http://www.hrnsw.com.au/assets/files...2015072014.pdf
Printable View
Was an interesting read.
With so many <5 we can assume the natural reading is pretty low?
I think I read one jurisdiction has a threshold of 100 so could assume anything over 100 was given a dose?
The odd ones are higher double figures. These horses have high natural levels? In the feed ala what Mick Hardy tried to use as an excuse? Given a low dose? Tested at a bad time and the reading went down?
P.S you would think HRNSW release would get the name of the NSW Oaks winner Shes A Runa correct. Not Sheza Runner.
Have a look at the couple of r nicksons over2000 its a wonder their still alive
Going by the report 200mg seems way to generous could have it as low as 50mg
Had 2 swabs in that period but names not up there interesting ot worrying both were blood swabs taken as she wouldn't give urine sample , maybe cobalt levels can only be found in urine samples
There is a month of results missing from the 17/3 to 23/4
I have been crazy enough to correlate those numbers. I wish I could have copied the table directly to Excel but I at least do not know how to so I have done it somewhat roughly by data entry. My time is too precious to worry about decimals so anything after a decimal point has been ignored (ie I have lowered down) and all the entries stated to be <5 have been tabulated to be 3. I figure this to be a good enough tabulation
The reason I did it is that I think this is a huge issue
Of the 566 entries/swabs
212 are under 5
384 are under 10 (ie nearly 68% or over 2/3rds)
486 are under 20
512 are under 30 (ie 90% of swabbed horses)
528 are under 50
540 are under 80
Even with 5 entries > 1000, the Average is still only 38.4
We want a clean sport, I would like to see instant suspension and disqualification remain at 100
BUT also investigation of any reading over 30 ie the stewards to monitor these horses feed etc.
and advise trainers how to lower their readings to below 30 and if this does not appear possible for an individual horse or two, then they are entered on a register.
I am worried that 30 ug/l may even be too high. We really need to swab more horses - whole fields sometimes so that we have a guage as to how potent Cobalt is.
We do not know how many losers are going around with 30mg in their system
Have some of these winners with 25 or less in their system still got a big advantage over the ordinary horse who has under 10 (over 2/3 of horses it would seem)
Do we want to see all trainers needing to add cobalt or buy cobalt enriched feed to have a level playing field?
I sent an email to admin@hrnsw.com.au asking for an excel file of the data. They said they had one but for security couldn't give it to me. Fair enough I guess. But from the time I sent the email to the admin address it had been forwarded to Reid Sanders who replied to me in quick time. Keeping in mind I'm not a licenced person and should be down the bottom of priorities for those at HRNSW, the response time from Reid yesterday, and the response time I've received from Adam Fairley in the past is top notch. Well done guys.
I think with such huge outliers from Rhys Nicholson etc, the average is misleading. If you used the median you would get a more accurate indication of normal levels. Using your numbers 566 entires makes median 283. There is 212 under 5 and 384 under 10 so the median would fall between 5 and 10. That's a significant difference to the average.
Totally agree Brendan and that is why I went to the trouble of doing it.
So how do we feel about Beautide winning the Len Smith and returning a reading of 43 ug/L. Perfectly legal of course but at least 4 times the Median of all those SWABs
http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=24012
http://www.dailyadvertiser.com.au/st...rm-turnaround/
From the daily advertiser, Waggas local paper about a month ago.
Stockton says "He's flying Colin and he just seems to like it out at home," Stockton said."I don't know what the secret is with him."
Any takers on guessing what the secret is?
This is a great example you have brought up Brendan. Colin John had only ever won one race 2yrs ago before going to the Stockton stable and now running 3rd in the Country Final at Menangle a forthight ago, he rated about 1.54.5
Unfortunately he is probably one of those really high readings at the bottom of the table listed as Inquiry Pending.
What we really need to know is how much 100ug/L improves a horse as the use of this stuff could become a farce.
