Wouldn’t you think Paget’s two horses (Promise & Lush) were stalled together ?
[QUOTE=Applecore;7220601]
… Basically, this is a situation where you have to prove innocence in light of evidence of a drug in a horse you are responsible for. …[/QUOTE]
I think this is the difficulty, as the rules are structured. How do you prove that you didn’t do something? How do you prove some other circumstance (unknown to you) was at work? And I doubt it is shared buckets - it’s something more subtle.
If Nicholson were able to complete the Grand Slam with this bumped-up win on a technicality, it would be forever tarnished, I think, that he didn’t REALLY win Burghley. It doesn’t sound as if any sensible person thinks reserpine gave Jock’s horse the winning edge.
This is a big mess. It’s not exactly making the FEI look good, in spite of the stated intention to protect the horses.
[QUOTE=Blugal;7220357]I can’t believe nobody’s mentioned that in Jock Paget’s case, there is real money on the line. Not only the winner’s purse at Burghley, but having won Badminton already, he would be aiming to win the 2nd part of the Rolex Grand Slam challenge at Burghley.
It also shows a potential incentive for sabotage, keep Jock from winning Burghley so that 1) he is out of the running for the Grand Slam, and 2) someone else can start lining up theirs.
All very far-fetched… but we’re writing a novel here people![/QUOTE]
It’s been mentioned … at length. That of course he is/was going for the Grand Slam, and the point was/is that an intelligent person would know that this is the most compelling reason of all NOT to use reserpine. Because of what is happening now.
The point I got from that discussion was that knowledgeable people would know that using reserpine would be an almost certain way to have a win reversed.
There is far more to come … we’ll know more and more as time goes by. I am sure that the owner and Jock and Kevin will conduct their own style of investigation into how their horses could have been contaminated. It could happen again if they don’t figure out the source and eliminate it.
Even if reserpine DID show up in trace amounts in other horses stabled nearby, it would not prove anything. They could have been contaminated AFTER BUrghley
[QUOTE=hey101;7222232]
If reserpine stays in the system for so long and can be detected in such minute quantities, I wonder if there is anything to be gained by testing now the horses that were stabled on either side, or maybe even two on either side, of the two Clifton horses at Burghley- is that even legal? (is there a statute of limitations on testing horses in a certain time period after a competition). Are the stalls temp or permananent? Perhaps even swab the stalls to see if any traces can be detected. If any positives, then perhaps there’s something to the trace contamination possibility after all. Is there any way to determine which horses were in the stalls prior to Burghley and test those horses (if legally possible so long after the fact)
All this effort to be done of course assuming that people truly feel that the individuals involved ~really~ wouldn’t have done something like this- either because it would be stupid to do so, or they truly are felt to be upfront, clean competitors.
Just a thought. It would be such a shame for someone who was truly clean to be stripped of a win like this.[/QUOTE]
It does seem a bit weird that you would test for a substance that can be found in common plants, and disqualify because you found it in a herbivore.
[QUOTE=Equibrit;7222615]
It does seem a bit weird that you would test for a substance that can be found in common plants, and disqualify because you found it in a herbivore.[/QUOTE]
Ya but…it’s always been common knowledge that poppy seeds which are used in cookiing will cause a positive for opiates. Or it did years ago, when I was doing research for a drug testing program.
The FEI records negative test results here.
The four other horses tested at Burghley were:
The Lion, Matthew Heath, 39th
Piano Star, Benjamin Massie, E on XC
King Bob, Ludvig Svennerstal, 9th
Newmarket Vasco One, Chloe Newton, 51st after dressage but W before XC
What is the testing methodology used on the samples?
I presume they use some kind of immunoassay at least as a screen. Cross-reactivity with other structurally related indole alkaloids could yield a false positive. (E.g., the several dozen such in vinca, or, who knows, possibly not in field plants but some other non-reserpine but immunoassay cross-reactive ingredient in a supplement.)
The only definitive way to distinguish reserpine itself then would be by pulling it out of the sample and characterizing it ultimately and definitively by mass spec.
Presumably the B sample will be analyzed by a different lab using a different immunoassay system (with different cross-reactivities), and then, if positive, by mass spec.
I’d be tempted to analyze the samples for a couple of other assayable indole-alkaloids or structural congeners, as well. Even the MS might not be authoritative if there’s a dog’s breakfast of other indole-alkaloids present.
Mindless reliance on the infallibility of diagnostics technologies near or at their detection limits in a zero-think ‘zero-tolerance’ environment is pretty naive.
And of what species’ are all those colorful flowers decorating the CC course and the stadium jumps at Burghley, btw?
[QUOTE=Adamantane;7223633]
What is testing methodology used on the samples?
