PISTOL9 said:

I am assuming any points by a BB horse will not be awarded or not count.  Will a W just waste the top points or the points shift down to the 2-4 horses. 

DRF article gives the answer. The points are gone. So if it's a 100-40-20-10 race (like the Santa Anita Derby) and the winner was a Baffert trainee, that horse gets nil, the second place horse (assuming not a Baffert) gets 40 (not 100, nor 140), the third place horse (again if not a Baffert) gets 20, etc.  They don't treat it like a DQ where the first past the post is placed last and the runner-up gets the winner's benefits.

Churchill said that any points that would have been applied to a horse under the new rule “will be vacated.” The track also said that the rule would apply to the Kentucky Oaks, which, like the Derby, has a qualifying series attached to it. The Oaks, for 3-year-old fillies, is run the day prior to the Derby.

In DogsUp Derby posts about Baffert litigation. 'My Old Kentucky Moan"  Dogs spoke to the fact that the 2nd sample via a split sample (evidence) was corrupted and accordingly provided no conclusive results.

The Kentucky state court hearing provided the Kentucky Horse racing commission (not Churchill) with adjudication of the 2nd sample findings. 

When the 2nd sample had no useful findings as to a conclusion 1st sample vs 2nd; they/Commission are placed in a position of being at least partially responsible for Baffert not receiving due process. 

If, they/Commission rule against Baffert using only the 1st sample, lawyer(s) for Baffert can move outside the Ky Commission laws of racing with argument that KY Commission ruled 'against' while being responsible, in part, for the security of the chain of custody evidence.

Dogs mentioned that for over 2 weeks there was not a peep about KDY/Baffert/Drug contamo. 

Dogs moved his chain as far as it could go and sited Funny Cide rider Jose Santos accused of using an electro device; sued and won handsomely.

Speculation is Baffert lawyers have already sent letters of intent to sue to Churchill and NYRA for loss of reputation and income * a Big number!

Dogs do you think that big number will stop Churchill from keeping anybody they want

from racing on their track for breaking their own track violations and or, suspend them for

a amount of time like they have in the past no matter any ruling in a court.

If scenario is Baffert goes to Kentucky court after Commission ruling against him; citing no due process because the Commision in part spoiled the evidence. Yes that's a big number of future lost income and reputation. Maybe as much as 30 years

Saved this one: Churchill uses the Derby points as leverage to deal with the above scenario if Bob gets off due to lack of evidence corrupted in concert by the KY Commission itself.

Churchill has to pay fans $124 mil to fans for slot machines SNAFU.

Then we won't miss him will we?  Like you say, he only ships in to pull down fat purses.  I think the sport would be far better off with Baffert out of it, but that's just me.  

Edited to add:  I agree with your central point about NYRA requiring improved product.  Wholeheartedy.

Why bother having rules when they can't be enforced?  

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/253454/baffert-hearing-could-lead-to-contempt-charge-for-nyra

Or, they could put Baffert's lawyers in charge of the rules.  {smirk}

Rule 1. - Even when he's guilty, Beta Bob is innocent.

Rule 2. - See rule 1.

I rest my case, your honor.

Well said. Deck is pretty well stacked.

Soap operas like this don't do US racing any good, just like having a horse test positive for a banned substance in the Kentucky Derby doesn't do racing any good, either.