brendan's issue with moderating

While you ask for emotion to be left out of it I find it very humiliating, belittling and condescending that you toy with the idea of rubbing it in people's faces that they ate humble pie and even had to offer a retraction when 'common sense' prevailed.
With Boldenone there was in fact a positive swab for Barry Lew that he served 6 months for.
It is also concerning that you are quick to condemn those who offer resistance to the usage of prohibited and possibly harmful substances, yet when there is a defence of prohibited substances you turn a blind eye. I point to this thread where HRNZ and Mightymo have said Boldenone is naturally occuring with no basis to back those words up. (HRNZ and mighty I could well be correct in what they say, I only bring it up to point out no science was linked to support it, which is Teecees gripe) http://www.harnessracingforum.com/sh...denone&p=30309

Now back to the common sense comment of yours. As per the above hyperlink, you will see a post of mine that links to a article that talks about one of your beloved scientific studies. (You now have to register to the site to view the article.) That study says boldenone is not naturally occuring. So as for boldenone being found in Mach Wipers sample...there was not one iota of 'common sense' behind that. The consensus at the conclusion of the saga was that nobody anywhere in the whole world has any idea what was happening with that sample. Yes McCarthy was correctly found not guilty, because to condemn on the basis of that weird sample wouldn't have been fair to McCarthy, it wasn't a normal sample and couldn't be determined McCarthy presented a horse to race with a prohibited substance. Innocent, nobody knows how the boldenone got in that sample. So to call it common sense and rub it up the noses of people is a fair dinkum insult to some people on this forum.

It is also disappointing with your legal knowledge and hush hush persona that you mention a retraction in your post, yet bait Danno into possibly sharing information that could get him in the shit.

You talk about a common sense conclusion. There was another common sense conclusion, that Mach Wiper was indeed presented to race with a prohibited substance. There was a period of time Luke McCarthy was found guilty. I for one, and others on and outside this forum held back on criticism of McCarthy until the guilty verdict was handed down. This was a common sense conclusion before possibly the worlds weirdest and non sensical sample became public knowledge. So, there was a time when both common sense and the law said McCarthy was guilty, where I and others said stuff that at the time made perfect sense. For you to catch us out for not foreseeing such a strange sample and infer me and others lacked common sense is, as I said before, humiliating, belittling and condescending.
Not a defence of prohibited substances in the legal definition, but rather the laymans definition of protection. I view what mightmo posted as making a point as to why boldenone had been found in some samples (is this right Harvey, you were asked in the thread but offered up no answer). This is a protection and in support/defence of those who have had boldenone positives come back from the lab. You let a pretty big possibly gamechanging statement that was made as absolute fact slip through to the keeper. You can't dispute that. It's a bit rough that you allow unsourced inaccuracies that favour one side of the argument but come down with the fury of a Barry Hall uppercut on the other side of the argument. It has nothing to do with your personal view, rather the moderating you do to others opinions on each side of the argument does not appear to be balanced as you say. We are only human so I understand you can't catch everything but please don't deny.

Yes Danno baited and I guess you were entitled a right of reply, but the consequences of baiting him are much more severe and two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think the spirit of this thread or forum is to see other members in trouble with the law. As for claiming knowledge vs publishing knowledge. If he just claims it, who is going to be offended to start civil action and then make it stick, and why are any cops going to waste time on a petty charge that probably wouldn't stick criminally? If he publishes it it is another story, there is a victim who can take offence. I am sure Danno can stick up for himself though without my help!

Aussiebreno

I really do not want to rehash the whole Boldenone/McCarthy argument again. However, the one thing that is certain and scientifically proven(and there are plenty references regarding this) is that BOLDENONE IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING SUBSTANCE IN STALLIONS(that's why there is a threshold for it)

http://www.afsca.be/comitescientifiq...rsuspected.pdf

Please read top of page 6 in particular

Quote:

Originally Posted by mightymo

Aussiebreno

I really do not want to rehash the whole Boldenone/McCarthy argument again. However, the one thing that is certain and scientifically proven(and there are plenty references regarding this) is that BOLDENONE IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING SUBSTANCE IN STALLIONS(that's why there is a threshold for it)

http://www.afsca.be/comitescientifiq...rsuspected.pdf

Please read top of page 6 in particular

Thanks Harvey. Just to be clear my issue wasn't with your post, but rather how it was moderated in comparison to other posts. I am grateful for the link though and echo thoughts re not wanting to discuss boldenone. I just want a balanced judgement and fair go for what people have to say.

