Luke McCarthy Appeal

[Triple V]

For those who may now be feeling some level of shame over their comments about Luke on this & other Forums, no doubt he will be out at Menangle this afternoon should any of you have the cajones to man up & apologise.
For those that are not experiencing any such feelings...print out that which appears directly below, roll it into a cone shape and for the sake of ease of insertion may I suggest that you start with the pointy end?...as you go shove it up your backside.


Luke McCarthy Appeal

13 November 2012


http://www.harness.org.au/news/images/logos/HRNSW-2.gif



Acting on the advice from its legal representatives, and based on the evidence of experts at a joint experts conference on 12 November 2012, Harness Racing NSW (HRNSW) did not contest today’s appeal of Mr Luke McCarthy.

Background:
On 1 February 2012 HRNSW was advised by the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory (ARFL) that a urine sample taken from MACH WIPER on 9 December 2011 had recorded a level of boldenone in excess of the threshold prescribed by the Australian Harness Racing Rules.
Accordingly, on 10 February 2012, the "B" sample was sent to the Racing Laboratory of the Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC) whereby it was confirmed that the urine sample associated with MACH WIPER had a boldenone level in excess of the prescribed threshold.
HRNSW commenced an inquiry into these results based on the two (2) certificates provided by the individual laboratories and conducted hearings on 19 March, 26 April, 21 and 22 May 2012.
At the completion of the inquiry Mr Luke McCarthy was found guilty of an offence pursuant to Australian Harness Racing Rule 190. Mr McCarthy was issued with a penalty of nine (9) months disqualification.
On 30 May 2012, Mr McCarthy lodged an appeal against the decision of HRNSW. On 7 June 2012 Mr McCarthy was granted a stay of proceeding by the Racing Appeals Tribunal.

Facts:
Since the lodging of the appeal, Mr McCarthy's representatives tendered further evidence in relation to the defence of the charge. This included evidence from experts not only from within Australia but also overseas.
HRNSW also engaged the services of numerous experts during the appeal including those from both the ARFL and HKJC.
Mr McCarthy's experts submitted that there could be an increase in the level of boldenone in urine after collection due to a number of factors. As a result of these submissions, HKJC conducted a further re-analysis of the MACH WIPER "B" sample in late October 2012. The result of this test showed that for whatever reason there had been an increase in the level of boldenone detected.
The results of the re-analysis were in direct contrast with all the previously published scientific literature and previous experiments conducted. As such the HKJC conducted a number of further controlled analytical studies, which determined that for whatever reason there was on the evidence of their experiments a conversion of testosterone sulphate to boldenone sulphate.
As MACH WIPER is an entire it is expected that the urine sample would contain a high level of testosterone.
Given this evidence, HRNSW in its role as a prosecutor in the appeal sought a further re-analysis of the MACH WIPER "A" sample by the ARFL. ARFL subsequently reported that upon re-quantification the level of boldenone had increased.
Despite this evidence, and the many variables which could have contributed to these results a conference of experts was held on Monday 12 October 2012.
There were eight (8) experts present during the conference, four representing HRNSW and four representing Mr McCarthy. At the conclusion of this conference the experts signed a document outlining the agreed facts and the areas of agreement included:
(1)
The re-testing of both the A and B samples has demonstrated that Boldenone and/or its metabolites have been generated ex vivo within the A and B urine samples. The most likely explanation is enzymatic activity by microbial contamination.
(4)
The original readings of Boldenone from both samples can in no way be indicative of the Boldenone level in the urine sample from MACH WIPER at the time of collection after the race at Newcastle on 9 December 2011.
Given this expert report and acting on the advice from its legal counsel Dr Clifford Pannam QC, the Board of HRNSW constituted an immediate meeting at 5.30pm on Monday 12 November 2012.
It was resolved at that meeting, given the balance of the evidence; in particular the recent joint expert report, procedural fairness to Mr Luke McCarthy and the prospects of success at the appeal despite the Rules and the onus placed upon Mr McCarthy by them, HRNSW would not contest the appeal.
HRNSW acknowledges that this has been an extremely long process for both Mr Luke McCarthy and HRNSW, but for whatever reason the sample and associated level of boldenone increased outside of the horses system, which has not been seen in any other sample, including other samples taken from this horse.

