Can a very clever person help me out here?

[Chief Stipe]

5 minutes ago, Huey said:

Surely youre capable of interrupting what you wrote yourself?

Bit harsh on Thomas saying he has a village that's accepting of him.

What's YOUR point?  Your comments on this matter are so ambiguous that one could infer that you point is:  The protocols in place at Te Akau were such that in the absence of Vet administration the source of the morphine positive WAS contaminated feed.  Is that correct? 

[Huey]

23 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

What's YOUR point?  Your comments on this matter are so ambiguous that one could infer that you point is:  The protocols in place at Te Akau were such that in the absence of Vet administration the source of the morphine positive WAS contaminated feed.  Is that correct? 

No I have made myself very clear on what I think, as have many others. I think it would be safe for you to assume that I have the opposite opinion to yours regarding this matter.

Your concern may have developed because of your inability to see anything but ambiguity regarding the possibility of two positives from two separate stables that have been discussed on here in the last few weeks.

[Chief Stipe]

2 minutes ago, Huey said:

No I have made myself very clear on what I think, as have many others. I think it would be safe for you to assume that I have the opposite opinion to yours regarding this matter.

 

So unequivocally you DON'T believe the contaminated feed reason for the Vamos Bebe positive?  Yes or No.

[Huey]

57 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

So unequivocally you DON'T believe the contaminated feed reason for the Vamos Bebe positive?  Yes or No.

It's a "NO" from me Simon!

[Chief Stipe]

2 minutes ago, Huey said:

It's a "NO" from me Simon!

Well you have zero evidence to support anything to the contrary.  You have even failed to present a plausible alternative explanation in contrast to the RIU who not only accept the current explanation but offered it in the first instance. 

Unfortunately your attitude and that of some Trainers in the industry to this issue is detrimental to progress.  It is closed minded and dare I say based on bias and envy.  Although in some instances it is just downright ignorance.

I predict that we will see more instances of these issues unless the testing protocols and threshold limits are aligned to the risk within the environment in which we all work.  The NZ racing industry doesn't work in a closed system like e.g. Hong Kong.  Trainers and industry stakeholders should be asking questions rather than blindly accepting a lack of transparency in terms of the testing protocols.

Vets and even those responsible at the RIU can see that the current regime is unfair with regard to zero tolerance but the rules offer no practical alternative in terms of a fair punishment.

[Chief Stipe]

Have a read of this Huey - might open your eyes......yeah na.

 

[Chief Stipe]

This research is also worth reading.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2885.2008.00978.x

[Huey]

6 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Have a read of this Huey - might open your eyes......yeah na.

 

I know youre  TA biggest fan , but this is getting ridiculous!

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, Huey said:

I know youre  TA biggest fan , but this is getting ridiculous!

So you aren't going to read the articles, engage in educated dialogue and address the real elephant in the room?

Some more reading for you.

https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/the-black-eye-of-environmental-contamination/

[Chief Stipe]

Another key component of this issue is how testing methodologies are becoming ever more sensitive–with some laboratories proving more sophisticated than others. Indeed, the naproxen positives at Charles Town coincided with state regulators switching the drug testing contract to the “highly capable” Denver-based Industrial Laboratories, according to the authors of the 2018 study.

“What's been the real problem here is we came from a period of time when most of these kinds of residues simply were not being detected before in horses,” says Barker.

“Our methodology was not broad based to cover all possible drugs. Sensitivity of instrumentation was not nearly what it is today–the sensitivity has really increased,” he adds. Indeed, “There's the ability to test some of these drugs to zeptogram levels.”

To put that into perspective, a picogram–a larger unit of measurement than the zeptogram, and one more commonly referenced–is the equivalent of one second in 32,000 years. A femtogram–the next unit of measurement down from the picogram–is the equivalent of one second in 32 million years.

This basis of comparison is one frequently raised by advocates of the horsemen, and critics of the current testing system. But other experts object to the quantification of testing methodologies in this manner.

“It all sounds very dramatic,” says the director of a U.S. laboratory, who asked to remain anonymous due to their company's involvement in ongoing litigation. “But it's kind of misleading.”

To make their point, the lab director says that the amount of a particular substance in a single sample is a fraction of what's in the body as a whole, and that a horse has, on average, 50 liters of blood in its body. Fifty liters, therefore, is the equivalent of 50,000 milliliters.

“The key term is per milliliter,” says the lab director, pointing to betamethasone, a steroid medication, which has an RMTC testing threshold of 10 picograms per milliliter.

“We're not saying that the horse can only have 10 picograms of betamethasone in its system,” says the director. “We're saying you can have 10 picograms per milliliter times 50,000 milliliters, and that's how much drug you can actually have present in the horse.”

[Huey]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

So you aren't going to read the articles, engage in educated dialogue and address the real elephant in the room?

Some more reading for you.

https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/the-black-eye-of-environmental-contamination/

Nope