Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Danzig
i would think some positives are based on the fact that not all horses metabolize at the same rate, so withdrawal times for some drugs are hit or miss. in many instances, these drugs have zero tolerance-look at the horse who travelled to australia, only to have to scratch out because he was still showing trace amounts of a drug too soon before the race-they didn't want to chance him having a level above what was allowed by races' end, so the trip was for nothing. i think this is what nipped pletcher, as well as some other trainers in times past. it's the danger of zero tolerance compared to an allowed trace amount.
|
zero tolerence is a really bad idea for drugs that have a use in horses simply because of the difference between labs, lack of adequate research to determine accurate withdrawl times and environmental contamination. Many of the rules in place were written when the testing was far less advanced than it is now. The RMTC and its people do alot of talking about what they have done yet if you go to their website and punch in just about any drug in any state on their withdrawl time scale and you will draw a blank. Fix the system before you start leveling heavy penalties. Most trainers are all for severe penalties for violators of a serious nature but too many of the positives that are called now are simply due to confusing rules and lack of proper research. The RMTC is a good idea in theory yet as most things in this world it is very political and as such does not do effective job. If they would be a little more willing to admit what they dont know and they cant do the horseman would be a lot more welcome to helping them. Instead we are forced to fight much of what they propose simply because it is either not realistic or worse patently unfair. Fix the rules, do the research then lay the groundwork for tougher penalties. they have done it backwards for the most part.