It should be noted that the peculiarity of the science involving this particular sample is unique to this case and remains the first and only one of its kind Worldwide.
HRNSW will undertake a review of the analytical protocols and procedures from any laboratory that carries out anabolic analysis on its behalf in the future.


Harness Racing NSW (HRNSW) is the controlling body for harness racing in New South Wales with responsibility for commercial and regulatory management of the industry including 31 racing clubs across the State. HRNSW is headed by an industry-appointed Board of Directors and is independent of Government.
To arrange an interview or for further information please contact:
Name: Sam Nati
Position: Chief Executive
Phone: (02) 97226600
Email: snati@hrnsw.com.au

[mightymo]

I am really glad that the truth has prevailed. I just hope all those who were so
quick to judge and condemn will now be as quick to apologise, but somehow I doubt it...

[aussiebreno]

Ok so Luke McCarthy is innocent on the boldenone charge, well done Innocent Luke. I might (might not have either) said something after the guilty charge was given so I apologise, but was only going off what had happened.

But, I don't think this is the time for shoving it in peoples faces.

It just re-enforces testing is not 100% accurate and re-enforces that (maybe) some trainers are getting away with stuff day in out because the sad reality is testing is a step behind.

[Toni]

I have been reading this forum for a long time but have only just registered.

I have to say this is exactly why we ALL have the right of appeal - because not everyone gets it right the first time. And everyone should - instead of bagging people for taking up their right of appeal - be thankful that we have it because there may come a point in time where you will need to rely on it.

It was so unfortunate to see people label Luke McCarthy a cheat before the process had been finished - yes he may have been found guilty of presenting a horse to race with boldenone in its system (in the first instance), however cheat is such a harsh word, to me it denotes some kind of deliberate act and unless you knew of Luke administering boldenone - then what kind of right do you have to label him as a cheat? (Just my thoughts only though)

aussiebreno - what exactly do you mean by "well done Innocent Luke"? Good on him for standing up for what he knew was right and not laying down and taking the punishment they were trying to hand to him when he knew he had done nothing wrong?

[Toohard]

Will they retest Barry Lews samples that were positive to same thing on same night at the same track? And if result the same as this, issue an apology?

[aussiebreno]

I have been reading this forum for a long time but have only just registered.

I have to say this is exactly why we ALL have the right of appeal - because not everyone gets it right the first time. And everyone should - instead of bagging people for taking up their right of appeal - be thankful that we have it because there may come a point in time where you will need to rely on it.

It was so unfortunate to see people label Luke McCarthy a cheat before the process had been finished - yes he may have been found guilty of presenting a horse to race with boldenone in its system (in the first instance), however cheat is such a harsh word, to me it denotes some kind of deliberate act and unless you knew of Luke administering boldenone - then what kind of right do you have to label him as a cheat? (Just my thoughts only though)

aussiebreno - what exactly do you mean by "well done Innocent Luke"? Good on him for standing up for what he knew was right and not laying down and taking the punishment they were trying to hand to him when he knew he had done nothing wrong?
Just pointing out he is innocent.

[Toni]

I read a little sarcasm in there and I do apologise if that wasnt the case.

Toohard - I doubt they would open up testing on a settled case, however, it might be a good idea if Barry Lew could get his samples re-tested himself and then hopefully clear his name. I dont know how costly this would be though?

[Toni]

I wonder if anyone knows the rules on re-opening a case? He might need some good evidence that wasnt readily available to him when his case was heard - in which case he might need to pay for the testing himself. And I dont suppose it would be cheap to apply to have the case re-opened.

What would be sufficient compensation do you think, considering he has already served his suspension? What would you want if that were you? Im not a trainer so I dont really know what I would expect to be fair.

[aussiebreno]

I read a little sarcasm in there and I do apologise if that wasnt the case.

Toohard - I doubt they would open up testing on a settled case, however, it might be a good idea if Barry Lew could get his samples re-tested himself and then hopefully clear his name. I dont know how costly this would be though?
Nope, innocent until proven guilty as I said before the boldenone positive, after the boldenone positive and up until he was found guilty. Which is now innocent!

[barney]

I just hope this doesnt lead to people thinking they can now use it freely and then run the excuse that got Luke off.Im sure the other person who got done same time wont be happy but didnt he plead guilty.
Maybe its justice for those that can afford it and not for the rest.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Here is something I posted back in early October on the Luke McCarthy thread.

