Fairmount:

I hate to respond by serving up a heaping helping of word salad, but are you
implying that Baffert will try to avoid out of competition testing (OOCT) by
keeping runners like West Coast out of competition?

You mention the "rules changes" in the 2017 BC at Del Mar. The real change was
that, after the Masochistic mess in the 2016 BC (California authorities
apparently knew pre race that Masochistic would likely test positive for
steroids, but felt that they were legally constrained from communicating this
to the BC powers that be), the folks at Breeders Cup decided to take OOCT into
their own hands rather than leaving such testing to the host state/track.
In advance of the 2017 BC at Del Mar, Dora Delgado, speaking on behalf of the
BC, stated that "The Breeders Cup is on target to test upwards of 90% of all
runners [entered in the BC]...at least one horse from every trainer's stable
will be tested..." In the end, as best as I can tell doing some brief research
and without submitting a FOIL request, 195 horses were subjected to OOCT. I do
not know if this figure includes horses based outside North America. The other
question would be if this figure includes some, or many, horses which did not
compete in the BC. Or am I reading this skeptically, when in truth 195 of the
200 plus BC runners were subjected to OOCT?

Is there any way to assure that all BC competitors will be subjected to OOCT? I
am not certain what the expense involved with OOCT is, but there were
approximately 445 graded stakes scheduled to be run in the United States in 2018
(not counting the BC events)(My opinion: that is way too many graded stakes,
another example of the tail (the Breeding Industry) wagging the dog (the sport
of horse racing)). A vast majority of the runners who will compete
in the 2018 BC at CD will have started at least once in a graded stake. If BC
tested the top three finishers in each of these 445 graded events (a) it is
likely that all US based BC runners will have been OOCT'd and (b) many more
than 195 runners will have been tested, even taking into account the fact that
many runners will be multiple stakes winners/multiple stakes placed. Some
might argue that such extensive testing is overkill in that many runners will
be tested who do not eventually compete in the BC. Maybe such far reaching OOCT
is something the Jockey Club and the BC could undertake as a joint venture,
because...

"OOCT is largely used as a [b]deterrent[/b] and fact finding enterprise". These
were the words of Rick Arthur, DVM, of the California Horse Racing Board
(CHRB). Fairmount, you studied law and know that the word [b]deterrent
[/b] is another way of saying "we will arrest a small portion of the criminal
actors, and [b]hope[/b] those arrests discourage other potential criminal
actors". Anyone who has seen the movie "Deepwater Horizon" (John Malkovich
excellent as the full speed ahead company man) knows that "Hope is not a
strategy". In any case, casting a wider net, performing testing on as many
graded stakes performers as possible, would have a greater deterrent effect.

Could Baffert game the OOCT protocol by keeping a horse such as West Coast on
the bench and giving him one prep close up before the BC, as he did with Secret
Circle in the 2013 BC Sprint (check archives), or even run off an eight month
layoff just off works? I think the fact that he has mentioned the BC as a
possibility is enough to make West Coast a viable candidate for OOCT testing,
especially if he shows up on the work tab with typically fast Baffert works. If
the name of the game was to try to avoid OOCT, I would imagine owner, trainer,
stablehands would have to be sworn to silence regarding the horse's future
plans.

Could Baffert win the BC Classic off an eight month layoff? Baffert is known for
being able to work horses faster/longer than most of his cohorts. There are
advantages to working a horse long and fast as opposed to running him/her: The
horse gets the benefit of heart, lung and leg conditioning without the stress
(detention barn protocol, paddock distractions, loading into a full starting
gate) of running in an afternoon/evening race. Horses are not routinely tested
after workouts. Some horses will probably thrive off being teased with a series
of long fast works while not facing race competition. As you know, my theory is
that any pharmacological advantage Baffert might be taking is in the
preparation: many Baffert horses, especially youngsters, have worked faster in
the morning (over a surface that we can assume is not as fast as the afternoon
race surface) than many of their competitors will ever run in the afternoon. Of
course, extenuating circumstances (purse money, Derby points, "Win and Your In"
considerations, foolish owners who expect to see their horses race in the
afternoon) dictate that a horse eventually is brought to the starting
gate for pari-mutuel racing.

To summarize, Baffert's ability to work horses (especially young horses)long
and fast gives these runners a distinct advantage if and when they make it to
the races. I would not be surprised if PEDs played a part in this "long and
fast" regimen. Would it be interesting if some banned race day PEDs were
[i]absolutely[/i] banned, and all horses working 6 furlongs or more were tested
after said works? Or if horses working at any distance were randomly tested? If
anything, it would probably prove to be a revealing "fact finding
enterprise", to use the words of Rick Arthur.