Does Cobalt Chloride have any significant nutritional value and if not I believe it should have a very low acceptable threshold. The second link below suggests not:
"Cobalt is a constituent of vitamin B-12, and as a result, there is no RDA for it - but we'd be talking microgram amounts if we were discussing how much you could expect to find in your diet"
http://www.ergo-log.com/cobaltchloride.html
http://www.vpxsports.com/article-det...increasing-epo
If you do a quick google search it just shows how this fight agaist the CHEATS will be ongoing for a very long while and will need a lot of capital poured into it to even keep up!
http://www.hhmi.org/news/researchers...cise-endurance
Early onset Alzheimers?maybe Brendan
]
What I read into this list is that some trainers are way behind the eight ball and with the threshold set at 200 it gives them the green light to load up the syringe and start pumpin' . lock and load boys . What a shame this once proud industry has come to this . Gotta ask ourselves . At the start of breeding season "what the hell are we doing
That service fee would get us a new motor for the boat" .
[QUOTE=Messenger;34066]So how do we feel about Beautide winning the Len Smith and returning a reading of 43 ug/L. Perfectly legal of course but at least 4 times the Median of all those SWABs[/TE]
http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=23351
All horses running in the Len Smith Mile were in the retention Barn for 24 hrs.
At what level does Cobalt become an act of cruelty?
From what I've read it can be quite dangerous.
Interesting. I know we have had a Cobalt thread before and that some of you guys are well read on it. Does it seem strange that Beautide should have a well above median reading after being in the Detention barn - I thought Cobalt retained after 24hrs may have been minimal
What I don't quite get, is in Harness Racing, if you infringe the rules relating to illegal administration of certain chemical substances then at the worst you might be labelled a cheat. If you were to do the same thing in the Financial Services industry you would be brought before a court and charged with fraud. Explain to me the difference. In my opinion it is fraud because you are depriving other participants from legally obtaining a benefit.
They are not cheats, they are committing an offence that should be pursued through the legal system not just HRNSW. Until this action is taken the those with the backing (Money) will always be one step ahead of the testing regime.
it's called a Retention barn, not a Detention barn
I noticed Wez Hunter (trainer of Smokin Joey) got a $3500 fine for presenting a horse at the races with a prohibited substance. Wet lettuce justice?
Whilst breaches of the prohibited substance rules in sport, and horse racing in particular, can be claimed to be similar to fraud in criminal law it is not regarded as a breach of the criminal law but rather a breach of the rules of the sport.
This is common to all doping cases across most sports and has a lower level of proof.
Criminal fraud requires prosecution proof beyond reasonable doubt. To this end stewards would have to produce undeniable proof of how, when and where the prohibited substance was ingested by the horse.
On the other hand sports doping proof (including current horse racing prohibited substance breaches requires prosecution proof to the civil standard of probability. (51% or more likely than not). To this end stewards need to show that the horse tested positive to a prohibited substance, in all probability it came from an act or omission by the trainer or his/ her staff and the trainer is liable under the strict liability provisions built into the prohibit substance rules.
Also fraud is classified as a criminal term and judgement of fraud can only be by a judge of the criminal courts not a sports tribunal nor panel of stewards.
would be interesting to know the % of swabs that they actullay test. Its alright to say you swab all winners but how many really get all the way though to the end of beeing tested.
Section 192 E Crimes Act 1900 NSW.
(2)......or obtains a financial advantage or causes financial disadvantage..........
"Cause" a financial disadvantage means: (a) cause financial disadvantage to another person.....
"Obtain" a financial advantage includes (a) obtain a financial advantage for oneself or another person....(c) keep a financial advantage that one has, whether the financial advantage is permanent or temporary.
What part of the above definitions do not apply to a person administering an illegal substance to a horse, to win a race and therefore obtaining a benefit (prizemoney) to the disadvantage of other persons?
All of the above do not apply to the administration of an illegal substance to a horse.. this is simply as I can, the substances are only classified as illegal under the rules of the horse racing or sporting bodies who created and enforce those rules.
The Crime (not) but illegal activity is administration of a prohibited substance. It is not any of the clauses that you quote above.
Again giving an animal a drug judged illegal by a sporting controlling body is the illegal activity only within the rules of the sporting body. Placing the opposition at a disadvantage by that illegal activity does not come into it. There are no rules in any sport that specify not disadvantaging the opposition.
The Crimes Act 1900 NSW and any other Crimes Act are enacted by the Crown by way of the legislature of the state or Country.
It covers crimes by individuals or organisations against the country and its citizens. Drugging a horse is not a crime against a country or its citizens. Accordingly no prosecution under the criminal laws is valid.
