Richard's Boy faces disqualification for methamphetamine

[Andy Asaro]

http://www.drf.com/news/richards-boy-faces-disqualification-methamphetamine

I don't buy this for a second since it was at Penn.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

http://www.drf.com/news/richards-boy-faces-disqualification-methamphetamine

I don't buy this for a second since it was at Penn.

The cross-contamination issue is on the ARCI agenda, but until they come up with a way of dealing with it, you'll continue to have cases like Miller, Gary Contessa and Kellyn Gorder.

[cj]

The cross-contamination issue is on the ARCI agenda, but until they come up with a way of dealing with it, you'll continue to have cases like Miller, Gary Contessa and Kellyn Gorder.

You already know it is cross contamination? Seems like a leap to a conclusion at this really stage.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You already know it is cross contamination? Seems like a leap to a conclusion at this really stage.

There are two ways you can tell it is cross-contamination. The DRF article described the finding as a trace level, and that is a strong indicator. It is also important whether there is a specific metabolite being measured or the actual offending substance.

You're right that the conclusion is premature, but there are a lot of reasons why the high probability outcome is environmental contamination. Meth is one of those things that is only useful as a performance enhancer while it is actively in a horse's system. Why would any trainer dose a horse with meth and then run him when it had all but cleared the system? Especially an experienced trainer like Miller. It's not like an anabolic where there are always residual effects.

And not to disparage racetrack personnel, but it isn't beyond reason to assume there is a meth user or two on the backside who had contact with the horse.

[cj]

There are two ways you can tell it is cross-contamination. The DRF article described the finding as a trace level, and that is a strong indicator. It is also important whether there is a specific metabolite being measured or the actual offending substance.

You're right that the conclusion is premature, but there are a lot of reasons why the high probability outcome is environmental contamination. Meth is one of those things that is only useful as a performance enhancer while it is actively in a horse's system. Why would any trainer dose a horse with meth and then run him when it had all but cleared the system? Especially an experienced trainer like Miller. It's not like an anabolic where there are always residual effects.

And not to disparage racetrack personnel, but it isn't beyond reason to assume there is a meth user or two on the backside who had contact with the horse.

I also would suspect it is cross contamination and said something similar in another thread I believe, if not it was on Twitter. I just wanted to point out that just as we shouldn't convict trainers prematurely, we probably shouldn't exonerate them either.

[Andy Asaro]

The cross-contamination issue is on the ARCI agenda, but until they come up with a way of dealing with it, you'll continue to have cases like Miller, Gary Contessa and Kellyn Gorder.

They're gonna crucify him if they can. The Ca. Stews really dislike him from what I know and this is a great excuse to take action against him.

He hasn't done himself any favors with the FTG thing. He lost a lot of people who liked him after the way he handled it.

I really hope that one day someone comes up with a test that detects what is now undetectable. IMO some of the biggest names in the game would be exposed just like professional athletes or Olympians have in the past.

[cj]

They're gonna crucify him if they can. The Ca. Stews really dislike him from what I know and this is a great excuse to take action against him.

He hasn't done himself any favors with the FTG thing. He lost a lot of people who liked him after the way he handled it.

I really hope that one day someone comes up with a test that detects what is now undetectable. IMO some of the biggest names in the game would be exposed just like professional athletes or Olympians have in the past.

This happened at Penn though, no? I seriously doubt they care much about any grudges California stewards might have. Hard to say if Penn stewards care much about anything with all the blatant cheating that was going on there.

[Andy Asaro]

This happened at Penn though, no? I seriously doubt they care much about any grudges California stewards might have. Hard to say if Penn stewards care much about anything with all the blatant cheating that was going on there.

No, I meant the Ca. Stews/CHRB will happily honor a suspension from this infraction if it stands. Gives them a reason for Xtra-Scrutiny as well especially at San Luis Rey Downs. Not totally positive but it's my understanding that there is no out of competition testing at San Luis Rey Downs where he and others train a significant number of horses. If someone knows different let me know.

