-
Posts
483,364 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
641
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Videos of the Month
Major Race Contenders
Blogs
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Chief Stipe
-
Yes it is prohibited under section A of the Prohibited Substances Rules but then explain paragraph 6 where it says different. They are prohibited on any day including race day and trials BUT have an exemption if used for therapeutic use and prescribed by a vet. Now that is where there is a gap in the rules. You seem to be across it all - feel free to explain.
-
-
No blinkers either!
-
No blinkers on these four! Correction there are five horses in that photo and none of them are wearing blinkers. None of them seem too worried about narrow gaps, contact, big TV screens or running rails! They all know where the winning post is perhaps because they can see it!
-
Formaldehyde is easily detected as well.
-
Did you see her size? She is heaps stronger than last year.
-
Which you didn't get. Blinkers or no blinkers I doubt even you would have backed Lunar Fox.
-
FFS Dr Grierson the industry vet said it was plausible as well as the RIU. Were they "in on it" too? Your alternative theory just doesn't stack up.
-
To be specific you mean formaldehyde.
-
I doubt it was the blinkers. Hasn't shown any form since his Sires Produce win. Winkers on, winkers off, blinkers, bled...I have doubts he'll go on with it. Aeogon would eat him.
-
So you and Thomas were the only ones that backed it? From the Trainer's comments it was a throw of the dice with regard to the blinkers as they couldn't find any reason for its last start failure. Dont forget that it was found to have bled two starts back after a post-race vet exam was undertaken. Also that it raced previously in winkers.
-
Come on Huey your alternative scenario has far more holes in it than the explanation that was given. Feel free to explain one by one the points I made. For example explain how they thought the cobalt would not be detected?
-
Yes I know that but there is a big difference between injecting Vitamins and a performance enhancing substance. Of course none of this should excuse the RIU from their involvement in the debacle that has been INCA. If anything this Allford case highlights the fact that they didn't actually need Police involvement or all the other subterfuge that was used in INCA.
-
Seriously don't you guys see how illogical your scenario is? Or do you just have a predilection to conspiracy theories? Occam's Razor.
-
Boy she is tough. 7th Group 1.
-
Well it does matter when you consider the alternative theory that by default you and others are pushing. That is the horses were knowingly administered large doses of Cobalt, presumably by injection. Whats more it was done knowing that it was an illegal substance and easy to detect. Whats more it appears to have no proven performance enhancing effects. And you reckon the explanation that was given was implausible? Where was it said that that was the case? What I read was that the cattle had been in that paddock at some stage and moved on.
-
And if there isn't? Which is a possibility given that up to that date none of his horses had thrown a positive.
-
Well you haven't come up with any proof to support your view. The stupid thing about the whole cobalt debacle is that there is stuff all evidence that high doses are performance enhancing. They are toxic though.
-
Can you translate that into Greek? Your English is hard to understand.
-
The cattle weren't in the paddock when the horses were. They shared water troughs. The explanation that was accepted as plausible was that the mineral slurry added to the trough had left sufficient residue to raise the cobalt levels in the horses. It is common practice to graze cattle or other livestock to keep grass growth in check and later use that paddock for horses. Hell I've seen pictures of Grp horses spelling in large paddocks alongside steers at the same time. A number of our top stables are both horse trainers and livestock farmers. In my opinion that is part of the reason for their success.
-
Are you a vet? You have no proof to support your view other than supposition and conjecture. Well if you do have proof you certainly haven't posted any.
-
Up until that point the assumption was that the only way to get elevated blood cobalt levels was to inject a mega dose of cobalt chloride. As part of the case it was determined that high levels of cobalt could be achieved by oral administration. Not surprising really when this was the common method of administering to cattle e.g. through water trough slurry or salt licks. Not to mention of course the false positives caused by the administration of Vitamin B12. So the explanation given by O'Sullivan and Scott was deemed plausible albeit not proven by the RIU. The industry Vet Grierson concurred.
-
You have no proof to the contrary other than supposition and conjecture. Therefore your view is the fantastical one. Perhaps you should get a full body wax in preparation for your Ellerslie vigil.
-
There's some fundamental flaws in this and highly doubtful the truth. If it is true it wasn't a particularly smart way of punting.
-
I believe it was a plausible explanation and there has been no evidence to say otherwise. In my opinion the "Cobalt Issue" across both the OZ and NZ racing jurisdiction has been mishandled by the authorities and a number of trainers unfairly treated. Peter Moody for one.