I was considered mad for thinking that Luke McCarthy might have a defense similar to the one he was actually using.

"It took 18 months for Racing NSW stewards to even charge Gai Waterhouse over her Boldenone positive in 2007, let alone the appeal.

HRNSW stewards are well inside this time frame, this is now the appeal stage and McCarthy is entitled to mount a strong defense, if as part of that defense HRNSW needs to produce new expert evidence to refute expert opinion produced by the McCarthy team at appeal so be it.

You have to remember its not 100 years ago that many Gallops Trainers in Queensland were penalised for positive Caffeine swabs which were all later found to be an error in the testing process hard to say here is your six months back.

I have always been just a little worried that we had 2 Boldernone positives in the one night from the one track it is a pretty amazing coincidence."

Brad you will find the Maclean newsagency in river street I think, for that lottery ticket.

Now HRNSW is in my view obligated to retest the swab from the Barry Lew horse. It was collected on the same night, in the same pan, under the same conditions as Luke Mc Carthy's horse, it is also an entire as I have said before the two on the same night to the same naturally occurring substance has always worried me.

Whatever unexplained chemical alteration took place,if the samples are still about then order a retest and put the issues to bed once and for all.

As VVV and I have yelled from the rooftops only to be drowned out...... not every positive swab means you are as labeled a drug cheat.

[Toni]

Nope, innocent until proven guilty as I said before the boldenone positive, after the boldenone positive and up until he was found guilty. Which is now innocent!

Just out of curiosity - did you view him as a "cheat" once he as found guilty in the first instance?

I didnt ever think he was guilty, I just didnt think there would be anyway someone would go to the major expense of appealing if they knew they were guilty, but thats just my personal opinion and I would understand that different people would have thought differently.

I also understand why people would just plead guilty, especially when it does cost so much to appeal so I guess it is a case of justice for those that can afford it. Its one of those unfortunate things - I just dont understand how this sort of thing can be avoided, especially considering the authorities are acting in the best interest of the sport.

[Thevoiceofreason]

I just hope this doesnt lead to people thinking they can now use it freely and then run the excuse that got Luke off.Im sure the other person who got done same time wont be happy but didnt he plead guilty.
Maybe its justice for those that can afford it and not for the rest.

I just checked if Barry Lew had pleaded guilty ..... that was not the case he was found guilty at both the initial stewards inquiry and the subsequent appeal.

[p plater]

The problem with the current process both here and in NZ is the Absolute Rule. Regardless of how a substance gets into the horse or in this case "when a Lab" says it found something, the trainer is instantly guilty of presenting a horse to race with the substance.
Now this case will put the cat among the pigeons and maybe they will revert to proving the trainer did it. This will cost HRNSW a bundle. Luke was found guilty of "presenting to race "
even his not guilty plea had no effect.
Yes it would cost a huge amount to appeal but if you know your innocent what else can you do.

[aussiebreno]

Just out of curiosity - did you view him as a "cheat" once he as found guilty in the first instance?

I didnt ever think he was guilty, I just didnt think there would be anyway someone would go to the major expense of appealing if they knew they were guilty, but thats just my personal opinion and I would understand that different people would have thought differently.

I also understand why people would just plead guilty, especially when it does cost so much to appeal so I guess it is a case of justice for those that can afford it. Its one of those unfortunate things - I just dont understand how this sort of thing can be avoided, especially considering the authorities are acting in the best interest of the sport.
To your first question, yes. I don't think I, or anybody else, can be blamed for thinking that. If others thought differently, kudos to them, and you are proven right (as if it was some kind of contest lol!).
For some reason I highly doubt McCarthy would care about me as an individual, but as a collective group bringing his name through the mud it must be tough (again, can't blame the group, conclusions were quite reasonable in the circumstances imo) I apologise for my part as above. I don't know if I publicly said anything but I sure thought/said it privately.

I do believe Triple V, Mightymo etc are moreso talking to the people who called McCarthy a cheat all along, even before any boldenone positive, and probably will still call him a cheat in months, years to come.

[Triple V]

I do believe Triple V, Mightymo etc are moreso talking to the people who called McCarthy a cheat all along, even before any boldenone positive, and probably will still call him a cheat in months, years to come.

