Division Of Swab Samples Opposed

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29931, 19 September 1962, Page 4

Division Of Swab Samples Opposed

A decision that it was not practicable to split samples when a horse was swabbed was made by the executive of the New Zealand Trotting Conference at a meeting in Christchurch last week The executive considered a recommendation from the annual meeting of the conference that the regulations governing the swabbing of horses be amended to include that, where a horse was swabbed, a sample be taken and divided into two parts one to be held and only tested under authority and in the presence of the owner or his appointed representative

“In the usual ‘positive' drugging incident the total samples do not usually contain more than the minimal detectable quantities of drugs.” -says a statement issued yesterday by the conference “Splitting the samples into two portions (fairly equal) would result in two samples containing less than the minimal detectable quantities of drugs “If the two portions were unequal, one sample might contain sufficient to detect and establish the identity of a drug. Division of saliva samples contained in the swab into two equal portions is difficult. If not impossible.

without using special techniques. Hence, the splitting of samples would certainly reduce the number of ‘positive’ results and allow many offenders to escape detection “In the case of the urine sample, the conditions under which the sample is stored and the length of time of storage are important factors influencing the detection of drugs Generally, the older the sample, the greater the destruction of the drug, and the accumulation of decomposition products on storage makes detection very difficult, if not impossible." continues the statement.

“The method of analysis is extremely important. It would be essential for a cheeking analyst to be a highly competent and experienced specialist in detecting small traces of drugs in biological fluids Ordinary analytical knowledge, even toxicological experience, alone is not sufficient qualification for the detection of the smaller amounts of drugs usually present in saliva and urine samples

“It was emphasised that every owner, or a competent analyst representing him. was entitled to be present at the laboratory while the samples are being analysed," concludes the statement