VVV. You mean that he told me a lie???
Printable View
VVV. You mean that he told me a lie???
Masking agents are used as i said in an earlier post a very successful trainer once said to a mate of mine Dont ask what im using as what im using to mask it.
If i put the trainers name on this site i would be banned.
Just wondering are you suggesting they dont exsist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barney
[VVV] They are...are they? Ok. Nobody's asking you to name the person. That has nothing to do with it.
Rather I'm asking that you substantiate that they are being used, first by naming one or more such substances that are able to be used in such a fashion and then by noting how it is/they are being used, what drug or drugs that it/they disguise the presence of & (chemically) how it/they achieve to achieve that.
I'm not suggesting that they do or do not exist. I'm not the one who made the statement.
As you will see i didnt say they are being used i said the other theory is masking agents..Quote:
Originally Posted by barney
Google up masking agents for steriods and you will see they exist.
[VVV] Perish the thought Andy, perish the thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiny
Found this intresting Brian.Quote:
Originally Posted by barney
Bicarb is also a masking agent.
Telegraph Sport understands that the closest high-profile parallel with Touré’s case is that of cricketer Shane Warne, who was banned for a year in 2003 after he tested for a banned diuretic that he said was contained in one of his grandmother’s diet pills.
In Warne’s case the diuretic was banned because it was a “masking agent” capable of covering the use of steroids. Despite arguing that he had taken the substance inadvertently, he was banned for 12 months.
How about the fact they don't usually test for Boldenone these days. Add the fact that L Mc and B Lew are very good mates, that would diminish the coincidence theory a bit. Were any other swabs taken that night? Why did they not return a positive?Quote:
Originally Posted by tiny
Name any masking agent. Masking agents are a myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by barney
Hi Tim . A large percentage of positive returns in athletics etc are firstly to masking agents such as dieretics , turtle jelly etc . They then look further . Most masking agents do such a good job they have been made illegal substances .Quote:
Originally Posted by TSW
So, you're saying that it is a possibility to beat the Breathalyser? Take a diuretic or serving of turtle jelly and demand a blood test.
How about the fact they don't usually test for Boldenone these days FACT 1!!
.Add the fact that L Mc and B Lew are very good mates, that would diminish the coincidence theory a bit FACT 2 !!
.Name any masking agent. Masking agents are a myth. FACT 3 ????????
Re FACT 2 - I hope that they are also testing for Boldenone on previous swabs from other mates too!......then that would be a big conicidence!Quote:
Originally Posted by teecee
Hey Brad...Quote:
Originally Posted by broncobrad
You need not feel that way but if you do and for all those others who feel a need I have included a copy of the Bush Lawyers manual I use here on the forum.
Courtesy of HARNESSLINK management...:)
Harness Racing Forum Rules
Although the administrators and moderators of Harness Racing Forum will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this site, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of Harness Racing Forum, nor vBulletin Solutions, Inc. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of Harness Racing Forum reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any content item for any reason
AUSTRALIAN HARNESS FORUM
.Forum Rules (Must Read)With ongoing drug scandals in Australia it's important that everybody understands what can and can't be said on a public forum from a legal perspective.
A public forum IS NOT the same as chatting to people at the track. Legally it's akin to writing something in a newspaper, meaning if you are going to attack or accuse somebody, you need to be prepared to back your statements up with proof within that same post. If you do not you can be taken to court, or we (Harnesslink) can be; and we can be shut down.
You may discuss any publicly available information from reputable sources. These include but aren't limited to: Press releases put out by HRNSW (or other state organisations), news posted by HR Australia, or Harnesslink etc.
If somebody has been caught cheating, you may call them a cheat. Personal attacks (like calling them an asshole) will not be tolerated.
Hinting that somebody is or might be cheating is the same as saying it directly. We can all read between the lines and that type of carry on is not allowed.
You can freely debate with other members, but again no personal attacks. Attack the argument not the person. If threads turn nasty they will be closed or deleted and members may be banned.
Depending on the severity of what is said, members who break these rules will receive warnings, or 7 day, 30 day, or permanent bans.
