- This topic has 29 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
news is breaking that OM tested positive for cocaine usage and could be banned for 6 months
If true (both online at the Sun and Mail) it says he tested positive in France. Along similar lines to Fallon, Dettori and Havlin this. Why does it always seem to happen in France? Is testing more stringent? Are we in GB missing something? Sounds like he’s totally denying ever taking the substance and further tests have come back negative. Could be an embarrassing one come Champions Day.
Official statement from Oisin Murphy pic.twitter.com/cd5s9HmkcD
— Oisín Murphy (@oismurphy) October 1, 2020
Not sure if this is true but I read an article that said 1 in 10 people unknowingly have cocaine on their fingertips the problem is so rife and not just in big cities.
Could there be a case made for Oisin for cross contamination or have I been watching too many episodes of CSI?
I do believe him and hope this resolves quickly.
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...“Not sure if this is true but I read an article that said 1 in 10 people unknowingly have cocaine on their fingertips the problem is so rife and not just in big cities.”
It wouldn’t surprise me Jac:
That was it Matron thanks.
Let’s hope Oisin’s case gets a fair hearing.
Things turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out...He doesnt seem the type but you just never know. Im fairly confident he’ll be innocent.
If Oisin Murphy is innocent – and given the vehemence of his denial and his negative hair follicle test, I am strongly inclined to think he is – why would any jockey risk riding in France?
There must be a strong chance of returning a false positive test. Then you are facing the prospect of six months out and a huge mark against you on your disciplinary record.
If I was a jockey I simply would not take the risk.
Depends on how rigorous the test is.
It’s true that if we were all tested, the numbers of positive tests would be significantly higher than you’d expect, but this would be from samples from an electronic device that would pick up minute contact, from such sources as cross contamination from Banknotes etc
I’ve no idea what’s involved in the French testing, but if it involved blood, urine, saliva, hair etc, then it may be more difficult to explain away.
That’s my take on it anyway
To be fair to the boy, he strikes me as honest as the day is long.
When he copped that ban which he didn’t appeal for a riding infringement, I was very impressed by his interview after a race.
He put his hands up and said no I won’t appeal. I’m gutted to miss the st leger meeting but y’know? There’s worse going on in the world right now.
How many Jockeys would have swiftly hired a high flying QCs to argue their case and tie the Jockey club in knots with injunctions just to ride a big race?
He took time to explain his ride in the Derby which few Jockeys did.
Innocent or not I really like this Fellow.At a guess he may want to have a look at the people he has in his circle , if he is inoccent then it’s likely he’s been contaminated by someone he knows ….I no longer go to work night outs …it’s rife , I don’t drink anyway but the number of people doing this is getting greater all the time ….racing is my vice lol and to be honest she’s a tough enough mistress
It’s a test for metabolites of cocaine. I would have thought it accurate.
However hair would store those metabolites for a minimum of 90 days..
In chronic users, its possible to detect years laterSHL
I did have my suspicions when he finished 10 lengths clear of his horse the other week.
It is one of the most accurate drug tests available and “false positive” results are virtually unknown – as I understand it the B sample result is still awaited.
The only other explanation is either he’s eaten something containing natural coca or has used a local analgesia containing cocaine – however neither of these is defensible.
In the former example under WADA guidelines the athlete (jockey) is responsible for what is found in their body and the onus on them would be to prove they had no knowledge – which would effectively mean someone having to admit they gave it to him without his knowledge.
The latter example is clearly inexcusable.
What is mystifying is the hair samples coming back negative, which does make one wonder if the A sample did get contaminated in some way, which is why the B sample will be so crucial.
Admittedly I have much fewer contacts in the sport now but I must confess I am surprised in this case (none of my remaining contacts I’ve spoken to are aware of any issues surrounding him), whereas with Dettori the surprise was he hadn’t been caught sooner.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.