[VVV] Breno, whilst I obviously cannot speak for Harvey, yes...that is exactly what I was doing. It was not aimed at you or even with you amongst others in mind. Rather, I was talking directly to those who would've relished the opportunity to have Luke outed for life for an Aspirin if they could have. Those are the gutless bastards who are squarely in my cross-hairs.

[Triple V]

Btw, worth a look at Trots TV tonight/tomorrow. Sam is on THERE with an interesting interview which might go a long way towards answering/explaining a lot of things. Recommended viewing.

[aussiebreno]

[VVV] Breno, whilst I obviously cannot speak for Harvey, yes...that is exactly what I was doing. It was not aimed at you or even with you amongst others in mind. Rather, I was talking directly to those who would've relished the opportunity to have Luke outed for life for an Aspirin if they could have. Those are the gutless bastards who are squarely in my cross-hairs.
I agree with those sentiments Jaimie.

[broncobrad]

If there is one thing I have picked up since joining this forum is learning that not everything is as it may seem. For one, I am sure Triple has risen from the abyss (from pissed-off-land) much sooner than any may have expected. More in keeping with the Jaimie that we know, comes the jam-this-humble-pie-down-your-throat "wheres the apologies you unbelievers" (you sort of miss his subtle cues when he ain't around).

Had to get the old grey matter around the fact that Luke McCarthy had beaten the charge. Confronting, yet when you look at the evidence (of what we have had revealed to us), HRNSW had absolutely no option but to not proceed any further. This is a ground-breaking finding, science evolving as we speak moment. I mean except for the eight experts who know way more shit than most of us simpler folk, who of us would have expected an outcome along these lines.

So when is a positive not a positive...(now I guess)...so who besides those 8 experts and Luke and VVV and TVOR, could possibly have foreseen this outcome. Not too many I reckon. Wasn't sure if I had attached the word cheat to Luke in this whole tawdry affair so spent most of the early evening checking ALL of my posts (how unrivetting has my night been), could not find anything that came close to it. Had a few observations including "Rumpole of the Bailey couldn't get him out of this one", "He would need to be just as good an escapologist as Harry Houdini", "No doubt the introduction of new evidence is the only way he could beat the charge" "Even if he had the lawyer to the stars Chris Murphy", "One move away from checkmate", blah blah blah. And to my utter surprise today the case is dropped.

So on the evidence that has gone before and the precedence of the Karloo Kix inquiry, with the guilty verdict finding coming down before it went to appeal, Luke had been found guilty, and (except for VVV and TVOR and Luke), I reckon a great majority of us could be forgiven if that is what we thought. So, publicly Jaimie, I have not stated he is a cheat, even after the earlier finding of guilty, but privately I may well have thought differently as some of us who wish to see the removal of cheats from the industry well know. So to those of you, don't think I have changed my position on this issue, I am simply accepting in this case that the current procedures got it wrong and an injustice may have been averted. I owe Luke no apology, indeed, was one of his greatest admirers until there was physical evidence to the contrary...and to be honest with you, right now I just don't know what to think.

Triple and Mightymo, I think you are right in the fact that those out and out knockers won't be lining up in a hurry to seek forgiveness, going over some of those old threads, so many of those contributors no longer frequent these pages by choice or because they have been removed.

Finally, something I came across on the Luke McCarthy Enquiry Adjourned thread, when the news broke of McCarthy being found guilty was something that came from Luke himself, see comment #23 "I don't have a lot of faith in the people in charge here or the judicial system"...it was this process that we have in place that gave him every opportunity to present his case to robustly defend himself.

Fair dinkum, who could, with hand over heart, have seen this result. Not I.:confused:

[Thevoiceofreason]

I said in an earlier post:

" Now HRNSW is in my view obligated to retest the swab from the Barry Lew horse. It was collected on the same night, in the same pan, under the same conditions as Luke Mc Carthy's horse, it is also an entire as I have said before the two on the same night to the same naturally occurring substance has always worried me.

Whatever unexplained chemical alteration took place,if the samples are still about then order a retest and put the issues to bed once and for all."

It is indeed pleasing to see that this has in fact already occurred and the results of that finding released in an interview with Sam Nati on trotstv today.

http://www.trotstv.com.au/?id=6716

Congratulations HRNSW on yet another job well done, I am nearly embarrassed to have thought you may not have already completed this task.

