HanSenSE
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 41,182
Or, can California horse racing board justify this?
Justify Failed a Drug Test Before Winning the Triple Crown
Justify Failed a Drug Test Before Winning the Triple Crown
Typical USOC sprinter.Or, can California horse racing board justify this?
Justify Failed a Drug Test Before Winning the Triple Crown
My brother-in-law played football at Kentucky. This was one of his offseason jobs.Could be worse. There's an aimer when a horse stands at stud also.
My brother-in-law played football at Kentucky. This was one of his offseason jobs.
My brother-in-law played football at Kentucky. This was one of his offseason jobs.
Almost hit the Onion target.
I'm not, um, justifying the dismissing of the violation, the not following of California racing rules, or the ensuing easing of penalties for scopolamine. And I get the apparently insular nature of relations in high-powered horse racing.
But I wonder about a couple of things. Was Justify already a favorite to win the Kentucky Derby by April of that year? Because he didn't run as a two-year-old at all, and was clearly a late-bloomer. Was everyone already so sold on the idea that he might win the Triple Crown?
Also, I've not read or seen ingredients, but how prevalent is scopolamine in horse food? Is this actually not a far-fetched possibility, and a legitimately viable source of such a drug reading? I wouldn't think so, and kind of think Baffert must just coming up with an excuse. But I'd be curious about it, as it seems like the California board is comprised of horse people, who might know about such things, and if Justify were not yet a favorite for the Triple Crown, why would they necessarily be so protective of him as to collude to make sure he gets into the Derby?
I'm pretty certain that before his Triple Crown achievement, Justify would not have fetched $60 million in stud fees.