I’d be happy to explain, Matt Bax is just another trainer to get railroaded with a contamination positive. When it was all said and done, the split sample spoke for itself (9 picograms). Which isn’t enough to affect a mouse.
Another thing to look at is the performance on the racetrack. One of the horses slowest miles of its life.
Furthermore, everyone in the industry knows that Baxes don’t drug or drench.
Have a great day!
Not quit so fast. If you bothered to read the ruling (page 60) you would understand the amount detected is adjusted for contamination issues. Here is the quote: "A positive test is called by the official chemist only when the quantity of a prohibited drug contained in an official sample of urine or blood from a race horse exceeds the combined total of both the screening level and the safety factor for that drug. As a consequence, the enhanced sophistication of testing equipment has no impact as to whether or not the official chemist calls a positive test. .......... Now moving on to your excuse of the split sample not showing a positive read (pages 56/57) for an explanation. Both of those excuses came up in the hearing & BOTH were DENIED/DISMISED with explanations. If you are going to defend Bax at least come with a better argument then what you have given so far.
