(Medina Spirit and embattled trainer Bob Baffert, the day after the 2021 Kentucky Derby / Photos by Holly M. Smith)

Every so often, we will be addressing a few things: comments, decisions, people, whatever that – for one reason or another – should be tossed into the literary “muck pit.”

It is in the spirit of cleanliness, recycling, and protecting the environment that we offer this service of “addressing the muck” – free of charge. After all, someone has to do it, right?

Here’s our 35-something version of “The Muck Pit:”

Thanks to Baffert’s Lawsuits, We All May Get Some Tough Questions & Refreshing Truths:

I’ll be the first to admit that I am truly sick and tired of Bob Baffert and his whinny team of lawyers, who have blamed everyone from international war criminal Vladimir Putin to the deceased evangelist Billy Graham for their client’s legal and public relations woes.

Truth be known, maybe Putin and Graham are about the only two persons that have not been accused of tampering with Baffert’s barn and named as possible conspirators and suspects for Baffert’s problems associated with his continuing series of drug positives.

After all, over the past few years we have been told that Baffert’s on-going issues with bad drug tests are due to, get this:

Some bad hay, from the hills of Southern California, that must have grown from seeds sewn by a leftover, Vietnam War dissenter and hippie;

A “Hot” pain patch worn in Hot Springs that somehow bled onto a tongue tie;

A Covid-ridden groom, who was splashing down swigs of cough medicine faster than a pint of Rebel Yell, pissing on the feed and bedding in the stall;

And, now, to a tube of ass cream.

You have to give the team credit for creativity. Right?

These ain’t your momma’s everyday excuses, although I suspect that the goat from a neighboring barn was the brainchild for all these invasions of privacy, and obvious trespasses.

But…

Ever since it became public that the star-crossed Medina Spirit had tested positive for a drug overage following his amazing, and surprising win in the 2021 Kentucky Derby, the trio of Baffert, and attorneys Clark Brewster and Craig Robertson have cried foul to anyone and everyone within a furlong.

The whines are best uttered in hum-along. And, the whines remind me of those folky lyrics that the late Buck Owens and his duet partner, Roy Clark, used to warble on the old TV show “Hee Haw:”

“Gloom, despair, and agony on me…

“Deep, dark depression, excessive misery…

“If it weren’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all.

“Gloom, despair, and agony on me…”

Wonder which one plays the red, white and blue guitar and who strums the banjo?

Well, that doesn’t matter.

What does matter?

Some good news may be on the way. Finally. Thankfully. Some disclosure and closure may be in sight. Finally. Hopefully. The singing may give way to some zinging.

And, guess what?

We may have Baffert, and brothers Robertson and Brewster to thank for what may shed the final and ultimate light unto all this darkness.

Thanks may be due both Robertson and Brewster for getting Baffert to agree to file the lawsuits aimed at Churchill Downs and its’ leadership team of CDI Board Chairman Alex Rankin and Chief Executive Officer Bill Carstanjen.

Now, for the very first time, the legal team assembled by Churchill Downs, Rankin and Carstanjen will get to depose Baffert and his entire team of assistant trainers, accountants, veterinarians, veterinarian assistants, grooms, hot walkers, night guards, public relations consultants and anyone else that they think may be able to offer some rational explanation for all the positive test results that have occurred in horses housed, cared for, treated and trained by this team. Past. And. Present.

See, when you work for a company that is valued at $8 to $9 billion dollars, you can afford to hire the very best in the legal land to represent your interests and to protect your company’s massive investment in brand and name credibility.

And, I suspect that Churchill Downs’ legal team is developing their strategy on just who they would like to talk to, and the questions they would love to pose.

I suspect that Churchill Downs’ legal team is preparing to ask the court for veterinarian records to discover and validate when medications and procedures were ordered and delivered, and, in each case, by whom.

I suspect Churchill Downs is reaching out to its’ own list of medical experts, who have unquestioned credentials and credibility, to weigh in on testimony for the record.

But just in case they need a little extra help and assistance, we have thought of some questions that we would like to see raised, addressed, and answered, as well.

