Interesting discussion

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by scanman

Question for anyone:

What are the testing procedures for tracks like Belmont, Hollywood, Churchill versus tracks like Tampa, Canterbury, Penn National?

The procedures are similar. The labs that test for smaller tracks are not inferior to the bigger ones and in fact in many cases are the same. The difference is the amount of substances tested for. Even the bigger tracks (states) are usually not testing for more than 10-20 things and on some occasions less then that. Considering the amount of drugs available it is a drop in the bucket. Supertesting has been done for stakes at Keeneland and those tests are usually looking for 400 or more drugs and as far as I know there have been no positives. In a lot of cases positives are closer to speeding tickets than real crimes. When you hear Larry Jones has not had a positive in 25 years you have to take that in the context of what it really means. Meaning that under the old rules in KY which the majority of his career was spent under, it was almost impossible to get a positive test because most everything was legal and hardly had any withdrawl. The things that cause horses to magically improve and get trainers at 40% arent things that are widely known and tested for.

[scanman]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The procedures are similar. The labs that test for smaller tracks are not inferior to the bigger ones and in fact in many cases are the same. The difference is the amount of substances tested for. Even the bigger tracks (states) are usually not testing for more than 10-20 things and on some occasions less then that. Considering the amount of drugs available it is a drop in the bucket. Supertesting has been done for stakes at Keeneland and those tests are usually looking for 400 or more drugs and as far as I know there have been no positives. In a lot of cases positives are closer to speeding tickets than real crimes. When you hear Larry Jones has not had a positive in 25 years you have to take that in the context of what it really means. Meaning that under the old rules in KY which the majority of his career was spent under, it was almost impossible to get a positive test because most everything was legal and hardly had any withdrawl. The things that cause horses to magically improve and get trainers at 40% arent things that are widely known and tested for.

Thanks, I appreciate your insight.

The "no positives" at Keeneland is encouraging.

As one who is directly affected by this issue, where do you see the industry going concerning testing? Also, will the industry and/or labs ever be able to test for everything that "needs" to be tested for?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by scanman

Thanks, I appreciate your insight.

The "no positives" at Keeneland is encouraging.

As one who is directly affected by this issue, where do you see the industry going concerning testing? Also, will the industry and/or labs ever be able to test for everything that "needs" to be tested for?

I think that the awareness levels about testing has dramatically improved. The fact that the issues are being seriously considered is a positive step. I dont think that they are necessarily going about it very effectively but things are better than they were just a few years ago. That being said there is just so much to do, so much research that is not being funded or done especially in the area of accurate and effetive withdrawl times and realistic levels and most importantly in areas of the currently undectable drugs.

I have always been a proponent of greater investigative tactics as the key to winning this battle between the labs and the new drugs. Balco's drugs werent discovered by testing, they were uncovered by an IRS agent's investigation. The amount of money spent on investigation in this sport is an embarassment.