[cj]

No, I meant the Ca. Stews/CHRB will happily honor a suspension from this infraction if it stands. Gives them a reason for Xtra-Scrutiny as well especially at San Luis Rey Downs. Not totally positive but it's my understanding that there is no out of competition testing at San Luis Rey Downs where he and others train a significant number of horses. If someone knows different let me know.

I thought honoring suspensions from other jurisdictions was SOP, no?

[Andy Asaro]

I thought honoring suspensions from other jurisdictions was SOP, no?

Yes.

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/RacingOnion/status/883357233370718209

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/status/883400585990488065

[Fager Fan]

Can't a trainer tell if he has a meth user or other addict in his barn?

I'm relatively clueless about this stuff but it seems far fetched to me that an addict groom can show up at 4:30 to the barn and somehow some trace of a drug is on his hands and somehow it gets into the nose or mouth of the horse, and in a large enough amount to test positive.

Wouldn't you think nicotine and caffeine would regularly show up in horses if such casual contact can cause a positive?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Can't a trainer tell if he has a meth user or other addict in his barn?

I'm relatively clueless about this stuff but it seems far fetched to me that an addict groom can show up at 4:30 to the barn and somehow some trace of a drug is on his hands and somehow it gets into the nose or mouth of the horse, and in a large enough amount to test positive.

Wouldn't you think nicotine and caffeine would regularly show up in horses if such casual contact can cause a positive?

It doesn't necessarily have to be from casual contact. If a groom urinates in a stall, the stall can become contaminated, and the stall can remain contaminated even after cleaning.

There are also two types of "meth" that can contaminate a horse, one from over the counter cold medicines and one from manufactured meth. They are both illegal, although one is a worse violation than the other. I haven't see that they released information on which of the types the horse violated.

What's the difference if they find caffeine or nicotine? They aren't illegal. Even Olympic athletes can drink coffee and smoke cigarettes.

[Spalding No!]

What's the difference if they find caffeine or nicotine? They aren't illegal. Even Olympic athletes can drink coffee and smoke cigarettes.
Caffeine is far from legal.

Its a class 2 penalty B drug (i.e., high potential to affect performance). Minimum 30 day suspension upon first offense.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Caffeine is far from legal.

Its a class 2 penalty B drug (i.e., high potential to affect performance). Minimum 30 day suspension upon first offense.

However, legal in the Olympics. In 2004, the World Anti-Doping Agency, which determines the banned substances for the Olympics, began allowing caffeine, even though it is still considered to be performance enhancing. The obvious difference is that horses don't drink coffee.

[Spalding No!]

However, legal in the Olympics. In 2004, the World Anti-Doping Agency, which determines the banned substances for the Olympics, began allowing caffeine, even though it is still considered to be performance enhancing. The obvious difference is that horses don't drink coffee.
This is disingenuous. Fager Fan clearly was referring to caffeine in racehorses, not Olympic athletes, which you incorrectly said wasn't "illegal". It is and furthermore carries a heavy penalty.

Of course, with regards to Olympic athletes, you are still wrong if we are talking about equine Olympians. The FEI, which controls the testing of the horses participating in Olympic equestrian events has caffeine on its list of prohibited substances.

It's also insincere to insinuate that coffee is the only source of caffeine and that the only means a horse can get caffeine into its system is by drinking coffee.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

This is disingenuous. Fager Fan clearly was referring to caffeine in racehorses, not Olympic athletes, which you incorrectly said wasn't "illegal". It is and furthermore carries a heavy penalty.

Of course, with regards to Olympic athletes, you are still wrong if we are talking about equine Olympians. The FEI, which controls the testing of the horses participating in Olympic equestrian events has caffeine on its list of prohibited substances.

It's also insincere to insinuate that coffee is the only source of caffeine and that the only means a horse can get caffeine into its system is by drinking coffee.

You can be a real dick.

I didn't mention Olympic athletes. I said WADA hasn't banned caffeine and let it there. Of course you read into that whatever you want.

The horses don't drink coffee remark was tongue in cheek, but I forgot you have no sense of humor.