And, in the name of justice and full transparency for all parties concerned —  which I am sure all sides would like to assure the viewing public — we offer this list of possible inquiries for public disclosure:

  1. In the matter of Medina Spirit, when was the skin rash first discovered, and by whom? When was the prescribed medication for the skin rash first requested, and by whom? Who was the veterinarian who prescribed the ass cream, er, excuse me, medication and delivered to the barn? Did the veterinarian of record educate the people who were charged with the responsibility to administer the ass cream, er, excuse me, medication about the potential affects? Did the veterinarian disclose to the trainer, assistant trainer or anyone else in the barn that it had the potential to leach into the horse’s blood system and create a positive test result?
  2. In the matter of Medina Spirit, why did the trainer profusely deny that his horse had ever, ever, ever been treated with any medication that could contribute to this positive result? Was he not made aware of the ass cream, er, excuse me, the medication, and the properties contained within prior to its’ administration? Why would the trainer — who has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the horse is in complete compliance with all rules and regulations — not know of any and all drugs, feeds, ointments, treatments given to and administered on his horse preparing for the G1 Kentucky Derby? And why did he not take action to prevent any contamination in advance?
  3. In the matter of Medina Spirit, how much ass cream, er, excuse me, medication of this sort would it take to be applied to the horse in or around the skin rash that could cause this type of reaction, considering that the ointment would have to leach through the hair and the skin of a horse that weights approximately 1,200 to 1,400 pounds and cause an overage of the drug found in the horse’s post-race system and blood sample?
  4. In the matter of Medina Spirit, when was the last time that the ass cream, er, excuse me, medication was administered to the horse prior to the Kentucky Derby? If it was while the horse was stabled at Churchill Downs, was there a Kentucky-licensed veterinarian that prescribed the medication and over-saw its’ application? If so, who  was that veterinarian?
  5. In the matter of Medina Spirit, after the post-race test came back positive and was made known to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, was there any evidence collected from the barn or any containers close to the barn that suggested the ass cream, er, excuse me, the medication was applied? Such as, were there any tubes of the ass cream, yeah, ass cream, left over in the barn area, and collected as evidence? Were there any empty containers of the ass cream collected as evidence? If so, how many were delivered and how many were collected?
  6. In the matter of Medina Spirit, is it true that after the first blood test revealed a positive result, that a split sample of the original blood was sent to another testing lab, that was chosen by the trainer and/or his representatives, for confirmation? And, did that second lab confirm the positive result?
  7. In the matter of Medina Spirit, is it true that the trainer and his legal representatives filed a lawsuit in Franklin Circuit Court seeking an order to force the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission to send a post-race urine sample to a lab for further testing? Did the court order the initial test lab and those conducting those initial urine tests to preserve enough of the post-race urine so that it, too, could be sent to another lab as a split sample and to collaborate the first lab’s test results? Was there a split sample of the urine tested? If so, what lab conducted that test? If not, why not? If not, does this violate the court’s order?
  8. In the matter of Medina Spirit, is it true that the trainer willingly and knowingly agreed to the stall application at Churchill Downs that gave the trainer and his horses access to the private property of the track? Is it true that the trainer has signed similar stall applications at race tracks all over the country? Is it true that the trainer knowingly and willingly agreed to the terms and conditions of that stall application that grants the trainer and his horses access and knowingly understood that privilege can be revoked by the owner of the property, as well?
  9. In the matter of Medina Spirit, does the trainer understand and acknowledge that he, and he alone, is ultimately responsible for the care and the condition of all horses assigned to his barn and entered in any and all races at the track?
  10. In the matter of Medina Spirit, does the trainer acknowledge that the State’s duly-constituted oversight board, which administers the regulations that govern racing in the Commonwealth, has the authority to hear testimony and render judgment on any and all violations, as proven by positive post-race test results?
  11. And, in the matter of Medina Spirit, does the trainer accept and acknowledge that Churchill Downs has the sole right to expel, reject, or prohibit any, or all, person, or persons, that it deems to have violated the terms and conditions for admission and creates undue harm to the track, its’ image, and the credibility of its’ races from and to the licensed premises?

Now, that the Baffert-initiated lawsuit has been filed against Churchill Downs, Carstanjen and Rankin, and a Federal Judge has denied the request to expedite the hearing from the normal 21-day answer period to just a week, we await what we hope will be the full disclosure of all the facts and testimony related thereto.

We hope all the questions are answered in full transparency and made public to the very people that wager on and attend the Kentucky Derby. Don’t we all have a right to that information?

Now, that the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission has denied all requests for a stay in the issuance of its’ penalties and suspension, we wait to see if Franklin County Circuit Court Judge Thomas Wingate will decide in the matter of upholding the currently levied suspension and fine as issued by the Kentucky Racing Commission, or allow for a temporary stay and injunction.

Now, we wait to see if Baffert and his legal counsel will plan appeal Judge Wingate’s upcoming and yet-to-be-determined decision, if he so chooses to uphold the penalties.

Now, we wait.

Some more. Unfortunately.

But now we wait with popcorn in hand.

This wait could be worth it.