Daily Racing Form National Digital Edition
Baffert attorney fires back, defending CHRB decision
An attorney representing trainer Bob Baffert said Thursday that the California Horse Racing Board made a “wise decision” when it threw out a case last year involving an overage for the regulated substance scopolamine in a post-race test by eventual Triple Crown winner Justify after the colt’s win in the Santa Anita Derby.
The attorney, Craig Robertson, defended the CHRB’s handling of the case and contended that the scopolamine overage was the result of accidental contamination. The claims were made in a letter that Robertson sent to a reporter for The New York Times, which posted an article about the test result on Wednesday night. The article strongly suggested that CHRB regulators mishandled the case to protect Justify and Baffert.
“The CHRB made the wise decision and should be commended, instead of attacked, for doing so,” Robertson wrote. “The CHRB did right by all parties, including the industry, in this case.”
The New York Times article has generated yet another high-profile controversy in the racing industry, which has weathered withering attacks by critics for the past six months due to a spate of deaths at Santa Anita Park in Southern California, Baffert’s home base.
Robertson provided the letter to DRF after contacting the publication Thursday morning. Baffert had declined to comment to DRF on Wednesday night, but he released a statement early Thursday afternoon saying, “I unequivocally reject any implication that scopolamine was ever intentionally administered to Justify, or any of my horses.”
Baffert also said in the statement that “I had no input into, or influence on, the decisions made by the California Horse Racing Board.” The New York Times article strongly implied that Baffert’s connections with board members and CHRB staff influenced the board’s decision to dismiss the case.
On Wednesday night, the CHRB’s equine medical director, Dr. Rick Arthur, defended the board’s decision to throw the case out, saying that the evidence in the case indicated that the horse had tested for an overage of the substance due to environmental contamination. Scopolamine is found in jimson weed, which can contaminate feed products.
“I 100 percent stand by my recommendation to dismiss” the case, Arthur said. “I consider this a case of horse poisoning, not a horse drugging.”
Arthur referred some questions to other CHRB officials who would not comment on specifics of the case Wednesday night. The CHRB did say that it expected to release a detailed statement addressing the issue Thursday afternoon.
Cases involving potential environmental contaminants are difficult to litigate, and scopolamine positives have proven to be especially problematic in the past. While the substance is prohibited due to potential impacts on a horse’s performance, it is a Class 4 substance, the lowest classification among prohibited substances. The recommended penalty for a positive test is a disqualification and loss of purse for the horse and either a written warning or fine for the trainer, but regulators are allowed to use “mitigating circumstances” when adjudicating cases involving Class 4 substances due to the potential of environmental contamination.
Dr. Mary Scollay, executive director of the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium and the former equine medical director for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, said Thursday morning that it is not uncommon for jimson weed to contaminate hay, since the plant is known to grow wild in hay fields. She also said that the concentration of scopolamine in jimson weed varies depending on the part of the plant and the stage of its growing cycle, and said that detecting contaminants in feed is difficult.
“The leaves are kind of fragile, so they can disintegrate and mix in with the hay, and then if there are seeds mixed in you are going to have a very hard time seeing those,” Scollay said. The concentration of scopolamine is highest in the seeds.
Scollay declined to comment on the particulars of the Justify case, but she noted that regulators have wide leeway in deciding to pursue cases involving environmental contaminants.
A racing chemist who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case said that there is very little known about the effects of scopolamine on a horse but said that horsemen would have little reason to administer the substance deliberately because of its toxicity. The chemist also said that concentrations of the substance in post-race samples “tell you zero about what effect it had,” given the lack of research on its impact on horses.
Racing labs only notify racing commissions about the presence of scopolamine in a sample if the concentration is over a certain threshold. After that notification, racing commissions begin the adjudication process, which includes notifying the trainer about the test result.
In his letter, Robertson, Baffert’s attorney, said that “there was never any intentional administration of scopolamine to Justify” and that such an administration “defies logic and common sense” due to the substance’s properties. Robertson also said that there “is no doubt” that Justify’s test result was the result of environmental contamination.
Robertson also said that he had told the CHRB when the test result was communicated to Baffert that the trainer would fight any adverse finding by the CHRB as a result of the case.
“I was confident that Mr. Baffert would ultimately prevail if the CHRB pursued the matter,” Robertson wrote. “This left the CHRB with two choices – either pursue a frivolous case that had no merit at great taxpayer expense – or exercise reason and common sense and decide to take no further action.”