Let's just call you the winner and move along to something more interesting.

[Spalding No!]

I didn't mention Olympic athletes. I said WADA hasn't banned caffeine and let it there.
Rubbish. What's this?:

Even Olympic athletes can drink coffee and smoke cigarettes.

A fine mess you've made.

The horses don't drink coffee remark was tongue in cheek, but I forgot you have no sense of humor.
Tongue in cheek or foot in mouth?

(How's that for humor?)

You can be a real dick.
Could be worse I suppose. It's better than being a "fake" dick.

Is there a word for that?

Let's just call you the winner and move along to something more interesting.
You don't have to call me "winner" or "dick" or anything else...

You could have just admitted you were wrong...

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You don't have to call me "winner" or "dick" or anything else...

You could have just admitted you were wrong...

What you could have done that was useful was answer Fager's question. Why do horses not seem to have contamination positives for caffeine yet they do for meth? Or you can keep making a mountain out of a molehill.

[Fager Fan]

What you could have done that was useful was answer Fager's question. Why do horses not seem to have contamination positives for caffeine yet they do for meth? Or you can keep making a mountain out of a molehill.

He's not. Your responses to his correction have been ridiculous.

[Fager Fan]

It doesn't necessarily have to be from casual contact. If a groom urinates in a stall, the stall can become contaminated, and the stall can remain contaminated even after cleaning.

You've used this groom urination theory before. I find it absurd. Maybe some random grooms have peed in their horses' stalls before, but that can't be normal, acceptable, or usual. It's hardly a private place in the mornings with a high probability of being caught. Believe it or not, the norm is that they just walk over to the bathroom when they need to go.

There are also two types of "meth" that can contaminate a horse, one from over the counter cold medicines and one from manufactured meth. They are both illegal, although one is a worse violation than the other. I haven't see that they released information on which of the types the horse violated.

The relevance here is...?

What's the difference if they find caffeine or nicotine? They aren't illegal. Even Olympic athletes can drink coffee and smoke cigarettes.

As Spaulding already pointed out, caffeine at least is highly illegal. I have no idea about nicotine.

If we're really going to let these trainers off the hook with this conjecture that some meth using groom caused it accidentally, then I'd like to have us put more thought into the plausibility of this.

If a trainer offers this as the excuse, then why don't we have a guilty groom put before us? And please explain how they actually figure it accidentally entered the horse's system when I've not heard of even one caffeine positive in the past 3 decades and we know the grooms and other barn workers actually do get caffeine in the form of coffee, soft drinks, energy pills and drinks, etc, on their hands while working with the horses in the morning. Or if they brazenly decide to pee in their stall.

I just don't buy it, and I don't know why so many do.

[Track Phantom]

Why do these chains always boil down to Halving, and his vast knowledge on every subject, and a few that debate him? Either way, it's really fantastic reading.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You've used this groom urination theory before. I find it absurd. Maybe some random grooms have peed in their horses' stalls before, but that can't be normal, acceptable, or usual. It's hardly a private place in the mornings with a high probability of being caught. Believe it or not, the norm is that they just walk over to the bathroom when they need to go.


I've been on the backside enough to know it does happen for various reasons. As part of an article I was working on I asked a handful of stable workers if they have ever peed in a stall. Almost all of them had. Not a scientific survey, but it points in a particular direction. You can choose not to believe it if you want.

As for the different types of meth, if you can't see a difference between someone taking sudafed and someone smoking home-made meth, I guess there is no relevance. Of course over at ARCI they have separated the two things for penalty purposes.

Do you have a preferred theory on how cross contamination occurs?

[foregoforever]

It doesn't necessarily have to be from casual contact.

Have you, or anyone else, done a quantitative analysis of these contamination theories?

For example, based on the concentration of meth in blood, I'm sure someone can figure out how much meth in the horse. Then, if someone knows the typical concentration of meth in the sweat (or urine) of a meth addict, you can calculate the amount of sweat/urine that would have to have been absorbed by the horse to account for the meth. This, of course, would assume 100% absorption by the horse.