All tucked up nicely. Now how much is the first prize in that lottery

[Danno]

Id imagine Barry's conviction would have to be quashed

http://www.trotstv.com.au/?id=6716 (http://www.trotstv.com.au/?id=6716)

not so apparently Harvey, the "enzymatic activity" appears to have happened in Mach Wiper's sample only, which of course is why HRNSW had no option but to not contest the appeal. The continuing rise in the levels of boldenone in the "B" sample whilst in storage and then tested at the Hong Kong lab have smarter people than us baffled, Again this is why HRNSW had to take the action they have, and my congratulations to all involved, that is the way our justice system is meant to work..if there is doubt then the presumption of innocence stands.

[Toni]

To your first question, yes. I don't think I, or anybody else, can be blamed for thinking that. If others thought differently, kudos to them, and you are proven right (as if it was some kind of contest lol!).
For some reason I highly doubt McCarthy would care about me as an individual, but as a collective group bringing his name through the mud it must be tough (again, can't blame the group, conclusions were quite reasonable in the circumstances imo) I apologise for my part as above. I don't know if I publicly said anything but I sure thought/said it privately.

I do believe Triple V, Mightymo etc are moreso talking to the people who called McCarthy a cheat all along, even before any boldenone positive, and probably will still call him a cheat in months, years to come.

No, im certainly not blaming you for anything, it was a simple question out of curiousity. And im certainly not trying to gain one up in any sort of contest, I was only giving my personal opinion as I stated. It really was just a question out of curiosity.

I guess no one could have seen this exact outcome happening, as they say its the first case in the world for this to happen, but there was another indicator that something wasnt quite right and that was the negative swabs either side of the positive...

I do have a problem with people too quick to label others as cheats though (eg. before he was found guilty) - and even then I dont beleive that everyone who is found guilty of this rule really should be labeled cheat at all. MY personal opinion is that there needs to be an intention to cheat there before you can really call someone a cheat.

Say someone sneaks into a stable and administers something to a horse of another trainer. That trainer presents the horse to race, gets swabbed and is found guilty. To me, yes that trainer is guilty of presenting the horse to race with a prohibited substance, but is he a cheat? Not in my eyes. And I think there would be a huge number of circumstances where this could occur.

I feel like I need to put another disclaimer that this is again just my pesonal opinion and I do understand that people have differing views.

[Greg Hando]

If all this retesting was done then were the samples taken from Karloo Kix and Mach Wiper DNA tested as well to prove outright that the sample came from these 2 horse's in the first place? With the samples rising doesn't HRNSW still act on the first sample ? Or was the first test done proven to be wrong so sent to HKJC to re test as a precaution or for a second opinion to compliment the first result. Can perhaps Bill or Jamie could explain it to me.Also what is Microbial contamination?
i reckon we haven't heard the last of these Boldenone case's yet.

[Thevoiceofreason]

If all this retesting was done then were the samples taken from Karloo Kix and Mach Wiper DNA tested as well to prove outright that the sample came from these 2 horse's in the first place? With the samples rising doesn't HRNSW still act on the first sample ? Or was the first test done proven to be wrong so sent to HKJC to re test as a precaution or for a second opinion to compliment the first result. Can perhaps Bill or Jamie could explain it to me.Also what is Microbial contamination?
i reckon we haven't heard the last of these Boldenone case's yet.

Greg

I will a crack

The B sample in HK was found to still be rising whilst it was in storage, that is the second time it was tested there it was higher than the first time, this should not have occurred according to all scientific wisdom.

Armed with this knowledge HRNSW ordered a second test of the A sample still in storage in Australia and it was doing the same thing.

As a result it could not be proven when this phenomena commenced so it was possible the levels were inside the rules when the sample was collected from the horse therefore no positive swab.

As a further result of this the Karloo Kix sample was retested but the phenomena was not happening with this sample so the finding stands.

Microbial contamination, Greg remember mum always told you wash you hands when you went to the toilet well that is because there are germs in that part of the body, worse with a horse, some of these germs have contaminated the urine or at least that is the theory. That is science at a kindergarten level, but that is my limit and I am sure you get my drift.