This thread is about the issue of Cobalt chloride. It is not for a rehash of the Boldenone issue. That was used solely for comparative purposes but seems to have used to take the thread away on a tangent.
That tangent has seen posts here that are not related to the issue and in some cases are directed solely to personalities. (Reason to delete Stick to the issues).
As this has happened due to Brendan posting an objection to what I wrote and his views of me rather than the issue (No mention of the term Cobalt Chloride at all) I will delete my posts and and associated reference quotes and hope that this thread can be returned to the issue.

Brendan's issue with Moderating

It is also concerning that you are quick to condemn those who offer resistance to the usage of prohibited and possibly harmful substances, yet when there is a defence of prohibited substances you turn a blind eye. I point to this thread where HRNZ and Mightymo have said Boldenone is naturally occuring with no basis to back those words up. (HRNZ and mighty I could well be correct in what they say, I only bring it up to point out no science was linked to support it, which is Teecees gripe) http://www.harnessracingforum.com/sh...denone&p=30309

Thanks Harvey. Just to be clear my issue wasn't with your post, but rather how it was moderated in comparison to other posts. I am grateful for the link though and echo thoughts re not wanting to discuss boldenone. I just want a balanced judgement and fair go for what people have to say.

Brendan it has taken me a while to get my head around why you have concerns with how this was moderated. Specifically with respect to providing Scientific proof or for that matter any supporting evidence. I hope I can clear it up in relation to this post anyway.

Firstly......
Harvey has presented an article copied from the website of the NZ Harness Racing trainers and drivers association. The article expresses the personal views of a third party writer..(NZHRTD secretary). Harvey has simply presented the article seeking comment with providing an opinion either way. He is not barracking for one position nor the other. He doesn't need to provide evidence to back up someone else's views. They are not expressed as his. The article is posted for discussion.

Secondly......
The article produced by Harvey was written by somebody else not related to this forum. He did not produce the article primarily or otherwise for this forum, rather for members of his own organisation. He is not therefore expected to provide any supporting evidence to back up his views on that forum (NZHRTDA). This is akin to a member copying an article from a newspaper to the forum. The copied article would be supporting evidence of the poster's opinion. (as in required by the forum's rules). The author of the original article nor the poster doesn't need to produce backup evidence of their backup evidence.

The above is a response to the concerned expressed by Aussiebrenno with regard to how a post was moderator relative to others.

From the cobalt thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teecee

It seems that this thread is full from start to end with numerous "inaccuracies" even despite the official releases on the subject by governing bodies.
Cobalt Chloride exists in several feed preparations. It is also to occur naturally as a trace element. Hence those governing bodies with real concerns and given some thought to the initial concerns and pending further substantive studies have placed a threshold level on its presence in test samples.
The presence of cobalt chloride in a test sample is not a positive swab.

As HRNSW have been at pains to state their has been no "Positive" detections by them. They have actively refuted the claims of others of 6 positive tests within their jurisdiction.
They are the only body currently testing for excesses in Cobalt Chloride.

The claims being made by others in the media and on this forum are not, therefore substantiated.
This thread remains open in the interim pending some substantiation of the claims made. If that is not possible then move on.

Why the need for this then. Harveys didn't need substantiation, yet articles posted by Barney, trish & Danno did?

Deary me I've just had a lightbulb. Harveys comments aren't potentially threatening to the website owners, yet the other opinions and linked articles are. Nothing wrong with that of course.

This clearly has nothing to do with the website owners as you so snidely comment other than the fact that they set the rules of the forum....quote Forum rules..
You may discuss any publicly available information from reputable sources. These include but aren't limited to: Press releases put out by HRNSW (or other state organisations), news posted by HR Australia, or Harnesslink etc. If you are posting something that could be considered controversial you need to include the link to the source in your post.

I have been through the posts by the persons you mention in regard to their contributions
let's start with Barney..
post 1..Claimed six cases of Positive swab. No source mentioned.
post 17 Claimed to have put irrefutable evidence ON ANOTHER SITE. No source mentioned.
Post 23 Claimed to have read 2 reports of 6 positives.
post 25 Claimed a reported sample of 3500 against a threshold of 200 No source mentioned.

Each of these claims rejected in a press release from HRNSW (no positives) posted later by Trish.

Now Trish.. Most of her posts are links to articles and where relevant to the issue of Cobalt Chloride testing of horses in Australia; no issue.
post 18 List of detected samples No Cobalt listed. No comment link only.
post 22 Press release from HRNSW as above.
post 32 Press article from USA about rumours and US intent to test.
post 40 Article from US. No source nor link to the article original.

