Re: All sorts of nuggets in this indictment (687 Views)
Posted by:
Caradoc (IP Logged)
Date: March 10, 2020 03:00PM
Fair points, but none of this came to light as a result of drug testing. Further, while there may be evidence that the feds have but is not disclosed in the indictment, there is no allegation in the indictment that the doping has been confirmed (yet anyway) by testing. As they say, the investigation continues, so it is possible that such evidence may be forthcoming.
But speaking of Arthur, he gave an interview to TDN that should be required reading for anyone who is serious about addressing the doping. Two points should be emphasized. First, his belief is that the best anti-doping technique available is the use of surveillance cameras, such as the ones used at Santa Anita. He called it a "fallacy" to completely rely on drug testing, although testing has a role to play. Second, his discussion of SGF-1000, one of the compounds described in the indictment, further illustrates the weaknesses inherent in any testing program. According to Arthur, SGF-1000 is sheep collagen, not a typo. Such a compound may be impossible to detect in any testing regime. His point was, unless you knew to look for sheep genes in the test, you wouldn't find it. So, by all means, test, but unless you know what to test and look for and your regulatory scheme is as lengthy and complex as the IRS code, you may not get as far as you hoped.