I presume they use some kind of immunoassay at least as a screen. Cross-reactivity with other structurally related indole alkaloids could yield a false positive. (E.g., the several dozen such in vinca, or, who knows, possibly not in field plants but some other non-reserpine but immunoassay cross-reactive ingredient in a supplement.) [/QUOTE]
Doubtful - more likely this type of screening
Isn’t that what I said? Sorry, I didn’t see it was a link.
Yes, that certainly would help to get rid of a lot of ‘grunge’ that has different retention times. The brief summary didn’t address co-elution because it was dealing with ‘pure’ spiked samples rather than messy ones, but, of course it wasn’t focused on that. Repeating with different LC solvents could address co-elution.
Why don’t they run the B sample immediately after the A sample, if there is a positive? Why let all of this hoopla start, when they aren’t completely sure. Even if the B sample is clean, a lot of people will mis-remember this down the road. It’s like calling the guy a murderer, and all of his friends and family shunning him, and then a month later “Oh j/k! Wrong guy!” A lot of folks will still hold doubt.
Yes, the horse could compete again in the mean time if their turnaround is slow, but it seems like a B test for a positive horse should get priority treatment. In a dedicated MS lab this shouldn’t be taking weeks and weeks.
[QUOTE=Adamantane;7223633]
Mindless reliance on the infallibility of diagnostics technologies near or at their detection limits in a zero-think ‘zero-tolerance’ environment is pretty naive.[/QUOTE]
Knowing nothing about the science … this is what I am taking away from this. It doesn’t increase my confidence in the governing body.
Right on that, too. It sounds as if this test is catching out people who never used reserpine, but can get an insignificant positive due to random, uncontrollable environmental factors. I don’t mean buckets, I mean truly beyond-control inconsequential circumstances, outside of stable management, that have NO effect on performance. Is that the case?
[QUOTE=Adamantane;7223633]
What is the testing methodology used on the samples? [/QUOTE]
I posted a link to that on page 10, post #188 of this thread.
[QUOTE=JER;7223829]
I posted a link to that on page 10, post #188 of this thread.[/QUOTE]
Am I blind? I don’t see it in that brochure.
I thought they used some form of TLC/mass spec for nearly everything drug detection these days, but I’d like to know the details as well.
According to the HK Jockey Club Lab, which is one of the FEI-testing labs, the following methods are used on horse blood/urine samples:
The methods of analysis involved accredited in-house methods using one or more of the following techniques: gas chromatography, liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, immunoassay, colorimetry, thin-layer chromatography, capillary electrophoresis and inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry.
This pdf, from the Horse Racing Forensics Lab in Newmarket (also an FEI lab), explains testing in more detail: Some Aspects of Doping and Medication Control in Equine Sports
[QUOTE=CrowneDragon;7223769]
Why don’t they run the B sample immediately after the A sample, if there is a positive? Why let all of this hoopla start, when they aren’t completely sure. Even if the B sample is clean, a lot of people will mis-remember this down the road. It’s like calling the guy a murderer, and all of his friends and family shunning him, and then a month later “Oh j/k! Wrong guy!” A lot of folks will still hold doubt.
Yes, the horse could compete again in the mean time if their turnaround is slow, but it seems like a B test for a positive horse should get priority treatment. In a dedicated MS lab this shouldn’t be taking weeks and weeks.[/QUOTE]
They don’t run the B sample right away because IF the B sample comes up positive then the rider is responsible for covering the lab fees. So the rider has to request for the B sample to be tested (in case they are aware of the doping and don’t need the B sample run).
[QUOTE=OverandOnward;7223776]
Right on that, too. It sounds as if this test is catching out people who never used reserpine, but can get an insignificant positive due to random, uncontrollable environmental factors. I don’t mean buckets, I mean truly beyond-control inconsequential circumstances, outside of stable management, that have NO effect on performance. Is that the case?[/QUOTE]
It can’t be that big of a problem. I read through a lot of the FEI doping cases and very few are for reserpine. And I don’t think any of those even argued contamination. If the test was that flawed I’m sure everyone with a positive for reserpine would be arguing that.
Cross contamination possiblity–they use a herbal supplement from a manufacturer who also makes supplements that use Rauwolfia. The machines weren’t cleaned thoroughly between manufacturing runs. Plausible?
Is there any way to distinguish between the markers for synthetic reserpine (if such a thing exists) and natural?
Study; (I’m not educated enough to make sense of it but somebody might) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/574544
This is interesting, given that in the 1975 study equibrit posted, this chemical cross reacts with the reserpine test.
http://rawmusclegain.com/rauwolfia-canescens-rauwolscine/
It’s not on the banned substances list per se.
