Luke McCarthy Appeal

Quote:

Originally Posted by mightymo

Id imagine Barry's conviction would have to be quashed

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

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!

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?

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."

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.