Danno
post 39 Article written by person with BA Eng / Philosophy. (Sciences????)
post 41 Reprint a previously posted Press story again at odds with HRNSW.
His other posts are responses to comments by others.

If all or any of these posts provides any backup evidence let alone scientific then please point to it because I am not the only one here missing it.

IMO it's just plain mischief to claim a link between Harvey's post and what has been posted on the Cobalt chloride thread in respect to Backup evidence and how moderation has handled these.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teecee

This clearly has nothing to do with the website owners as you so snidely comment other than the fact that they set the rules of the forum....quote Forum rules..
You may discuss any publicly available information from reputable sources. These include but aren't limited to: Press releases put out by HRNSW (or other state organisations), news posted by HR Australia, or Harnesslink etc. If you are posting something that could be considered controversial you need to include the link to the source in your post.

I have been through the posts by the persons you mention in regard to their contributions
let's start with Barney..
post 1..Claimed six cases of Positive swab. No source mentioned.
post 17 Claimed to have put irrefutable evidence ON ANOTHER SITE. No source mentioned.
Post 23 Claimed to have read 2 reports of 6 positives.
post 25 Claimed a reported sample of 3500 against a threshold of 200 No source mentioned.

ach of these claims rejected in a press release from HRNSW (no positives) posted later by Trish.

Now Trish...
post 18 List of detected samples No Cobalt listed. No comment link only.
post 22 Press release from HRNSW as above.
post 32 Press article from USA about rumours and US intent to test.
post 40 Article from US. No source nor link to the article original.

Danno
post 39 Article written by person with BA Eng / Philosophy. (Sciences????)
post 41 Reprint a previously posted Press story again at odds with HRNSW.

If all or any of these posts provides any backup evidence let alone scientific then please point to it because I am not the only one here missing it.

Teecee says: "He (Harvey) doesn't need to provide evidence to back up someone else's views."
Yet it seems when Danno and Trish post a link to someone else''s view they need to find backup evidence? I am unsure as to why.

Oh what happened to Barney???? Wasn't he part of this too.
This thread was all about Barney claiming 6 positive tests. A number of posts were posted to claim same. Newspaper articles were posted as evidence to back up claims.
That is fine...except.... The governing body that was responsible for these claims DENIED all such claims.
I asked the questions...
Are there 6 positives to Cobalt chloride or not. Newspaper reports back up the claims as posted by Trish and Danno. NO PROBLEMS.
HRNSW deny the claims and post a media release to that effect. Posted by TRISH. NO PROBLEMS.
I posted a comment to the effect that posters are saying one thing about this without any evidence.
Other posters (Trish) posts denials from the body that should know..i.e. HRNSW. along with others about the effects of Cobalt Chloride.(NO PROBLEMS)
I asked Can we have some evidence one way or the other. or let it ride.

The interesting thing here is...
there has been NO MODERATION ACTION taken against Danno, Trish nor Barney for what they have posted regarding this issue. here are no deleted posts, bans or anything open to the moderators on this issue. That is because nowhere did I say that DANNO, TRISH nor BARNEY specifically needed to back up what they had posted. Nor did I say that any other of the posters to the thread specifically needed to do likewise.

My post was posted as a member rather than a moderator, something I am told is best not to happen so now I will refrain from posting personal comments during my term as a moderator. If I was to post then to save confusion with the writer's tone and feelings I should write to the readers aspect. Something we could all practise IMO.
As a wee aside the person offering me that little bit of advise advises that there remains to many comments on the forum where the subject can conceivably be successful in a libel lawsuit. I need to be more vigilant in protecting ALL parties. That is the crux of moderation.
I still look forward to a resolution to this 6 positive swabs. Do we have 6 as claimed or do we have two as advised by HRNSW We know of two.
There has likewise been NO MODERATION ACTION taken against Harvey. It's an absolute nonsense to suggest there should be.

Harvey's post that has Brendan so concerned of a double standard.

Boldenone
Harvey quote...
Last year Boldenone was the subject of much discussion.

