorney Craig Robertson was the trainer's sole representative present in court on Thursday while fellow Baffert attorney Clark Brewster appeared later in the hearing over Zoom.

As Robertson began his opening statement, Wingate asked for clarification on the matter of the penalties that came out of Arkansas in May of 2020 when Gamine (Into Mischief) and Charlatan (Speightstown) tested positive for lidocaine. Both horses were initially disqualified and Baffert was handed a fine and a 15-day suspension, but the disqualifications and suspension were later overturned.

“What the facts showed were numerous issues with the original findings of the stewards,” Robertson explained, citing how one sample that supposedly came from Charlatan was incorrectly labeled as a sample from a gelding. “In the end, they set aside the stewards' ruling with no disqualification.”

In Robertson's opening statement, he discussed how the KHRC was attempting to paint Baffert as having a problematic drug violation history, but said that Baffert's violation record stacks up to virtually every trainer in America.

“Their narrative is false,” he said. “By any objective measure, Mr. Baffert has been a tremendous ambassador for horse racing.”

He continued in pointing out the significance of a 90 day suspension because the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) has confirmed that they too will honor the suspension set forth by the KHRC. Trainers suspended 60 days or more are banned from all CHRB premises and must forfeit their stalls.

“It would essentially end his Hall of Fame career,” Robertson said. “It's preposterous that we would end a Hall of Fame career over a topical ointment. What's even more preposterous is that we end his career before he can appear in court.”

The KHRC is scheduled for a full hearing regarding Baffert's appeal on April 18th. Up to four days of proceedings are scheduled if needed.

“I'm not asking for you to rule today that Mr. Baffert wins on the merits of this case. That day will come. What I'm asking is that he not be forced to serve his penalty now until his case is heard. If he's forced to serve his penalty now, he can't get those days back if he subsequently wins the appeal. It's not uncommon for stewards' rulings to get reversed by the KHRC itself or by this court,” Robertson said, citing the 2015 Graham Motion case where Motion appealed a suspension and fine handed down by the KHRC. Both were later thrown out by Wingate.

Robertson's arguments placed heavy emphasis on differentiating betamethasone valerate–found in the topical ointment Otomax–and the intra-articular injection of betamethasone acetate. Test results obtained from the New York Equine Drug Testing and Research Laboratory confirmed the finding of betamethasone valerate in Medina Spirit's system.

Robertson noted that while KHRC regulations state that a 14-day stand-down period is required for the intra-articular administration of the corticosteroid as betamethasone acetate, he said that no such violation took place because there was no intra-articular injection of betamethasone as a corticosteroid. In addition, he said that KHRC regulations state that the presence of a detectable concentration of more than one corticosteroid will constitute a violation.

“They only prohibit injections of betamethasone acetate,” he said. “There is no prohibition or regulation of the topical ointment betamethasone valerate and no limit of detection standard unless there is more than one corticosteroid. The KHRC could have specified limit of detection for one corticosteroid or they could have specified for betamethasone topically. They didn't. They are asking for you to read things into the rules that simply don't exist.”

Jennifer Wolsing, the general counsel for the KHRC, began her statement by saying, “There has been a lot of talk about the unprecedented nature of the KHRC's action to deny the stay. It is our position and I would like to submit that Mr. Baffert's conduct is also unprecedented and justifies the stay denial that we have before us today.”

Wolsing went on to explain how Baffert's accrued penalties are “literally off the charts,” how the suspension is justifiable because he presents an elevated risk of re-offense and also how the suspension serves to protect racing participants, the horses, integrity in racing and the public's confidence in racing.

In response to Robertson's comments about the overturned rulings in Arkansas, Wolsing pointed out that Baffert still received fines for the positives from Charlatan and Gamine because the commission found that Baffert was “the absolute insurer of the condition of the horse.” Because Baffert was still fined for both horses, the KHRC considers these occurrence as two separate violations.

Judge Wingate asked Wolsing about the difference in the administration of betamethasone topically and intra-articularly.

“[Regulations] explicitly state, 'Except as expressly permitted in [in 810 KAR Chapter 9], while participating in a race, it is a violation if a horse carries in its body any medication that is foreign to the horse.'”

She went on to state that betamethasone is not expressly permitted, referencing the KHRC's Drug Classification Schedule where betamethasone is listed as a Class C medication. She explained that because the KHRC did not make a distinction as to the form of betamethasone, it therefore indicates that any form of betamethasone is considered a Class C violation. She also notes that a warning is listed on the withdrawal guidelines that states medication administered outside of the guidelines may lead to a positive test result.

