|
|
 |
|
#1
05-03-2007, 01:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Surprise Drug Test
This is a joke. I like how the wagering results wont be affected but purse money could be affected. Again, the wagering public gets screwed (possibly).
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/...INESS/70503019 
|
|
#2
05-03-2007, 01:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Asmussen must be sweating it out right now. . .
__________________
@BDiDonatoTDN
|
|
#4
05-03-2007, 01:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Wow, could really turn some heads
__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ySSg4QG8g
|
|
#5
05-03-2007, 01:22 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I applaud the idea of the testing, but to still let them run in the race is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Once again the betting public will be the ones affected most. Imagine that your superfecta would have paid off, if not for the jucied up horse that nosed you out for forth.
|
|
#7
05-03-2007, 01:28 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#9
05-03-2007, 01:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
why is better to test 3 days prior rather than after the derby? Cant an unscrupulous trainer just administer it after the test and before the derby?
|
|
#10
05-03-2007, 01:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This was a suprise test, meant to catch those that might have already administered the drug. Since the drug is only detectable 3 to 5 days after it has been administered, the Stewards are hoping to catch traces of it now. Here is a quote that sums it up; "It increases the amount of red blood cells, allowing more oxygen to be carried to muscles and making them tire less quickly. Usage in horses has been rumored for years, Waterman said, but testing has been difficult. Part of the problem is that detectible concentrations only last three to five days in a horse’s system, but the effects last longer" True, someone could possibly use it now, after this drug test, but it would be detected post-race as we are only 3 days from the race. So who in their right mind would give it to a horse now, with a HUGE risk of being caught on a post-race test.
|
|
#11
05-03-2007, 02:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Are we going to see any horses come up with a 'bruised foot' off of this? And what are the penalties if you have presence of the drug but haven't gone through the race (assuming someone opts to withdraw rather than be a media focus and be labeled a cheater)? We all saw what happened with the scare with Funny Cide/Santos. I assume they'd rather fake an injury or fever and pull out of the race with a grumble. The stuff I always hear about is post-race as far as suspensions so I just wondered what happens should they never run the race. Administering it's still an actionable offense right?
|
|
#12
05-03-2007, 03:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#13
05-03-2007, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
05-04-2007, 04:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I finally took the time to read the article. This is ABSURD! Test 3 days prior, but don't let anyone know the results until after the race? That's really protecting the betting public. I guess now we have to watch for strange, large wagers on certain horses whose connections might think they will be disqualified from purse money.
|
Linear Mode