Thought it was interesting to see the following in the NZ trainers association report:

Third party quote (Not Harvey).. (Secretary NZ Harness Racing Trainers and Drivers Assn) not HRNZ as Brendan alluded.
"The HRNZ Board is currently grappling with two decisions concerning illegal substances. On the one hand, they are pressing for the banning of all steroids, on the other they are deciding on whether to raise the allowable level of TC02 in horses from the current 35 m/mol to 36m/mol, which is apparently the level accepted by every other racing jurisdiction in the World. While the Association strongly supports the fight against drug use, there is one steroid, Boldenone, which is still very much subject to conjecture (in fact has been clinically proven) to be found in horses through other means than administration. It seems incongruous that the Board is adamant on the steroid issue to bring us into line with the rest of the World, yet (despite recommendations from the RIU and others dating back to 2012) is stalling on following the standard policy on TC02."

Harvey for his part and the three members listed by Brenno are on a level playing field along with all the other posters to the Cobalt chloride thread.
But the question of the initial post remains to be answered.

For now I shall return to moderating. Brenno's original post about my biased moderating needs action...if he hasn't done it already.

Thought this might help with the Boldenone thoughts.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...62922401,d.dGI

Hey team,

This is a complex issue and I don't have the industry knowledge or science to comment on the facts at this point. Right now I don't feel like trawling through 15 articles and an mp3 to gain a cursory understanding.

I will say that the statement below is entirely baseless. If our rules are strict we are only trying to prevent legitimate legal issues (e.g. if somebody says something they shouldn't have, a la the rules, we get unfriendly worded letters from solicitors). Myself nor anybody at Harnesslink have never instructed moderators to bias content or moderation on this forum in favour of our advertisers/friends or otherwise - and vice versa for any enemies - real or imagined. Nor have I personally ever done so or anybody else at Harnesslink to my knowledge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Deary me I've just had a lightbulb. Harveys comments aren't potentially threatening to the website owners, yet the other opinions and linked articles are. Nothing wrong with that of course.

I understand some conversation has stifled and a few people are upset. We're between a rock and a hard place on this and from past experience it's easier and safer to moderate strictly - I know that's not the ideal option and it annoys me too.

One possible solution is to have a private forum within the Aussue section only visible for members with, say, over 300 posts. That way we could be a little more relaxed about things. The basic rules would still apply but we could then err on the side of the ol first amendment. Thoughts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by admin

I will say that the statement below is entirely baseless. If our rules are strict we are only trying to prevent legitimate legal issues (e.g. if somebody says something they shouldn't have, a la the rules, we get unfriendly worded letters from solicitors). Myself nor anybody at Harnesslink have never instructed moderators to bias content or moderation on this forum in favour of our advertisers/friends or otherwise - and vice versa for any enemies

?

That's what I was getting at, people claiming the six positives etc could potentially mean Harnesslink get a solicitors letter, so by enforcing a strict standard on these potentially threatening posts protects the sites owners. Whereas with something like Harvey said there is zip chance of getting a letter from a solicitor so extra proof wasn't required. I didn't mean to infer it was to protect your image or anything, just protect you from a lawsuit.

Ah sorry breno I misunderstood - fair enough and all true unfortunately.

The flip-side is that although we get the legal threats the people on the other side of them are usually most concerned with going after the individual that made the comments, and we genuinely don't want what people say here to get them in strife. Think of it like a nanny state :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

That's what I was getting at, people claiming the six positives etc could potentially mean Harnesslink get a solicitors letter, so by enforcing a strict standard on these potentially threatening posts protects the sites owners. Whereas with something like Harvey said there is zip chance of getting a letter from a solicitor so extra proof wasn't required. I didn't mean to infer it was to protect your image or anything, just protect you from a lawsuit.

Edit: Fun fact is that a fair few troublemakers here have not been foiled by moderators but by litigation or threats from people and organisations with deeper pockets then they. They then request documentation from us requested by their lawyers (post archives mostly, - the public facing content have always been deleted by a moderator by that point). I can't help but think it wasn't like we didn't try to warn them, like over and over and over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by admin

Ah sorry breno I misunderstood - fair enough and all true unfortunately.

The flip-side is that although we get the legal threats the people on the other side of them are usually most concerned with going after the individual that made the comments, and we genuinely don't want what people say here to get them in strife. Think of it like a nanny state :)

Edit: Fun fact is that a fair few troublemakers here have not been foiled by moderators but by litigation or threats from people and organisations with deeper pockets then they. They then request documentation from us requested by their lawyers (post archives mostly, - the public facing content have always been deleted by a moderator by that point). I can't help but think it wasn't like we didn't try to warn them, like over and over and over.

Yes, you are quite entitled to protect yourselves (and others at the same time). It is just a shame the world we now live in where rverybody must tread carefully.