Thanks for the clarification, for some reason I had this mental image of you in biology but I kept having the notion of lab research so I guess my brain decided to meld that into pharma lol.Tessablue wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:16 pmFor clarity, because I've made a lot of big statements in here, I'm a cell/molecular biologist. Pharmacology is pretty far out of my comfort zone, and I would welcome the input of any veterinarians on here who have additional perspectives on the matter. But the review discussed above is very clear and well-written, and the last author of the review is a very big name in the field of racehorse drug testing and development. So although this isn't an area I have personal research experience in, biology is a shared language, and that review does make it appear that Justify's situation is deeply unusual. There's not a lot of research out there, but what research we have does indicate that a horse needs to eat an unprecedented amount of tainted hay to test at those levels- an amount that would warrant an immediate widespread warning to all horsemen on the grounds.Treve wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:36 amI know you have worked with a backside vet before, but do you have understanding of pharmacology in the way TB does (who if I'm not mistaken, makes her living in the field?) Because if you would you would realise the amounts found in this case are not anywhere near trace amounts, let alone amounts that could come from cross contamination.
I also think that regardless of what actually happened to Justify, Arthur's comments are terribly alarming. It's almost unfathomable that a licensed veterinarian would say something like "well the blood didn't show much so maybe the urine test was wrong." I can't overemphasize how shocking that is, especially when you already have a guideline on the drug itself written by somebody Arthur is definitely familiar with. Moreover, the fact that he repeated Baffert's lawyer's talking points almost word-for-word should be deeply troubling to anyone observing this situation.
I have a question - if I am understanding correctly the amount is given by volume (ng/ml), which basically is concentration levels correct?
If that's the case... I'd like to point out one of Justify's most notable features is his size and weight. Which means the unprecedented amount you cite for any ol' horse to test at those levels, could presumably be even higher for a horse of his particular size and weight to test at those levels.
ETA: I too appreciate your articles so far. I've not looked at all of them in depth yet but since my work week is drawing to a close, possibly tonight.