We want to ensure good lively discussion and trust that these small limitations are easy for most people on here to follow.
Harnesslink Marketing Manager
Hey teecee can't you sleep tonight, it is nearly 1 AM over the ditch, or do you have an autopilot operating when you are asleep? Listen, how was the BBQ tonight, they tell me those NZ Raglan steaks are the most tender meat you will ever eat........they are never tough...........Sweet Dreams......
Yes am wondering how much cooking an Aussie steak would take especially under a reactor powered bbq. I'm guessing less than a Raglan steak. He must have crisped up under the long hot sun over there.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Form Student
Now he might be a chance, hopefully he draws the front..........fridays heats will give us a last look...............before the steaks are ready to be eaten in the final!Quote:
Originally Posted by teecee
Thanks TeeCee, I am going to put a copy under my pillow tonight and try and absorb it.
Your showing your ignorance ,Tim , if you think that blood alcohol levels and breathalysers have a conection with masking agents . Masking agents work when the amount of drug or steroid is at a very low level . Diretics are used to cause a high flow of urination to flush out and thin the drug used . Steroids are used to train up on and by the time a person or animal gets to race the levels are so small that they are basically undetectable . A masking agent will dirty the water as such so that at these very low levels a genuine positive is indeterminable . The effects of steroids , like EPO , goes on for many weeks after it is unable to be identified . Blood alcohol levels and drug use are at far greater levels and canot be masked because of this , but if you want to give it a go try munching a box of Tic Tacs next time your pulled over by the booze bus . It may , at least , give you a couple of seconds of hope .Quote:
Originally Posted by TSW
I've been thinking about the 2 horse's not showing up pos either side of the night they came back positive,probably because they weren't tested for it either side, i have come to the conclusion that both are positive and should be charged accordingly as per the rule's when and if found guilty.
I'm not a Chemist, Pathologist or a Big Bang Theory cast member and I'm certainly not going to read all the literature out there availble on these topics as my brain would explode. I'm relying on the smarties on this site that know a thing or two about how these things work. The way I see it, if there is a substance in your system, it's in your system. Any 'masking' agent used to hide a substance would, in my mind only diminish the potency of the substance being used if only lower readings are obtained. Have tests been conducted to verify that 'masking agents' do work or is that just another theory applied to the rules on speculation?
The charge is 'Presenting a horse to race with a prohibited substance', not 'Administering a horse with a prohibited substance'. The inference that all the knockers are making is that if the horse did present with a substance, they administered it as well. They won't hear any BS excuse or other boloney. Their minds are made up and anything to the contrary is a cover up or conspiracy to protect the sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Hando
Yeah i'm not saying that just they are pos.
I wasn't inferring that you were thinking that. Apologies if that's how it reads to you.
No worries Tim wasn't sure .
Spoke to a chemist today who has horses.He told me that masking agents are not a myth are a fact dirutetics are one but said there are a lot of them.I then asked how they worked and he said the simplest way to explain is in a urine sample they confuse the detection of the substance by mixing with the steroid or whatever they are masking.Also explained that a lot of masking agents are banned for that reasonQuote:
Originally Posted by TSW
In the 2 recent cases for TCO2 positive swabs for A Bucca & J Glover, the decision on penalty included in Mr Glover's case the "the level of the prohibited substance detected" ....so why are we not privy to the levels detected in all cases of positive swabs??????? It would make it easier to understand the penalties given. We don't even know whether the level of Glover or Bucca was the higher?????? The inference here would be that the Glover level was maybe higher (Just a guess!), than Bucca, but because of the previous misdemeanour by Bucca his penalty was higher,but only just. I won't go into personal circumstances???
Mr Glover was disqualified for a period of 10 months effective immediately. In assessing penalty Stewards took into account, his guilty plea, his unblemished record for offences under a similar Rule, the level of the prohibited substance detected, the nature the of the prohibited substance, the seriousness of the offence and his personal circumstances
Mr Bucca was disqualified for a period of 12 months effective immediately. In assessing penalty Stewards took into account, his guilty plea, his previous offence under a similar Rule, , the nature the of the prohibited substance, the seriousness of the offence, the status of the race and his personal circumstances.
Therefore, if the levels were advised, the discussion here would possbly be limited i.e. a much higher level of Boldenone than could possibly be naturally occurring in a horse (stallion), would therefore rule out this for a start.................my point being that HRNSW gives out ambiguous information regarding "irregularities"..........the recent case of detected EPO..........which has been sent to another lab for testing at present. They may as well not have have told us, they won't mention who is involved, and as far as anybody knows that trainer is still operating.......so what was the point!..........I am not asking for a copy of the labs report either! We continue to discuss TCO2 levels every day or so, but don't know the levels detected...........HRNSW can you help us out??????
Under harness racings prohibited substances policy it doesn't matter what the level is or what the substance is they are all treated the same. I don't like it but that's the way it is. If you read the transcripts of appeals that show levels there. The lines stating all the things they considered is just to stop them being considered at an appeal later.
As for disqualifications for big name trainers it didn't happin and won't happin. They are too important for racing. Disqualifications are for the no namers and fines are for the big boys..
The stewards have assessed their penalties for the offences and part of the penalty includes "the level of the prohibited substance detected" so therefore the level should be advised...............it is quite simple........I know the offence is proven, their statement not mine, but I am supportive of the fact that levels do make a diffrerence to penalty!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by tiny
Am I right to believe that these stewards hearings of serious offences are held behind closed doors and verdicts and penalties are paraphrased with minimal detail to their own websites only.?
That's correct TC. No more detail avalible other than what is in the media brief and they appear to be a templet that you just change the name and substance and penalty.
Full transcripts of appeals are published though.
When you get caught by the breathalyser, you are either LOW, MEDIUM or HIGH, penalties are dished out on the level achieved........if they want total transparency with their operation, they must release the level as a matter of course!
That will only start to happen when they publish full hearing transcripts.
It can only obtain total transparency when they give up the job of judge / jury as well as prosecutor.
I agree with what you saying but harness racing see it as it doesn't matter ever way your still pissed.
I think I am correct in saying many substances the higher the level the bigger the effect.. I think it also can give an indication of wether it was administered accidentally or maliciously and also how long ago as the level reduces as it is metabolized.
Spot onQuote:
Originally Posted by teecee
That system serves well on race day to get a result by the next race. At major enquires away from the track they should have someone other than the stewards act as judge.
Can anyone tell me why the winners of Race no 4 and 7 were not swabbed last Tuesday at Menangle?
Because swabbing is to expensive. Sam Nati made front page trot guide news by announcing the same policy that has been in place for the last 30 years.
While ever all winners are not swabed there will be allocations a stewards taking money in the same way we have seen and the temptation for it to accrue again.
I would have thought this one was a no brainer.
Hi Tim . Read post 86 on page 9 in this thread . These steroids don't have to be in the horses system to have received a massive advantage . Working horses up on these steroids builds their muscle mass , increases their red blood cell count to a level like EPO . These effects last for months even when their levels return to normal .Quote:
Originally Posted by TSW
I just found one of these media releases. Using a template alright..!!Quote:
Originally Posted by tiny
It's an absolute nonsense. It says quote in part.." the prohibited substance total carbon dioxide plasma" unquote.
There is no such thing as this and none of these are prohibited nor do they have a threshold.
the term is "total carbon dioxide in plasma" in excess of the specified threshold of....
Good get teecee never noticed that before, you would think if you appealed you would get off for under a technicality for not having the right wording on the charge sheet ?
[VVV] The problem as I see it is that unfortunately, by & large those doing the charging are only marginally sharper that those being charged. Essentially...in the land of the blind it is old mate, the one-eyed man, who is King.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Hando
It also relies on the fact that for the most part participants simply do not have the financial wherewithal to mount any sort of a half reasonable legal challenge, so even in such instances where charge sheets are worded as poorly as that one appears to have been...they stand.
Total Carbon Dioxide Plasma is a prohibited substance as well now eh? Jesus wept...and did so profusely. :(