“The source of betamethasone is pharmacologically irrelevant to its impact on the horse,” she said. “When betamethasone valerate is absorbed, valerate is cleaved off and you have pure betamethasone in a horse's system.”

When Wingate asked Wolsing about Robertson's earlier point about the KHRC attempting to put Baffert out of business, Wolsing responded by saying that it was not her understanding that the 90-day suspension would put Baffert out of business. She explained that he could transfer his horses to another trainer for that period and said that the trainer could apply for the same stall space and Baffert's employees would not necessarily need to be laid off.

Wolsing concluded, “At the end of the day, we have to look at who is more likely to prevail. Our regulations are very clear. Betamethasone, in whatever form, is completely prohibited on race day…We have unprecedented behavior and it is totally allowable for the KHRC to deny a stay. If it's allowable, this presents the appropriate case to deny a stay.”

Robertson did rebuttal several points from Wolsing's statement.

Addressing her statements regarding the medication specifically, he said that she is relying on a “catch-all” term that betamethasone is a foreign substance, but in looking at the regulations for betamethasone, regulations are clear about the intra-articular injection of betamethasone acetate but nothing is said about topical administration.

“There's nothing in there that says betamethasone valerate is prohibited,” he said. “They could have stated that, but they didn't. They can't go around punishing this man-and putting him out of business and ending his Hall of Fame career– for something they didn't put in their regulations.”

Addressing the fact that Baffert did pay fines for the positives of Charlatan and Gamine at Oaklawn Park, Robertson said that the stewards did not overrule the fines because of political pressure and that while Baffert could have appealed the fines and won, he did not because he considered the overturned disqualification and suspension a victory.

In regards to Wolsing's points about Baffert transferring his horses to another trainer if he is forced to serve the suspension, Robertson pointed out that such a transfer would have to be agreed upon by the other trainer and the horses' owners, and the other trainer would also have to agree to take on Baffert's employees.

“It's not nearly as simple as Ms. Wolsing tried to paint it,” he noted.

KHRC executive director Marc Guilfoil was called to witness to talk about denying Baffert's request to a stay.

When Wolsing asked about his decision, he responded that he put a lot of thought into it and cited the KHRC's mission statement of maintaining integrity and honesty in horse racing. He said that he reflected on Baffert's announcement in November of 2020 where he made several statements including that he would hire Dr. Michael Hore of Hagyard Equine Medical Institute to “add an additional layer of protection to ensure the well-being of horses in my care and rule compliance.” Guilfoil said that to his knowledge, Baffert failed to fulfill the promises made in the public statement.

“Trainer 101 is to look at a medication you're giving and see if there are any prohibited substances,” Guilfoil said, then referencing how Baffert's four medical violations within a one-year time frame averaged to one per 88 starts.

When Wolsing asked Guilfoil how Baffert's case compares to others he has worked on in the past, Guilfoil said, “The word unprecedented has been thrown around quite a bit and I do agree that it is unprecedented, and the two [violations] in Kentucky were two premiere races in the state of Kentucky.”

When Robertson had the opportunity to question Guilfoil, he asked Guilfoil if the executive director could conclude, without question, that he knew Baffert had not attempted to fulfill the promises made in the public statement, to which Guilfoil ultimately said he could not.

Attorney Clark Brewster, who represents both Zedan Racing Stable and Baffert, also gave a statement via Zoom. He too emphasized the distinction of betamethasone administered as a topical or an intra-articular injection and pointed out that prior to Medina Spirit's drug positive, Baffert had only had one medication positive in 29 years of racing in Kentucky. He ended by stating that he was confident that Baffert would ultimately be exonerated.

In order for Wingate to grant Baffert a stay, the judge must conclude that Baffert's stable would suffer irreparable harm without a stay and must also determine that the trainer's appeal could reasonably lead to an overturned ruling at the April 18th hearing.

The post Familiar Arguments at Hearing for Baffert’s Stay of Suspension appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

No Penalties in Breeders’ Cup Scratch Fiasco

A four-month investigation into the dysfunction at Del Mar Thoroughbred Club that led to the winner of last year's GI Breeders' Cup Juvenile Turf having to race for purse money only will not result in any complaints being filed against anyone in the chain of command now that “inconsistent radio communication” has been identified as a key contributing factor.

“Various witnesses indicated that they made calls over the radio that were not heard or received by the intended recipients,” stated a California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) summary report issued Thursday that cited findings from supervising investigator Michael Barker. “At some points witnesses resorted to cell phone communication to ensure their messages were relayed.”

