Peter Morris Sr returns positive swab

[Flashing Red]

100% correct Mate.......
Pre-Race blood testing I thought was random...........NOT NOW.

It is both random and target. If a trainer is constantly getting high readings from multiple horses, don't you think it IS a good idea to be tested more often? This is not a comment directed towards any trainer in general, just a general statement. I would think that a trainer with readings constantly at 34 would probably be playing some sort of game. If they aren't, they don't need to fear testing, IMHO.

[Thevoiceofreason]

It is both random and target. If a trainer is constantly getting high readings from multiple horses, don't you think it IS a good idea to be tested more often? This is not a comment directed towards any trainer in general, just a general statement. I would think that a trainer with readings constantly at 34 would probably be playing some sort of game. If they aren't, they don't need to fear testing, IMHO.

Flashing you are so right, as Sam Kekovich says "you know it makes sense"

[triplev123]

One thing that sticks in my mind whenever there's discussion on TCO2's is despite the general view out there that every horse given a buffer drench suddenly lights up like a Christmas Tree....bi-carb does not in fact help every horse it is given to. There's no doubt at all that it greatly assists some, similarly there is no doubt at all that it does nothing whatsoever for others & there is a pretty fair body of evidence (anecdotal though compelling) to suggest that it may even adversely effect others still. Those aspects, in and of themselves, are worthy of further investigation.
For example, how often do you see a horse that does not win, even as far as not even finishing in a place, that comes up with a positive TCO2? I can remember quite a few.

I find the whole TCO2 debate very frustrating. I've got a very comprehensive 100+ page document here from RMTC covering withdrawl times & various thesholds below which 100's & 100's of theraputic substances are deemed to be/proven to have become pharmacologically inactive & so incapable of enhancing performance.
Unfortunately, until such time as something as relatively simple as TCO2 testing is put to bed once and for all, we as an Industry have no hope whatsoever of ever moving on to the establishment of similar testing thresholds for theraputics. THAT is the real discusssion we need to be having right now. Not this never-ending Arm & Hammer promo.

[aussiebreno]

One thing that sticks in my mind whenever there's discussion on TCO2's is despite the general view out there that every horse given a buffer drench suddenly lights up like a Christmas Tree....bi-carb does not in fact help every horse it is given to. There's no doubt at all that it greatly assists some, similarly there is no doubt at all that it does nothing whatsoever for others & there is a pretty fair body of evidence (anecdotal though compelling) to suggest that it may even adversely effect others still. Those aspects, in and of themselves, are worthy of further investigation.
For example, how often do you see a horse that does not win, even as far as not even finishing in a place, that comes up with a positive TCO2? I can remember quite a few.

I find the whole TCO2 debate very frustrating. I've got a very comprehensive 100+ page document here from RMTC covering withdrawl times & various thesholds below which 100's & 100's of theraputic substances are deemed to be/proven to have become pharmacologically inactive & so incapable of enhancing performance.
Unfortunately, until such time as something as relatively simple as TCO2 testing is put to bed once and for all, we as an Industry have no hope whatsoever of ever moving on to the establishment of similar testing thresholds for theraputics. THAT is the real discusssion we need to be having right now. Not this never-ending Arm & Hammer promo.

Dangerous conclusion on that side of the argument. Might have improved the horse from 8th to 5th. Likewise a winner may have won by 2 lengths but then only won by 1 length.

[triplev123]

Nah, in context of all that which came before, it's not a conclusion Breno, at least it wasn't meant to be one. In isolation however, it might well be taken as such. I understand where you are coming from btw.