This is a place for friendly and civil discussion of horse racing of all types including handicapping.
Latest 7/22/21 by Oldbettowin
Latest Jan-19 by DogsUpWired
Latest Jan-16 by DogsUpWired
Latest Jan-16 by RAESFAN
Latest Jan-13 by RAESFAN
Latest Jan-13 by RAESFAN
Latest Jan-12 by DogsUpWired
Latest Jan-3 by TexSquared
Latest Jan-1 by princeofdoc
Latest Dec-31 by Plus2lbs
Latest Dec-28 by smartyslew
Latest Dec-27 by Plus2lbs
Latest Dec-25 by TexSquared
Latest Dec-24 by SameSteve G
Latest Dec-22 by KonaNative
Latest Dec-22 by KonaNative
for All FYI
The cost to the State jurisdiction for drug testing/handling/administration, say like NY- NYRA circuit is nearly $5 million.
Good for Mott! He knows what his intentions were with his horses, and he apparently works closely with his vets.
Baffert, on the other hand, does not communicate clearly, has probably 5x the horses in his barn, lacks the intimate knowledge of what his vets are doing, and thus cannot speak to the public, or regulators, from a position of strength and understanding.
So he will not be competing at CD for a few years. He will probably have his barn cut considerably. Hopefully, that will help him going forward....hubris, success, etc. have created a possibly career-ending situation. But I hope not. I hope he can cut down his stable, perhaps to only the horses he and his wife own, be more on top of the treatment of his horses by a vet, and return to racing with a different approach. He's clearly very talented. It will be interesting to see how he adapts to everything.
This event is going to be tied-up for some time.
IMHO I don't think Baffert is going to do a soft shoe walk-back as you mentioned.
Baffert will take the media controversy to The Haskell and have a platform to speak of his side. Owner will throw some cash at it @ 60+% of $3 mil on the table. 1.86 mil-yon.
The parties can split the sample, they can't split the baby.
Source: Wallace Law/South Jersey
In the world of law, whether you know or should know something has a different meaning than in everyday life. Certain phrases prompt obligation under the law. Knowing or should have known fall under this rule, as it implies that there is an owed duty of care from one individual or entity to another. For instance, if a hazard led to an accident and the manager knew or should have known about the hazard, it creates liability for the accident.
This makes the meaning of knew or should have known interesting in the legal world. Even if someone did not know about a situation, the obligation is not necessarily lifted, as negligence could still be the culprit for the cause of the accident. This terminology is particularly prevalent in premises liability law, as the source of liability often comes down to ownership, management or other operation of an area combined with actual knowledge or a lack of knowledge due to negligence.
The distinction in law is important. After all, simply not tending to your own premises should not be a legal defense, especially if someone has been hurt. On the other hand, if there was no way for you to know about the condition of an area, you should also not be liable. This is why it is phrased as “known or should have known.” The phrasing gives protection to those who are owed a duty of care while also working in favor of premises owners that are vigilant in their ownership.
If you have been harmed due to someone else’s negligence, you deserve to receive compensation. Contact our team today to find out how we can help. Our team looks at the individual circumstances surrounding each injury and crafts a legal strategy that aims to successfully hold negligent owners responsible for their property condition.
Looks like judge can get sample to lab under the parties mutual agreement. Or he will decide.
If, OINTMENT is the source:
Then Baffert gets a public publicity pardon for not intentionally administering, if, 2nd test shows the parts per million of the ointment ingredients. This is easy stuff.
Yet, the Kdy/Kentucky racing rules are regardless of the way or means a Derby runner has entered and runs with an illegal drug substance/and tested positive; it is a disqualification offense.
Yet, but for, he/Baffert knew or should have know his Derby entry's medical drug treatment profile. Prior to the race. And race day.
The should have know that bites Baffert in the rear quarters, where all this started by the way is: He has complete knowledge and experience in this instance of entering runners and winning in the Kentucky Derby.
He knew....or should have known.
Time for last comment and move on. By the way; video here..click YouTube. Fast forward dead time..no sound.
There is precedent case. Not in favor of Medina Spirit situation.
So new test could clear Bob oversite.
DQ statisfies everybody else.
Medina Spirit owner out $1.8 mil purse. Sues Bob. Liability insurance has to determine if Bob is/was indemnified in his actions; should it cover the scenario.
Or Medina Spirit's foals are running in annual Derbies while the courts are still hearing the case and the public is disheartened.
Bottom line in business. Gotta'
Check the checker.
I suspect you nailed it as I believe it very well go this route. I suspect Baffman, north did ya get it, wants the full split used for the reason I've read that it gives no other test possible which I've read written by other folks. Can never go back once that is gone.
If they ever did screw up the 2nd sample, or it wasn't organic enough to sample; Baffman and owner would lean on not receiving due process. Legitimate rights of an accused. The reason why there is a split sample in the first place.
If they screw up the split. They must acquit.
Accordingly, why there is so much purpose of transporting and care in the chain of custody.
A substantial industry outcome in the making is where owners of the winning Derby colts in the last three years was DQed and lost out on the 1.8 million 1st place purse.