Might be good if the taxman only counted the income earned on one day of the year
Possibly pedantic but there were four races that weren't pre raced.
The coincidence...like local council road funding, if you don't use it you lose it.
Last day of last financial year (coincidence?)
https://www.harness.org.au/racing/st...l/?mc=KI300618
12 races - 11 pre-race swabs
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
Might be good if the taxman only counted the income earned on one day of the year
Possibly pedantic but there were four races that weren't pre raced.
The coincidence...like local council road funding, if you don't use it you lose it.
Last edited by arlington; 05-19-2019 at 03:10 AM. Reason: pedantic
Not wanting to digress from the title of the thread but what is significant, I think, in relation to the infringement example in this thread, is the appeal to VCAT by the stewards along with a reminder posted of the serious offence penalty guidelines.
Stomach tubing infringements are now 18 months DQ and TCO2 18 months DQ.
In a short period of time we've gone from 6 months suspensions/$5000(?) fines for TCO2 to substantial DQ's.
For a long time lots of people have believed it's one thing to catch but another thing to penalise effectively. A coincidence under the new administration things are changing?
But your chances of being caught are 2-3% with so little testing - compare to other states Wayne. It could be the CEO is first and foremost concerned with balancing the books
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
Correcting the figures, yep Kev, a 20 to 30% chance of being pre race swabbed, not necessarily caught.
Don't get me wrong, I would like to think it would be to his peril if the funding of integrity wasn't first and foremost.
Would I like to see more pre race's or not having to be used on targeting (in reference to post #4), for sure.
As I expressed previously, what is a concern is future funding of integrity. We got a grant, a one off. Income streams are taking a hit, something's got to give. A cut in prize money to fund integrity? For me, pretty simple, if you don't have a fair chance of getting any prize money, does it matter what the prize money is?
I'm not sure if increasing participation rates is one of the KPI's but a decrease in integrity measures wouldn't see that target hit. Maybe I should rephrase, I'd like to think that target wouldn't be hit. I was at one forum where a prominent participant aired their dismay at the $3mil grant not going toward prize money.
I have to correct the maths Wayne
If we have 9 races with 9 runners in each
And we only have 2 pre swabs
2/81 is less than 3% chance of being swabbed (or caught )
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
Last week just gone...
7 meetings 64 races 16 Pre race
Same week last year....
7 meetings 59 races 60 Pre race
Last week of June 2018....
8 meetings 77 races 73 Pre race
First week of July 2018....
8 meetings 61 races 19 Pre race
Figures kindly supplied by another poster
Did HRV ever announce a change of strategy?
per un PUGNO di DOLLARI
maths. I should have reread my own figures in post #10 Kev.
You posed other measures might be being undertaken which didn't necessarily mean funding had decreased. Stable visits have increased.
I'm not sure if the cases/infringements that went to court would have been uncovered by pre race swabbing. I'd suggest some of those might have been pre raced.
Another example, a trainer tossing the funnel and tube out of the float on the way to the track. A racegoer seeing that and reporting to stewards. Pretty sure those horses underwent pre race's on arrival but no positive's.
Drones, funding for those rather than pre race. Convictions which may not have come from pre race swabbing.
The latest stomach tubing investigations at Mildura with a visiting trainer to the region. Those horses would have been pre raced but I haven't seen any charges relating to positives.
Just saw your post 17 Kev. I still think my post 18 is relevant.
Is the question not necessarily about a change in funding of integrity but more so a change in direction or tactics?
Should the integrity dept announce what tactics they are going to use?
Not wanting to digress or divert but stable visits having been brought up - they've increased. Both race day and random. Focusing on the random, out of comp, I don't know if the stewards are ever accompanied by a HRV vet. Have thought, like others out of comp testing is a necessity. I don't know if I'd expect HRV to announce they're going to do that. However, strategies like that would impact on how the integrity budget was spent. Might out of comp testing be more useful than more pre race's as an example?