Justify (Scat Daddy - Stage Magic, by Ghostzapper)

1222324252628»

Comments

  • Ok, let's say allegation (might be true and might not, but you don't have any proof). I mean it's not like you have signed a non-disclosure agreement or your speculation is going to go viral. LOL. :)

    Zenyen said:

    It's not an accusation. Like I said, it is my opinion and speculation.

    I would hope not! The idea of anything of mine going viral is ... ugh!

    I just think that a possible source for all this (circumstantial speculation only) should be pretty obvious?
  • Maybe to an insider.

    But the walls have eyes and ears, eh?
    Plausible deniability is a good thing.
  • ZenyenZenyen Member
    edited September 15
    Nah, nothing like that. Just really think it should be obvious.

    I guess what they say about short term memory on the internet is true.
  • Detailed article === really explains the whole mess. My opinion, no way should Justify have been disqualified from the Triple Crown races. It's a shame that his wins have to be questioned over this :'(
    https://sports.yahoo.com/story-behind-justify-positive-drug-105842363.html

  • Perhaps I've missed the point.
    Wasn't it that, having shown a positive on the drug test and on the second sample, he should have been disqualified from the Santa Anita win and, therefore, not earned the 100 points for the Derby? Since the race was in April there wouldn't be enough time for him to get in another big points race before the Derby. Sans points he would not have been eligible to run in the Derby. Without running in... and winning... the Derby he could not win the Triple Crown. As far as I know there is no way to disqualify a horse... owner... trainer... jockey from "the Triple Crown." They are 3 completely separate races, governed by 3 separate states/commissions/tracks.
  • @whoodler --- no, I don't think you missed the point. Sorry if my post didn't make sense, I was trying to think and type with bickering kids distracting me!
    The only point I was making was that I thought the article was well written and researched.
    My opinion --- I would not disqualify a horse for consuming feed, hay, straw that is contaminated with jimson weed. Seven horses from four different trainers, I found the "cluster" data convincing ---
    Bob Baffert, while I am not always one of his fans, he really had no reason to "juice up" Justify. He is a master at keeping the "special" ones under wraps until they are ready.
    I do understand that without the points earned from the Santa Anita Derby, Justify could not have raced and won the Kentucky Derby and therefore would not have been in contention for a shot at the Triple Crown, I know it's three (3) races at different tracks and distances and governed by three (3) different racing boards,
    My opinion only --- I would not have disqualified Justify from his win in the Santa Anita Derby based on the testing data --- I do believe it was feed contamination.
    I am not a big fan of the CHRB and I think they could have handled this much better from a PR standpoint.
    I found this excerpt from the article compelling and certainly supports the high probability of feed contamination:
    For Arthur and CHRB, there were two decisive points: First, multiple horses from multiple barns. This is called a cluster. In a 2014 paper for The Veterinary Journal, four authors wrote, “If…. there is more than one horse and/or trainer involved in scopolamine findings (as is often the case in thoroughbred racing) then the probability that event is an innocent environmental contamination becomes overwhelming.” Also: While Justify’s (and the other horses’) urine sample contained only scopolamine, their blood samples also contained atropine. Both are found in jimson weed, but, obviously, both would not be found in a syringe full of scopolamine

  • Thanks for the clarification. I understand your position.
Sign In or Register to comment.