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.

Dogs THOUGHTS:

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.

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/judge-extra-testing-in-medina-spirit-case-will-go-on-only-question-is-sample-size/

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.

All I can say is, if Richard Dutrow was suspended by Kentucky instead of New York he would still be training...   I suspect Baffert's legal team gets him out of this one.  It's looking that way already.

At best Baffert clears up the method of drug administration if 2nd test shows the ointment ingredients .

Churchill Downs; publicly stock traded. And so many stake holders to answer to as owners, trainers, trainers, betting public.

Precedent legal drug cases give C Downs the opportunity to clean break from this PR and sales- marketing Derby fiasco. With ointment documentation.

DQ Owner is most injured 

SameSteve G said...

A more equitable distribution of equine talent will be good for the sport because the sport is much bigger than Beta Bob

Yes, nailed it.  

There's plenty of hard working barns who know how to train a horse, but their talents are eclipsed by super trainers who have 2, 3, and sometimes even 4 horses in one field.     

But this is what happens when the little guys to disappear (and they will if there's no way for them to win anything).     

I wonder if trainers have agents as jockeys do?  Perhaps some of the lesser known barns/trainers could benefit from publicists, agents, social media campaigns....where their skill level, humane practices, and gamesmanship can be marketed properly.

And the sport also needs owners who care more about the treatment of their horses as well.....

And I could never understand how wealthy owners would want to compete for spots against others using the same trainer, just does not make sense

If the other compounds are present it may prove that the ointment was used but it may not prove that an injection was used also

The measurement is in parts per million. PPM. The lab probably uses Mass Spectrometry  equipment.

The compound as it was manufactured and used on the colt should/will have measurement amounts of each ingredient proportionally.

The amount of the illegal drug will have to be proportional to the total ointment compound mixture.

If not, that is, the illegal drug dosage of the drug 'significantly exceeds' the amount in relationship to other compound and materials/ingredients; then yes, Baffert has no remedy that the drug was; only as you mention,  in the compound. Commercially approved drugs in the manufacturing stage have a chain of custody from inception to any changes in the pilot trials right down to making it on the shop floor 

But, then a good lawyer will seek records from the manufacturer to ascertain if every batch has exact proportions or if there could be an overage amount of the drug in the ointment batch by batch as it is manufactured. And if that is the case, it really helps Baffert's case.

Horse shoes; close enough results and everybody is happy. 

I'm Happy. 

(d)

DogsUp said:

The measurement is in parts per million. PPM.

No.  The measurement is in picograms.  Parts per trillionth.  In the sample, obviously.