[VVV]...and so we arrive at the very crux of the matter Breno, that being the significant difference that exists between a substance that does not enhance ability but rather affords horses the opportunity to be at & to maintain their best form, or more simply...the case in favour of Maintenance/Therapeutics & against Performance Enhancers.
The fact is that currently, in the absence of a common sense approach to establishing thresholds for various substances, Australian & NZ drug rules serve to work in direct opposition to the very thing that the Industry...that the Stewards try to ensure each & every day and that the TAB & the Punters so strongly desire...that being handicappable, consistent and as much as is humanly possible predictable Form.
Until such time as the Industry grows up a little and gets over its hangups as far as the use of therapeutics is concerned, we will continue to row without both of our oars in the water. That we continue to struggle with TCO2 testing does not fill me with a whole lot of hope for an open debate on anything beyond that, however.
PS. Just as an example...lets say a horse that has a few little aches & pains is given Bute on a Friday night after it races. 12 hours or so later, in the early hours of Saturday morning, that dose of Bute is now of little or no pain relieving benefit to the horse at all and most certainly well within 24hrs it is all over bar the shouting, no effect whatsoever.
Nevertheless, the following Friday the same horse, not having had any Bute for 7 days, drops in to race, is swabbed, duly returns a positive to Bute EVEN THOUGH the level is so minute as to be absurd & EVEN THOUGH pharmacologically it is having absolutely ZERO,ZIP, NADA, BUGGER-ALL effect on the horse at all...yet the Trainer duly cops time on the sidelines & maybe a fine to go with it. How could that be even remotely thought of as being resonable, sensible or fair?