Isn't it funny the amount of positive swabs there has bin of late in NSW, seems strange that since the corruption has hit positives mainly TCO2 are wild... Connected too it? Or are stewards trying too connect it?
Printable View
Isn't it funny the amount of positive swabs there has bin of late in NSW, seems strange that since the corruption has hit positives mainly TCO2 are wild... Connected too it? Or are stewards trying too connect it?
Just goes to show that swab's are now being done now when they should be.
Greg that's a fair call but there's been a heap lately all have got good time. 6 months ago all they were getting were fines.. Where's the consistency?? Pete morris 18 months big time..
Young Mitchell Butterfield got 10 months the other week.
The latter of the two looked too be something out of the box in the training ranks, I've been watching him for a while as I've wanted too give him a couple of my horses too train for me, his ability too improve a horse was something you would expect from a Luke mcarthy or Paul Fitzpatrick not a kid.
First offences shouldn't be so severe, my point is that 6 months ago these would have been fines but now that we are being rocked by corruption they are getting big time.
Who were the one's that were only fined i can't remember them
I'm unsure Greg but I'm sure there was about 4 prima facie TCO2 swabs that got fines between 6 and 12 months agoQuote:
Originally Posted by Greg Hando
correct they have been paid to do a job and failed to deliver for too many decades......... yes decadesQuote:
Originally Posted by Greg Hando
It is an interesting point you raise about those cases. I am to be convinced that the decision not to charge with a breach of the rules was not the correct one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harness29
If I got pulled up for drink driving and my first breath test showed positive but the confirmatory showed negative I would be filthy if I was charged and found guilty and by the way that would not happen..
My view is simple why have a confirming test if the result is of no consequence just save a fortune and do the one test in all swab cases, effectively this would half the current cost of testing so you could do twice as many.
I am being sarcastic here I think we need the confirmatory test they have it in all sports world wide we read about it week in week out.
I will go on record as saying no confirming test no breach or simply get rid of it, then there is no grey area.
The amount of TC02s of late really show the threshold levels are wrong......its been a long time since any research has been completed.
The threshold shouldnt be changed that's ridiculous, and most people know that a horses tco2 doesn't only rise from bicarb there can also be other factors.
My point life's in the inconsistency of stewards in the penalties they deal out. How can one bloke get a 1k fine then the other 10 or more months. It's time we got ran by people who are not complete dopes and run by people that at least have half a clue
So I take it you comfortable with a swab being declared positive with only one laboratory finding it so, even when the other laboratory could not confirm it was positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harness29
Please enlighten me as to any other sport that has this policy I like to be educated.
100% correct VOR....
Dont forget the system used to transport the bloods to the lab......A Steward.
The same group of stewards that have been proven to be corrupt.
Who knows who else is involved in the current corruption.....more stewards.....the lab?????
So why wouldnt it be in their interests to try and move the focus away........................!!!!!!
Even without all the corruption scandal I have to say I think swabs should only be declared positive when two independent Labs declare the sample positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dust
It is a safe guard that makes sense.
I agree with you. It is one of my pet hates when the second swab comes back clear/under threshold yet the trainer still gets some sort of punishment. It's almost like "just in case you did something, we must give you some sort of punishment." No, IMHO a trainer should be given the benefit of the doubt if the second sample if not positive, like every other sporting jurisdiction. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason
D.U.I even if you go over on the test and then blood taken and result's below the level you are still charged on the first reading
I wasn't aware of that (never had a DUI) but even so, that is an offence and comparing apples with applies racing is a sport and most sporting jurisdictions require both tests to be positive. Racing is the most highly regulated sport in the world - even more so then the worlds very best athletes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Hando
Seems to me that, while no doubt having been handed a fair old box of ammunition in recent times, the conspiracy theorists of the Forum are forgetting THE major difference between the 'Green Light' period that was, as I understand it, basically prior to July/August 2011 and now...and it is the TIMING.
Thankfully we now have in place, as in fact we should always have had, an on-course arrival time of 2hrs prior to racing & this is combined with pre race testing of up to 2hrs post race testing.
Take away the old Green Light, make the horses show up and if required not leave inside of a total 4hr period spanning their race & there's not a buffer anywhere on this Earth that will beat such a system.
While I am thrilled that such a system is now in place...it has for sure & certain taken God damned long enough and unfortunately it took an absolute shit fight crisis to get it across the line.
A number of people including myself have been banging away at this since back in the late 1990's, initially to the (then) NSW Harness Racing Authority & then subsequently to the quite deplorable shambles that was the GHRRA.
