All Breeders Cup blood-urine tests come back clean

[sighthound]

Including TCO2   Bloodhorse.com

[TGJB]

...and some of the usual suspects didn\'t run well, and the Euros, who I believe stand much more testing, did very well. Though it\'s complicated by the dirt/Pro-Ride factor.

The other thing is that we still don\'t know who was tested and exactly what the results were. As discussed here previously, for example, not getting a TCO2 positive doesn\'t necessarily mean the horse did not have an alkalyzing agent in his system.

[sighthound]

>>> The other thing is that we still don\'t know who
>>> was tested and exactly what the results were.

The results were obviously negative for everything.  Meaning no levels of anything were deemed important enough to affect performance.  And consider that 99% of levels deemed actionable are much, much lower than anything that will affect performance.
 
I guess some of those guys that doped their horses anyway were just lucky to not get pulled for random testing pre- or post-race?

>>  As discussed here previously, for example, not
> getting a TCO2 positive doesn\'t necessarily mean
> the horse did not have an alkalyzing agent in his
> system.

I challenge you to take one in-training TB racehorse, and dope it repeatedly with sodium bicarbonate, to reliably hit a TCO2 two points below legal limits, in simulated race day conditions.  I\'ll even let you have 10 tries, on 10 different days, and you only have to hit 3 of them to win this bet.

There is a reason the lay public isn\'t in charge of deciding what levels of drugs are performance enhancing.

[TGJB]

Sight-- do you know how many conversations I have had about this with Rick Arthur and some with other people (like Bramlage) who are all over this subject? Lay public? I\'ve looked at actual TCO2 test results from two different major tracks, and seen a 41 that was not reported or penalized. You looked at a lot of those, have you?

The study which Arthur did in California-- which you have seen-- showed that readings for TCO2 which were significantly higher than average but not over the limit were trainer specific. You think that was a coincidence?

On the other, it\'s not simply a question of what the readings are. There\'s the question of what they are testing for and how. In this particular case I think the coverage was probably pretty good. But I know for a fact (read those words again-- FOR A FACT) that there are places they test virtually no horses, and places they use tests that top people will tell you are useless. And that\'s for the drugs they ARE testing for.