The stylish win by Modern Games (Ire) (Dubawi {Ire}) in the Juvenile Turf was overshadowed by the 12-minute fiasco at the starting gate that preceded the running of the race. Modern Games had to compete for purse money only because of a series of miscommunications that involved the Del Mar stewards, the veterinary team at the gate, and the track's mutuels and tote departments.

It was a disconcerting optic to witness on-track patrons letting loose a chorus of boos as Modern Games crossed the finish wire first. But it was apparent that no one at Del Mar that day was deriding the horse, but rather the bewildering series of blunders that led to the colt being removed from the wagering pools, reinstated in the betting, and then finally being deemed good to start while running as a non-betting entity.

The error was costly in terms of lost betting handle, customer ill will, needless confusion, and the erosion of confidence in the officials responsible for overseeing and regulating the Breeders' Cup races at Del Mar.

Yet the CHRB report did not directly address any of those broader issues in its three-page summary of the report.

Here's how the CHRB described what transpired in the Mar. 3 report summary (the timeline does not differ substantially from how the CHRB explained it back on Nov. 6, 2021):

“Albahr (GB) (Dubawi {Ire}) was in the number two stall. Albahr reared up over the starting gate, then fell back on to his side, with his legs caught under the number three stall. During this time, the horse in the number one stall, Modern Games, went through the front gate after the gate was opened by starting gate personnel and was uninjured. The veterinarians on scene initially believed that Modern Games had forced his way through the starting gate, and they made the decision to scratch him.

“When informed by gate personnel that Modern Games did not force the gate doors open, the veterinarians inspected him and advised the stewards that Modern Games was fit to run.

“Concurrently, the stewards were advised of the scratch of both Albahr and Modern Games by the veterinarians. The stewards called the scratch into the tote room and both Modern Games and Albahr were removed from wagering. The stewards were then informed that Modern Games was not injured and was fit to race. The stewards called the tote room to inform them what was occurring and requested that the tote room hold off on the scratch of Modern Games, who has already been removed from the wagering pools.

“Modern Games was then placed back into the pari-mutuel pool. Subsequently, the stewards determined that pursuant to CHRB Rule 1974, Modern Games would be required to run for purse money only. The tote room was then informed of the decision and Modern Games was again removed from the pari-mutuel pool.”

The investigation noted that “the regulatory veterinarians' hurried recommendation to scratch Modern Games could potentially have been avoided if a protocol requiring one person on the veterinary staff and one person in the pari-mutuel department be in charge of scratches had been in place.”

The CHRB report stated that the board “considered the merit of applying CHRB Rule 1697 to the recommended scratch by the regulatory veterinarians.”

That rule reads in its entirety, “After entering the racecourse track for the post, a horse shall only be declared by the stewards when they consider such horse unfit to run in the race. No horse determined to be a starter shall be excused or declared from the race. Any horse which breaks through the gate or runs off without effective control shall be examined by the racing veterinarian and determined to befit to compete before being permitted to start.

But, the report noted, the CHRB didn't apply that rule because: “1) The difficulty of proving a violation given that a condition precedent to a violation of this rule is that a horse actually broke through the gate; and (2) more importantly, animal welfare is of paramount importance in the CHRB's application of rules and creation of protocols.”

So instead of penalties or sanctions, the CHRB report came up with the following recommendations:

1) There is one designated Racing Veterinarian and he or she is the only person who can recommend a scratch to the Stewards and the only person who can communicate a scratch to the Stewards.

2) The tote company and the pari-mutuel department must each designate one person who can effectuate a scratch or purse money only designation by the Stewards. Both must agree before either action can take place.

3) A horse cannot be placed back into the mutuel pools after it has been scratched without approval of all three Stewards.

4) A Pari-mutuel Committee meeting should be held to consider changes to pari-mutuel regulations. Issues that may be considered include but are not limited to: (a) advisability of a purse-money-only designation and (b) requiring ADW companies to follow the example of brick-and-mortar wagering facilities in California by providing bettors with the opportunity to name alternate selections for scratched horses in Pick “n” wagers involving four or more races.

5) Associations, particularly on days when there are large crowds and competing bandwidth, must provide an adequate communication system for racing officials.”

The report stated that, “While the CHRB does not typically release an investigation report, especially when it does not result in a complaint, given the widespread public interest, a summary of the investigation is provided.”

