Luke Mccarthy enquiry adjourned

[Thevoiceofreason]

And for what its worth, what sort of person would use something like methamphetamine on their horse? What did the RSPCA think about that? That person should not be allowed near a horse.

I agree wholeheartedly Brad . I can't understand why some of these cases are not handed over to the police . Any positive swab is also an act of cruelty .[/QUOTE]

Mark

With the greatest of respect not the cases discussed here but many positive swabs in both codes are the simple miscalculation of Therapeutic drugs.

That is about as far from an act of cruelty as you can get ..its only been in the last 2 years for example that Harness Trainers could treat their horses for the common condition of stomach ulcers without being deemed to have a positive swab. Those that used these drugs to treat a common problem got a positive. Was that cruel, of course not in fact it helped the horse.

As you well know some positive findings can also be traced back to horses grazing on weeds and grasses, should we call theses people cheats or ring the police ... The horses are still disqualified because the drug all be it naturally occurring is in their system but that is it ....There was a recent one in the Gallops and I have heard of many more as I am sure you are only too aware.

So lets not get over dramatic.

[Triple V]

That's right, the vast majority are indeed miscalculations of a host of therapeutics...hence my well worn mantra for addressing a whole host of thresholds for same. It is indeed about as far from an act of cruelty as you can get. In such instances I don't think anyone's suggesting anyone else being involved other than our own Regulatory people.
However...while the EPO thing is maybe(?) line ball...seriously VOR, a horse returning a Methamphetamine positive? Nah, can't wear that one.
For mine it's no different to a swab coming back positive for Cocaine or for Heroin or for MDMA or PCP or whatever and I guarentee if it were any of those somewhat more well known drugs people would long ago have hit the roof.
Mate, I'm no tree hugger free the battery hens type as you well know but geeze, if it's found to be solid then once it's dealt with at our level it should be passed to an organisation that's beyond Harness Racing...whomever can and will add some significant further straw to the then, if it has been proven, already broken Camel's back.
To get some idea of what physical and mental havoc Meth could potentially wreak upon a horse, take a trip down to St. Vincents Emergency in the early hours of a Saturday or Sunday morning and if he's around ask the good Dr. himself, Tim Stewart...if you can view the assembled contents of the padded rooms they've got down there for all the Meth smashed Tweakers who go completely postal for hours & hours on end.
For all its horrors, people take it of their own free will. Horses being given it is another matter entirely.
If that's not animal cruelty then I don't know what is. It's good policy to always be kind to children, old ladies and animals....excepting of course the Pigeons that infest the grandstand at Bankstown. That last bit should be good for another stinging rebuke from Dot.

[Thevoiceofreason]

I have no knowledge of the level of Meth but to put some context to hysteria being driven here.

Racing Labs around the world do not give Quantitative analysis in plain words they do not say how much is in each sample ... they provide Qualitative analysis, that is it is in the horse, they can however in some drugs say if its a large or small amount.

Gai Waterhouse had a small amount of cocaine detected in a swab a few years back yes it was in the horse so she was still penalised and the horse disqualified.

The point I am making is the level could be so small as to be contamination from human use and not through administration this was the defence throughout the Waterhouse case because the level was at the lower end. There would have been no point in involving the police in this case and whilst I have no knowledge of the current Harness case it may be similar or of course, it the brief may have been handed to the police for further investigation, we simply do not know and to be honest we should not because that might compromise any police investigation if there is one.

[Toohard]

Racing Labs around the world do not give Quantitative analysis in plain words they do not say how much is in each sample ... they provide Qualitative analysis, that is it is in the horse, they can however in some drugs say if its a large or small amount.

Gday Bill

Just trying to understand the "Never returned a positive to it before" stuff.

For this substance the threshold is 15mg per litre. So the lab results say the horse is either over that or under it but not by how much? If under not a positive.

So the other times swabbed could have been 14mg and nothing is done? And in this case could have been 16mg and so a positive?

Cheers

[Triple V]

I have no knowledge of the level of Meth but to put some context to hysteria being driven here.

Racing Labs around the world do not give Quantitative analysis in plain words they do not say how much is in each sample ... they provide Qualitative analysis, that is it is in the horse, they can however in some drugs say if its a large or small amount.

Gai Waterhouse had a small amount of cocaine detected in a swab a few years back yes it was in the horse so she was still penalised and the horse disqualified.

The point I am making is the level could be so small as to be contamination from human use and not through administration this was the defence throughout the Waterhouse case because the level was at the lower end. There would have been no point in involving the police in this case and whilst I have no knowledge of the current Harness case it may be similar or of course, it the brief may have been handed to the police for further investigation, we simply do not know and to be honest we should not because that might compromise any police investigation if there is one.

