Good point Wayne, it would be interesting to know how the two relate
Good point Wayne, it would be interesting to know how the two relate
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
To be honest I have removed myself from this conversation as I was so disgusted with an appeal I lived and breathed for a couple of months and as a educated person could not believe on the limited amount of testing done on this substance was sufficient for someone being driven out of the game for more than 2.5 years.
In terms of comparing the blood concentration to the urine concentration the highest level HRNSW's testing found from urine was 250ug/ml and the highest for plasma was 10ug/ml. So to my calculations the limit 50 parts per billion is more like a urine limit of 1250.
Perhaps there has been no comment due to a lack of credibility with the most respected racing jurisdiction in the world having a level of 100.
Have you read the 38 page Darren Smith appeal findings and the scientific evidence tendered?
You are delusional if you think levels in excess of 200 can be reached by a normal feeding regime.
I'm back! LOL don't get your knickers in a knot if your posts are not commented on within hours - We are not on call and nobody is that important. I am only ever voicing my opinion on here and no doubt I am sometimes wrong. As Wayne pointed out in, post 551, I had not picked up that the RCI were talking blood and I thought I acknowledged the mistake in the very next post.
Here is another opinion that is all my own - I have not got much sympathy for those who want to mix chemistry with horse racing, horse racing and some forms of science like nutrition - great but not chemistry.
I don't know if I am brave enough to ask you what you think HRNSW's agenda is
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
as just a layman on this blood plasma/urine testing topic,my way of thinking is this.....we take neddy and inject him with stuff,straight into the vein,we will call the amount 10,the stuff goes to work in his system and after a certain amount of time the residue of 10 reaches his bladder and in turn is passed in his urine,we test the urine and the reading is say 2,the legal limit is1 so ned tests positive....so we must ask ourselves,how much bloody stuff was ned given in the first place....please let me know if you think i am off the planet with this kind of reasoning.
[QUOTE=Boydy;42537]I am surprised that my comments have not drawn any comments. The misinformation provided in this post by both Teecee and Messenger in this thread simply shows the ignorance with regards this subject.
The posts supplied by myself and Kev are in no way a reflection of ignorance.
Firstly I supplied a link to the mathematical relationship of ppb (parts per billion) to micrograms / litre etc. This link and its information is factual information.
Secondly Kev simply asked a legitimate question.
To have either or both contributions replied in such manner is totally out of line for members of this forum. It shows a complete lack of respect for other members not to mention a lack of knowledge of the subject matter.
It is this type of material on the forum which we need not have. Accordingly the offensive post is deleted and the writer sanctioned. (on holiday).
Last edited by teecee; 05-01-2015 at 06:09 PM.
I happen to be reading the Herald Sun not The Age this morning. Interesting to note the diff - I cannot help but feel Matthew Stewart is on the side of the trainers (I guess he would be well acquainted with the accused)
I do believe that 'Kav claims put cobalt pressure back on RVL' reeks of desperation - just my opinion of course
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mar...-1227330740167
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
The Age and The Herald Sun are clearly poles apart
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/horse...04-ggtq7c.html
The above link is not quite as detailed as the one that appears in todays paper (I'm afraid I cannot cut and paste the newspaper replica only the digital edition equivalent)
A group of respected horse veterinarians from around Australia are dismayed at the direction the cobalt debate has taken.
They have contacted Fairfax Media to express their deep concerns over the misuse of cobalt and their fears of animal welfare. They contend that some sections of the racing media have allowed the Victorian trainers whose horses returned high cobalt readings to criticise Racing Victoria officials, even to the point of suggesting "entrapment".
The vets said: "What about the horse? Who is looking after the health and welfare of the horse?
"The real debate here is one of animal welfare and even perhaps animal cruelty."
..............................................
"The Victorian and Australian threshold of 200 micrograms/litre urine represents cobalt in the body at toxic levels, as the normal level of cobalt is less than 10 mcg/litre. Cobalt has been widely identified as a blood doping agent which is why it is banned in all sports, and also why it has come on to the radar of horseracing here and around the world," they said.
.................................................
"In racing we entrust animal welfare to the trainers and their veterinarians. However, watching over are the racing regulators who need to step in when the system is failing the horse.This welfare role of racing regulators is non-negotiable. It is as important a role as that of looking after the integrity of racing and creating a level playing field. For without the regulators enforcing animal welfare, there is a chance it might get lost in the mire of gambling and winning."
The vets also questioned the source of cobalt as they believed it was implausible that cobalt readings over the Australian threshold of 200 mcg/litre could be achieved through the proper use of normal cobalt-containing supplements.
http://www.theage.com.au/sport/horse...04-ggtq7c.html
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
Reported in The Age that the Vic gallops inquiry into the 4 charges with positives will continue tomorrow 'in camera' and considering that none of them have yet been charged, I fear Racing is looking for a soft way out
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI