Peter Morris Sr returns positive swab

[Karloo Krew]

Another positive in harness racing NSW. This time Peter Morris Snr. His runner This Boy returned an elevated TCO2 reading after running second on Tuesday at Menangle.

You think he would have learnt seeing his son was outed for 14 months or so just last month.

Here's the stewards note:

Stewards today received confirmation that the pre race blood samples taken from the pacer THIS BOY which raced at Menangle on 27 September 2011 has returned an elevated TCO2 reading above the threshold.
Therefore, it is deemed to be a positive swab.
Trainer Peter Morris Snr has been informed and THIS BOY has been stood down under Rule 183 pending the outcome of an Inquiry.
The Inquiry date is yet to be finalised.

[Flashing Red]

A bit off topic, but why is it swab results come back within a week but prizemoney is held onto for 6 weeks? I thought the prizemoney was held onto pending swab results in NSW?

[Thevoiceofreason]

A bit off topic, but why is it swab results come back within a week but prizemoney is held onto for 6 weeks? I thought the prizemoney was held onto pending swab results in NSW?


Flashing you are confusing the clearing of urine samples and post race blood samples .

The analysis of these samples takes considerably more time than a TCO2 test which can be performed in hours. In fact the confirmatory analysis of TCO2 is usually completed in just one more day after the initial test shows positive.

[Flashing Red]

Thank you for clearing that up. :) Your advice, as always, is appreciated :)

[The Rainmaker]

Gee whiz, the Morris family are running out of family members to train their horses. Whats next Robbie to get his trainers licence or a return to Kerryann Turner?

[Thevoiceofreason]

Gee whiz, the Morris family are running out of family members to train their horses. Whats next Robbie to get his trainers licence or a return to Kerryann Turner?

Not sure that either will be allowed under the new policy in NSW.

[David Summers]

I like that new policy. It makes a lot of sense.

For anyone not familiar with the changes , have a read here http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=92059

[Diesel]

With the amount of recent positives maybe its time they overhaul the TC02 thresholds.....

[Thevoiceofreason]

With the amount of recent positives maybe its time they overhaul the TC02 thresholds.....

Is your suggestion up or down.

[Diesel]

Up......if it was down then the Industry would be gone. Every man and his dog will be getting positives.
Its been a very long time since any research has been done.
Maybe its time..???

[aussiebreno]

Either that or don't give your horse bi carb...

[Diesel]

Yeah real bright Breno.....
Do your research.

[aussiebreno]

Yeah real bright Breno.....
Do your research.
You just said its time to do new research so why would I bother go looking at past research if its wrong according to you 'Sonny Bill'?

I know theres room for error but how come its the same trainers getting repeated offences?

[Greg Hando]

It's because theyre crooked (people that play outside the rules )
Morris Snr has gone before the best thing to do is rub them out for good and sonny bill you can get your horse's tco2 level's from a normal blood test done at home from your vet.

[Davo]

If found guilty it is time to deal with this person in the most severe manner possible. Most severe.

With the son also disqualified there might be no one left on that nice property next to the menangle track or all the horses will have to vacate.

[Karloo Krew]

Peter Sr got disqualified for 14 months today for the positive swab, identical punishment handed down to his son Peter Jr a couple of months back. Could spell the end of the family's involvement in the sport, so I am being told.

Also just read on Twitter that there has now been seven disqualifications in the past two months in NSW harness racing - and that's without swabbing of all winners at all meetings. Scary to think the number of trainers who would appear before the stewards if they started swabbing all.

Anyway here is the full decision - can't believe Morris was only given a slap on the wrist for a positive swab last year:

Stewards today concluded an inquiry that was opened on 12 October 2011, into a blood sample taken from THIS BOY prior to race 7 at Menangle on 27 September 2011, which upon analysis revealed a Total Plasma Carbon Dioxide level above the threshold as prescribed in the Rules.
At the inquiry on 12 October 2011, Trainer Mr. Peter Morris SNR was issued with a charge under Australian Harness Racing Rules 190 (1),(2) & (4) in that as the trainer of THIS BOY he did present that pacer to race in race 7, at the Menangle meeting on 27 September, 2011 when a blood sample taken from it prior to the race upon analysis revealed a Total Plasma Carbon Dioxide level above the threshold as prescribed in the Rules.
Mr Morris in defending the charge today, presented evidence from Dr Derek Major and was assisted by Mr Paul Matters.
The Stewards found the charge against Mr Morris proven to the applied standard, and therefore guilty as charged.
Mr Morris was disqualified for a period of 14 months effective immediately.
In considering penalty, Stewards considered submissions tendered by Mr Matter on the behalf of Mr Morris, his previous record, which showed previous offences and his long licensed history.
On 29 September 2010, Mr Morris was issued with a 2 year suspension which was suspended under the terms of AHRR 256 (5)(a) for a period of 12 months.
As this recent offence occurred within the 12 month period, the Stewards have asked Mr Morris to make further submissions on this matter.
Acting under AHRR 195 THIS BOY was disqualified from its 2nd placing in Race 7 at Menangle on 27 September 2011.

[Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild]

You just said its time to do new research so why would I bother go looking at past research if its wrong according to you 'Sonny Bill'?

I know theres room for error but how come its the same trainers getting repeated offences?
Touche!

[triplev123]

Maybe now that he has some spare time on his hands, Peter should aim for a reunion with Roger...at a Chinese Restaurant...just for old times sake? May I suggest Lees Fortuna Court at Crows Nest? :rolleyes:

[Starship Captain]

Admin,
Could you please merge this thread with "Scum Bags of Our Sport".

Thank you

[triplev123]

G'day Starship,
I'm not about to defend his actions, his record is deplorable. However having known Peter for quite a long time...I think it was through Joe & Daniel Cordina that I first met him?....I've found it very hard to reconcile the Peter that I see at the races & talk to now and again with the Peter who does whatever it is that he does/has done over the years to so fairly regularly get himself into strife. At the risk of being howled down here, he is a very nice bloke, certainly very friendly & all. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this way, perhaps not. Crazy stuff whatever the case. Never understood why they do it. Never will.

[Greg Hando]

Not just a slap on the wrist Karloo Krew but a 2 year suspension with a 12 month suspended sentence i think he has now to front the steward's to explain the suspended sentence don't know what it was for but
the rule states
(5) (a) Penalties other than a period of disqualification or a warning off under this or any other rule may be suspended for a period not exceeding 12 months upon such terms and conditions as the Controlling Body or Stewards see fit;

(b) If the offender does not breach any term or condition imposed during the period of suspension, the penalty shall be waived;

(c) If the offender breaches any term or condition imposed during the period of suspension then, unless the Controlling Body or Stewards otherwise order, the suspended penalty thereupon comes into force and penalties may also be imposed in respect of any offence constituted by the breach.

[Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild]

G'day Starship,
I'm not about to defend his actions, his record is deplorable. However having known Peter for quite a long time...I think it was through Joe & Daniel Cordina that I first met him?....I've found it very hard to reconcile the Peter that I see at the races & talk to now and again with the Peter who does whatever it is that he does/has done over the years to so fairly regularly get himself into strife. At the risk of being howled down here, he is a very nice bloke, certainly very friendly & all. Perhaps I'm alone in thinking this way, perhaps not. Crazy stuff whatever the case. Never understood why they do it. Never will.
Seemed to have tempered your hatered towards cheats it would seem VVV. Wouldn't be because of the loss of your annominity would it?

[triplev123]

Seemed to have tempered your hatered towards cheats it would seem VVV. Wouldn't be because of the loss of your annominity would it?

No, I've never yet pulled a punch Leigh. I think it's just stunned bemusement.

[tiny]

Hi everyone first time poster long time reader...
I'm a little confused about the wide range of punishments that are handed out for positive swabs for TCO2 Peter Morris gets 14months. Jnr gets 14 months. Mr Thomas has 2 positives gets 14 months so 7 months each. Butterfieild cops 12. Morris has a previous swab that got 2 years but is suspended. Another guy not to long ago walked out with four months he must be in the know. I can't work it out!!\

I read in the trot guide a few months ago a story that said harness racing NSW has a policy that the penalty for all TCO2 swabs is 12months and it doesn't mater if it is over by a mill or a mile. This being the case shouldn't all the above get twelve months? and this also being the case when they are appealed can they then say some other people have received 4 and 7 months and some cases have been suspended. I think both Morris Snr and Jnr should feel a bit hard done by.

It appears to me that when it comes to positive TCO2s the policy is just make it up as we go or spin the big chocolate wheel and see what it lands on.

Your thoughts cause i can't work it out

[Thevoiceofreason]

Hi everyone first time poster long time reader...
I'm a little confused about the wide range of punishments that are handed out for positive swabs for TCO2 Peter Morris gets 14months. Jnr gets 14 months. Mr Thomas has 2 positives gets 14 months so 7 months each. Butterfieild cops 12. Morris has a previous swab that got 2 years but is suspended. Another guy not to long ago walked out with four months he must be in the know. I can't work it out!!\

I read in the trot guide a few months ago a story that said harness racing NSW has a policy that the penalty for all TCO2 swabs is 12months and it doesn't mater if it is over by a mill or a mile. This being the case shouldn't all the above get twelve months? and this also being the case when they are appealed can they then say some other people have received 4 and 7 months and some cases have been suspended. I think both Morris Snr and Jnr should feel a bit hard done by.

It appears to me that when it comes to positive TCO2s the policy is just make it up as we go or spin the big chocolate wheel and see what it lands on.

Your thoughts cause i can't work it out


The policy is as I understand it is 12 months for a first offence TC02,

The law dictates and I think its in the policy that a discount on penalty is applied for a good record this is the same in most sporting or judicial hearings.

The other discount that is then applied is for a guilty plea again this is pretty common ground throughout sporting and judicial systems.

Every Judge at every sporting tribunal will tell you that each case has to be judged on its own facts and circumstances, that is simply what HRNSW are doing to abide by the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness.

If you compared time in the game and records in relation to previous prohibited substance breaches and the circumstances of each case I honestly think HRNSW have got these penalties all pretty right.

Butterfield first prohibited substance offence but very short time in the game so very little discount here.

Thomas, Morris and Morris jrn all repeat offenders.

The 2 year suspended sentence for Morris was for an unrelated drug and there was a strong argument that it was not caught under the rules as a prohibited substance the way the rules were then worded, there had been some appeals and it was tricky ground indeed.

Many will appeal so I suppose we will see then if the judge agrees with me.

It would be totally improper if everyone who walked through the door just got 12 months and see you later, the appeal system would dictate that this did not happen.

[tiny]

Thanks for your thoughts VOR. I still don't understand. Mcintosh (I had to google the story to find the name) received 4 months after a good record for 13 years seems a pretty big discount and Thomas had two positives but it appears that they only count as one. The 14 months for the Morris's is a premium for previous form or for being a morris.

I still don't get how penaltys can range from 4 to 14 months for the samething.

I'm pretty shore there's a big chocolate wheel

[Thevoiceofreason]

When you read the report on Mcintosh you will see why he got the discount his confirmatory analysis did not find TCO 2 above the allowable threshold.

There are many that would say, myself included, this should not have been a positive swab finding.

Not so long ago it would not have been in NSW and may not have been declared positive in some other states even as I type this.

So in real terms it is not the same thing.

Thomas and Morris are not first offenders hence the higher than 12 months and both codes always seem to order swabs penalties from the same substance on the same day be severed concurrently it is custom and practice and also provides the legal president that judges love.

In other words had the stewards ordered to be severed cumulatively they almost certainly would have lost at appeal

[Just Saying]

When you read the report on Mcintosh you will see why he got the discount his confirmatory analysis did not find TCO 2 above the allowable threshold.

Was the original test a positive regardless of the margin of error?

[Flashing Red]

There are many that would say, myself included, this should not have been a positive swab finding.

Yes I am also of this opinion. If the confirmatory test is clear then IMHO I believe a trainer should be given the benefit of the doubt. :)

[Thevoiceofreason]

Was the original test a positive regardless of the margin of error?

To be clear in very simple terms I am not an analyst, when a horse is tested six tubes of blood are taken and analysed the average of the readings gives a level, if the average is above the allowable threshold then the other three are tested to confirm this finding.

In NSW at the moment if the confirmatory analysis does not confirm it is still deemed positive, it is not a second test but another test of blood collected at the same time.

Why have a confirmatory test if it had no use.

[The Rainmaker]

Just for those who dont know, Morris' suspended sentence came from the use of Aminocaproic Acid. He, along with Ruggari, Waite and Gallagher all received similar minor penalties for presenting their horses to race with the drug in their system.

see : http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=84104

In comparision, Neville Webberly a Harness Racing trainer from Tasmainia was disqualified for 4 years for using the same drug, which was later reduced to 3 years on appeal. Seems those boys got off pretty lightly (as I'd expect from NSW).

The funny thing about Morris' 12 month suspended sentence is that:

29/9/10 - Suspended sentence given for Aminocaproic Acid - Torrential Hannah

27/9/11 - Elevated TC02 - This Boy

Would seem he was only just 3 days off getting that suspended sentence waived.

However if past instances are anything to go by I'd imagine Morris' suspended sentence will be waived anyway, the boys here in NSW are pretty good on going soft on repeat offenders.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Just for those who dont know, Morris' suspended sentence came from the use of Aminocaproic Acid. He, along with Ruggari, Waite and Gallagher all received similar minor penalties for presenting their horses to race with the drug in their system.

see : http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=84104

In comparision, Neville Webberly a Harness Racing trainer from Tasmainia was disqualified for 4 years for using the same drug, which was later reduced to 3 years on appeal. Seems those boys got off pretty lightly (as I'd expect from NSW).

The funny thing about Morris' 12 month suspended sentence is that:

29/9/10 - Suspended sentence given for Aminocaproic Acid - Torrential Hannah

27/9/11 - Elevated TC02 - This Boy

Would seem he was only just 3 days off getting that suspended sentence waived.

However if past instances are anything to go by I'd imagine Morris' suspended sentence will be waived anyway, the boys here in NSW are pretty good on going soft on repeat offenders.

The difficulty HRNSW had with Aminocaproic Acid swabs which is drug very closely related to Tranexamic Acid, is that in NSW there a been successful appeal by Geoff Small that due to the wording of the rules its use did not constitute a breach as its effect was on the blood system which is not covered by the rules.

Most equine rules refer to the blood system as separate to the cardio vascular system, yes seems strange to me too.

My understanding is this defense was either not run or not accepted in Tasmania.

It does not matter taht much because the precedent alreadt existed in NSW and make no bones about it, it muddied the waters.

The same legal team and experts that gave evidence in the Small case were involved in all three Aminocaproic cases in NSW.

[tiny]

VOR thanks for taking the time to explain. As a punter an one time owner of a horse I probably see this through nieve eyes but i'm shore many others also see it the same way. Moris snr and jnr and Thomas 14 months cause they did it before. Butterfield 12 cause that's the going rate. The suspended sentancece was for a substance that wasn't prohibited at the time but is now and Mcintosh gets 4 months because one test was over the other was under so he gets about half the going rate. I came on here because I thought Morris was a bit hard done by but now think Mcintosh was ripped off ( I hope this one gets appealed).

Any way it has gone from clears as mud to straight out weird. But I've seen this weirdness before when we lost a race on protest because the driver hit it with the whip.

It is one weird sport I'll go back in my hole now but thanks for your time.

[Just Saying]

In NSW at the moment if the confirmatory analysis does not confirm it is still deemed positive, it is not a second test but another test of blood collected at the same time.

I ask because I believe, maybe incorrectly, that the confirmatory test confirms the first test by being within it's error range. Not by also being a positive test. May I demonstrate by some totally made up figures. Lets say that 35.0 is the allowed maximum. If a test comes back as 36.2 +/- 1.0 then that is a positive as the possible range is 35.2-37.2. If the second test comes back as 34.9 +/- 1.0 then although that is a "negative" test it actually confirms the first test as its range of 33.9-35.9 overlaps the first test. I also believe that the combined tests narrows the actual result to 35.2-35.9. Still a positive test even if you look at it that way. I don't believe it is simple as first test positive, second test negative, lets just give him a light penalty. In other words the more testing that is done of samples taken at the same time the more precise the test becomes. Again. I may be completely wrong on this. I suspect triplev123 has more accurate information on this topic.

[Thevoiceofreason]

I ask because I believe, maybe incorrectly, that the confirmatory test confirms the first test by being within it's error range. Not by also being a positive test. May I demonstrate by some totally made up figures. Lets say that 35.0 is the allowed maximum. If a test comes back as 36.2 +/- 1.0 then that is a positive as the possible range is 35.2-37.2. If the second test comes back as 34.9 +/- 1.0 then although that is a "negative" test it actually confirms the first test as its range of 33.9-35.9 overlaps the first test. I also believe that the combined tests narrows the actual result to 35.2-35.9. Still a positive test even if you look at it that way. I don't believe it is simple as first test positive, second test negative, lets just give him a light penalty. In other words the more testing that is done of samples taken at the same time the more precise the test becomes. Again. I may be completely wrong on this. I suspect triplev123 has more accurate information on this topic.

My point is the system does not make sense if the first test is say 37.1 and the confirmatory test is is 36.9 in NSW its a positive swab.

However If the first test is 36.9 the second test is not ever done because there is nothing to confirm.

That just seems wrong to me... My question remains why have confirmatory testing if it means nothing.

[Just Saying]

My point is the system does not make sense if the first test is say 37.1 and the confirmatory test is is 36.9 in NSW its a positive swab.

