Baffert suspension raises questions about sensitive tests and trace levels of drugs

From the top of the sport to out of the sport in a week. Such is the life of a trainer. Or at least in the life of a successful trainer who is charged with having used an illegal drug on one of his horses.

One week and one day after trainer Bob Baffert won the Belmont Stakes (G1) with Point Given, he was suspended for 60 days as a result of a 13-month-long inquiry into a positive for morphine found in one of his trainees after a winning race in May 2000.

Baffert appealed the ruling so he could continue to train, but his attempt to receive a stay was denied by the stewards. Baffert's attorney, Neil Papiano, now takes the case to California Superior Court to stay the suspension while the positive is appealed. Get ready to read about this case for the next couple of years.

The Baffert case has many of the typical elements of drug positives in racing today: The amount of the drug found was in such a minute quantity that it could not have affected the performance of the horse; there are questions about the chain of evidence; in fact, in this case, some of the evidence has been destroyed; and it is being argued that the amount of drug found in the positive could have come from contamination.

The sophistication of drug testing has made positives a headache for racing because today's experts disagree on when a positive is really a positive. Did a racehorse ingest the positive due to poppy seeds from a roll or a bagel? Did it come from contamination within the testing laboratory? Did it come from contamination from feed from a mill? Did it come from contamination from a groom who was taking drugs?

In the Baffert case, the positive was for 73 nanograms, or about 1/10,000th of the level necessary to affect performance.

State racing commissions should adopt medication guidelines that cite specific threshold levels that would be set high enough to take into account possible contamination and other environmental factors, and then vigorously defend those standards against any transgressors.

The existing climate fosters animosity among trainers, owners, and racing commissions, and, more egregiously, leaves fans wondering if anything is on the square in the sport.

In an era of zero tolerance and extremely sensitive testing, no one wins.

New York on right track

The New York Racing Association is making progress toward getting the state to lower the takeout on straight bets and multiple wagers for three years. The New York Senate approved a bill by 60-0 that would reduce pari-mutuel takeout at Aqueduct, Belmont Park, and Saratoga Race Course. The takeout on straight wagers would be reduced from 15% to 14%, the takeout on most multiple bets like exactas would be reduced from 20% to 17.5%, and the takeout on pick sixes would generally be reduced from 25% to 20%.

The Assembly passed the legislation, 140-0, on June 21, and the legislation now goes to Governor George Pataki for his signature. If he signs the bill, it would be a significant legislation for all pari-mutuel racing. It would be acknowledgment by at least one state government that the high taxation on pari-mutuel wagering is counterproductive toward fostering a healthy sport as well as acknowledging the importance of the underlying agribusiness.

The reason for tracks to reduce takeout is due to the change in the structure of the sport. With interstate wagering dominating the landscape, 82% of all bets today come from off-track, meaning all tracks are competing for the same betting dollars. The lower the takeout, the more attractive one track's races are to bettors.

The big gimmick in attracting business in racing today is rebates-the percentage of a bet that casinos, tracks, and other betting outlets return to their customers as a volume discount, if you will. In a sport where the best handicappers live on razor-thin margins, rebates are a powerful incentive to attract business.

Some professional gamblers say that they operate on a profit margin of about 2% to 4% of their total annual wagers. If they bet $10-million in a year, they hope to make $200,000 to $400,000. A 2.5% reduction in the takeout for an exacta wager is a significant incentive to a big bettor to wager at that track.

If the bill in New York is signed, NYRA would have one of the lowest takeouts of any state. Couple that with top-quality racing, and those factors would very likely make NYRA races the most attractive for big bettors.

If New York can enact this legislation, it could change the climate of racing for years to come. It may force other states to realize that racing is a sport that should be nurtured, not gouged.