You have no idea what he gave the horse.
You have no idea how it was administered.
That’s usually enough to stop most people, but now based on what you don’t know you are piling assumptions on top of your ignorance of any real facts (see first two sentences). Pure speculation based on whatever Baffert threw out there, which could just be his way of covering up whatever it is that he did.
You sound (read?) educated enough to know that as knowledgeable as you may be, you have no clue as to how applicable anything you are saying is in the present case. All you know is what everyone else does, that the horse tested positive. Why are you wasting time on a bulletin board, maybe Baffert needs an expert witness?