In fact when things came to a head at one point, I was actually called in to the GHRRA offices by the late James Perry (a very good fella, God rest his soul) who was at the time quite clearly most unwillingly doing so. I later found out from James it was under direction from his boss, John Coughlan.
Nevertheless, despite it being a bit of a show trial which quickly became apparent, I was duly carpeted for stating in another forum that their TC02 testing regime at the time was a complete & utter joke and that I strongly suspected that a number of swabs were being incorrectly/ineffectively carried out.
In a rather blatant effort to shut down open debate on the subject would you believe I scored a $2,000 fine (suspended). A shout out here to good guy Matty Hammond btw. ;)
I guess, given recent events, I ultimately had the last laugh but it's not something I enjoy having been right about.
On a related note, upon the demise of the GHRRA I believe there were forces either within or certainly very close to that shockingly expensive absolute folly of an organisation who, in their infinite wisdom, apparently saw fit to erase/destroy virtually all records, thus little if anything of any note, let alone regulatory note from that period, is left /was passed on to HRNSW. I suspect it would ave made for some interesting reading.
Interestingly this wholesale erasing of records, amongst a host of other things, apparently included the balance of/ payment plans for various fines etc. that were handed out during the GHRRA's unprecedented reign of incompetence (it is worth noting that some of them were said to be quite substantial).
Such was their apparent bloodymindedness at the time that seemingly they would've rather the villains identified & fined during their time at the healm simply skate away from their financial obligations...than hand over any records to HRNSW. Charming stuff that, absolutely charming. Don't you just love bureaucracy? :p
There are eight million stories in The Naked City. This has been one of them. :rolleyes:
VVV
You have not voiced an opinion on should a positive finding by one lab followed by a negative finding by the second lab constitute a positive swab finding..... I say it should not.
My vote's a NO Bill. For the purposes of Harness Racing, definitely a NO.
If there is not concordance in the results, if the first round test is not then confirmed by the second...i.e. it's a one over/one under...then it should immediately be deemed a 'no case to answer'.
Having experienced up close and personal the pretty significant differences that can & do occur in human pathology labs throughout NSW, Australia & the World and across a wide range of testing regimes, disciplines & methods...there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that some errors most certainly do occur.
Some Labs fairly routinely return positives that are in fact negatives & similarly some fairly routinely return negatives that are in fact positives and some will do a bit of both depending on the staff on at the time, their workload etc.
By & large it is also a function of numbers.
If you have enough test volume then somewhere along the way something, for some reason or other, will simply not follow script & there are a myriad of reasons why that can happen. That being said...the fact is that some Labs are also significantly better/more reliable than others.
It's also worth remembering that complete reverse is also just as possible...whereby an actual postives gets recorded as being an all clear the first time around but a subsequent or confirmatory test (which in the case of an initial all-clear is I expect rarely if ever performed) could well come up as an overage. It is, as always, a two way street.
The benefit of the doubt however MUST always remain with the accused.
Such forensic work would be thrown out of court, deemed insufficient and/or inconclusive & there's no reason why it should have any standing as far as Harness Racing is concerned.
VVV they are probably the biggest posts i have ever seen!!! LOL.... I'm sorry but the racing nsw lab who does the first testing and the lab in QLD that does the confirmatory tests have the same machines therefore same testing... Circumstances too consider:
- the time it takes too send samples too QLD yes level will drop but only a few points thus the reason the confirmatory testing is usually lower..
One finding of a positive level is enough machines don't lie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harness29
That is a myth I am sorry check with HRNSW if you like many second tests are actually higher and not all tests go to Queensland check if you doubt me.
Under you theory if first teat is close to the line then we should get the second test done because it might be higher it does not make sense.
Sorry if your facts were right no drama but they are not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harness29
[VVV] Machines don't lie???? Geeze. Where ever did you get that idea?
Yes they do my friend, they most certainly do. Merely running the same Beckman Elise based testing platform most certainly does not automatically = 100% the same results.
There would be no need whatsoever for NATA if that were the case.
Fact is that there are any number of variables that can & do influence outcomes...ranging from the QC material used to the individual operator skills & everything in between.
I was just wondering. Are the variances between the first positive swab and the second negative swab outside the range of error for the relevant testing equipment. Are the actual results published anywhere?
No, while they obviously differed they would not be outside the normal range.
Not sure if the results are published anywhere?
Probably not as amatter of course anyway. Most likely only when read into evidence an recorded as part of the transcript of an appeal perhaps?
I'll hazard a guess & suggest the biggest potential problem facing TC02 testing here in Australia is that the Beckman Synchron EL-ISE is in fact no longer being manufactured and it has not been supported by the supplier since the end of 2008. Maybe they've dealt with it in the interim, maybe they haven't. I'll find out.
Beckman of course have a couple of other newer TC02 Testing platforms on hand...there's the Synchron CX5 & the UniCel DxC600. Beckman are a multi-national but I think they're headed up in the USA?
There is also another smaller & so significantly more portable instrument called a Randox Daytona. Randox are a UK based company I believe.
Only the first 2 named intruments can be used for both initial testing & confirmatory analysis however as from what I am told the basic operation principle of the Randox is not up to scratch for confirmatory purposes.
Rather when used to measure the pre & post race TC02's of horses it is effectively just a 'screening' platform...rather like the roadside Breath Tests the Police used and then, if you pull a number of interest, it is back to the Station for a confirmatory on the more sensitive/accurate machine.
The above is thought to be correct up to the middle/latter part of 2010 & it is in all likelyhood still the case. With it being so late however I couldn't confirm. Will do so tomorrow.
Tasmania published them in their gazette for a while but I think that practice has now been stopped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Saying
Further to the above...the best Blood Gas Testing platforms currently on the market are made by Siemens.
Siemens took over Chiron Diagnostics quite a few years ago now, my wife used to work for Chiron and moved on a year or so before Siemens took them over. At the time Chiron had much of the Racing Lab. business here in Sydney. I understand that after the takeover that business duly flowed on to Siemens & maybe they still have it.
Siemens produce excellent analysers, the RapidLab (bigger Lab based systems) and the RapidPoint (smaller, point of care based systems mostly used in ICU's).
In particular their latest release, the RapidPoint500, is an incredible piece of technology. It is around the size of one of those compact CD/Stereo Systems...but it packs a huge punch.
It actually measures the pH, blood gases, electrolytes, glucose, lactate & provides full CO-oximetry including total hemoglobin...WITHIN 60 SECONDS!
Given the speed & accuracy with which such an instrument can test samples and return Intensive Care Unit quality results, we should at the very least considered putting them in place on-course here in NSW & especially so at Menangle. I'm going to ring a mate of mine in a moment & try to find out how much they are.
In terms of size, here are a couple of pictures of their new RapidPoint500, standing alone on the bench & then one with an operator for an idea of scale. It was only released about a week or so ago and from all reports it is an EXCELLENT system.
http://www.medical.siemens.com/sieme...nt500_wAQC.jpg http://medgadgetenglish.s3.amazonaws...66-290x290.jpg
The reason I suggest we should have one on-course is that the aspect of the current TC02 Testing which really bothers me is the 'sending a sample away to a Lab in QLD for a confirmatory result' routine. The fact is that Blood Gas analysis is not the same as drug testing.
No matter how well/accurately/to specs the sample is collected, no matter how well it is then handled &/or subsequently transported, no matter how good the testing platform that's used is...and no matter how great the skill of the operator at the time, I'm very reliably told there's no way that an accurate result can reasonably be expected/produced.
For TC02 results to be at their best & most accurate they instead should carried out at point of collection and within 1hr of collection. The above system could change all that. It would be fairer for all concerned.
And then they can do what they do in Pennslyvania in the USA. EVERY SINGLE HORSE is pre race TC02ed and tested on course. If you fail the pre race TC02 you are scratched out of the race and the trainer is fined. No suspensions or disqualifications. And that is how it should be IMHO. If the horse doesn't race then no punters or rival trainers have been disadvantaged. A fine and scratching would suffice as punishment. There are obviously a lot more serious punishments for a post race TC02 (normally some loss lif license, but only for a shorter period than here, ie one trainer I knew got 14 days) but I think oncourse pre race TC02 testing with a scratch and fine punishment would be wonderful :)
You beat me to the punch line. That's exactly what I was working towards. Could not agree more.
Thanks for the information. I agree. Is cost the limiting factor or do they have some other reason for not impementing this procedure? It actually seems more cost effective. Surely some of the windfall from the sale of Harold Park should be directed towards cleaning up the industry.
Boys a lot of it has to do with accepted international standards for TC02 and its testing but your suggestion is certainly worthy of investigation.
Its a bit like back to the future though because something like this was happening in the 80's
VOR [Boys a lot of it has to do with accepted international standards for TC02 and its testing]
VVV- Not really. You can set your cut-offs at 0.7-7-17-27-37-47-57mmol, whatever you want them at.
Accepted here is 37mmol. There's your cut-off.
I spoke to one of the Siemens Reps. earlier today & the cost of buying one of these absolute latest version, state of the art machines outright is only $30,000.
In the overall scheme of things, in order to have the testing happening right there on course in real time, that's not a whole lot of money IMO.
They come complete with the user's choice of test cartridges that are able to cover 250, 500 & 750 tests respectively & the cartridges are good for either that number of tests or for 28 days, whichever comes first.
The basic heart & soul of the analyser itself is expected to last for at least 8 years before needing to either be extensively overhauled or more likely, replaced.
I think it would be pretty bloody terrific if the NSW Stewards had access to an on-course testing facility such as this, one which returns an accurate, reliable reading in just 60 seconds.
The analyser would surely pay for itself by way of dispensing with the subsequent to and fro bullshit alone. Collect horse, test sample, move on or take action. Simple as that. If Pa. can do it, we can too.
I meant to add, the only slight drawback...if there is one...is that once one of the 250 etc. test cartridges is inserted and so activated you can't then turn the machine off, pick it up, take it somewhere else and then turn it back on again because if you do that then you have to put in a new cartridge.
It is relative small and easily moved but it is not designed to be overtly portable. You can however leave the machine in place and in a 'stand-by' mode until such time as it is needed again eg. Mondays, Tuesdays & Saturdays out at Menangle for example. I think it would send a BIG message.
There are some interesting points made in this thread. A quick check of the rules of harness racing will reveal that there are two machines approved for the testing of TCO2. The Beckman Elise and Beckman DXC 600 (I think it is). For testing to be valid the samples need to be tested on one of these machines. Obviously it is not so difficult to have one of these machines approved for use (usually a few months for the rule change to be approved). These machines also mut be calibrated correctly for use. Outside of a certain margin the results have more margin for error.
Secondly testing on the night/day has been conducted in the past. This happened in WA a while ago. It caused a lot of problems during an interdominion and was scrapped after that. Multiple tests were run on this horse on the night as the first test was over the limit, which was 35mmol then. This horse was favourite for the series. It would not have been good had it been not allowed to start. But then how could it be allowed to start when it was over the limit?? A tricky situation to say the least.
There's another great thing Kristy.
Once paramters are set, be they human or equine, these Siemens analysers are not only self calibrating but they also self QC. They're in effect a closed system. No need for operators to fiddle about getting them to bowl onto a length. Got to love that. I understand that resting TC02 levels for horses & for humans are in fact very close & so calibration would be a snap.
Also, as the top end level is now, I'm of the view that 37mmol cannot be exceed naturally.
If by chance a one in a 100,000 or a 1 in 1mil. horses comes along, one that naturally has a resting TC02 which exceeds the upper limit...then the simple answer as far as proving this to be the case is to sequester it for further testing.
Freaks of nature do exist I'm sure, you may well have encountered one or more of them in your time. In all the years I've been around Harness Racing however, I've never seen nor heard of any proven beyond doubt, confirmed cases of naturally occurring 37+mmol TC02's. Quick turn around on-course testing with modern, cutting edge analysers should be the way of the future, IMO. As initially noted by Flashing and as I said before, Pa. can do it, so can we.
Also a significant variance in a horse's TC02 could be announced post race if it was deemed significant. Similar to a weight variance in a greyhound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Saying
[VVV] At this juncture I'd like it noted by both admin. & casual observers alike that I have fought against & for the time-being at least have won a battle with an almost overwhelming urge to post the rather unkind suggestion that...given their extensive experience in such areas...perhaps messrs. O'Toole & Bentley should be consulted during any development process which might lead to such a system coming to pass. To have made such a comment here in this most happy of places where all the world is a carpet rose petals scattered before us as we walk, would have been very imprudent of me indeed. Perish the thought.
[QUOTE=triplev123;11871][VVV] At this juncture I'd like it noted by both admin. & casual observers alike that I have fought against & for the time-being at least have won a battle with an almost overwhelming urge to post the rather unkind suggestion that...etc.etc.
I have just had a look over the shoulders of the powers that be
and can pass on the news that they are in agreement with VVV's suggestion that they move onto using up-to-date and accurate means of testing for Tco2 except that,
1) the cost is not justified.
2) we don't have the expertise to operate the Gizmo.
3) the cost cannot be justified.
4) the Gizmo has not been shown to be accurate (enough).
5) we are trying to justify the cost.
6) self calibration is not healthy.
7) we tried, but cannot justify the cost.
8) we find that getting a positive from a pre-race favourite is not in the best interest of racing.
9) to cover our backside we have formed a committee to investigate,in depth,the Gizmo.
10) the committee has reported that it would probably be O.K. to have an inquiry into the cost of the use of the Gizmo,and that it should report as soon as possible as to whether the cost was too great.
11) the committee has warned that as they only have crayon and slates all of the above may be too hard,and anyway the cost is too great.
No, it's all too bloody hard and we wouldn't want to upset anybody.Another Scotch anyone?
Howard Cosell, you ain't nothin but an instigator.:rolleyes: