"Justify another exhilarating exhibition by the supremely gifted athlete. He's on the dizzying. US enter greatness the winning the Santa Anita Derby clearly from both arrive according to an article written by Joe Drape in the New York Times shortly after this race justify vite tested positive for a banned substance called scopolamine in humans scopolamine is used to treat motion sickness or nausea. That's it's caused by say anesthesia. But why would it end up in a horse. Is it a performance enhancing drug. SCOPOLAMINE is in the least greeted grievous class of drugs. According to the guidelines of the Association of Racing Commissioners International Still The Times article reported that justify had had three hundred nanograms per milliliter which a veteran drug lab official called excessive according to The Times the California horse racing being bored waited nearly three weeks to alert Bob Baffert that the horse had had a positive drug test that was nine days before the Kentucky Derby then the Times Times reports. It took nearly four more months before the board made a final decision on the matter in August. They dismissed it. The New York Times article clearly clearly raises quite a few questions about the results the process and the information spelled out in the story so to help us. Shed some light on this we we welcome in one of the California horse racing board members involved in the process Jesse Choper who is now retired from the board and is also a professor meritous of law at cal Berkeley and a constitutional scholar in fact when Mr Choper finished law school he served as the clerk for the Chief Justice Disobey the Supreme Court Earl Warren so Mr Choper. Let's take this one step at a time first of all. What do you remember about. I hearing about a positive test for justify the horse that had at that point won the Santa Anita Derby and would be heading to the Kentucky Derby that horse you know always a famous course so it seems to me that I would have remembered something I thought about when you cut in touch with me and it may well be you know we do dozens of cases on this every month so I I it seemed to me as as I looked over the whole thing that everything was done pursuant to protocol I think that the racing board at the time should be commended rather than criticized for what it is what it what it didn't that case why the you know the Horse was considered to be the number one horse at the time and to going to run in the the the triple crown. Look for it and what we did is we we listen to the case it involved in drug. I should say drug that has since been stated to be one that is not forbidden at all okay but at the time it was my experience on the racing board is always been that we are overly sensitive to this. I think we have the most thorough investigations on these matters or or considerations these matters than any racetrack in the country AH outside of California certainly been including outside but you know any any race track we do the same thing for all all of the local California race tracks so he did get a positive on it and I I imagine although Oh I don't know that I I recall it that they asked it to be done it over again. I don't know I think it was renewed. As a positive and I think it was agreed to be a positive subsequently after that the board considered it I my guess in something something like this is a twenty twenty five minute conversation and I truthfully do not remember exactly what happened but I imagine that at that time we did not put the horse. disqualified a horse from their race that he had entered well. Let's take a one step at a time here first of all. Do you recall whether justify was the only horse to test test positive at that time for scopolamine. No Okay Doctor Arthur the Ecuadoran medical director director told a member of the Vegas Stats and information network that six horses tested positive. I must say that if Rick said that and that's the fact he is a he his he's the most he's the most respected of the people with the whole country in terms of being the medical medical representative that reports to the board. So what did you end and the other CHR be commissioners know about this drug scopolamine what it does to a horse how it gets into a horse etc at the time. I'm sure that we were informed about it. Okay but I certainly don't recall so the CHR be then notified Bob Baffert who as you mentioned ordered a second test a B sample of the urine there always to in case something goes wrong the first time and it came back positive yes. Yes that's right so the New York. Times article says the sports rules were not followed Mo.. We should point out that there is no one governing body for the sport in this country each state that sanctions horse racing makes its own rules so so in California. What is the timeframe for reviewing these samples. The is is I reviewed by Stewart. It's at the race track. They go for it. They make a judgement that can be appealed and then some of them can be appealed to be reviewed by the racing board on a number of them. We look at it over the written record and decide. It's not worth ah the time of the Board to review it otherwise we do review. What if you ask me if we reviewed it. I don't know I think we probably did eh. The New York Times article said that Bob Baffert was notified nine days before the Kentucky Berbie which would have been over three weeks since the result of the test was made known to you. What do you know about out that and how do you feel about that timeframe. I don't have any idea that as to whether this was any different than the ordinary timeframe that would occur under the circumstances of the facts of this case"