Thanks SC, sure if they want to get their message across they'll come back with it..Originally Posted by Starship Captain
Danno, some one did post a comparison to there football playing and that they take pain killers. I did not reply to it, as I could not
Cheers,
Dan
Totally agree with this. A small minority of trainers, either through negligence or cheating are getting pinged. So are we are expected to move the goal posts to suit these trainers? I'm tipping if thresholds etc are changed, the same trainers will push the boundaries again. But to get back on the fence again, our breed of standardbred is getting faster, but more fragile. I.e more injury prone.
[VVV] Bute stops physically (pharmacologically) working/having the initially desired effect after about 12hrs & is no risk gone for all money by 24hrs...BUT it can still be picked up in a swab well beyond 96hrs...up to as far out as a further 156 post administration & well and truly ast the time when its anti-inflamatory effects have worn off...and that's fair is it?
More often than not trainers will get picked up for a bee's dick amount of the drug and its associated metabolite...an amount who's presence does not amount to a knob of goat shit as far as any anti-inflamatory effetc is concerned...and for mine that's not negligence nor is it cheating on their part...rather, it's just plain absurd.
Bute positives are more often than not recorded by honest trainers who are just trying to keep their horses well enough to race consistently. Nothing more, nothing less.
Placing then publishing a threshold for Bute is not as you've suggested 'moving the goal posts to suit a small number of trainers'. It is instead putting a very definite figure out there for the benefit of all concerned, big and small, pro and amatuer, & one that beyond which you face the consequences, below which you are free to go.
Publishing a threshold (ala TC02's) is simply placing a maximum figure on the presence of phenylbutazone/oxyphenylbutazone in a swab...where currently and VERY notably, there isn't one...and that absence of any figure Leigh, that is an absolute bloody disgrace.
The sensitivity of the Bute test and other such tests is so great that they are simply unrealistic in terms of the actual effect a given drug is having in respect to the amount that is able to be detected.
Similarly, the test for Opiates is so sensitive that you can give your horse a shot of Penicillin and go for a row many days later by way of the test picking up the metabolites of the Procaine that's included in the injection as a local anasthetic. LUDICROUS.
Something else that's worth thinking about...testing for Bute, TC02's ect is a pretty simple exercise & so it is a relatively 'cheap' and so 'highly visible' form of enforcement.
It serves the purposes of many in administration throughout Australia & NZ to hang their hats on such testing as far as them being officially charged with producing a level playing field for participants is concerned...when, in the big scheme of things, Bute & TC02 positives are seriously small potatoes.
Whilever we continue to bog ourselves down in discussions over aspects such as these, ones which by rights should have been well & truly put to bed years ago, there are many bigger issues that continue to go unaddressed.
Last edited by triplev123; 01-03-2012 at 01:33 PM. Reason: spelling
I thought the onus was on the trainer to present a horse at the race drug or substance free? Surely an honest or dilligent trainer would take the appropriate measures to ensure this. Not take an uneccesary risk at getting picked up in a swab when they know theyv'e administered whatever to their horse so many days previous.
[VVV] ?????????? I fear that I am wasting my time here Leigh.
Did you not read/comprehend anything whatsoever in my previous post to this thread?
This is not a matter of honesty or diligence.
We have tests on hand that are so sensitive that they pick up non active trace amounts of various substances and/or their metabolites....and trainers duly get slammed for same despite the fact that the levels are such that the horse is receiving absolutely no physical benefit from the substance whatsoever.
If you or anyone else can mount a convincing case for that situation being anywhere near fair then please, fire away.
[QUOTE=triplev123;14913][VVV] Bute stops physically (pharmacologically) working/having the initially desired effect after about 12hrs & is no risk gone for all money by 24hrs...BUT it can still be picked up in a swab well beyond 96hrs...up to as far out as a further 156 post administration & well and truly ast the time when its anti-inflamatory effects have worn off...and that's fair is it?
Placing then publishing a threshold for Bute is not as you've suggested 'moving the goal posts to suit a small number of trainers'. It is instead putting a very definite figure out there for the benefit of all concerned, big and small, pro and amatuer, & one that beyond which you face the consequences, below which you are free to go.
Publishing a threshold (ala TC02's) is simply placing a maximum figure on the presence of phenylbutazone/oxyphenylbutazone in a swab...where currently and VERY notably, there isn't one...
