scopolamine | Horse Racing Free Tips

Court Orders Disqualification of Justify’s Santa Anita Derby Win

A decision may have finally been reached in the long-standing legal skirmish over the results of the 2018 GI Santa Anita Derby, won by Justify (Scat Daddy), according to a release issued Friday afternoon by the connections of Ruis Racing, who campaigned runner-up Bolt d'Oro (Medaglia d'Oro). Ruis Racing has sought a disqualification of Justify by the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB), as the winner tested positive for scopolamine following the race.

After it was revealed in a report that Justify had tested positive for scopolamine, Ruis began that quest to have the result of the race overturned with Bolt d'Oro declared the winner. Ruis alleged that the CHRB failed to follow its own rules when it decided not to pursue penalties after Justify's positive test. The CHRB acted on recommendations from then-executive director Rick Baedeker and equine medical director Dr. Rick Arthur. It was their call that Justify should not be disqualified because the positive test was the result of contamination linked to jimson weed.

The lack of disqualification at the time was especially significant as the qualifying 'Road to the Kentucky Derby' points Justify earned from his win in the Santa Anita Derby–his first career stakes start–made him eligible for the GI Kentucky Derby a month later. He not only won the Kentucky Derby, but went on to win the Triple Crown as well. Justify, a 'TDN Rising Star' conditioned by Hall of Famer Bob Baffert, was raced at that time for the partnership of China Horse Club, Head of Plains Partners LLC, Starlight Racing, and WinStar Farm, while Bolt d'Oro was trained for Ruis Racing LLC by Mick Ruis.

The statement, in its entirety, follows:

“Ruis Racing LLC announced today a significant legal victory against the California Horse Racing Board. Represented by attorneys Carlo Fisco and Darrell Vienna, Ruis Racing LLC obtained an order from Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff directing the California Horse Racing Board Stewards to set aside their December 9, 2020 decision and issue a new ruling disqualifying Justify from the 2018 Santa Anita Derby.

“The Steward had originally ruled that they lacked jurisdiction to conduct a Disqualification Hearing in this matter. The Court disagreed and stated in its decision that there is “no reason for remand” as there is “no doubt” the Stewards would have disqualified Justify if they understood that they had the authority to do so.

“Today's decision supports the longstanding California Horse Racing Board rule that any horse racing with a prohibited substance in its system must be disqualified and the purse redistributed.”

TDN was able to option a copy of the ruling, which appears here. The following is found in the ruling's conclusion:

“As the Stewards have already determined what the result would be if they could reach the issue of disqualification on the evidence before them, the court will issue a writ directing the Stewards to set aside their December 9, 2020 decision and Remand Decision and to make a new order disqualifying Justify. Based on the twice-stated clear position of the Stewards, the court finds there is “no reason for remand” of the matter as there is “no real doubt” the Stewards would have disqualified Justify if they understood that Respondent provided them with such authority when Respondent filed the complaint against the Justify Parties.”

According to CHRB spokesperson Mike Marten, the agency has not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling, and there was no further comment on a “pending legal matter.”

Attorney Darrell Vienna, representing Ruis, said that Justify's connections theoretically could also appeal the ruling, “even though this suit was simply between Mick Ruis, under Ruis Racing LLC, versus the California Horse Racing Board.”

Ruis also has a separate civil case pending against the CHRB seeking monetary damages. That case is also filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

“They don't run in parallel. I think if we had lost this case it would have been very problematic for the civil case,” said Vienna.

“We don't have a direct claim against Justify's people,” added Vienna. “The awards and what we want has to come from the CHRB. If they want to chase down Justify's owners for the funds, they can do that. We're not going to do that.”

A footnote in the judge's ruling criticizes the CHRB for entering into a settlement agreement with Ruis, for a stewards purse DQ hearing on the Santa Anita Derby. The stewards subsequently claimed they had no jurisdiction on the matter as it had already been decided–a decision the board then concurred with.

“It strains credulity that a state agency would enter into a settlement agreement providing the other party with illusory relief. That is, why would Respondent settle litigation with Petitioner knowing its complaint could not (as a legal matter) be adjudicated. To the extent the agency did mislead Petitioner, equitable estoppel would likely preclude the agency from depriving the other party with the benefit of its bargain,” the ruling states.

