The New York Racing Association has filed a response to a lawsuit from trainer Bob Baffert arguing that a court should lift his ban at NYRA’s tracks, contending that the ban is based on voluminous case law and essential to protecting the integrity of the sport. The response, which contains affidavits running 236 pages long, was filed on Wednesday night in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York, nearly two weeks prior to a hearing scheduled for July 12 to hear arguments in Baffert’s request for a preliminary injunction lifting the ban. NYRA’s prestigious meet at Saratoga Race Course begins on July 15. Baffert was barred by NYRA on May 17, citing his acknowledgement that his horse Medina Spirit tested positive for betamethasone, a regulated anti-inflammatory drug, after the May 1 Kentucky Derby. At the time, Baffert had already been barred by Churchill Downs, and NYRA’s biggest race, the Belmont Stakes, was scheduled to be run on June 5. In its court filings, NYRA argues that the ban is necessary to protect the reputation of its business and that Baffert’s attorneys have failed to demonstrate that the ban constitutes a substantial threat to his business or reputation, despite the fact that a significant number of horses have been moved out of Baffert’s barn because of their owners’ intentions to run in stakes races during the Saratoga meet. “The public interest and balance of equities weigh clearly in favor of NYRA,” the response states. “NYRA is obliged to protect its investment, brand, and reputation, and supervise activities at its racetracks in a manner that fosters the public’s confidence in the safety and honesty of the sport.” Craig Robertson, the attorney representing Baffert in the case, said on Thursday morning that he would have no comment on the response. “We will respond through our legal filings,” he said. NYRA’s response goes to great lengths to argue that the association is not a state agency, in an effort to counter arguments from Baffert’s attorney that the association should be held to a high standard when invoking its right to exclude licensed individuals. The response notes that NYRA’s “day-to-day operations are not controlled by the state,” and that the majority of its business decisions are made without direct state approval. NYRA operates its three tracks under a lease with the state, which owns the tracks. Moreover, its operations are overseen by a Franchise Oversight Board. Baffert’s attorneys have argued that his due-process rights were violated in part because NYRA has special obligations as a regulated business closely tied to the state. “A veritable mountain of New York case law has affirmed an operator’s common law right of exclusion and upheld NYRA’s authority to exclude persons from its racetracks, including persons licensed by the state,” the response says. The response repeatedly cites four drug positives for regulated medications in Baffert horses in the 12 months prior to this year’s Kentucky Derby, including a positive for betamethasone from the filly Gamine in the Sept. 4 Kentucky Oaks at Churchill Downs, as grounds for the ban. Baffert, a Hall of Fame trainer, is perhaps the most recognizable personality in the sport. “Rarely in the history of the sport has there been such a confluence of drug positives involving so prominent a trainer,” the response states. “NYRA took the only sensible action under the circumstances – it temporarily suspended plaintiff from entering and stabling horses at its racetracks.” The case has generated outsized media attention due to the prominence of the Kentucky Derby and Baffert’s well-documented history of recent violations, even if those violations involved regulated medications. Two weeks ago, the judge in the case granted a request by The Jockey Club, the breed registry of the U.S., to file a friend-of-the-court response. The Jockey Club filing states that Baffert’s business is not substantially threatened by the NYRA ban because the vast majority of his starts over the past 10 years have occurred outside of New York.