Triple Crown winner failed drug test

Sports Journalists Forum – Media, Newsroom & Reporting Talk

Help Support Sports Journalists Forum:

"The documents reviewed by The Times do not show any evidence of pressure or tampering by Justify’s owners."

Cool. Then why write 2,000 more words?
 
Seems like the board was not only dragging its feet, but dug in even more after the horse won the Derby.

Like California horse racing isn't in enough trouble with all the horses dying at Santa Anita last meeting.
 
Really wouldn't have wanted to be the person holding the cup on this one. Or the "aimer."
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change.
I love thoroughbreds but the sport is a raging dumpster fire. At some point Baffert will have to explain but of course he'll claim ignorance or technicality. What a joke.

Great reporting by Drape.
 
My brother-in-law played football at Kentucky. This was one of his offseason jobs.

I worked with a guy whose family owns a thoroughbred farm in Kentucky. He told stories about growing up around that industry that made me laugh very hard indeed.
 
So, if you’re filling a horse with steroids and PED’s, can the horse still ****?

Does this affect the stud value?
 
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.
 
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.

I watched the attached replay of the Santa Anita Derby which Justify dominated. The track announcer said it was yet another exhibition by a "supremely talented athlete". California racing officials knew Justify was a potentially horse and the possible winner of the Kentucky Derby.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top