Kentucky Drug Testing

[BitPlayer]

Buried in a Stan Bergstein column about BetFair:

http://www.harnesstracks.com/commentary.htm

----

An Associated Press report carried by the Lexington Herald-Leader announced that another huge British operation - this one the HFL testing laboratory that bills itself as the largest sports drug-surveillance laboratory in the world - has won approval for a $425,000 forgivable loan and $800,000 in tax breaks to bring its blueblood equine talents to the Bluegrass. American experts who have seen the HFL equine laboratory at Newmarket say it is state of the art and impressive.

The Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority, apparently intrigued by HFL\'s drug testing reputation and the promise of 24 new Kentucky jobs - hopefully most manned by Americans - appears to be spearheading the idea, either oblivious to or unconcerned about the existing political ramifications in U.S. racing. Or perhaps inspired because of them.

Kentucky testing currently is conducted by the University of Florida lab under respected researcher Dr. Rick Sams. Keeneland has been pushing work directed by Dr. Don Catlin, the famous California Olympic drug tester. The idea of Kentucky samples going out of state and Kentucky money going with it has irritated some racing hardboots.

Given all that, samples tested by the British could be beyond tolerance in Kentucky. Who knows? Another battle of Lexington - southern division - could be in the offing.

[sighthound]

Given all that, samples tested by the British could be beyond tolerance in Kentucky. Who knows? Another battle of Lexington - southern division - could be in the offing.

Every individual laboratory runs hundreds of samples for a test on it\'s own machines, and the values of those samples establishes the lab\'s own \"reference ranges\" (often called \"normals\", but they are technically not \"normals\").

These reference range levels are adjusted constantly by the laboratory supervisors.  They are established statistically.  They are reviewed frequently.

Those are the \"reference ranges\" you see listed on a laboratory sheet with your test results from that laboratory.  

One laboratory\'s lower reference range for one test may be, for example, Lab A =  0.4 ng/Ul, while another laboratory\'s lower reference range may be Lab B = 0.5 ng/Ul.  

What \"reference range\" means is only that X% of animals or humans test within that range.  Other animals test above or below.  

Being above or below the reference range for a particular laboratory may or may not mean the value is abnormal or indicates a problem.

There are also established \"reference ranges\" for individual metabolic values in the literature, the general lower and upper ends of values.  

So if I run a blood test on you, and your value comes back 0.3 ng/Ul, I may worry about it a tad more if it came from Lab B above, not Lab A.  Because the deviation from the reference range is larger.   But that value could still be completely normal in the individual patient.

The tolerance levels acceptable are established working with the laboratories.  If a new laboratory opens in Kentucky, I have no doubt whatsoever the racing commission and the laboratory will talk to each other about them, after the new laboratories machines are in service and they run samples and establish reference ranges.