The topics on the board are headed all over the place suddenly. But they all center on this Belmont Stakes. I can't help but throw in an assertion filled post but I'll provide whatever scintilla of proof I can to support some opinions trying to tie all of this together.

1. [i]Bob Baffert.[/i] Bayern's BC Classic. 2014 Awesome Again. 2018 Belmont Stakes. The deaths in his barn a few years ago (7 of them) resulted in no action but the investigation did reveal his horses were prescribed Thyro-L so regularly that one of the horses that died still received a new prescription a week after his death. I cluster this small list of items (there are more) to suggest the following: Bob Baffert will obtain every advantage he possibly can in order to win. Whether you believe he is competing at an unfair level or not is for you to decide but it is only an opinion. It might be educated in some respect based on results or figures but it is only an opinion. Also, what constitutes unfair? Playing within the rules but having knowledge or items no one else has access to? Or does unfair mean conduct outside the rules? That's not exactly clear. Whether you believe he is involved in illicit activities or whether he is complicit are merely conjecture at this point. But I firmly believe there is enough evidence to suggest he will do anything to win that is AT LEAST within the rules and falls even into the grey area like entering a horse to play fullback for the star running back among other things.

2. [i]Horses beat by Baffert's superstars aren't very good.[/i] Baffert's horses make quick work of others when he has it all rolling, whatever that means. At some point, the effect is the Sham effect or rather the Secretariat effect that after being dueled into oblivion by these horses it is hard to fairly assess the horses left in their wake on their own merits. Gun Runner emerged from the Pharoah Derby and Arrogate Travers. Frosted emerged from the Pharoah Belmont. it is hard to say what happens with these horses but Tenfold, Hofburg, and Gronkowski all are horses I have an opinion that they are not exactly Commanding Curve or Golden Soul or Tale of Verve types (apologies to a trainer I admire, Dallas Stewart).

3. [i]Belmont Day last 2 years.[/i] 7 for 7. All of them were just crushing wins. He just points for these days. Right, I understand. But he doesn't point for the Breeders Cup at Del Mar. It will be very interesting to see if he does well at this year's BC. Someone (intentionally vague) in Belmont backyard pointed out to me that a few of his horses ran well at Del Mar in the BC. He did have 2 places as I recall but they didn't run well compared to his record in New York the last few years. Not even close. And several of these were the SAME horses. I think a great bet might be to take a stand against Justify who I read is favored for the BC Classic. In fact, a great proposition might be to take Mendelsohhn over Justify. I've alluded to the rules changes with respect to testing for BC. It wouldn't surprise me if Justify doesn't even start in the Classic and I have conjectures as to why already. It might be a muscle strain--you know, an ailment that wouldn't affect his ability as a stallion.

4. [i]Christian Hellmers.[/i] I commend him for his stance on the issues he addressed. At the end of your video, you (he) asked if we think he is crazy. I might think you are crazy but not with respect to your opinions on that topic or your horse playing skills. In fact, I agree on many counts but I intentionally avoid saying which items. But I've been saying this for years in certain situations. The real crux of the issue for me is if he is playing within the rules. I have no evidence that he is or he isn't except conjecture. My conjecture gets us nowhere. But outlawing all drugs on raceday including Lasix would show you who can really train and who can't. I would love to see that. Robinson Canoe was hit with a ban in baseball for using Lasix. Lasix in humans isn't seen as a performance enhancer but rather a masking agent. Outlaw everything, provide OOC testing similar to the BC last year with 6 month withdrawal period and let's see whose horse can really run. I bet the results would change. I do wonder if contest players who have records of bets and missed winning opportunities beyond the parimutuel pool could wage a lawsuit against a trainer that has a horse later disqualified for failing a drug test. I actually had a losing bet on a Mountaineer race where the place horse was later awarded the victory. Shouldn't I be compensated for my bet on the winner? Who should I recover from? Here is one attempt at what I'm suggesting. http://www.drf.com/news/losing-bettor-sues-harness-trainer-over-positive-test

5. [i]Justify won the Triple Crown.[/i] 70 years from now these arguments on this board won't matter regarding Repole, Geroux, Audible or the horses he beat. His name will be on the Belmont infield just like Citation from 1948. Citation's stablemate scratched from the Belmont. Shocking news? Nah, no one cares now. He beat a small field. No one cares. Certain items of history, namely the Headlines are what live on. By way of example, for those of you alive at the time, who won the 1968 Kentucky Derby?

In conclusion, a trainer who might have incentive based contracts for certain achievements such as a Triple Crown is willing to take advantage any time he can to obtain an edge at least within the rules in order to win and he has been beyond successful. We all have our own opinions of why he is the master but without hard evidence the shroud of mystery and magic surrounding horsemanship skills continues without real answers. Do I believe the playing field is level? No. Do I believe there is illicit behavior? Doesn't matter what I think as I can't prove anything. Would I like to see changes? Yes. Will it happen in the form of uniform national testing, heightened security, OOC testing, cameras on every horse in every barn, etc etc? Doubtful.

But as FrankD likes to say, this is the game you have chosen to play.