0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
It would be cost prohibitive to get a toxicology report for every prospective drug in the horses system on a potential purchase. Are you going to test for EPO, etorphine,carfentanyl, frog juice, glaucine, fentanyl, oxy, aminorex etc etc etc.it would run you into the thousands if not 10k to complete. One could argue since he hadn't had a positive by the racing regulators that he would be clean. Fact of the matter is the shit is in the horses system and there has been an intentional attempt to misrepresent the horses worth by the presence of an illegal ped regardless of whether it was Richard or Sylvain that did the injections. Any judge or jury with a registering IQ could reasonably assume that the use of DPO was to enhance its value, fraud was committed and void the contract.
By the time a test picks up a"trace" amount of a certain drug you would need to reverse calculate its half life to estimate the actual amount that was given to the animal. DPO or any other brand of EPO is given by injection. The ole groom pissed in the stall excuse, poppyseed on bagels for contamination does not hold water. As for who gave it? Wouldn't matter so much in a civil suit. Moreau is the custodian of the horse as trainer of record and having the horse in his barn. He should be held liable for any repercussions. If he wants to rat out another party to prove his innocence thats more of a regulatory matter.
Agree the ole groom pissed in the stall is all bullshit
Why would horses eat urine soaked hay?Burke used this for multiple Oxycodone/Oxymorphone positives--yet he seems to get away with it.Extensive out of competition testing would help--but i assume the industry either doesnt want to do it or pay for it.
So are you saying that all drugs that are given intravenously can not ever be detected in a urine sample? If that is true I will knock that off my list of possibilities. As for your comment "reverse calculate its half life to estimate the actual amount", if that can be done that would for sure help in any investigation.
The only way the groom pissed in the stall excuse works is if there has been a scientific study to where somebody actually loads up on oxycontin than pisses in a stall or they actually have to feed it to the horse then test the horse. Then that study would have to be replicated once or more times to actually prove that that works otherwise you can't claim something that you don't know or something called hypothetical
That is what i thought and obvious, but Burke and others have used the "environmental contamination" defense before and it has workedcompletely absurd