If this turns out to be an ounce or two of sweat/urine, then I'd accept the possibility. If it's 30 gallons ...

The contamination defense has become popular for athletes in many sports, but I never see any scientific analysis of the quantities and concentrations, or any actual testing, to indicate whether it's plausible.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Have you, or anyone else, done a quantitative analysis of these contamination theories?

For example, based on the concentration of meth in blood, I'm sure someone can figure out how much meth in the horse. Then, if someone knows the typical concentration of meth in the sweat (or urine) of a meth addict, you can calculate the amount of sweat/urine that would have to have been absorbed by the horse to account for the meth. This, of course, would assume 100% absorption by the horse.

If this turns out to be an ounce or two of sweat/urine, then I'd accept the possibility. If it's 30 gallons ...

The contamination defense has become popular for athletes in many sports, but I never see any scientific analysis of the quantities and concentrations, or any actual testing, to indicate whether it's plausible.

Work is being done by different pharmacologists on the contamination issue. Steven Barker, who for years headed the equine testing lab at Louisiana State University, has done some experimentation where a contaminated stall has been thoroughly cleaned, and still tested positive for the contaminant. There was a case where a horse trailer that was used in a meth making operation was cleaned and sold. Subsequently, some horses transported in it tested positive.

When a horse takes a drug, the drug is metabolized at a known rate and into known substances. So how much you find of a drug by its metabolite gives you a good idea of when the drug was administered. So for cocaine, as an example, the presence of cocaine greater than the limit of quantification indicates exposure to cocaine within 1 day prior to specimen collection. The presence of benzoylecgonine - a metabolite of cocaine - greater than the limit of quantification indicates exposure to cocaine within 5 days prior to specimen collection. In other words, the cocaine metabolizes to become benzoylecgonine over time, eventually becoming undetectable.

I've seen a case where a groom used a steroidal medication (isoflupredone) to treat an ear infection, didn't wash his hands, put a bit in the horse's mouth and had the horse come back positive. Given the incredible sensitivity of the testing machines, it doesn't take a lot to get a positive.

I don't know the exact answer to how much meth would have to be transferred to get a positive, but I don't expect it is a very big number.

[Fager Fan]

I've been on the backside enough to know it does happen for various reasons. As part of an article I was working on I asked a handful of stable workers if they have ever peed in a stall. Almost all of them had. Not a scientific survey, but it points in a particular direction. You can choose not to believe it if you want.

As for the different types of meth, if you can't see a difference between someone taking sudafed and someone smoking home-made meth, I guess there is no relevance. Of course over at ARCI they have separated the two things for penalty purposes.

Do you have a preferred theory on how cross contamination occurs?

So you asked a few grooms who've said they've peed in a stall at some time or other, so you use this as your regular theory on how this happens? Not a good foundation for your theory.

The variation of meth has zero to do with this convo so I don't know why you think it's relevant.

But the main point here is that you're arguments to support your position of how easy it is for it to be contamination actually hurts your argument. If it was so easy to contaminate, then we'd see contamination all over the place and we don't.

When someone offers up contamination as their excuse for a positive, then we need to at least hear their argument for how the horse was contaminated before we just accept it. In this case, who was the meth-using (regardless of variation) groom or person who contaminated that horse, and how did he specifically do it? It's not that easy to contaminate a horse else we'd be having dozens of positives every racing day at least.

[cj]

Didn't run very well yesterday. Not terrible or anything, just mediocre.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

So you asked a few grooms who've said they've peed in a stall at some time or other, so you use this as your regular theory on how this happens? Not a good foundation for your theory.

The variation of meth has zero to do with this convo so I don't know why you think it's relevant.

But the main point here is that you're arguments to support your position of how easy it is for it to be contamination actually hurts your argument. If it was so easy to contaminate, then we'd see contamination all over the place and we don't.