Acts against sporting bodies or horse racing authorities are not crimes against society and are not breaches of any Crimes Act of any Parliament.
Also ,let me repeat....
The standard of proof required for a conviction under the Act you quote, or any criminal Act of Australia, is not achieved by the lesser standard of proof used to determine a punishable breach of the sporting and horse racing drug laws.
Under the Crimes Act sections that you quote it would be necessary for the Police (not Stewards) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, (not the balance of probabilities) that the trainer or person in charge of the horse or any other person to be charged with the offence, commit the offence with the sole purpose of ensuring getting the prize ahead of any other named/ specified party.
All such prosecutions would by determination in the country's criminal law courts with all the appeal options.
I thought most participants wanted quick resolutions...
If the industry has the funds to go down this path then it has the funds to better improve many other aspects of the industry and the lot of all its participants.
It is a massive issue just the same TC. It is also a massive waste of industry funds having to keep up with the drug cheats.
If they don't put the resources into controlling Cobalt for example, racing becomes a farce as trainers who love their horses and are not prepared to use it would have very little chance against horses that are not going to tire
Thanks to the dregs of the population, wherever there is money we need policing. I think the way to make policing more thorough (ie not overstretched) is to reduce the number of known/repeat offenders that require special surveillance and therefore I would like to see 5 YR penalties.
The story has always gone that in Singapore the penalty for stealing a car can be death and you can count the number of cars stolen on your fingers - I think we need to apply this rationale to racing's drug cheats
teecee,
The administration of certain drugs can be indictable under the 'Crimes Act', it depends upon their scheduling (S) rating.
This is not a discussion about 'rules in sport' but more about criminal liability under the Crimes Act.
The standard of proof required is not one judged by the sporting judiciary but by the Public Prosecutions Office.
Yes the DPP would prosecute the case at no cost to the relevant sporting body.
"Quick Resolutions' We have plenty of these and it doesn't seem to act as a deterrent, shown by the number of repeat offenders.
If the process started whereby offenders under the 'Crimes Act' previously outlined were prosecuted in the relevant State Courts, what might be the ensuing rate of violation of the regulations?
A significant drop of cases that required investigation by the relevant sporting bodies, I think would be an odds on bet.
If you think that is the case, let's just have a wee look at what is required at the moment....
Horse is swabbed.
Sample is sent for analysis.
Sample is tested and let's say returns a reading in excess of the threshold. Positive.
Connection advised of test result. Statement taken.
Evidence if any gathered. This is not necessary as analyst's finding is all that's need for the required level of proof for the charge.
Prepare indictment and hearing.
Hold hearing of charges.
Convict and penalise.
Prepare and hold any appeal.
You want to prosecute under the Crimes Act in a court of law...
Add to the above...
further testing of all samples at differing laboratories.
Further gathering of statements.
Horse metabolism testing to determine the individual horse's metabolic state and tolerance/ hold to the substance.
Gathering indisputable evidence of administration opportunity, motive etc.
Gathering material to refute any defence material.
Anything else to meet the much higher level of proof.
By the time they get through just one, there'll be another 10 to deal with. If those with a penchant for giving the stewards extra work or like to put one across their fellow competitors know how much more is needed to get them out of racing they and more like them will be more willing to give it a go..IMO
Ask any steward if your "odds on" bet is realistic.
If yes, you know the next question to ask......Why not????
Lee, NSW Crimes Act 1900 has a specific part relating to cheating, see Part 4ACA Cheating at Gambling; sections 193H through to 193Q. There is no need to prove the type or schedule of drug and carries maximum penalty of 10 years.
The problem however rests with the need to prove intent something that would require considerable investigation given that it only becomes known following a positive test. I agree, prosecuting through the criminal courts would change the mindset of many who are currently prepared to engage in cheating.
Regards
Mark
If you look on the Vic Calendar page you will see an ad with these pics. Not a drug obviously but I surely prefer Then to Now.
Hi Mark . I understand what your saying about proving intent but what about those who have suffered a financial loss . Could a betting agency recoup money that they lost . No need to prove intent . The trainer is responsible and the agency has received a loss because of it . Or what about my dollar quinella . How bad has it got when harness racing is there to supply a betting medium and some betting agency's either won't take bets or restrict them