Given the second test is within 1.0 of the first test it confirms the original positive test. You can't simply ignore the original and claim the result is now a negative. Sure if the 36.9 was the first test then the trainer would've been let off but I consider him lucky rather than the trainer in the first scenario poorly treated. The 1.0 is a generous deduction so two readings around 38.0 before the deduction would strongly indicate foul play.

[Just Saying]

You may find this old article interesting. Scroll down to the Donohue information and it presents a case identical to what you are talking about. This time he was given the benefit of the doubt and let off. Though given the new 1.0 error margin he undoubtably presented a horse for racing over the legal limit and could be considered VERY lucky.

http://www.hrv.org.au/vic-industry/index.cfm/news-article/?news_id=1026

[PD13]

It seems that most of you that have an opinion on P Morris Snr and this case appear to be so ill informed and take the Stewards findings as Gospel. Dig a bit deeper and you may find that this case is very much a Witch hunt. During the month of August 2011, P Morris Jnr presented 24 runners to Menangle on Tuesday and Saturday meetings with 5 of those runners PRBT. Kerry Ann Turner, from same yard had 2 runners race during this month and both tested. Since Sept 1, P Morris Snr has had 27 runners at Menangle for 12 PRBT and Kerry Ann 7 runners for 4 tested. That totals 34 runners for 16 tested. If you think that Morris is going to bi carb a runner with a nearly 50/50 toss of a coin to risk his racing career, then you're not too bright. W Cable has been Chief Steward at these meetings so, if there is a personality clash or some history between the two, I don't know. Maybe others have thoughts on this.
The stable strike rate is nothing to write home about, so why are so many Morris runners being tetsed?

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there may be a lot more than meets the eye and even some manipulation of the rusults.

[Thevoiceofreason]

It seems that most of you that have an opinion on P Morris Snr and this case appear to be so ill informed and take the Stewards findings as Gospel. Dig a bit deeper and you may find that this case is very much a Witch hunt. During the month of August 2011, P Morris Jnr presented 24 runners to Menangle on Tuesday and Saturday meetings with 5 of those runners PRBT. Kerry Ann Turner, from same yard had 2 runners race during this month and both tested. Since Sept 1, P Morris Snr has had 27 runners at Menangle for 12 PRBT and Kerry Ann 7 runners for 4 tested. That totals 34 runners for 16 tested. If you think that Morris is going to bi carb a runner with a nearly 50/50 toss of a coin to risk his racing career, then you're not too bright. W Cable has been Chief Steward at these meetings so, if there is a personality clash or some history between the two, I don't know. Maybe others have thoughts on this.
The stable strike rate is nothing to write home about, so why are so many Morris runners being tetsed?

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there may be a lot more than meets the eye and even some manipulation of the rusults.

Alex

Total guess work here no knowledge but in NSW if a stable is showing some elevated levels it will be target tested, now you may scoff but I know many Trainers who are target tested and keep bi carbing because they think they have the answer of just how to do it.

This is not to imply that P Morris did this I am talking about other Trainers who I know.

Trouble is TCO2 occurs naturally in a horse bi carb one that is having a higher level naturally as well one day and bye bye.

I know of one trainer had a horse tested 37 times always just under was convinced he had the thing sussed, the same horse nothing different on test 38 went in excess of 39 and bye bye.

He does not bi carb any more.

I am sorry but I do not buy the conspiracy theory and the stewards do not do the testing it is two independent labs they do not make the finding.

You were a also touch selective with the facts, the son went a month or so earlier and we all know how much of the training he was doing.

I like Peter, nice bloke but as grandfather used to say "if you play with matches you will eventually get burned."

[Diesel]

It seems that most of you that have an opinion on P Morris Snr and this case appear to be so ill informed and take the Stewards findings as Gospel. Dig a bit deeper and you may find that this case is very much a Witch hunt. During the month of August 2011, P Morris Jnr presented 24 runners to Menangle on Tuesday and Saturday meetings with 5 of those runners PRBT. Kerry Ann Turner, from same yard had 2 runners race during this month and both tested. Since Sept 1, P Morris Snr has had 27 runners at Menangle for 12 PRBT and Kerry Ann 7 runners for 4 tested. That totals 34 runners for 16 tested. If you think that Morris is going to bi carb a runner with a nearly 50/50 toss of a coin to risk his racing career, then you're not too bright. W Cable has been Chief Steward at these meetings so, if there is a personality clash or some history between the two, I don't know. Maybe others have thoughts on this.
The stable strike rate is nothing to write home about, so why are so many Morris runners being tetsed?

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there may be a lot more than meets the eye and even some manipulation of the rusults.

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

[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.