According to Vienna, “we were enticed to enter into an agreement that was not going to be honored.”

Because of the qualifying points system in place for the Kentucky Derby, Justify's berth in that year's contest was incumbent upon his running first or second in the Santa Anita Derby.

When asked if the ruling puts into question Justify's Kentucky Derby win, therefore, Vienna pointed to a similar case he had previously litigated “in which a horse's eligibility was valid until it was disproven.”

“At the time of the running of the Derby, Justify was eligible based on the then-pending decision,” said Vienna. “Subsequently today, that decision was overturned. But at the time he participated in the Derby he had, for all intents and purposes, achieved the right to run in the Derby.”

Vienna added, “if the board had done what they should have done in the first place, he would have been disqualified, and that issue of whether he had enough points for the Derby would have been decided back then.”

Said Vienna, “There's no question that Justify's a very good horse and a great sire, and that Bolt d'Oro's a good horse and a great sire.”

He added, “I'd like to see everybody get back to racing and not fighting.”

The post Court Orders Disqualification of Justify’s Santa Anita Derby Win appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Judge Rules In Favor Of Ruis Racing In Lawsuit Over Justify’s Santa Anita Derby Victory

The following press release was issued on Friday, Dec. 10, by Carlo Fisco and Darrell Vienna, attorneys for horse owner Mick Ruis and Ruis Racing, who sued the California Horse Racing Board over the regulatory agency's decision not to file a complaint for a medication violation in the case of 2018 Santa Anita Derby winner Justify. The eventual Triple Crown winner was found to have the prohibited drug scopolamine in his system after a post-race sample was tested, but the board voted in executive session to have the matter dropped, with no complaint filed against trainer Bob Baffert and no consideration of a purse disqualification for Justify.

Ruis Racing owned Bolt d'Oro, the Santa Anita Derby runner-up, who would have been in line for the race's $600,000 first-place purse (he earned $200,000 for second).

Press Release:

This morning, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff overruled the CHRB's attempt to have the purse disqualification matter dismissed involving the horse Justify and allowed the matter to go forward. Ruis Racing LLC has alleged that the CHRB's failure to disqualify Justify from the 2018 Santa Anita Derby after testing positive for a prohibited substance was a violation of its own mandatory rules.

Ruis Racing attorneys Carlo Fisco and Darrell Vienna were encouraged by today's decision and look forward to finally bringing this matter to trial. Carlo Fisco stated: “We have a long way to go but are pleased that the court confirmed our client's undeniable claim in pursuing this case. Today was a technical hurdle introduced by the CHRB in attempt to escape its responsibility for the Justify debacle. We remain confident that the trial on this matter will expose the legal improprieties of the former CHRB Board and its former Equine Medical Director as well as the utter refusal by the CHRB Board of Stewards to correct an obvious injustice.”

Trial is expected to occur in mid-2022.

The post Judge Rules In Favor Of Ruis Racing In Lawsuit Over Justify’s Santa Anita Derby Victory appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Records Reveal New Details About CHRB Investigation Of Justify Case

As California Horse Racing Board officials investigated a scopolamine positive from eventual 2018 Triple Crown winner Justify, they seem to have delayed the process to let the race series finish. A report published June 29 by the Washington Post revealed new details about the case, which originated from a positive post-race test after the 2018 Santa Anita Derby and was kept secret until a New York Times report published in 2019.

It's well known now in racing circles that the CHRB held a closed-door meeting in which the regulatory agency opted not to pursue any action against Justify's trainer, Bob Baffert, and declined to disqualify the horse from his victory in the Santa Anita Derby. That meeting took place in the summer after the colt had won the Triple Crown. Justify got into the Kentucky Derby field with qualifying points earned in the Santa Anita Derby.

Records obtained by the Washington Post reveal that Dr. Rick Arthur, equine medical director for the CHRB, assured Baffert in late April that the investigation would not likely impact Justify's impending run in the Triple Crown series. Baffert was notified of the positive ahead of the Kentucky Derby. In an April 26 email, Arthur told the CHRB he had spoken with Baffert and “told him there would be nothing from CHRB before the KY Derby, unlikely before the Preakness and possibly not until after the Belmont. I told him I thought there was a good indication that these were feed contamination.”

