Luke McCarthy Appeal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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!

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toni

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Camilla"s Lovechild

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toni

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.

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

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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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