When someone offers up contamination as their excuse for a positive, then we need to at least hear their argument for how the horse was contaminated before we just accept it. In this case, who was the meth-using (regardless of variation) groom or person who contaminated that horse, and how did he specifically do it? It's not that easy to contaminate a horse else we'd be having dozens of positives every racing day at least.

I told you I didn't have a scientific survey, but I've had multiple people tell me workers will pee in an empty stall, contaminating the stall even if they clean up. Let's face it - horses pee in the stalls all the time so it's not like there isn't a way to deal with it.

Workers pee in the stall for various reasons. One, if you've ever seen some of the bathrooms on the backside, they are more than disgusting. Two, sometimes the bathrooms are a distance away from a stable and they do it for convenience. Sometimes they can't afford to be away from their work for 10 minutes. They aren't supposed to do it, and for the most part they don't do it, but it does happen and when it does there can be cross-contamination. It's not a "theory." It's something that happens at least occasionally. And I already explained that even cleaning a contaminated stall may not remove the possibility of cross contamination.

You make it sound like my statement - people will occasionally contaminate a stall by peeing in it - was people are peeing in the stall all the time. It is ONE POSSIBLE EXPLANATION for why we see a contamination positive. Not only do you have to have someone pee in the stall, but they have to be using some meth compound. Get this straight. It happens and there are other ways cross contamination can occur besides stall contamination. I told you one with the topical steroid isoflupredone.

Don't kid yourself. This happens more often than you know but it only makes the news when it is a bigger name trainer. I can think of ten instances of meth and other drug levels that were likely cross contamination that I know about, and not all of them make Paulick's report. I've even written about a few of them. If this wasn't such a big issue, why is ARCI developing rules related to cross-contamination? How many instances puts it on your radar? 10 a year? 20 a year? 50 a year? Whatever it is, it's enough to put it on the radar of regulators.

The difference in meth is important for two reasons. One, penalties are different depending on the source of the contamination. That's a big deal. Two, there are a lot of people who will take legal cold medication, and that increases the probability of cross contamination. When you realize that meth positives can be the result of cross contamination from someone taking a legal medication, it puts it in a different light. In one instance you know the contamination was totally accidental, but in the other instance it may have been through illegal drug use. Now can you see why it is important to know where the contamination came from?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

When someone offers up contamination as their excuse for a positive, then we need to at least hear their argument for how the horse was contaminated before we just accept it. In this case, who was the meth-using (regardless of variation) groom or person who contaminated that horse, and how did he specifically do it? It's not that easy to contaminate a horse else we'd be having dozens of positives every racing day at least.

The burden of proof is on the trainer to prove cross contamination. Like every other drug positive, the trainer is presumptively guilty. I'm not sure I've heard of any trainer getting found not guilty based on a finding of cross-contamination.

[castaway01]

Why do these chains always boil down to Halving, and his vast knowledge on every subject, and a few that debate him? Either way, it's really fantastic reading.

Because Halvey is willing to defend any trainer's illegal actions as being misunderstood but we stupid horseplayers. Then some smarter guys come along and destroy him in debates while he calls them names.

[outofthebox]

So you asked a few grooms who've said they've peed in a stall at some time or other, so you use this as your regular theory on how this happens? Not a good foundation for your theory.

The variation of meth has zero to do with this convo so I don't know why you think it's relevant.

But the main point here is that you're arguments to support your position of how easy it is for it to be contamination actually hurts your argument. If it was so easy to contaminate, then we'd see contamination all over the place and we don't.

When someone offers up contamination as their excuse for a positive, then we need to at least hear their argument for how the horse was contaminated before we just accept it. In this case, who was the meth-using (regardless of variation) groom or person who contaminated that horse, and how did he specifically do it? It's not that easy to contaminate a horse else we'd be having dozens of positives every racing day at least.I can tell you first hand how bad the receiving barns at La. tracks are. Not only are there piss spots in the corner of the stalls, but the track employees do a horrible job of cleaning out the wet spots from the previous day..That isn't the only problem we face shipping into those stalls. There is a good chance that the previous days runner was treated with ace promazine or other tranquilizers before they shipped out after the race. I know plenty of trainers who tranq and give bute or banamine right after the race to help their horses cool out. Two years ago i had two positives for Xylazine (tranq) at trace levels and were disqualified and purses taken away from contamination. Now i rent two stalls out at each track to ship in to.