CHRB investigators proceeded with their fact-finding mission after the Kentucky Derby and went in search of hay samples to see if they could find jimsonweed, which was blamed by the CHRB and Baffert for the scopolamine overage. They also opted to DNA test the post-race blood samples from Justify and others with detectable levels of scopolamine. Records show Arthur said that testing request would be “a big deal” and asked if it could wait until after the Preakness, which was still a week and a half away.

Test results on hay samples came back after the Preakness and revealed the leafy plant investigators had pulled was milkweed, not jimsonweed. Then, Larry Bell, the owner of the Citrus Feed Company that sold hay to Baffert, showed up at the CHRB office with plant samples he said he had picked up off the ground in the parking lot a month earlier. Those contained jimsonweed, although Bell said he couldn't tell whether the samples had fallen off a truck delivering a shipment to Baffert. Bell, according to the Post, had previously testified on Baffert's behalf, although it wasn't clear in what circumstances.

New CHRB Transparency Issues Arise in McAnally CBD Investigation

Oscar Gonzales, the vice chair of the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB), wants to know why commissioners weren't informed earlier this year about a pending cannabidiol (CBD) positive complaint against Hall of Fame trainer Ron McAnally, a case that was in the midst of a six-month investigation by CHRB staff even as commissioners were being asked to approve a seemingly routine annual reclassification of drugs that included CBD.

“On that list of drugs that were to be reclassified was CBD, the drug that was detected in [the McAnally-trained Roses and Candy],” Gonzales said during Wednesday's CHRB meeting. “Why did it take so long to come up with the complaint that the stewards are going to be hearing? I'm pretty confident that when that list was compiled that both [CHRB executive director Scott Chaney] and [CHRB equine medical director Rick Arthur, DVM] knew that there was a positive test…

“Given what we know, I believe the board would have handled this if we had the power to do [so],” Gonzales continued. “But what does not sit right with me is that the board was not given a proper heads up that as we went about approving a list of medications… that there very well could be some pending cases. And after that [Jan. 21 meeting] we gave it a full month, and not once did anybody say, 'This list that you're voting on, be aware that there are some cases pending.'”

The May 19 assertions by Gonzales represent the latest salvo in a barrage of disclosure woes and internal conflicts that have encumbered the CHRB over the last three years and resulted in a significant turnover of commissioners and staff that at times has left the new version of the agency polarized.

At the root of the thorny nest of transparency barbs is the way the former makeup of the CHRB handled scopolamine findings in 2018. After 2 1/2 years of closed-session decision-making and a complicated court battle to publicly reopen the case over whether to disqualify Triple Crown winner Justify from the 2018 GI Santa Anita Derby, the case later hinged on whether scopolamine was a Class 3 or Class 4 substance at the time of Justify's positive post-race test.

The CHRB generally follows the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances and Recommended Penalties when establishing rules for drugs. But since California's Office of Administrative Law (OAL) doesn't allow the CHRB to change rules by automatically referencing another authority's code, the racing agency has to go through a drawn-out, sometimes years-long process to make even minute changes to drug classifications

This was the case for scopolamine in 2018 (which was in the process of being downgraded from Class 3 to the less-severe Class 4 but was not yet officially the rule when it was found in Justify) and for CBD last November (which was unclassified at the time of the Roses and Candy positive but was voted to be switched to Class 3 by the CHRB in February).

Complicating matters further with CBD is the fact that any unclassified positives in California by default are treated as Class 1, Penalty Category A violations, the most severe level of infraction that triggers the toughest penalties.

This means that the allegedly in-limbo nature of CBD's 1A or 3B distinction (as the CHRB awaits OAL approval of its latest list of classifications) makes the issue ripe for future litigation if McAnally's case ever gets pushed to court.

On May 18, CHRB spokesperson Mike Marten told TDN that the agency's staff will recommend to the stewards that they treat the positive as a lower 3B violation. One day later, at Wednesday's meeting, Gonzales told fellow commissioners he has concerns about CHRB staff making a recommendation like that to stewards prior to the hearing of a case–both in terms of the content and delivery of the recommendation.

