home - to The Greyhound-Database
Home  |  Dog-Search  |  Dogs ID  |  Races  |  Race Cards  |  Coursing  |  Tracks  |  Statistic  |  Testmating  |  Kennels  
 
   SHOP
Facebook
Login  |  Private Messages  |  add_race  |  add_coursing  |  add_dog  |  Membership  |  Advertising  | Ask the Vet  | Memorials    Help  print pedigree      
TV  |  Active-Sires  |  Sire-Pages  |  Stud Dogs  |  Which Sire?  |  Classifieds  |  Auctions  |  Videos  |  Adoption  |  Forum  |  About_us  |  Site Usage

Welcome to the Greyhound Knowledge Forum

   

The Greyhound-Data Forum has been created to act as a platform for greyhound enthusiasts to share information on this magnificent animal called a greyhound.

Greyhound-Data reserve the right to remove any post that is off topic, advertisements or opinions they consider to be offensive.

Please read the forum usage manual please note:

If you answer then please try to stay on topic. It's absolutely okay to answer in a broader scope but don't hijack posts by switching to something off topic.

In case you see an insulting post: DO NOT REPLY TO IT!
Use the report button to inform the moderators so that we can delete it.

Read more...

All TopicsFor SaleGD-WebsiteBreedingHealthRacingCoursingRetirementBettingTalkLogin to post
Do you have questions regarding the health of your greyhound? Do you need tips what you should feed your dog?
Or do you need advice in curing an injury?

Cobalt "error"

Bruce Teague
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 2092
Dogs 0 / Races 0

20 May 2019 03:46


 (10)
 (0)


This is not really in my skills area but has anyone noticed that WA stewards have just handled a Cobalt case where they recorded 130ng but ended up deciding there was "no case to answer".

8 May Vinaka Fiji (that's the dog's name, not a greeting) reported in the WA Capers of that date.

A major factor in their decision was a visit to the kennel and their observation that nothing found there gave any indication that extreme quantities of cobalt were present. That is, it must have been a natural fluctuation.

This sets a precedent in what was always a hairy rule anyway - ie limited testing of the cause and effect of this natural substance.

Surely it is high time that cobalt and arsenic are properly reviewed.


Kenneth Markham
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 252
Dogs 0 / Races 0

20 May 2019 06:07


 (3)
 (0)


Maybe they got nervous about the successful appeal in NSW


Mick McLennan
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 64
Dogs 0 / Races 0

21 May 2019 02:29


 (0)
 (0)



The B sample that was tested was very different and lower to the 1st sample and as they found nothing on inspections they decided to not go ahead

the analysis of the sample (B sample) forwarded to Racing Analytical Services Ltd (Vic) for confirmatory analysis had reported a reading of 89ng/mL which was below the prescribed threshold.

As the analysis of the B sample sent to RASL did not confirm a level of cobalt in excess of the threshold and all other circumstances, the Stewards were not satisfied that it was safe to proceed further in this matter.


Bruce Teague
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 2092
Dogs 0 / Races 0

21 May 2019 03:47


 (3)
 (0)


Mick,
Thanks for the clarification.

Even so, the fact that A and B were significantly different warrants a review in itself. Ditto for the original process used to determine the legislated quantities and their effects - if any.




Raymond Peter Fewings
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 248
Dogs 0 / Races 0

21 May 2019 21:49


 (2)
 (0)


We need an explanation as to how the one urine sample can give up such a different reading. Trainers could be forgiven for thinking the testing procedure for cobalt levels are less than reliable.
Also we deserve to know whether cobalt really does have any effec on performance. I have only heard the so called expert vets say it MAY have an effect. A bit like advertisers selling gee whiz cures have to use the words MAY assist.


Kenneth Markham
Australia
(Verified User)
Posts 252
Dogs 0 / Races 0

22 May 2019 06:15


 (2)
 (0)


In the Victorian horse case the judge declared that cobalt has no effect on a racing animal so the fact that should be our premise.The rule needs to be thrown out and the different readings are determined by how long after the A sample is taken and when the B sample is tested.The greater the delay the bigger the discrepancy.The so-called expert vets are full of it.

posts 6