Hope this helps.... also hope I got it right ... but not really worried because I am going to win the lottery soon.... that is once that ticket arrives.

[aussiebreno]

Greg

I will a crack

The B sample in HK was found to still be rising whilst it was in storage, that is the second time it was tested there it was higher than the first time, this should not have occurred according to all scientific wisdom.

Armed with this knowledge HRNSW ordered a second test of the A sample still in storage in Australia and it was doing the same thing.

As a result it could not be proven when this phenomena commenced so it was possible the levels were inside the rules when the sample was collected from the horse therefore no positive swab.

As a further result of this the Karloo Kix sample was retested but the phenomena was not happening with this sample so the finding stands.

Microbial contamination, Greg remember mum always told you wash you hands when you went to the toilet well that is because there are germs in that part of the body, worse with a horse, some of these germs have contaminated the urine or at least that is the theory. That is science at a kindergarten level, but that is my limit and I am sure you get my drift.

Hope this helps.... also hope I got it right ... but not really worried because I am going to win the lottery soon.... that is once that ticket arrives.
Off topic sorry. I always find the washing hands after going to the toilet peculiar. I still do it nevertheless and would feel dirty if I didn't.
Hands touch dirty keyboards, benches, rails, objects etc all day long. But as soon as they touch genitalia they need to be washed. Yet genitalia is kept clean all day inside underpants and then dirty hands touch it!
Some studies have even shown kitchens, bedrooms etc have more bacteria then the toilet.
There's aussiebrenos weird post for the day!

[Toni]

What I read it to mean was that the levels of boldenone in the sample were due to contamination of the sample once outside the body and not as a result of the horse being administered boldenone and it passing through its system.

Does anyone know which horse was swabbed first on the night?

[mightymo]

Microbial contamination is the unintended introduction of bacteria into a
controlled area (petri dish, stock media, work station). This often results in
confounded research results and test results being unable to be interpreted with
confidence."

[broncobrad]

I concur with that last line Brendan, in fact for the whole year, it wins (dirty) hands down.

[Greg Hando]

Mach Wiper was swabbed first Toni. Call me cynical but it seems to me convenient that one sample was contaminated and not the other especially after 1 participant had already done the time .
Brenno keep washing your hands . If Dawn breaks dont go and make a sandwich and eatit.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Mach Wiper was swabbed first Toni. Call me cynical but it seems to me convenient that one sample was contaminated and not the other especially after 1 participant had already done the time .
Brenno keep washing your hands . If Dawn breaks dont go and make a sandwich and eatit.

Greg

I am going to call you a cynic .... do you honestly think HRNSW would not have gotten the Lew samples retested .... they would be leaving them self in a very dangerous situation to announce publicly the result of this retest if it was not as stated, sorry Greg but that is a conspiracy theory to top all conspiracy theories.

Think about this, if you were right and it was proven you were which would be easy because the samples are still about they would all be joining Paul Paul O'Toole on corruption charges.

[Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild]

Just a little off track. Will Mach Wiper be allowed to run again? Assuming that every swab/blood test that he produces, will be over the allowable Boldenone threshold levels.

[Danno]

Microbial contamination is the unintended introduction of bacteria into a
controlled area (petri dish, stock media, work station). This often results in
confounded research results and test results being unable to be interpreted with
confidence."

And if it wasn't for this type of event Harvey, Alexander Fleming would never have " discovered" penicillin, although ( call me a cynic if you like) I seriously doubt there will be a similar worldwide enlightenment when all the facts are eventually unearthed in this particular case.

[Greg Hando]

Greg

I am going to call you a cynic .... do you honestly think HRNSW would not have gotten the Lew samples retested .... they would be leaving them self in a very dangerous situation to announce publicly the result of this retest if it was not as stated, sorry Greg but that is a conspiracy theory to top all conspiracy theories.

Think about this, if you were right and it was proven you were which would be easy because the samples are still about they would all be joining Paul Paul O'Toole on corruption charges.

No conspiracy theory Bill it was just my thoughts on what i read, perhaps disappointment maybe that one trainer got done and the other got off for the same substance on the same night both of whom were colt's.
If contamination of some unknown way is to blame for the inexplicable high reading on Mach Wiper or the higher readings than previously thought then why couldn't it be argued that the samples from Karloo Kix could have been contaminated in some way unknown to anyone thus making the test positive. Just a thought as i know how a charge for something you have not done can affect you emotionally.

