The jurisdiction of post racing drug testing is in the perview of the Kentucky Racing Commission. The  KRC is a function of administration racing laws under the Commonwealth; not the race track/Churchill Dwns.

It perhaps is the same in most states; as it is in New York - NYRA circuit. NY is at a cost of about $5 million annually. Testing.

The purpose of the split sample/due process had become contaminated. To protect both parties and stake holders at large racing for purse share.

Accordingly this contamination now rest on the Kentucky Racing Commission. They oversee the lab and pay the lab as a vendor.

Insubmissable evidence now.

Second sample could not provide due process. The reason there is a split sample to begin with.

The plaintiff / Kentucky Race Commission has caused/an action to the defense's due process (2nd sample testing voided) evidence to be inadmissible.

Don’t you wonder just a little bit how much the head of the NY lab got for destroying the rest of the sample lol?  

Probably enough to make it happen. Suspect 200k or brtter.

When I tutored under a local bookie and great friend in cases like this, and when there is gambling/bets: Steve would say-

'When there's a lot of money on the table; strange things happen.

Evidence not secured legally-no search warrant or probable cause, tampered intentially/unintentionally a judge usually dismisses on lack of , no or illgained evidence.

Dogs- u are correct, many variables that aren't nailed down, for this reason.  

The Ky racing commission was responsible for the chain of custody of the samples. No way they can present the second sample as bona fide certified lab results evidence. Tainted 

The court will throw out, dismiss, not hear the case.

The lab will lose the contract. 

Churchill Downs will have to make the results Official.

Lots a bad 'Blood Horse relationships and precedents will evolve. 

(d)

A motion to suppress evidence is a request by a defendant that the judge exclude certain evidence from trial. The defense often makes this motion well in advance of trial—if the defendant wins it, the prosecution or judge may have to dismiss the case.

The Lab loses a cushie contract. Depends on their state senator's power in the State House. He has to appease the commission 

'I've read...in "other states' where the state senator who would have a vendor contract gone South has a real clean up job on his hands to get forgiveness votes of confidencefor his loyal constituent- vendor.

So true!

The sample was under joint custody and taken to Baffert’s choice of labs where it was “damaged”.  It remains to be seen how it’s adjudicated but this was Baffert’s chance to clear his name and his people were at least partly responsible, probably mostly responsible.  Legal loopholes notwithstanding they’ll disqualify Medina imo.

The  2nd lab was agreed upon by the parties and selected with court monitoring and instruction.

 Different seperate labs. That I missed. 

My dumb girl friend read the follow-up lab testing  news story and thought the two Labs (arf arf) were...one golden and one chocolate brown.