Reply With Quote
I was just wondering. Are the variances between the first positive swab and the second negative swab outside the range of error for the relevant testing equipment. Are the actual results published anywhere?
Originally Posted by Harness29
[VVV] Machines don't lie???? Geeze. Where ever did you get that idea?
Yes they do my friend, they most certainly do. Merely running the same Beckman Elise based testing platform most certainly does not automatically = 100% the same results.
There would be no need whatsoever for NATA if that were the case.
Fact is that there are any number of variables that can & do influence outcomes...ranging from the QC material used to the individual operator skills & everything in between.
I was just wondering. Are the variances between the first positive swab and the second negative swab outside the range of error for the relevant testing equipment. Are the actual results published anywhere?
No, while they obviously differed they would not be outside the normal range.
Not sure if the results are published anywhere?
Probably not as amatter of course anyway. Most likely only when read into evidence an recorded as part of the transcript of an appeal perhaps?
I'll hazard a guess & suggest the biggest potential problem facing TC02 testing here in Australia is that the Beckman Synchron EL-ISE is in fact no longer being manufactured and it has not been supported by the supplier since the end of 2008. Maybe they've dealt with it in the interim, maybe they haven't. I'll find out.
Beckman of course have a couple of other newer TC02 Testing platforms on hand...there's the Synchron CX5 & the UniCel DxC600. Beckman are a multi-national but I think they're headed up in the USA?
There is also another smaller & so significantly more portable instrument called a Randox Daytona. Randox are a UK based company I believe.
Only the first 2 named intruments can be used for both initial testing & confirmatory analysis however as from what I am told the basic operation principle of the Randox is not up to scratch for confirmatory purposes.
Rather when used to measure the pre & post race TC02's of horses it is effectively just a 'screening' platform...rather like the roadside Breath Tests the Police used and then, if you pull a number of interest, it is back to the Station for a confirmatory on the more sensitive/accurate machine.
The above is thought to be correct up to the middle/latter part of 2010 & it is in all likelyhood still the case. With it being so late however I couldn't confirm. Will do so tomorrow.
Tasmania published them in their gazette for a while but I think that practice has now been stopped.
Further to the above...the best Blood Gas Testing platforms currently on the market are made by Siemens.
Siemens took over Chiron Diagnostics quite a few years ago now, my wife used to work for Chiron and moved on a year or so before Siemens took them over. At the time Chiron had much of the Racing Lab. business here in Sydney. I understand that after the takeover that business duly flowed on to Siemens & maybe they still have it.
Siemens produce excellent analysers, the RapidLab (bigger Lab based systems) and the RapidPoint (smaller, point of care based systems mostly used in ICU's).
In particular their latest release, the RapidPoint500, is an incredible piece of technology. It is around the size of one of those compact CD/Stereo Systems...but it packs a huge punch.
It actually measures the pH, blood gases, electrolytes, glucose, lactate & provides full CO-oximetry including total hemoglobin...WITHIN 60 SECONDS!
Given the speed & accuracy with which such an instrument can test samples and return Intensive Care Unit quality results, we should at the very least considered putting them in place on-course here in NSW & especially so at Menangle. I'm going to ring a mate of mine in a moment & try to find out how much they are.
In terms of size, here are a couple of pictures of their new RapidPoint500, standing alone on the bench & then one with an operator for an idea of scale. It was only released about a week or so ago and from all reports it is an EXCELLENT system.
The reason I suggest we should have one on-course is that the aspect of the current TC02 Testing which really bothers me is the 'sending a sample away to a Lab in QLD for a confirmatory result' routine. The fact is that Blood Gas analysis is not the same as drug testing.
No matter how well/accurately/to specs the sample is collected, no matter how well it is then handled &/or subsequently transported, no matter how good the testing platform that's used is...and no matter how great the skill of the operator at the time, I'm very reliably told there's no way that an accurate result can reasonably be expected/produced.
For TC02 results to be at their best & most accurate they instead should carried out at point of collection and within 1hr of collection. The above system could change all that. It would be fairer for all concerned.
And then they can do what they do in Pennslyvania in the USA. EVERY SINGLE HORSE is pre race TC02ed and tested on course. If you fail the pre race TC02 you are scratched out of the race and the trainer is fined. No suspensions or disqualifications. And that is how it should be IMHO. If the horse doesn't race then no punters or rival trainers have been disadvantaged. A fine and scratching would suffice as punishment. There are obviously a lot more serious punishments for a post race TC02 (normally some loss lif license, but only for a shorter period than here, ie one trainer I knew got 14 days) but I think oncourse pre race TC02 testing with a scratch and fine punishment would be wonderful
You beat me to the punch line. That's exactly what I was working towards. Could not agree more.
Thanks for the information. I agree. Is cost the limiting factor or do they have some other reason for not impementing this procedure? It actually seems more cost effective. Surely some of the windfall from the sale of Harold Park should be directed towards cleaning up the industry.
Boys a lot of it has to do with accepted international standards for TC02 and its testing but your suggestion is certainly worthy of investigation.
Its a bit like back to the future though because something like this was happening in the 80's
VOR [Boys a lot of it has to do with accepted international standards for TC02 and its testing]
VVV- Not really. You can set your cut-offs at 0.7-7-17-27-37-47-57mmol, whatever you want them at.
Accepted here is 37mmol. There's your cut-off.
I spoke to one of the Siemens Reps. earlier today & the cost of buying one of these absolute latest version, state of the art machines outright is only $30,000.
In the overall scheme of things, in order to have the testing happening right there on course in real time, that's not a whole lot of money IMO.
They come complete with the user's choice of test cartridges that are able to cover 250, 500 & 750 tests respectively & the cartridges are good for either that number of tests or for 28 days, whichever comes first.
The basic heart & soul of the analyser itself is expected to last for at least 8 years before needing to either be extensively overhauled or more likely, replaced.
I think it would be pretty bloody terrific if the NSW Stewards had access to an on-course testing facility such as this, one which returns an accurate, reliable reading in just 60 seconds.
The analyser would surely pay for itself by way of dispensing with the subsequent to and fro bullshit alone. Collect horse, test sample, move on or take action. Simple as that. If Pa. can do it, we can too.
Last edited by triplev123; 10-11-2011 at 06:06 PM. Reason: spelling & sentence construction
Posting Permissions