Much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree with triple on the BUTE issue, some sort of work needs to be done so honest trainers can treat their horses during the week for minor problems ( eg touch of colic) and not get positives 3 or 4 days later.
there is no doubt in my mind that the anti inflammatory and pain relief benefit of bute is well and truly ZERO after 48 hours, so to me, a level permitted at around that, found in the average horse 48 hours after last being treated sounds like something to at least consider as not being in the interests of foul play.
The current TC02 level is IMO something else altogether, there are of few camps regularly treading a fine line here.
Which brings another related issue to mind, the rules say "no drenching within 48 hours pre race" and personaly I reckon thats a fair thing. If you had a horse which was that crook it needed drenching 48 hours pre-competion, then it shouldn't be going around, but we have one trainer in particular in our area, who takes quite a few to the races each meeting and every single one of them ( no I don't mean most of them) are standing around in their own piss after they've raced..... every single time!
like I said I'm all for trainers being able to look after their stock between races, but you have to be vigilant of the cheats, they are chasing too many honest people ( punters and participants alike) away from our game, someone said the word evaporating the other day and unfortunately that's a pretty fair summation.
First of all you can get off your high horse. So you're saying it is the over sensitive testing we have that is to blame. Not a small amount of trainers brave enough to risk a positive when they treat a horse, too close to a race? I hear what your saying about levels having no physical benefit. But it was at some stage. And its in the trainers interest for it to be out of the horses system. Correct? I was brought up to follow the rules, and expect everyone else to do likewise. And until rules change, anyone who flout them, I say stiff shit! I'd like to know what % of these hard done by trainers have been rubbed out.
No, I'm not saying that. I know it is not an overly sensitive test Leigh...rather all that it is currently required to do is to indicate a simple presence or absence thereof.
I'm certain the testing labs could quantify the amount present but they're not being asked by the regulators to do so, they're merely being asked to tick yes or no...and so goes the fortunes of the trainer concerned.
There is currently no threshold in place for Bute...and to add insult to injury, under those current rules it is my understanding that the test does not need to report the amount present.
If it is found to be there, in any amount at all, anything whatsoever, then it will be deemed a positive...be it a Kilogram or be it a nanogram. THAT is the point I am trying to make.
It is, IMO, an unrealistic, unfair test & I think it's reasonable to suggest that there must be dozens of other tests out there that are in the same boat...i.e. tests that are calling positives on trainers solely due to trace amounts beng present, amounts that could in no reasonable way, shape or form be termed pharmacologically active.
Back to Bute, as it is without doubt the Poster Child for this debate, it is terribly unfair to think that a horse who races on a Saturday night, gets a few bumps & bruises and is duly given a dose of Bute when he gets home that night...could still score his trainer a positive the following Saturday night....despite the effects of the drug in question having well and truly worn off by around lunchtime the previous Sunday.
Don't forget, thresholds work both ways...not only do they prevent honest trainers from falling foul of a yes or no type Draconian style interpretation of the rule, they also serve to zero in on a trainer who, by a quantifying of the amount detected, has intentionally given the drug too close to race day & has pressed on, regardless. You seem to think it is all one way traffic. It is not.
Heres another, completely different angle that came via another thread today....
what do people think of this approach to ensuring a level playing field?
I know one thing for sure! The disqualification period would stop a few people leaving the game due to disillusionment.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/horse...-testing_N.htm
Good idea but it seems to me that Kentucky was behind the times, even there.
That approach was already in place in numerous other places Dan, including here in Oz.
It's sometimes referred to as 'out of competition' testing & there is to my knowledge nothing stopping Stewards ordering any test on any horse and at any time, for anything.
Making any resultant charges stick...as far as establishing intent is concerned however, that's another matter altogether.
If for example Stewards tested out of competition horses & they found mircera or aranesp or whatever, drugs that obviously have no business being in a horse, then I'm sure they'd be able to jam them six ways from Sunday.
If an out of competition horse came up with a Bute or an Opiate positive then they'd be on very shakey ground on the basis of it not having been presented to race.
They wouldn't put themselves in that position however, they are smarter than that.
Last edited by triplev123; 01-03-2012 at 11:02 PM. Reason: spelling
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote