|
justify
Sept 11, 2019 19:13:05 GMT -5
Post by phlierfreak on Sept 11, 2019 19:13:05 GMT -5
|
|
tc
UpInClass Member
Posts: 2,103
|
justify
Sept 11, 2019 19:26:58 GMT -5
Post by tc on Sept 11, 2019 19:26:58 GMT -5
say it ain't so...i'm sure it was some kind of tainted feed or some disgruntled employee who wanted to screw BB.
isn't that what it always turns out to be?
|
|
1hooper
UpInClass Steward
Posts: 6,709
|
justify
Sept 11, 2019 19:54:15 GMT -5
Post by 1hooper on Sept 11, 2019 19:54:15 GMT -5
Tip of the iceberg. Hooper
|
|
|
justify
Sept 11, 2019 20:11:57 GMT -5
Post by DoctorDisaster on Sept 11, 2019 20:11:57 GMT -5
|
|
5wide
UpInClass Member
Posts: 1,352
|
justify
Sept 11, 2019 20:33:05 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by 5wide on Sept 11, 2019 20:33:05 GMT -5
This is so disappointing......
|
|
1hooper
UpInClass Steward
Posts: 6,709
|
justify
Sept 11, 2019 21:30:57 GMT -5
Post by 1hooper on Sept 11, 2019 21:30:57 GMT -5
Transdermal scopolamine in the treatment of asthma: a preliminary report. Demeter SL, Cordasco EM. Abstract The use of atropine has emerged over the past few years as a treatment for asthma. Scopolamine is pharmacologically similar to atropine and, as such, was used in a study of nine patients as a bronchodilator. These nine patients had diverse types of lung diseases. Two patients were intolerant to the medication and were not able to participate in the study. The other seven patients had variable responses with significant improvement in baseline pulmonary function testing occurring in four patients. Five of the seven patients had symptomatic relief and are now employing transdermal scopolamine on a once-every-3-days basis for the treatment of their bronchoconstriction. Baseline testing was performed to indicate response to parasympatholytic medications. Transdermal scopolamine appears to be a safe and effective means of achieving bronchodilation in some patients with asthma.
PMID: 3759814
|
|
1hooper
UpInClass Steward
Posts: 6,709
|
justify
Sept 11, 2019 21:32:58 GMT -5
Post by 1hooper on Sept 11, 2019 21:32:58 GMT -5
bronchodilation noun bron·cho·di·la·tion | \ -dī-ˈlā-shən \ Medical Definition of bronchodilation : expansion of the bronchial air passages
|
|
|
justify
Sept 11, 2019 22:01:31 GMT -5
Post by mysaladdays on Sept 11, 2019 22:01:31 GMT -5
Honestly, I think the only people who will be floored by this are those who think U.S. racing, and everyone in it, is participating clean and honest. "2 months after the Belmont Stakes the CHRB held a closed session and decided his food may have been contaminated" and the inquiry was closed. " I guess they don't realize that drugs are no long put in with hypodermic needles, they are in the feed itself. The feed guys are the new pharmacists, often coming up with new undetetables, and/or staying one step ahead of the testing technology. The feed is tainted, but on purpose. Guess we should expect that AP and Justify pass on their "classic distance stayer" genes to their progeny......watch them all turn out to be sprinters / milers. CHRB starts to seem like one of those protection outfits back in the days of the mafia. They have to do what they have to do in order to keep the operation running maybe?
|
|
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 0:07:53 GMT -5
Post by mysaladdays on Sept 12, 2019 0:07:53 GMT -5
But here is my lingering question: Before the SA Derby, Justify did not have any points with which to enter the KY Derby. He received 100 points by winning. By not being disqualified ...... did it keep another deserving horse "on the bubble" from being able to run in the KY Derby that year? did it keep a deserving horse out of the gate? THis alone would be terribly wrong and would affect not only the betting public, but other trainers, owners, and breeders. This isn't like racing interference where you place the horse lower down in a different ITM spot. A drug positive in a major qualifying race is grounds for DQ entirely. That would have left him with 0 points after the race. They swept it under the rug, and now they are going to probably tell us how "common" positives are in similar split samples for said substance....that there was no cheating, that it was an innocent contamination. All this does is open the door for other trainers, in ANY and ALL qualifying races, to do and then claim the same thing. "Not cheating! Innocent contamination!" and have a racing board who will protect you. A racing board who will protect you from drug positives, a racing board who will protect you from a cluster event of dead horses................ and what else that we don't even know about?
|
|
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 3:02:40 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by cherokeescot on Sept 12, 2019 3:02:40 GMT -5
Sadly the sport now has as much credibility as professional cycling. Meanwhile yearlings are going for crazy prices at the Keeneland sale. Looks like another bubble to me .
|
|
1hooper
UpInClass Steward
Posts: 6,709
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 9:09:39 GMT -5
Post by 1hooper on Sept 12, 2019 9:09:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 10:09:40 GMT -5
Post by mysaladdays on Sept 12, 2019 10:09:40 GMT -5
Sadly the sport now has as much credibility as professional cycling. Meanwhile yearlings are going for crazy prices at the Keeneland sale. Looks like another bubble to me . Armstrong was stripped of 7 titles. Ben Johnson was also stripped of his medals. Racing has far less credibility. I gasped aloud, as I kept reading. CHRB knew the rules had been broken, and after Justify tested positive, they LOWERED the penalties for scopolamine.
|
|
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 10:39:54 GMT -5
Post by tenfurlongs on Sept 12, 2019 10:39:54 GMT -5
|
|
5wide
UpInClass Member
Posts: 1,352
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 10:52:47 GMT -5
Post by 5wide on Sept 12, 2019 10:52:47 GMT -5
let the battle begin Bafferts lawyer - Robertson called the scopolamine "a known environmental contaminant," saying it is contained within jimson weed that grows in California and can mix into horses' feed. That echoed statements made to the Times by CHRB Executive Director Rick Baedeker. "There is no doubt that, with regard to Justify, the alleged positive was the result of environmental contamination from hay or straw," Robertson's letter says. While labeling the positive test "alleged," Robertson did delve into Drape's reporting that 300 nanograms of Scopolamine were found in Justify's blood. "What you fail to inform the reader is that one nanogram is a billionth of a gram," Robertson wrote. "This is one of the problems with modern day testing. It has become so sensitive that we can now detect trace amounts of substances that are consistent with environmental contamination -- not intentional administration -- and clearly have no pharmacological effect on a thousand-pound animal."
Dr. Rick Sams - who ran the drug lab for the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission from 2011 to 2018, said scopolamine can act as a bronchodilator to clear a horse’s airway and optimize a horse’s heart rate, making the horse more efficient. He said the amount of scopolamine found in Justify — 300 nanograms per milliliter — was excessive, and suggested the drug was intended to enhance performance. “I think it has to come from intentional intervention,” he said.
|
|
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 10:54:28 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Badactor on Sept 12, 2019 10:54:28 GMT -5
Inadvertent (environmental) or not, The fact that this story is out there is another huge black eye for the sport. It's getting harder & harder to "justify" my lifelong love of horse racing! WTH!?!
|
|
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 13:16:52 GMT -5
Post by dblakers on Sept 12, 2019 13:16:52 GMT -5
This is funny to me "We take seriously the integrity of horse racing in California and are committed to implementing the highest standards of safety and accountability for all horses, jockeys and participants," the California Horse Racing Board said in a statement.
|
|
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 14:03:29 GMT -5
Post by unusualpete on Sept 12, 2019 14:03:29 GMT -5
As one of those who played against him in all three jewels, especially the belmont, it's intellectually validating, but I'd prefer a ******* refund over this 'satisfaction.'
Dirty competitive cyclists say the tc is timed perfectly for horse doping. Can't remember why, but it's what they've said.
|
|
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 15:16:23 GMT -5
Post by tenfurlongs on Sept 12, 2019 15:16:23 GMT -5
Perhaps this article may shed some information on the situation.
TW
|
|
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 15:30:04 GMT -5
Post by elkurzhal on Sept 12, 2019 15:30:04 GMT -5
As one of those who played against him in all three jewels, especially the belmont, it's intellectually validating, but I'd prefer a ******* refund over this 'satisfaction.' Dirty competitive cyclists say the tc is timed perfectly for horse doping. Can't remember why, but it's what they've said.
Working backward from the Belmont 100 days would be early March....
Also notable that we started hearing about Cobalt positives and thresholds, Cobalt is used to treat anemia.
|
|
1hooper
UpInClass Steward
Posts: 6,709
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 16:41:20 GMT -5
Post by 1hooper on Sept 12, 2019 16:41:20 GMT -5
Did any other Baffert horses test positive from the "bad feed' or "bad bedding" in that time frame? I don't know. The test in question was 4 times the legal limit in US and 10 times the limit in Europe. Read that again. A study article. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24440440Sounds like my "I didn't know what was in that brownie" defense. Hooper
|
|
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 16:47:38 GMT -5
Post by Badactor on Sept 12, 2019 16:47:38 GMT -5
Sounds like my "I didn't know what was in that brownie" defense. Hooper Ahhh... Vermont.
|
|
1hooper
UpInClass Steward
Posts: 6,709
|
justify
Sept 12, 2019 17:23:19 GMT -5
Post by 1hooper on Sept 12, 2019 17:23:19 GMT -5
Sorry Dell,no leftovers this year! Hooper
|
|
1hooper
UpInClass Steward
Posts: 6,709
|
justify
Sept 13, 2019 9:31:18 GMT -5
Post by 1hooper on Sept 13, 2019 9:31:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
justify
Sept 13, 2019 14:17:15 GMT -5
Post by mysaladdays on Sept 13, 2019 14:17:15 GMT -5
That is the reason I'd like to see the suit go forward. Facts and evidence in a court of law is quite different from press releases put out by board members who had horses in training with Baffert, etc.
But doubt he'll be able to get a case going
|
|
|
justify
Sept 13, 2019 21:04:41 GMT -5
Post by tims70ar on Sept 13, 2019 21:04:41 GMT -5
I try to stay out of these discussions since I'm not a "horse person". (I just bet on them!)
But............ Whether the positive result was caused by environmental issues or not, the fact that the board glossed over it when others had suspensions and worse previously is what is so damning.
Watergate wasn't about a 'break-in'....it was about the cover up. Martha Stewart didn't go to jail because of 'insider trading'....she went to jail because she lied to investigators and covered up her involvement.
We may be seeing the beginning (or maybe middle) of the end for horse racing.
Tim....(steps off soap box)
|
|
|
justify
Sept 13, 2019 21:26:16 GMT -5
Post by mysaladdays on Sept 13, 2019 21:26:16 GMT -5
Did any other Baffert horses test positive from the "bad feed' or "bad bedding" in that time frame? I don't know. The test in question was 4 times the legal limit in US and 10 times the limit in Europe. Read that again. A study article. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24440440Sounds like my "I didn't know what was in that brownie" defense. Hooper I'm more interested in the bad way the CHRB handled this whole thing than I am about the "science" of the tests. However, the study you linked to above suggests that 75ng/mL would be the threshold in the U.S. Can someone with knowledge of California Racing rules tell me what the actual regulatory threshold is there, is it indeed 75, that they use to adjudicate these matters? I know it is published somewhere, but I don't know where to look. (the Bloodhorse article used nanograms for the measurement, saying Justify was 5x over the limit using that measurement). Also, that other horses may have tested positive for contamination would speak to a contamination but that would depend on just how much they tested at, and how far from the regulatory threshold their numbers were. 4 times the threshold would be 300ng/mL which is not miniscule. Justify is/was a huge horse at the time weighing around 1,268 pounds around the time of the SA Derby, and around 1,380 pounds during his Triple Crown run....... so 4x the regulatory threshold in a horse of that size is also germaine to this discussion, isn't it? Baffert brought up straw bedding. The the subject of feed contamination was brought forward. So do you get this from laying down on bedding or from feed contamination? Ironically, if you remember, Hollendorfer went thru this back in 2006 or 2008......his horse in question was, per the rules, DQ'd.
|
|
|
justify
Sept 14, 2019 7:49:31 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by spiderjohn on Sept 14, 2019 7:49:31 GMT -5
Saratoga has their own far worse version years ago, poorly explained as Pletcher’s “ bad patch of grass”.
Face it—like everything else, the connected good ole boys run racing to their convenience and protect their investments and “integrity”—fox guarding the hen house?
|
|
5wide
UpInClass Member
Posts: 1,352
|
justify
Sept 14, 2019 8:13:10 GMT -5
Post by 5wide on Sept 14, 2019 8:13:10 GMT -5
whether or not it was inadvertent or not, the CHRB should have gone through the normal process. Instead, they changed the process.
|
|
1hooper
UpInClass Steward
Posts: 6,709
|
justify
Sept 14, 2019 8:32:49 GMT -5
Post by 1hooper on Sept 14, 2019 8:32:49 GMT -5
Knowing the potential for contamination, the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities has put a residue limit in place of 60 nanograms per milliliter in urine to try to account for such contamination. The test in Justify came back at five times that residue level, 300 nanograms. I believe that CHRB revised their rules last fall which accounts for the discrepancy in some reports. CHRB now has a limit of 75 and penalties of Class 4 but before that it was 60 and Class 3. Hooper
|
|
|
justify
Sept 14, 2019 11:28:42 GMT -5
Post by mysaladdays on Sept 14, 2019 11:28:42 GMT -5
Knowing the potential for contamination, the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities has put a residue limit in place of 60 nanograms per milliliter in urine to try to account for such contamination. The test in Justify came back at five times that residue level, 300 nanograms. I believe that CHRB revised their rules last fall which accounts for the discrepancy in some reports. CHRB now has a limit of 75 and penalties of Class 4 but before that it was 60 and Class 3. Hooper Hooper, I am not a scientist and cannot parse thru a lot of studies, but I have a scientist friend who is doing so. There may be a number of inconsistencies in Arthur's statement which could be challenged by experts. When people like veterinarians make statements, we laypeople often don't parse it the same way a scientific expert would, i.e, we just assume their knowledge and statements are correct. So my first requirement would be to know exactly from which studies the IFHA derived their residue limits and also why their residue limits are based on urine and not plasma/blood? I suspect it's because in previous studies of scopolamine in humans have found that it has a short half life in plasma. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16175141) so there really is no comparison that can be made between blood tests and urine tests as they would not reveal the same level of sensitivity and would thus be forensically misleading. Yet in the Bloodhorse: "Arthur said the blood tests also were a factor in him recommending to the commission that a positive not be called. " "Even though the level was relatively high in urine, the blood level was actually quite low," Arthur said. "It basically tells me that anybody that would make a professional opinion based on urine levels should be ashamed of themselves." Yet, International Federation of Horseracing Authorities residue limits are based on nonograms per milliliter in urine. I guess you can see my confusion here when Arthur says basing an opinion on a urine level is shameful.
|
|