Reply With Quote
DMSO sounds cooler...thats why.
yes ive read the report
all the jca wanted to do was kiss and hug mark and tell him it was going to be alright
it went along the lines of 'hes incredibly successful, so therefore he couldnt be doping and must be someone elses fault'
i love part about his terrific record... its funny i always thought blue magic was one of worst scandals in racing but not the jca, second strike for doping should be mandatory 6 months
DMSO sounds cooler...thats why.
It will always be difficult to understand how the system operates in Nz until you read and understand the rules.
Penalties are based on precedents. It's call fairness.
It's not relevant what the substance is that is involved nor how easy it is to get.
If it's on the list of prohibited substances then you face a charge.
The charges are of absolute liability. A positive sample is all the proof needed. It's not important how, when nor why iin the prosecution case. It's there so it's up to you to prove you the trainer did all possible to prevent such an occurrence.
Okay you can't so you plead GUILTY to the charge. Under these circumstances where it is impossible to prove in any jurisdiction after the event the full circumstances.
This along with the standard of required proof being civil (based on the standard of probability) rather than criminal (beyond reasonable doubt) means that penalties under these rules are by way of a fine.
Fines are set with a standard start point...
add on for any aggravating factors
Credit for any mitigating factors...
Add on for convictions to a NOT GUILTY Plea
Add on for taking into account the Status of the race....More for G1 than G2 or G3
Then we come up with a penalty consistent across all similar such cases.
Most such cases are considered to be negligence rather than any deliberate attempt or corrupt practise.
The rules covering the horse are also written for simplicity.
If guilty then disqualification is mandatory.
If you want an interesting case in point I recommend HRNZ vs AFH Hunter Jan 2011
sourced from www.jca.org.nz
Virtually all positive swab cases under NZ rules of Harness racing are dealt with under these 3 rules so there is plenty of precedent to arrive at a fair penalty.
Rules 1001,1002 and 1004
These are the sames rules as the smoken up case so there are also plenty of precedents for that case should a guity verdict arise. The only variable is the not guilty plea and the extended hearing which will bring penalty surcharge and aditional costs awards.
Mark Purdon is penalised like us all under the rules for what he does not who he is.
What crap, that is precedent for smoken up, not fly like an eagle
Let me know where a trainer has got that small a penalty for a second offense? Not to mention the fine was smaller then what the owners of the emergency starter should have earnt from making the final
If mark is such a saint how did blue magic end up in his horses?
What Crap indeed...Some facts...
Because Fly Like an Eagle won 2 heats he was already eligible for the final.
In winning two heats he thus increased rather than decreased the chances of that other horse making the finals by effectively taking 2 finals spots opening up the final spot to a horse who hadn't earned enuff poiunts to be there.
Also read back through the hearing evidence and it is the prosecutor making the glowing comments.
Blue Magic was more than 5 years ago. Mark Purdon was not convicted of using it nor even possessing it. Thus it is not part of his record. He pleaded Guilty to other charges after making the first approach to the authorities when they had no evidence against him
Without wanting to relitigate the blue magic saga, it is obvious from your comments that you have a very limited understanding of the events and the saga as it played out in Canterbury at the time. Before you go throwing insults in anyones direction it may help to know a bit more about your subject matter than you presently do. As for the recent positive in Auckland, all that did was confirm the problems associated with running satelite stables which are not under your direct control. Ultimately the registered trainer carries the can for what happens at stables operated under his name regardless of who has transgressed. As a result of this error the employee who has been with the Purdon operation for several years no longer works for Purdon. To prevent a reoccurance the stable in Auckland was shut. Could Purdon have done more more to prevent what happened. Maybe. But to suggest that Purdon is somehow rorting the system and has got off a serious charge is just plain wrong.
im not impying at all that he is rorting the system
the fact is that he has a history of using prohibited substances, he was caught with another one and instead of being properly punished he coped nothing because hes a big name
but you kiwi guys seem more then happy with how its turned out, its no surprise you'll be racing for ribbons in 10 years and mark will just pick up his stable and leave
No we just judge each case on its merits. In this case in Auckland it was clear there was no intent to deceive, just a mistake by an employee which cost him his employment and cost his employer a fine. Throw in the cost of the closure of the Auckland stable and it has been an expensive experience for Purdon. As for Nz having issues with the integrity of its racing we in the land of the long white cloud can only look with envy at how clean racing is on your side of the Tasman. We have given up watching reruns of Underbelly. Sydney harness racing is much more fun
here here Exactly the more you get caught the lesser the penalty it appears to be.Originally Posted by thesushitrain
I can't believe that people buy horses from M Purdon. For every 10 he moves on about 1 does o.k and that is normally not for an extended period of time.
Posting Permissions