Reply With Quote
Even without all the corruption scandal I have to say I think swabs should only be declared positive when two independent Labs declare the sample positive.Originally Posted by Dust
It is a safe guard that makes sense.
100% correct VOR....
Dont forget the system used to transport the bloods to the lab......A Steward.
The same group of stewards that have been proven to be corrupt.
Who knows who else is involved in the current corruption.....more stewards.....the lab?????
So why wouldnt it be in their interests to try and move the focus away........................!!!!!!
Even without all the corruption scandal I have to say I think swabs should only be declared positive when two independent Labs declare the sample positive.
It is a safe guard that makes sense.
I agree with you. It is one of my pet hates when the second swab comes back clear/under threshold yet the trainer still gets some sort of punishment. It's almost like "just in case you did something, we must give you some sort of punishment." No, IMHO a trainer should be given the benefit of the doubt if the second sample if not positive, like every other sporting jurisdiction.
Last edited by Flashing Red; 10-08-2011 at 02:26 PM.
D.U.I even if you go over on the test and then blood taken and result's below the level you are still charged on the first reading
Have whoever you want on but don't ever have yourself on
I wasn't aware of that (never had a DUI) but even so, that is an offence and comparing apples with applies racing is a sport and most sporting jurisdictions require both tests to be positive. Racing is the most highly regulated sport in the world - even more so then the worlds very best athletes.
Seems to me that, while no doubt having been handed a fair old box of ammunition in recent times, the conspiracy theorists of the Forum are forgetting THE major difference between the 'Green Light' period that was, as I understand it, basically prior to July/August 2011 and now...and it is the TIMING.
Thankfully we now have in place, as in fact we should always have had, an on-course arrival time of 2hrs prior to racing & this is combined with pre race testing of up to 2hrs post race testing.
Take away the old Green Light, make the horses show up and if required not leave inside of a total 4hr period spanning their race & there's not a buffer anywhere on this Earth that will beat such a system.
While I am thrilled that such a system is now in place...it has for sure & certain taken God damned long enough and unfortunately it took an absolute shit fight crisis to get it across the line.
A number of people including myself have been banging away at this since back in the late 1990's, initially to the (then) NSW Harness Racing Authority & then subsequently to the quite deplorable shambles that was the GHRRA.
In fact when things came to a head at one point, I was actually called in to the GHRRA offices by the late James Perry (a very good fella, God rest his soul) who was at the time quite clearly most unwillingly doing so. I later found out from James it was under direction from his boss, John Coughlan.
Nevertheless, despite it being a bit of a show trial which quickly became apparent, I was duly carpeted for stating in another forum that their TC02 testing regime at the time was a complete & utter joke and that I strongly suspected that a number of swabs were being incorrectly/ineffectively carried out.
In a rather blatant effort to shut down open debate on the subject would you believe I scored a $2,000 fine (suspended). A shout out here to good guy Matty Hammond btw.
I guess, given recent events, I ultimately had the last laugh but it's not something I enjoy having been right about.
On a related note, upon the demise of the GHRRA I believe there were forces either within or certainly very close to that shockingly expensive absolute folly of an organisation who, in their infinite wisdom, apparently saw fit to erase/destroy virtually all records, thus little if anything of any note, let alone regulatory note from that period, is left /was passed on to HRNSW. I suspect it would ave made for some interesting reading.
Interestingly this wholesale erasing of records, amongst a host of other things, apparently included the balance of/ payment plans for various fines etc. that were handed out during the GHRRA's unprecedented reign of incompetence (it is worth noting that some of them were said to be quite substantial).
Such was their apparent bloodymindedness at the time that seemingly they would've rather the villains identified & fined during their time at the healm simply skate away from their financial obligations...than hand over any records to HRNSW. Charming stuff that, absolutely charming. Don't you just love bureaucracy?
There are eight million stories in The Naked City. This has been one of them.
VVV
You have not voiced an opinion on should a positive finding by one lab followed by a negative finding by the second lab constitute a positive swab finding..... I say it should not.
My vote's a NO Bill. For the purposes of Harness Racing, definitely a NO.
If there is not concordance in the results, if the first round test is not then confirmed by the second...i.e. it's a one over/one under...then it should immediately be deemed a 'no case to answer'.
Having experienced up close and personal the pretty significant differences that can & do occur in human pathology labs throughout NSW, Australia & the World and across a wide range of testing regimes, disciplines & methods...there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that some errors most certainly do occur.
Some Labs fairly routinely return positives that are in fact negatives & similarly some fairly routinely return negatives that are in fact positives and some will do a bit of both depending on the staff on at the time, their workload etc.
By & large it is also a function of numbers.
If you have enough test volume then somewhere along the way something, for some reason or other, will simply not follow script & there are a myriad of reasons why that can happen. That being said...the fact is that some Labs are also significantly better/more reliable than others.
It's also worth remembering that complete reverse is also just as possible...whereby an actual postives gets recorded as being an all clear the first time around but a subsequent or confirmatory test (which in the case of an initial all-clear is I expect rarely if ever performed) could well come up as an overage. It is, as always, a two way street.
The benefit of the doubt however MUST always remain with the accused.
Such forensic work would be thrown out of court, deemed insufficient and/or inconclusive & there's no reason why it should have any standing as far as Harness Racing is concerned.
Last edited by triplev123; 10-08-2011 at 07:24 PM. Reason: bad spelling
VVV they are probably the biggest posts i have ever seen!!! LOL.... I'm sorry but the racing nsw lab who does the first testing and the lab in QLD that does the confirmatory tests have the same machines therefore same testing... Circumstances too consider:
- the time it takes too send samples too QLD yes level will drop but only a few points thus the reason the confirmatory testing is usually lower..
One finding of a positive level is enough machines don't lie
That is a myth I am sorry check with HRNSW if you like many second tests are actually higher and not all tests go to Queensland check if you doubt me.
Under you theory if first teat is close to the line then we should get the second test done because it might be higher it does not make sense.
Sorry if your facts were right no drama but they are not.
Last edited by Thevoiceofreason; 10-10-2011 at 04:35 AM.
Posting Permissions
