There is a poster on here called TeeCee I think, I assume they are connected with the JCA in some way and they always provide informative on the topic of NZ precedents and positive swabs. I was hoping they would make an appearance since the decision.
Other than that, despite how passionate I am on this topic and out of respect for the connections of SU and ITMQ that is it from me
I don't think you should waste a good crisis Tahn. Whether it was Smoken Up or ITMQ or any other horse that had come up with a DMSO positive and subsequently lost such a race...the argument remains the same. It is a ridiculous ruling by a group that apparently sees the maintenance of precedent as a more pressing issue than the application of common sense to an argument that, should it not be addressed and settled soon, will invariably crop up and continue to crop up well into the future.
There was also a case last season down my way whereby a horse was disqualified due to the trainer being allocated a box at a course where the local on-course trainer had been using DMSO. Subsequently the horse returned a positive. It was proved beyond doubt that the trainer had not broke any rules - however his horse was disqualified and he was fined. The most stupid ruling I had heard of until this one to Lance and SU.Originally Posted by triplev123
I have kept out of the debate over this simply because it makes my blood boil. The head of the RIU has a ego as big as his head and other parts of his anatomy.
Is there something you're not telling us?
It is of no consequence to the JCA what DMSO does or its effects on the horse.
It is of no consequence to the JCA what Caffeine or Bute does or its effects on the horse.
These are issues for the rule formulators i.e. HRNZ, The rules are non drug-specific. So JCA is not to differentiate between them be it DMSO, caffeine, clenbuterol or any other specific.
The rule says these and others are prohibitted substances and horses will not race or be presented to race with this substance in or on them.The swab analyses show that a substance listed as prohibited by the lawmakers was detected.That means that on the surface the rule has been breached. The RIU lay charges against the alleged rule breachers.
It is then that the JCA INDEPENDENTLY hear the evidence and determine if THE RULE HAS BEEN BREACHED.If so then determine penalty. In the case under discussion the breach has been proved but contrary to the views of some, penalties have not been yet determined.
If u have yet to do so the read moer at www.jca.org.nz
In time you will see that they are purely consistent.
They deal with the rules as written by others in an INDEPENDENT manner. We have two very similar scenarios.
Charges bought under the same rules.. Horses presented to race with substances determined by other (not JCA) prohibited in the system.
One guity plea one not guilty plea
Two guilty findings.
Guilty plea draws fine and disqualification. Not guilty plea i suspect will draw fine along with premium for race status Gp1 as called for in the rules, costs in line with a hearing over 3 days which will far away outdo the fine and disqualification of horse. This is as yet undetermined. probably 3weeks away.
More consistent than OZ where you have stewards as prosecutor, jury and judge.
Having dealings with both I know which I prefer.
Under the rule from which this episode arose there is a threshold for DMSO set at 15mg/litre urine.
Primary sample analyse for an average concentration of 25mg/lt.
Secondary sample tested in Oz at connections request averaging 25mg/ltre.
A prima facie case established under a absolute liability rule of the controlling authority..!!
Thanks for your replies.
You are right about OZ but you once told me that the NZ Courts have stipulated they will not hear racing appeals. It is for that reason why I would prefer the Australia system, because even though stewards are the prosecutor/judge/jury as you say, you always have the Racing Appeals Tribunal and then appeals from the RAT to the actual court system (or so I've been told, not many cases get past the RAT here).
Hey Tony, amongst other things doesn't the fact the initial/pre race sample was somehow lost/destroyed/disposed of...which quite obviously prevented any opportunity on behalf of the defence to also have it tested...bother you at all? That aspect alone would have easily been more than enough to have the case thrown out in any Court of Law in Australia.
To suggest that the Oz Stewards are prosecutor, jury & judge is simply incorrect, it displays a clear lack of understanding of how the system works here. Australian Participants who feel they have been wronged at an Industry Regulatory level can take it further by seeking redress in Court, unlike their NZ counterparts. The Rules of Racing here in Australia do not usurp the Law.
The fact that you guys, for whatever reason, treat all positives the same and apparently regardless of the substance, is nothing short of absurd btw.
Passing the buck doesn't make it right. In taking that approach, both HRNZ and yourselves are wrong, regardless.
The destroyed prerace sample was for TCO2 testing.that sample would have been as it always has been disposed of long before any analysis of the urine swab samples. As they said at the hearing the defence was happy with the manner of the testing. They knoew that the TCO2 sample would not be available for drug testing as is the norm. It can hardly be a miscarriage of justice when the procedures and protocols set out to operate in NZ are met. Remember that all rules are not the same everywhere and as NZ trainers have to live with the way things are done in Oz when they go there.
Please correct me if I am wrong but do the stewards not view the race, lay the charges and then sit in judgement of the charges they have laid.. New zealand does have an appeal process but it is seldom used and when it is they seldom vary the judgement of the JCA. the members of the JCA tend to be lawyers and look at the issues in a legalese wayso I guess their judgements sre generally considered Fair. With such a high profile case as this the panel is made up of its most senior members a Queens Counsel and emeritus professor of Law.
Nz rules of racing do not as you put usurp the law either. They are part of the law written into the racing Act 2003. IMO This is why the courts tend to take a hands off approach to interfering in racing matters. They recognise that racing has its own judiciary which has to uphold the act through the rules.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
