Counsel for Medina Spirit: KHRC Motion 'Baseless'

Responding July 22 to legal action filed in a Franklin (Ky.) Circuit Court by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, attorneys for the connections of Medina Spirit  asked the court to dismiss what it termed an "inflammatory, offensive, and baseless" KHRC motion.

In a July 19 filing, the KHRC claimed that the New York Equine Drug Testing and Research Laboratory had unfairly depleted the colt's primary urine sample and asked the court to order results of what it suspected was the lab's testing of a tainted sample. It further alleged a lack of candor and contemptuous conduct by the laboratory and counsel of plaintiffs Zedan Racing Stables, owner of Medina Spirit, and the colt's trainer, Bob Baffert. 

Clark Brewster, attorney for Zedan Racing Stables, and Craig Robertson, representing Baffert, dismissed those accusations in their Thursday response.

"In reality, the KHRC is simply trying to create an issue out of thin air to lay the foundation for eventually questioning the validity of the New York Laboratory's testing results," they wrote.

This ongoing lawsuit began in June, when the Medina Spirit camp sought additional testing of the post-race sample collected from Medina Spirit after his victory in the May 1 Kentucky Derby Presented by Woodford Reserve (G1) at Churchill Downs. In the weeks that followed the Derby, initial and split-sample blood tests from Medina Spirit revealed the prohibited raceday presence of betamethasone, which could lead to the horse's disqualification and disciplinary action by the KHRC against Baffert.

Robertson attributes the test results to Medina Spirit receiving treatment of a veterinarian-prescribed ointment called Otomax for a skin condition. He argues its application would prove to be exculpatory or mitigating when Kentucky stewards conduct a hearing. 

A corticosteroid, betamethasone is more often given as an injection. Horsemen are advised not to have their horses injected closer than 14 days before racing.

Counsel of the plaintiffs asserted in their response to the KHRC that they had "specifically refrained from having direct communications with the New York Laboratory. Thus, the KHRC's request that this Court 'Order' for the Plaintiffs to disclose test results is preposterous—because Plaintiffs don't have any such information."

Brewster and Robertson wrote they did not know if the New York Laboratory had performed testing on the original sample. Both sides said it was damaged in transit when a blood vial cracked, spilling onto the urine container. 

"Again, Plaintiffs' counsel intentionally have had no communication with the New York Laboratory—so Plaintiffs do not know what that laboratory has or has not done," they added. "The point is that, as far as Plaintiffs know, no one told the lab not to test the compromised sample. If that occurred, Plaintiffs presume those results will be included in the final report of the laboratory. If that testing did not occur, or if the compromised condition of the primary remnant urine sample prevented valid results, Plaintiffs presume that those facts will be reported. Either way, both parties will learn all test results at the same time. As such, there is absolutely nothing about which the KHRC can complain."

Sherelle Roberts-Pierre, a spokesperson for the KHRC, declined comment July 23, saying the KHRC would have no additional statement beyond its Monday filing.