If true....This is frightening

[p plater]

I refer to the article just posted on Harnesslink http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=97591

In particular the statement "

Raglan was found to have 0.44 milligrams of arsenic per litre, above the allowable 0.30, but Tobin said it was highly unlikely that a regulatory threshold set in Hong Kong 30 years ago was appropriate for the entire continent of Australia.
The figure was set after measuring the arsenic levels of 8000 to 10,000 horses at one track in Hong Kong. Anything above a certain level on the distribution curve was deemed to be positive despite the statistical certainty that some outriders were still part of the normal population.
Tobin said nobody knew what a normal arsenic level was in Australian racehorses. Arsenic was a highly variable environmental substance, and suburban Australia was much more variable than urban Hong Kong, affected by a myriad of things like agriculture, mining and local rocks. It was ``highly likely'' that a high normal for arsenic in Australia was higher than the statistical cut-off for Hong Kong of 30 years ago."


Surely we are not using standards set 30 years ago.



With so many potential changes to both Australia and New Zealand's agriculture in that time, the chances of many readings being over a limit is possible via feed.


Consider this, in Australia, fracking with coal seam gas, what's going into the underground water system which comes out through bore water? This not just drinking water but irrigation water.


In New Zealand, the rise of ground water due to the earthquakes, which was extreme to watch on TV.



Maybe its time for a Regional set of standards to be done to verify the International standards are still fair for our region. What if we unknowingly are getting caught up in natural changes which many are being punished for.



I may not have expressed myself well here but my concerns are Urban Hong Kong is vastly different to our Rural Nations

[Triple V]

I refer to the article just posted on Harnesslink http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=97591

In particular the statement "

Raglan was found to have 0.44 milligrams of arsenic per litre, above the allowable 0.30, but Tobin said it was highly unlikely that a regulatory threshold set in Hong Kong 30 years ago was appropriate for the entire continent of Australia.
The figure was set after measuring the arsenic levels of 8000 to 10,000 horses at one track in Hong Kong. Anything above a certain level on the distribution curve was deemed to be positive despite the statistical certainty that some outriders were still part of the normal population.
Tobin said nobody knew what a normal arsenic level was in Australian racehorses. Arsenic was a highly variable environmental substance, and suburban Australia was much more variable than urban Hong Kong, affected by a myriad of things like agriculture, mining and local rocks. It was ``highly likely'' that a high normal for arsenic in Australia was higher than the statistical cut-off for Hong Kong of 30 years ago."


Surely we are not using standards set 30 years ago.



With so many potential changes to both Australia and New Zealand's agriculture in that time, the chances of many readings being over a limit is possible via feed.


Consider this, in Australia, fracking with coal seam gas, what's going into the underground water system which comes out through bore water? This not just drinking water but irrigation water.


In New Zealand, the rise of ground water due to the earthquakes, which was extreme to watch on TV.



Maybe its time for a Regional set of standards to be done to verify the International standards are still fair for our region. What if we unknowingly are getting caught up in natural changes which many are being punished for.



I may not have expressed myself well here but my concerns are Urban Hong Kong is vastly different to our Rural Nations

[VVV] That's a reasonable concern for sure.
Luckily testing procedures can identify inorganic arsenic (non-environmental & so by implication- added) and the presence of organic arsenic (which is/can be environmental/naturally occurring).
If Mrs Triple were, for example, to decide that enough was enough & she whacked some inorganic arsenic in my afternoon coffee...I would eventually excrete in my urine both a significant amount of the original inorganic arsenic in a totally unchanged form as well as a small amount of organic arsenic, it being as I understand the ONLY possible metabolite of the original dose of inorganic arsenic.
If, however she went with a bottle of Jurocyl instead and so I consumed organic arsenic then it can only subsequently be excreted it in its original form, which was organic arsenic.

[broncobrad]

Hey Bailey, I can't buy that one. Treating horses regularly with arsenic was extremely common place in years gone by and its therapeutic value in smaller doses cannot be denied. Performance enhancing? Probably. I can't deny that environmental factors may not be a possible contributing factor, but more than likely it is because of the human application which has exceeded the acceptable levels. I don't think Butt appealed did he?

