hunterthepunter Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 interesting looking at tco2 for Rangiora classic chase Auckland 33.3 second highest for the week Ashley locaz 5th highest for the week 31.9 and no reading for the fixer??? so why has his reading not been printed??? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taku Umanga Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 Doesn't look like they tested the whole field, so guess he must have been missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 5 hours ago, hunterthepunter said: interesting looking at tco2 for Rangiora classic chase Auckland 33.3 second highest for the week Ashley locaz 5th highest for the week 31.9 and no reading for the fixer??? so why has his reading not been printed??? My knowledge of this is extremely limited but those numbers are quite low are they not? and do these numbers actually mean anything worthwhile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GONSTA Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 1 hour ago, Happy Sunrise said: My knowledge of this is extremely limited but those numbers are quite low are they not? and do these numbers actually mean anything worthwhile? Pretty sure it’s a 36 threshold so yes very low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 24 minutes ago, GONSTA said: Pretty sure it’s a 36 threshold so yes very low. I thought so. These numbers never seem to make the news anymore anyway. I remembered when they seemed to be in the news a bit but seemed to have disappeared. and here is the previous week too. Geez HTP, one might think you are presenting results as you see fit to use against a particular stable. However, I know you are not like that so will say nothing further. The Fixer is there, from the previous week, way down the list. You will be able to sleep easy now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 (edited) I've looked at these tco2 readings for some years. It used to be an effective tool,albeit sometimes with the odd questionable result. Personally I believe its a way for hrnz to say they are doing x number of testing without x number of positives. I believe its just a smoke screen to quote numbers to fool people into thinking performance enhancers are not in use . When was the last time anyone had a positive for a high tco2 level. Maybe Scott Dickson last year. Who really knows,as the riu has a policy of hiding the releasing of information relating to positives. The question has to be is tco2 testing a cost effective way of detecting the use of performance enhancers. I believe the answer is clear,no it is not,and that is why hrnz still put the resources they do into tco2 testing. They know the results they get are what they want. There was a time when tco2 used to publish the actual readings,now im guessing they publish readings with the error of 1.00 millimole per litre of plasma factored in. Why else was there an overnight change to published readings a couple of years ago. Who came up with that bright idea and why? As to tco2 testing. It clearly is an indication that those with higher levels should be looked at more closely when it comes to other testing. However I don't believe those in charge use tco2 for that purpose. They don't want to go there.Call me cynical,but i believe I am a realist. Finally the figures quoted in respect of the all stars earlier in this thread. Personally I don't think they are unusually high. The 33.3 rating is higher than you would expect,but they are not alone in having some figures consistently like that. That in itself to me is an indicator that tco2 testing fails to adequately get results which are true reflections of its supposed purpose. The money spent on tco2 compromises more effective testing. Just the way industry leaders want it. Edited April 27, 2019 by the galah 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted April 27, 2019 Author Share Posted April 27, 2019 3 hours ago, Taku Umanga said: Doesn't look like they tested the whole field, so guess he must have been missed. that whole field was tested that day so wonder why the fixers tco2 was not put up 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 21 minutes ago, hunterthepunter said: that whole field was tested that day so wonder why the fixers tco2 was not put up That is a very valid question. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 29 minutes ago, the galah said: Just the way industry leaders want it. Boom. The industry doesn't need any more negative press so they won't go searching, that is for sure. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 37 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said: Boom. The industry doesn't need any more negative press so they won't go searching, that is for sure. that horses name makes them nervous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taku Umanga Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 8 hours ago, hunterthepunter said: that whole field was tested that day so wonder why the fixers tco2 was not put up If the whole field was tested at Rangiora, then where are the readings from Hail Christian, Letspendanitetogetha, Forgotten Highway and Alta Orlando - Thefixer is not the only one missing from that week's list? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted April 27, 2019 Share Posted April 27, 2019 3 hours ago, Taku Umanga said: If the whole field was tested at Rangiora, then where are the readings from Hail Christian, Letspendanitetogetha, Forgotten Highway and Alta Orlando - Thefixer is not the only one missing from that week's list? We all know HTP screws facts around to cover his vendetta against the All Stars when his own trainers record isn't actually that squeaky clean either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted April 27, 2019 Author Share Posted April 27, 2019 32 minutes ago, Richie said: We all know HTP screws facts around to cover his vendetta against the All Stars when his own trainers record isn't actually that squeaky clean either. stop being a dickhead Richie I was there and over the speakers they called for all horses at that race to be blood tested Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted April 27, 2019 Author Share Posted April 27, 2019 4 hours ago, Taku Umanga said: If the whole field was tested at Rangiora, then where are the readings from Hail Christian, Letspendanitetogetha, Forgotten Highway and Alta Orlando - Thefixer is not the only one missing from that week's list? that's what Riu is doing not putting all results up and why??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taku Umanga Posted April 28, 2019 Share Posted April 28, 2019 9 hours ago, hunterthepunter said: stop being a dickhead Richie I was there and over the speakers they called for all horses at that race to be blood tested Do they still do that down South? In the North they just turn up at your stall and tell you you're being tested - haven't heard an announcement over the loudspeaker in years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangatira Posted April 28, 2019 Share Posted April 28, 2019 On 28/04/2019 at 10:04 AM, hunterthepunter said: that's what Riu is doing not putting all results up and why??? got a lot on their plate reading through the "race fixers" disclosure documents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 horse count landeck returns a reading of 36 in my book that is a positive but Riu have it as a negative so what's going on??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Sunrise Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 30 minutes ago, hunterthepunter said: horse count landeck returns a reading of 36 in my book that is a positive but Riu have it as a negative so what's going on??? If I read it correctly the following would suggest the margin of error saves a positive being recorded. As a consequence Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ) and New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) have prescribed, within their respective rules, levels, which when exceeded are considered a breach of the rules. The threshold level for an offence being committed is 36 millimoles per litre of plasma. There is a margin of error of +/- 1.00 millimole per litre of plasma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hunterthepunter Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 should it be positive??? what do everyone think as 36 is the cut off 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taku Umanga Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 58 minutes ago, Happy Sunrise said: If I read it correctly the following would suggest the margin of error saves a positive being recorded. That's how I interpreted it as well ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the galah Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Happy Sunrise said: If I read it correctly the following would suggest the margin of error saves a positive being recorded. As a consequence Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ) and New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing (NZTR) have prescribed, within their respective rules, levels, which when exceeded are considered a breach of the rules. The threshold level for an offence being committed is 36 millimoles per litre of plasma. There is a margin of error of +/- 1.00 millimole per litre of plasma. Like I said earlier,i think the margin of error has already been factored in. Just my theory on why the published results dropped overnight a couple of years ago. I think the reading would actually be 37 minus the 1.00 margin of error, bringing it down to 36.0 which is the highest acceptable level. 36.1 would be needed for a positive The jca referred to 36.0 being the highest acceptable level in the scott Dickson case last year. Edited May 22, 2019 by the galah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.