[Greg Hando]

I found this interesting
alimetrics.net/en/images/stories/posterit/wada.pdf

[Thevoiceofreason]

No conspiracy theory Bill it was just my thoughts on what i read, perhaps disappointment maybe that one trainer got done and the other got off for the same substance on the same night both of whom were colt's.
If contamination of some unknown way is to blame for the inexplicable high reading on Mach Wiper or the higher readings than previously thought then why couldn't it be argued that the samples from Karloo Kix could have been contaminated in some way unknown to anyone thus making the test positive. Just a thought as i know how a charge for something you have not done can affect you emotionally.

Greg

What you say is very right which is why I suggested earlier in this thread that HRNSW was obligated to conduct tests to see if the Karloo Kix sample was behaving in the same way as Mach Whiper.

The simple fact is they did and the sample was not continuing to rise when out of the body it was still at the same level throughout in those circumstances it has to remain a positive finding.

To give due credit to HRNSW you have to remember this is not the first time they have gone to extensive lenghts to investigate a positive finding and ensure justice was done.

I am sure you will remember TUSCAN ABBE case a few years back another case involving a naturally occurring product.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/289277.html

[Greg Hando]

We had a she/he like that Bill years ago we used it for a teaser excellent for the job we ran it with the dry mares.It was broken in and no speed.
Not talking about the sample rising, what i am suggesting is just that maybe contamination of some sort may have produced the positive result for Karloo Kix and or Mach Wiper. Probably just thinking aloud.
It was just a thought.

[aussiebreno]

Greg

What you say is very right which is why I suggested earlier in this thread that HRNSW was obligated to conduct tests to see if the Karloo Kix sample was behaving in the same way as Mach Whiper.

The simple fact is they did and the sample was not continuing to rise when out of the body it was still at the same level throughout in those circumstances it has to remain a positive finding.

To give due credit to HRNSW you have to remember this is not the first time they have gone to extensive lenghts to investigate a positive finding and ensure justice was done.

I am sure you will remember TUSCAN ABBE case a few years back another case involving a naturally occurring product.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/289277.html
What happens in 6 months if they retest Mach Wipers and it is seen to not be rising, but staying steady.

Could the same be argued for Karloo Kix, that it did in fact rise, but then petered out, just at a quicker rate than Mach Wipers?

It was only a probably cause for Mach Wiper from the 8 experts. Not an exact cause. So I assume there is no way of finding out exact cause, otherwise a test would have been done. So how do we know Karloo Kix's Boldenone didn't have a rise from sampling to test 1, and then petered out after that?

[Toni]

From what I remember hearing, the Karloo Kix sample didnt rise at all. I dont think it would be capable of rising and then dropping. The only way for the levels to drop again would be to add more clean sample to it.

(Eg. if you have 50% red cordial and 50% water, the only real way to drop the cordial % would be to add more water)

The whole thing seems just so bizarre! Two positives in the same night, the first sample taken has something crazy going on but the second sample taken seems to be normal and remains a positive!

[Toni]

Just a little off track. Will Mach Wiper be allowed to run again? Assuming that every swab/blood test that he produces, will be over the allowable Boldenone threshold levels.

Why would you assume that every swab/blood test he produces would be over the allowable limit.

The level in the sample keeps rising, therefore they dont know what the level of boldenone actually was when it was taken. I think I also read that other samples from the horse hasnt shown the same behaviour.

[Thevoiceofreason]

What happens in 6 months if they retest Mach Wipers and it is seen to not be rising, but staying steady.

Could the same be argued for Karloo Kix, that it did in fact rise, but then petered out, just at a quicker rate than Mach Wipers?

It was only a probably cause for Mach Wiper from the 8 experts. Not an exact cause. So I assume there is no way of finding out exact cause, otherwise a test would have been done. So how do we know Karloo Kix's Boldenone didn't have a rise from sampling to test 1, and then petered out after that?

Brendan interesting view but I am sure you would need some evidence that the Kalroo Kix sample ever acted abnormally before you could amend the positive finding and from my understanding of the available information that never happened.

[aussiebreno]

Brendan interesting view but I am sure you would need some evidence that the Kalroo Kix sample ever acted abnormally before you could amend the positive finding and from my understanding of the available information that never happened.
Yep, just a quirky what if.