As the following article infers, Harry Telford was not adverse to its use http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-06-1...ntists/2477188

It just depends on which scientist you choose to side with http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...11/2896059.htm

[p plater]

Hey Bailey, I can't buy that one. Treating horses regularly with arsenic was extremely common place in years gone by and its therapeutic value in smaller doses cannot be denied. Performance enhancing? Probably. I can't deny that environmental factors may not be a possible contributing factor, but more than likely it is because of the human application which has exceeded the acceptable levels. I don't think Butt appealed did he?

As the following article infers, Harry Telford was not adverse to its use http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-06-1...ntists/2477188

It just depends on which scientist you choose to side with http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...11/2896059.htm

Brad, I can accept that people will not agree with me, for we instantly think the trainer gave to much. My concern is the OLD standards or base limits we use when we all know from our own food that additives, flavours or preservatives are having adverse effects on our kids. Therefore a childs blood today could read totally different from your blood when young, purely from diet.

With a number of trainers being found guilty over the last year or so with no reasonlng on how a substance got there and the readings being so minor over the base limits could there be a change in a horses make up now, that what was normal treatment in the past is now tipping them over the limit. A few of the positives have not been massive amounts which imo would indicated a clear treatment if they did read massive.

A fresh new study on limits needs to be done to protect the racing industry.

[broncobrad]

Bailey, organic and inorganic arsenic is probably way more common than you might think. If there were a bunch of positives in a particular area, a link may well be established from an environmental view point and I am sure the DPI would be doing relevant testing for likely sources. But similar to the scare of unexplained cluster cancers of a few years ago, which could not be proven, a few arsenic positives doesn't mean there has been massive environmental change that would lead to horses levels to increase above what the standard was 30 odd years ago. I am not pooh poohing your supposition at all. I think the positives you may be talking about are just a bit too random to be regarded as a trend and may well be put down to loose administration rather than natural ingestion. By the way, as you said they are occurring with no reasoning, if a trainer admits he has administered it, he has then admitted his own guilt, therefore explaining the reasoning.

I am no scientist (in case you can't tell from my inane rambling), and I take your point that the current acceptable levels may be too low, but I don't think there is enough evidence on a numbers basis to back it.

[p plater]

Brad, when you say " I don't think there is enough evidence on a numbers basis to back it." this could be because of the next paragraph in the article, being

"But while Hong Kong is the sole jurisdiction capable of testing for ITPP it is also the only one which tests for arsenic, and it was that substance, not ITPP, which they detected in Raglan."

No test in Aust or NZ????????? No tests no numbers

[broncobrad]

Yes p plater thats exactly what I am saying, no evidence - no numbers, ergo his defence is to create doubt in the minds of his prosecutors. But the stewards only have to prove the substance is present within the horse above the specified level. It is my understanding that to win on appeal, the stewards panel have to be ruled in error in the way they have applied the rules of harness racing, or have new evidence introduced which may have a bearing on the original ruling. (Help me out here Teecee) To correct an error of mine though, I thought he hadn't appealed, but on reading the article indeed he has.

So the original concern you raised was that the standards set 30yrs ago may be outdated in this changing world and may need revisiting. My position is unchanged on this.

[Tangles]

Makes me think I better go pull out all those CCA green posts they love to chew. (CCA) Copper Chromium Arsenate

[Diablo]

With all the concerns about Arsenic levels etc, we may have to re-think the Phar Lap story considering it was supposedly an Arsenic overdose that killed him. Maybe it was a more common practice to use it way back then. May also explain why he developed into the horse he was after very ordinary start to his racin career.

[broncobrad]

If you go back over the 'Raglan - positive swab' thread from a few months ago p plater, there are a few enlightening comments from some of the senior brigade (with the greatest of respect gentlemen) on the forum which indicates just how common a practice it was to use it on a regular basis.

And if Mrs Triple doesn't think you are cutting it Jaimie, slip yourself a little with your tipple - forget the botox, you'll be all shiny and new and dappled up to the max...