“Part of what's gotten this board in some real challenging circumstances is when we arbitrarily try to move or shift a drug [classification] before a rule is completed,” Gonzales said. “I also want to make sure that the stewards know, as I read in the reports, that the CHRB staff is going to be making a recommendation. Well let me be just very clear, and I hope all stewards who are listening to this know that you do a good job. And we expect for you to act fairly and independently. I was not aware that CHRB staff weighs in on stewards' decisions. That was actually a surprise to me.”

When asked directly by Gonzales to explain why McAnally's CBD investigation wasn't disclosed to commissioners as they prepared to vote on the new schedule of drug classifications, Chaney answered by speaking to the time frame while Arthur chose to address the classification part of it.

Chaney–who preceded his remarks by saying that he couldn't talk about specifics on McAnally's case because the hearing is pending–explained that, “I know in this particular case a split sample was requested, and obviously that takes a few weeks. And then the investigative team does their investigation, and once that's complete we, you know, we file the complaint. That's typically the time between race day and filing the complaint…

“When the sample came back, as is always the case in my duty under [state] code, I informed the entire board, the commission, of the positive test. That is still true even today, although…the law has [recently] changed, in terms of confidentiality. So with respect to any test that occurred before Jan. 1, those are confidential unless and until we file a complaint… We now report positive tests either after 72 hours has elapsed from informing the trainer, or after the split sample comes back.”

Arthur kept his remarks brief. “Let me just get right to the heart of the issue,” he said. “Cannabidiol, which was not classified under the current standard of regulation, was proposed to be a 3B in August of 2020, three or four months before this violation.”

Arthur also said that a 3B classification is what the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium recommends, but he noted that the ARCI eventually settled on a different 2B recommendation as it retooled its recommendations. He added that with specific respect to California, the distinction between a Class 2 or 3 is not a hugely significant because any Class 3 or more severe positive results in a disqualification; the trainer's penalty is what gets derived based on the Category B designation.

But here's where another confusing twist in the case comes into play, and it involves what appears to be personal sniping among board members and CHRB staffers: When CBD's 3B classification–and an entire slate of other seemingly non-controversial reclassifications–finally came up for a vote at the Jan. 21, 2021, CHRB meeting, it was Gonzales himself who orchestrated a delay on that vote by one month.

Gonzales, at that Jan. 21 meeting, said the CHRB should not try to “ramrod” new rules through at a time when the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority is being formed to set its own regulatory framework. Gonzales's against-the-grain stance–some would call it petty–went against the recommendations of Arthur, Chaney, and CHRB chair Gregory Ferraro, DVM. To underscore the personal rifts, during that sometimes abrasive tele-meeting, Arthur could be heard muttering in the background that that Gonzales's point of view was “crap.”

The next month, when the CHRB did end up passing the drug classifications by a 6-0 vote, Gonzales was absent from the meeting.

On Wednesday, Gonzales asked chairman Ferraro to weigh in on his concerns about how the staff has handled the CBD classification and McAnally's positive for it.

“Regarding whether we as a commission were informed of pending positives prior to the change in regulations, I don't know if that's because we weren't informed, to be honest with you, or whether I wasn't paying enough attention to remember it,” Ferraro said. “So I hate to accuse or comment on that because it very well could have been presented to us and I simply don't have a recollection. But I do support your concerns regarding our transparency, and the fact that we need to strictly follow procedures.”

Gonzales summed up: “I also just want to make sure that under no circumstances are the stewards or staff to arbitrarily reclassify a drug of any kind unless it has gone through the full rulemaking process.

“More importantly, I want to say one thing,” Gonzales added. “Trainer Ron McAnally is one of the upmost citizens and outstanding horsemen that we will ever see. [In] my time as a backstretch worker, people lined up to work for his barn because he treated backstretch workers incredibly well. So I want to just make that known that this is not about Mr. McAnally. This is more about how CHRB management handled the situation.”

The post New CHRB Transparency Issues Arise in McAnally CBD Investigation appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post