From what I remember hearing, the Karloo Kix sample didnt rise at all. I dont think it would be capable of rising and then dropping. The only way for the levels to drop again would be to add more clean sample to it.

(Eg. if you have 50% red cordial and 50% water, the only real way to drop the cordial % would be to add more water)

The whole thing seems just so bizarre! Two positives in the same night, the first sample taken has something crazy going on but the second sample taken seems to be normal and remains a positive!
I wasn't saying it would drop, just that it might rise, then stay the same.
I don't know how to word a word Boldenone reading but say it might look like this:

Horse Mach Wiper Karloo Kix
Possible reading at time sample was taken 2 2
Sample at Test A 10 10
Sample at Test B 15 10
Possible sample in 6 months time 15 10

So they both could have rose at some point in time, but Mach Wipers kept rising for longer.

Although I have no idea what happened obviously and am happy to go by the umpires decision.

Edit: My formatting stuffed up, trying to fix it, if it still doesn't work I apologise.

[Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild]

Why would you assume that every swab/blood test he produces would be over the allowable limit.

The level in the sample keeps rising, therefore they dont know what the level of boldenone actually was when it was taken. I think I also read that other samples from the horse hasnt shown the same behaviour.
Change 'every' to 'another' then! And what makes you think he wont produce another sample like that then?

[Toni]

Change 'every' to 'another' then! And what makes you think he wont produce another sample like that then?

Well I personally dont think he will produce another sample like that because 8 experts have agreed the likely explanation is microbial contamination combined with the fact that they have tested other samples from him and they have not behaved the same way. So to me, the only way the same thing could happen is if microbial contamination occurs to a further sample taken.

Of course the experts may do more research and come up with a definitive cause, in which case it may happen again and then I think that information would give an indication on what could be done to either prevent it in the future should it arise again.

Brendan - If the sample rose after retesting and then got to a level where it rose no longer, I still dont think they could confidentally say what the actual level was when the horse was initally tested.

I wonder if the levels rose exponentially or would they have then been able to pinpoint what the level was at testing if that were the case?

[aussiebreno]

Brendan - If the sample rose after retesting and then got to a level where it rose no longer, I still dont think they could confidentally say what the actual level was when the horse was initally tested.

I wonder if the levels rose exponentially or would they have then been able to pinpoint what the level was at testing if that were the case?
Nope, no one will ever know what the reading was at time of sampling but am happy to accept umpires decision.
When they aren't sure of the exact reason I wouldn't be getting too carried away with predicting the reading at time of sample.

[Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild]

What were the boldenone levels of the samples not behaving strangely? Does anyone know?

[Toni]

I was just having a heart attack thinking I had mis-read but here is where it states

"HRNSW acknowledges that this has been an extremely long process for both Mr Luke McCarthy and HRNSW, but for whatever reason the sample and associated level of boldenone increased outside of the horses system, which has not been seen in any other sample, including other samples taken from this horse."

I am unaware of the level of boldenone in other samples taken, I dont even know if they have published what the levels were supposed to be in the first instance or even in Karloo Kix's case.

[broncobrad]

Well, the horse of the moment returns from his recent stay in Qld to run a slashing 2nd to old champ Washakie, for half a stride thought there might be an upset. Will he be swabbed tonight and every other start from here on in to make some sort of sense of his scientific anomaly?

[Danno]

Well, the horse of the moment returns from his recent stay in Qld to run a slashing 2nd to old champ Washakie, for half a stride thought there might be an upset. Will he be swabbed tonight and every other start from here on in to make some sort of sense of his scientific anomaly?

An extemely valid question IMO Brad, given the horse's samples have done some very unique things with regard to Boldenone levels, one would think that a good place to start with researching how this could have happened would be very close scrutiny of his( Mach Wiper) samples going forward, in particular of course monitoring ex vito fluctuations, close monotoring of microbial contamination and any measureable enzymatic activity!
I'm sure our integrity personnel at HRNSW have looked at this and will announce soon they are endeavouring to monitor not just this horse but a reasonable sample of others in order to assist the eight "experts" ( whose opinions were divided as to how the detectable levels of Boldenone had varied) to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion to this rather strange occurance.

cheers,
Dan