Is Bob Baffert a cheater?

NY Times seems to think so

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/...ug-test-triple-crown-kentucky-derby.html

I don’t know or care who Bob Baffert is.

I feel sorry for Justify. He was set up to be out to stud for the rest of his life and he probably won't get nearly as much now.

Maybe he will get more if the price falls low enough! I almost forgot ...

Not a good look, especially for the board that did the testing and withheld the results and then changed the punishment.

Anyone betting on horses is a fool. That is the crookedest sport on the planet. They all cheat. You have no idea what is going on on the sidelines between the owners and or the jockeys themselves.

no

All the top trainers have suspensions on their resumes. If you ain't cheatin, you ain't trying.

you are completely wrong
i am not trying to be rude
at your major tracks that just doesn't happen

Justify ran 6 times
in the hardest races there are
6 & 0

I like this

then why would you comment ?

Because I want to. Every member ask the same question when you comment on anything related to football or just about anything else you pretend to be an expert on.

they have to suspend them
every once in a while
to tranquilize the masses

nothing will happen to Baffert though
it happened from contaminated food

I want some of that horse food.

yeah
they say Jimson Weed was mixed in the feed
more than Justify tested positive
from that barn

TRUTH. Used to work for a quarterhorse owner/trainer.

Do horses know when they win?

It literally just happened during a qualifying race for the Kentucky Derby.

no it didn't

yes

who is smarter
a dog
or a horse?

1/4 horses are not anywhere on the same level as thouroughbreds
yes at those county fair races
i am sure stuff goes on

but not at the Futurity's

And with that retort, game, set, and match go to butch

A horse? My guess is influenced by personally seeing a dog devour a turd. I’ve never seen any horse show much interest in turds.

man
its a tough decision
i have asked people
that love both of them
& they couldn't decide

therefore
your hypothesis
bears merit

I disagree. Wolfs are pretty much the same as dogs, and they hunt in packs. Also, despite the tireless efforts of an expert blogger, wolfs have never been photographed in Yellowstone. Finally, wolfs have never been sent to a glue factory. Wolfs 1, horses 0.

So he didn’t test positive? Because it appears that he did.

watch what happens - nothing
get on the horse racing sites & read what happened
New York slimes is trying to stir up S

"...After the race, the top finishers are tested for a myriad of banned substances and the results for all were clean.”

Statement from Churchill Downs regarding Justify and 2018 Kentucky Derby

Justify is a Top 3 thouroughbred

Butch do you know if a horse brisket would cook faster than a cow brisket? Asking for a friend.

Mr. Rogers?

PM 5pounder for information. Be prepared for him to argue with you though.

A lot of speculation and unproven facts in that report. Testing in race horses has gotten to rediculously low levels. For those that may not know, a nanogram is one billionth of a gram. 300 nanograms is a very very small amount of any drug. Highly unlikely that it had any effect whatsoever on the horse on race day. Now I’m not defending Baffert and saying he was not aware of how the horse got the drug in its post race test sample, but I don’t believe it had any effect on that horses performance that day. There are therapeutic levels of medications that can be determined to have an effect and then there are testing levels that can determine the minimal level of a drug that can be found in blood or urine. These two levels are not even close. But a lot of trainers are getting penalized and scrutinized for minimal testing levels that usually involve nanograms or picograms (which is one trillionth of a gram).

ok
the real expert has spoken

i have ruined every brisket
i have attempted to cook

is this going to spin off
into 407 talk?

U R leaving out the Alpo plant

The allegation isn’t that the horse tested positive after the Kentucky Derby. The allegation is that the horse tested positive a few weeks before the Derby when it qualified by winning another race. The implication is that it should’ve been ruled ineligible for the Derby.

You’re arguing something that doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter that he passed the test after winning the Derby, because that’s not what’s being alleged.

do you ever acknowledge you are wrong?

You said N.Y. , I'm out. de-Balsio. Makes me .

Every time I’m verifiably wrong, I acknowledge it.

He didn’t test positive at Churchill Downs. That’s the point.