tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4684463172854959042.post2430731735621165768..comments2024-02-27T17:43:37.207-05:00Comments on View From the Racetrack Grandstand: Mishandling the Glaucine IncidentThat Blog Guyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15487597769210721585noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4684463172854959042.post-85559359011193399622017-02-19T11:49:17.888-05:002017-02-19T11:49:17.888-05:00Pacingguy:
I believe most racing states follow the...Pacingguy:<br />I believe most racing states follow the same rules on what can be in a horse. If something is on an approved list, it's legal. There may be dosage limitations and withdrawal windows, but a trainer can use what's on the list. Glaucine wasn't on the list when the positives showed up, so regardless of how it got into horses, it wasn't legal. <br />NY took the newly established guidelines and decided Glaucine above a certain level would draw a penalty. NY went further to explain its position that the higher readings indicate Glaucine was introduced to some horses to get an intended result. "...the horse was introduced to a potentially efficacious dose of the substance on race day." <br />I'm neither a scientist nor an attorney. For now, I'm accepting Glaucine can come from a natural source (stall shavings), but when levels are at a certain reading, it's not natural.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4684463172854959042.post-22239547279268397782017-02-19T06:17:32.958-05:002017-02-19T06:17:32.958-05:00I suspect the two of you may be correct in your su...I suspect the two of you may be correct in your suspicions, hence the RMTC guidelines. But it is problematic in that it can be naturally occurring. <br /><br />I suspect Maryland and Delaware will be treating new positives according to RMTC guidelines. While it may allow those who deliberately cheated to get a freebie, being a positive can be naturally occurring, it may have been better to let those who got a positive before off rather than dealing with possible court cases and throw the books at those who cheat hence forth. That Blog Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15487597769210721585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4684463172854959042.post-45661037738642408582017-02-18T21:12:27.757-05:002017-02-18T21:12:27.757-05:00No problem here with NY's penalties. The conc...No problem here with NY's penalties. The conclusion is that anything over a certain level indicates an action intended to produce a desired result. Translation: Cheat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4684463172854959042.post-13010723422159067532017-02-18T13:54:25.493-05:002017-02-18T13:54:25.493-05:00Nonsense - even with the POSSIBILITY of "envi...Nonsense - even with the POSSIBILITY of "environmental contamination" (which has been pretty much dismissed as ridiculous thanks to the SAME bedding only producing "positives" for certain trainers), the levels that some of these horses tested at would be IMPOSSIBLE without actually being treated with glaucine sometime before the race. Just to satisfy the "contamination crowd", NY was kind enough to give the benefit of the doubt to horses testing low enough to at least create the POSSIBILTY of contamination; but those higher levels just couldn't possibly have happened by anything other than the drug being directly administered to the horse. New York's research was FAR more sophisticated than in those other states, and that's why they weren't buying the "contamination" B.S. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com