[cj]

...I know plenty of trainers who tranq and give bute or banamine right after the race to help their horses cool out....

This kind of stuff makes my skin crawl. Some trainers will seemingly use drugs for anything.

[Fager Fan]

I can tell you first hand how bad the receiving barns at La. tracks are. Not only are there piss spots in the corner of the stalls, but the track employees do a horrible job of cleaning out the wet spots from the previous day..That isn't the only problem we face shipping into those stalls. There is a good chance that the previous days runner was treated with ace promazine or other tranquilizers before they shipped out after the race. I know plenty of trainers who tranq and give bute or banamine right after the race to help their horses cool out. Two years ago i had two positives for Xylazine (tranq) at trace levels and were disqualified and purses taken away from contamination. Now i rent two stalls out at each track to ship in to.

There's some credibility and logic to your post. Thanks.

[Fager Fan]

So, I talked to a top 20 trainer today about the convo here. He's a guy that everyone knows well, and also known for being clean.

He said there's no way contamination is as easy as Halv says, and then stated what I did, "Hell, there'd be caffeine positives all over the place." He said that the chances are so slim to none that popping a cold pill, drinking or eating among the employees, or even pissing in the stalls could result in a positive that no trainers or tracks have rules against those things. He said if there's contamination, it happens in the test barn (which is why there are rules there about having no drinks, etc in the test barn). We didn't touch on the receiving barn, but I can see the logic in that too.

He said that someone wanting to overlook something like a meth positive should be looking at it the opposite way, which is guilt unless the trainer can lay out the plausible scenario of how it happened (which also means naming the people who did X to cause this to happen).

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Because Halvey is willing to defend any trainer's illegal actions as being misunderstood but we stupid horseplayers. Then some smarter guys come along and destroy him in debates while he calls them names.

A ridiculous response. I've got to learn to ignore the asinine.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm not sure I see where you were ever justified in calling Spalding a dick...but that's just me.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

So, I talked to a top 20 trainer today about the convo here. He's a guy that everyone knows well, and also known for being clean.

He said there's no way contamination is as easy as Halv says, and then stated what I did, "Hell, there'd be caffeine positives all over the place." He said that the chances are so slim to none that popping a cold pill, drinking or eating among the employees, or even pissing in the stalls could result in a positive that no trainers or tracks have rules against those things. He said if there's contamination, it happens in the test barn (which is why there are rules there about having no drinks, etc in the test barn). We didn't touch on the receiving barn, but I can see the logic in that too.

He said that someone wanting to overlook something like a meth positive should be looking at it the opposite way, which is guilt unless the trainer can lay out the plausible scenario of how it happened (which also means naming the people who did X to cause this to happen).

So somebody else says there are piss spots in the receiving barns and test barns and it makes perfect sense. I say somebody (or a horse) pissed in a stall, the stall got contaminated (and frankly it doesn't have to be a stall in a trainer's barn) and you get a contamination positive and I don't know what I'm talking about. Let's not split hairs. Someone or a horse with a particular substance in their system can create a contamination, wherever. Total mischaracterization to say I said this happens a lot. It happens occasionally, but more than most people think. Also a mischaracterization to imply that I think urine contamination is the only way it happens.

I talked with Tom Tobin, one of the leading equine pharmacologists in the country. I asked about the lack of caffeine positives. He said, "Currently, many authorities in North America are not concerned about plasma caffeine concentrations of less than 100 ng/ml, equivalent to less than 300 ng/ml in urine. This is because such low caffeine concentrations are likely to be associated with environmental exposure to caffeine and are also unlikely to be associated with pharmacological responses."

The Jockey Club uses 100 nanograms as the cutoff for a positive. The difference between meth and caffeine is that meth is zero tolerance, meaning even a picogram gets you busted. Spalding conveniently left out the de minimis level for caffeine, making it sound like it was the equivalent to meth.