[VVV] VOR writes [Racing Labs around the world do not give Quantitative analysis in plain words they do not say how much is in each sample ... they provide Qualitative analysis, that is it is in the horse, they can however in some drugs say if its a large or small amount.]
None at all? No specific figures? Nothing? Geeze.
So how do they tell if something exceeds a specific threshold then??????
That lack of specificity in itself is absolutely ridiculous VOR, especially when you think about about it from a Trainer's viewpoint....because the sensitivity of some tests, especially so the drugs of abuse end of the spectrum, sees to it that many substances can & will be detected despite them being present in such minute amounts that there is no way they can possibly be pharmacologically active BUT nevertheless a Trainer can still go for a row?
Although it is not a drug of abuse, Bute is a classic example as it pertains for horse racing. It stops working after 12hrs but it can be detected and trainers can easily go for a row over its presence some 96hrs+ post administration. That's absolutely absurd whatever way any reasonable person may care to look at it. Madness.
Why are we as a Racing Code, we as an Industry, not banging the table & demanding Quantitative Testing?
It is INSANE that Trainers can fall foul of this basic yep, it's there but we have no idea if it is there in such an amount as to be active at the point of testing or not.
This subject actually brings immediately to mind another ridiculous restriction...that of not being able to race a horse for so many days post a Penicillen injection.
That has everything to do with the minute amount of the local anesthetic, Procaine, which is included in the injection in order to take the edge off having a painful intra-muscular jab....being able to produce an Opiate positive days and days later, one that under the present rules could Out a Trainer for a considerable period.

The apparent complete lack of Quantitative Testing is madness, absolute madness. Worse still, it is morally & ethically wrong.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Paul

Yes you have got it exactly right with threshold levels that is how it works under the threshold no positive swab over and it is declared.

[mark diegutis]

I agree wholeheartedly Brad . I can't understand why some of these cases are not handed over to the police . Any positive swab is also an act of cruelty .

Mark

With the greatest of respect not the cases discussed here but many positive swabs in both codes are the simple miscalculation of Therapeutic drugs.

That is about as far from an act of cruelty as you can get ..its only been in the last 2 years for example that Harness Trainers could treat their horses for the common condition of stomach ulcers without being deemed to have a positive swab. Those that used these drugs to treat a common problem got a positive. Was that cruel, of course not in fact it helped the horse.

As you well know some positive findings can also be traced back to horses grazing on weeds and grasses, should we call theses people cheats or ring the police ... The horses are still disqualified because the drug all be it naturally occurring is in their system but that is it ....There was a recent one in the Gallops and I have heard of many more as I am sure you are only too aware.

So lets not get over dramatic.[/QUOTE]



Your right Bill . I had those Meth and EPO swabs in my head and should have put much more thought into it . You make a good rudder for this forum . Thanks

[Thevoiceofreason]

Jamie

your comments have been made by many people over many years but that is the way of the world, do not think this is just Australia or just Harness Racing, I am not a chemist and do not pretend to be I am just trying to provide some information that I am aware of so that the system of swab findings is understood.

Only one slight correction to you last example Procaine can be found for weeks and there are a couple of instances where it is more like months.

Boldenone given at the correct dosage can hang around for up to six months there was a case many years back where a galloper positive to Boldenone was spelled because his level kept fluctuating up and down it was six months before this settled and the Owner returned the horse to work. At one stage he became so frustrated he actually thought about selling the horse but then realised who was going to buy it anyway because until the level dropped below the threshold it was going nowhere near a race track

[Toohard]

Paul

Yes you have got it exactly right with threshold levels that is how it works under the threshold no positive swab over and it is declared.

Thanks Bill
Cheers

[Mighty Atom]

Back in the 60's,70's & 80"s anabolic steroids were routinely used ( Durateston, Sustanon 250 ( human equivalent to durateston ), Boldenone, Boldec, Spectriol, Filybol, Durabolin, Deca-durabolin, Testaviron and others and they certainly made a huge improvement to horses. You could race these horses twice in one night - and usually raced better the second start. Initially, steroids were definitely responsible for the huge race performance improvements. I lived next door to a trainer that couldn't train a winner in 15 years, he then got hold of a grey mare that had won a race in the city, put her on a course of Sustanon 250 alternating every three weeks with Deca Durabolin and she never stopped winning. He never worried about positioning in the field he just sat in the breeze, all the horses in his stable became prolific winners from there on. Problem is once it became a level playing field it was time to move on to the hardcore drugs which I could mention but I won't.