Baffert lawyer on Derby medication: 'Not a proper rule'

Craig Robertson, a Kentucky-based attorney for Bob Baffert, appeared on CNN Thursday morning and outlined what might be part of the trainer's case in defending findings of betamethasone in Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit.

Robertson clarified to Horse Racing Nation that although he is part of Baffert's legal team, he does not represent the trainer in his dealings with Churchill Downs Inc., which suspended the trainer for two years after the finding was confirmed.

One point he raised in Baffert's defense concerns the propriety of the rule, which prohibits the presence of any betamethasone in a horse on a race day.

The split sample detected 21 picograms of the substance in a milliliter o blood in the first sample and 25 picograms in a milliliter in the second.

"Just because that's the rule doesn't mean that it's a proper rule," Robertson said. "And the reason why it's not a proper rule is that at that level, there would be zero pharmacology in a horse – zero – and it would have had no effect on this race. And one thing that you haven't heard, and you will not ever hear, is an equine pharmacologist to come out and say that 21 picograms, 25 picograms would have any pharmacology in a horse. They're not going to say that, because they can't say that."

He also raised another point of dispute, claiming that the manner in which anti-inflammatory was administered is a key factor.

"I think that we will have evidence of that, that the rules are related to an injection of betamethasone and were never intended to address how the betamethasone got into the horse here, which is through an ointment and a cream that was to treat a topical dermatitis condition."

Challenged on whether it could be proven that the betamethasone was administered topically rather than through an injection, Robertson said, "We will be able to, I believe, scientifically prove that this came from the cream, the cream and ointment because there are certain compounds in the ointment that are not present in the injection. And so when we could further do the blood and urine tests, we believe we will be able to identify those compounds in the blood and urine, and again, scientifically prove that this came from the ointment."

This is relevant, Robertson said, because "the regulation was designed to deal with an injection into the joint of the horse and concern that that type of injection into the joint of a horse could somehow mask an injury. It was not designed to deal with the innocent application of a topical ointment to treat."