So apparently you don't see all these caffeine positives because anything that is at an environmental contamination level isn't a violation in most jurisdictions. Sounds like maybe your trainer friend didn't realize that or didn't tell you, but it certainly explains why we don't see all these caffeine positives.

I'll go back to the first thing I said. Just like with caffeine, when you see meth at a certain extremely low level, there is a strong likelihood it is a contamination positive. That isn't a defense of a cheating trainer. It's a simple statement based on prior observation. What I will freely admit is that I don't know where the contamination for Miller's horse came from.

By the way, I wasn't the only one in this thread to suggest the high likelihood of an environmental contamination but I was the only one whose ass you chose to bust.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'm not sure I see where you were ever justified in calling Spalding a dick...but that's just me.

In retrospect, I think you are right. Perhaps you can make an argument that I ask for it, but I'm pretty sick and tired of being mischaracterized as someone who defends cheating trainers, despite saying over and over that anyone who purposely tries to gain a chemical advantage should be dealt with harshly. I don't care if people disagree with me, but it often gets really personal, and that is not in keeping with what I thought the purpose of PA was. Occasionally it will get to me to the point where something pops.

I'll apologize to Spalding.

[Fager Fan]

So somebody else says there are piss spots in the receiving barns and test barns and it makes perfect sense. I say somebody (or a horse) pissed in a stall, the stall got contaminated (and frankly it doesn't have to be a stall in a trainer's barn) and you get a contamination positive and I don't know what I'm talking about. Let's not split hairs. Someone or a horse with a particular substance in their system can create a contamination, wherever. Total mischaracterization to say I said this happens a lot. It happens occasionally, but more than most people think. Also a mischaracterization to imply that I think urine contamination is the only way it happens.

I talked with Tom Tobin, one of the leading equine pharmacologists in the country. I asked about the lack of caffeine positives. He said, "Currently, many authorities in North America are not concerned about plasma caffeine concentrations of less than 100 ng/ml, equivalent to less than 300 ng/ml in urine. This is because such low caffeine concentrations are likely to be associated with environmental exposure to caffeine and are also unlikely to be associated with pharmacological responses."

The Jockey Club uses 100 nanograms as the cutoff for a positive. The difference between meth and caffeine is that meth is zero tolerance, meaning even a picogram gets you busted. Spalding conveniently left out the de minimis level for caffeine, making it sound like it was the equivalent to meth.

So apparently you don't see all these caffeine positives because anything that is at an environmental contamination level isn't a violation in most jurisdictions. Sounds like maybe your trainer friend didn't realize that or didn't tell you, but it certainly explains why we don't see all these caffeine positives.

I'll go back to the first thing I said. Just like with caffeine, when you see meth at a certain extremely low level, there is a strong likelihood it is a contamination positive. That isn't a defense of a cheating trainer. It's a simple statement based on prior observation. What I will freely admit is that I don't know where the contamination for Miller's horse came from.

By the way, I wasn't the only one in this thread to suggest the high likelihood of an environmental contamination but I was the only one whose ass you chose to bust.

The receiving barn is far different than the trainer's regular barn. Someone made that specific case, which you did not, so I admit to giving consideration to another horse contaminating a barn just prior to another going in. I'm sure if I follow up on it, there will be discussion about how to rectify being left with a bad stall, or how much of an issue it is in the receiving barns around the country.

I don't believe a person peeing in a stall is of any consequence or threat, and my trainer friend agreed.

Maybe you can try giving another theory on how this horse got meth in its system given that no meth-using person has been put forward as the one who contaminated him. By the way, cold medicine doesn't have meth in it, but instead one of the ingredients to make meth. And that's only relevant if we think that one gets meth on their hands holding the hard or gelatin coated pill or capsule.

As for going for your "ass", I posted first and not to you, and my original reason stated still stands, which is for all of us who readily believe contamination excuses to look more deeply into the plausibility of that excuse.