The post No Penalties in Breeders’ Cup Scratch Fiasco appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Indiana Grand Adds ‘Innovative Views’ From Drone Camera, Televised Stewards’ Explanations

When racing resumes for the 19th season of Thoroughbred and Quarter Horse racing Tuesday, April 13, racing fans will notice some new features added to the television production of the live racing broadcast. A drone will be implemented into the current lineup of camera shots, opening up a whole new realm of possibilities for enhanced camera angles at Indiana Grand Racing & Casino.

“Our team has been challenged to take Caesars' racing to the forefront in technology and a drone is one step in doing so,” said Eric Halstrom, Vice President and General Manager of Racing. “As we began to pull this new concept in, we started realizing how this drone could really showcase our racing program and set our TV production apart from others. It's important to note we do not plan on changing the way people watch our races but rather complement our current production with innovative views that nobody else is offering in their daily broadcasts. Lastly, we also view this as a potential way to assist the stewards in reviewing races, especially in areas where current camera angles are more difficult than others to see the full action of a race.”

The Matrice 200 Drone is engineered and equipped with all the latest options available in aerial production. The device is a little less than three feet in width and stands 16 inches high. It's capable of zoom options with adjustable speed and is programmable from location to location. Operators are required to be licensed with the Federal Aviation Administration with a Remote Pilot Certificate. Three of Indiana Grand's audio-visual department team members recently completed training and are now licensed to fly the drone.

A special landing and takeoff pad has been constructed near the back of the paddock. Plans are in place for the drone to use the home base between assignments.

In addition to the drone, Indiana Grand has also implemented a new audio and visual system for the IHRC Stewards. Upon completion of any ruling regarding a decision made on a race, Senior State Steward Eric Smith will be televised live with an explanation from the steward's room on how they made their decision during an infraction.

“We feel providing an explanation directly from the stewards is a great way to inform fans watching and wagering on our product,” noted Halstrom. “They will now be able explain how they came to a conclusion on a specific ruling and give insight on the information they reviewed and gathered from the jockeys involved in the incident.”

Both the drone and the steward's audio/video option is on track to be unveiled in the first week of racing at Indiana Grand.

Live racing returns to Indiana Grand Tuesday, April 13 and extends through Monday, Nov. 8, 2021. Racing will be conducted at 2:25 p.m. Monday through Wednesday with first post on Thursday set at 3:25 p.m. In addition, six all-Quarter Horse racing dates are set on select Saturdays starting June 5 at 10 a.m. A special Indiana Champions Day highlighting the state's top Thoroughbred and Quarter Horses will be held Saturday, Oct. 30 beginning at 12 p.m. More information about the 2021 racing season is available at www.indianagrand.com.

The post Indiana Grand Adds ‘Innovative Views’ From Drone Camera, Televised Stewards’ Explanations appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Judge’s Ruling Condemns Maryland Commission’s Hearing Procedures

Howard County Circuit Court Senior Judge Lenore Gelfman released a ruling on Feb. 9 that condemned the Maryland Racing Commission's hearing procedures over a lack of due process, the right to a fair and impartial hearing, reports The Racing Biz.

The case before Judge Gelfman was that of the Jan. 18, 2020 Geisha Stakes at Laurel, in which the winner, Artful Splatter, veered out into the path of the oncoming Anna's Bandit, who finished second. Stewards ruled no change in the order of finish, and Jerry Robb, trainer and co-owner of Anna's Bandit, appealed that decision with the MRC.

A hearing was held on Feb. 27, 2020, in which the commission upheld the stewards' decision. Robb's attorney, Lorraine Lawrence-Whittaker, filed an appeal with the circuit court alleging that the MRC hearing was flawed.

Judge Gelfman concluded that “the hearing before the MRC did not adequately protect Petitioner against the deprivation of one of his most essential and foundational rights,” that of due process.

Both the petitioner and the stewards are represented by counsel in these hearings, as is the Maryland Racing Commission. However, Judge Gelfman found issue with the fact that the MRC's counsel, Eric London, has also been presiding over the hearings.

“This court notes that Counsel for the MRC interjected himself repeatedly, leading to the conclusion that he, not the MRC, was the decision-maker,” Judge Gelfman wrote. “Counsel's participation and manner in the hearing deprived Petitioner of due process,” she said.

As for Robb's case, that has been remanded to the MRC for a new hearing.

The Racing Biz reports that the first hearing since the court's ruling was held on Feb. 25, and MRC chairman Emmet Davitt presided.

Read more at The Racing Biz.

The post Judge’s Ruling Condemns Maryland Commission’s Hearing Procedures appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights