Smoken up

[teecee]

What you have, or NZ has is a list of what is called prohibited substances.
All prohitied substances are categorised together within the rule.
It is a breach of the prohibited substance rule that the JCA panel has to rule on. It is not a rule that specifys a particular drug.
There are other rules which deal with specific drugs along with administering etc. They are more specific, require greater proof and naturally carry much greater penalties.
Put it this way....A judge making a decision on a charge of drink driving. The charge is a breach of the transport laws.The law specifies exceeding a figure of concentration of alcohol in the blood or breath. It's not relevant to the judge in determing guilt whether the substance is scotch, VB tooheys or whatever. Conviction and penalty is set by how much rather than what brand.
The JCA don't determine the charge they determine innocence or guilt to whatever charge is placed before them.
e 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.[/QUOTE]

[Flashing Red]

Put it this way....A judge making a decision on a charge of drink driving. The charge is a breach of the transport laws.The law specifies exceeding a figure of concentration of alcohol in the blood or breath. It's not relevant to the judge in determing guilt whether the substance is scotch, VB tooheys or whatever. Conviction and penalty is set by how much rather than what brand.

Yes but there isn't a blanket punishment for drink driving. There are maximum penalties listed (and for some offences, minimum penalties). Within the stipulated limits, judges/magistrates have a discretion as to what someone's punishment should be. There are aggravating and mitigating factors affecting the punishment given. It's not like EVERY drink driver gets disqualified from driving for 6 months and fined $2,000.

I do not profess to be an expert on HRNZs rules or the JCAs decisions. I am thankful that you popped on here because I enjoy your posts.

[teecee]

True and this is how the panel will assess penalty. The rules set maximum levels of penalty including fines and/ or suspension and/ or disqualification. I cannot remeber anybody disqualified under the rules of the current case.
They have a starting point penalty based on what they determine to be a level of seriousness of the breach. they will then use any factors they consider to be mitigating to reduce the penalty then consider any aggravating factors to raise the level raching a penalty taking all factors into account including all submission from prosecutor and defence counsel. which they will vary

Yes but there isn't a blanket punishment for drink driving. There are maximum penalties listed (and for some offences, minimum penalties). Within the stipulated limits, judges/magistrates have a discretion as to what someone's punishment should be. There are aggravating and mitigating factors affecting the punishment given. It's not like EVERY drink driver gets disqualified from driving for 6 months and fined $2,000.

I do not profess to be an expert on HRNZs rules or the JCAs decisions. I am thankful that you popped on here because I enjoy your posts.

[p plater]

teecee. Evidence was the TCO2 blood was destroyed AFTER the first urine tests

[Flashing Red]

But the horse automatically looses the race right - no matter how much (of whatever substance it is) in their system? Ie it could be a pharmacologically (sp?) inactive (ie minute) trace in their system, ie non performance enhancing, but the horse looses the race. An example of this is someone who gets a bute positive despite the substance being administered 6 days beforehand (chemists can tell approximately when a substance is administered from the state of a drug's break down). It has no effect on a horse after 12 hours. Do the rules not take these sorts of factors into account? (A serious not smart ass question)

[p plater]

Flashing Red you are correct......interesting read at http://www.netpets.com/horses/healthspa/guilty.html

[teecee]

I hope that by clearing up a few facts your blood temperature may drop a little.
The drug in question was RANITIDINE rather than DMSO.
The trainer pleaded guilty to the charge relative to negligence in not ensuring the feed bin was clean leaving the JCA to impose a minimal fine and disqualify the horse as is mandatory with no discretion. I was surprised the on course trainer was not charged but I guess he had broken only club / raceway rules of not ensuring his boxes were clean to the required standard.
The charges were laid by HRNZ in the days prior to the creation of the RIU so the RIU's boss who by the way for those who don't know is a true blue okker ego etc is hardly a factor.

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.
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.

[teecee]

EXcert from the statement of finding by JCA panel.....
7.1 For those reasons we are satisfied the charge brought against Mr Justice under R.1004 (2) has been proved and "Smoken Up" was connected with a breach of R.1004 (1) and (2) when it ran in and won the Pacers Grand Final at the Inter Dominion Championships on 8 April 2011, for the purposes of R.1004 (8).
A finding against the horse under rule 1004(8) requires the committee with no discretion (MANDATORY) to disqualify the horse from the said race.This is why people say he is allready disqualified when the penalty phase is yet to begin as submissions on penalty are sought from both parties.
Excert from panel findings
7.3 We now require submissions from Counsel as to penalty and costs which will include the costs of the Judicial Control Authority which Mr Lange will have responsibility for. To that end the following timetable is to apply:
(i) Mr Lange is to file and serve on Ms Thomas his submissions on penalty and costs within one week of the date of this Decision;
(ii) Ms Thomas will have a further week from the date of receipt of Mr Lange's submissions to file her submissions in reply;
(iii) Leave is reserved to apply if for any valid reason there is difficulty with that timetable.

As far as DMSO is concerned there is a threshold 15mg/ltre urine and any excess to that threshold is a breach of the rule. drugs on the list have varing thresholds as well as withholding periods.
The list is made up by experts in HRNZ, NZTR, NZEVA (equine vet assn) and substances on that list make up the prohibited substances rules which to answer your question you breach at your peril.

there is also discretion to ban the horse from competing for a period upto and including life but that discretion has to my knowlwdge never been applied.

But the horse automatically looses the race right - no matter how much (of whatever substance it is) in their system? Ie it could be a pharmacologically (sp?) inactive (ie minute) trace in their system, ie non performance enhancing, but the horse looses the race. An example of this is someone who gets a bute positive despite the substance being administered 6 days beforehand (chemists can tell approximately when a substance is administered from the state of a drug's break down). It has no effect on a horse after 12 hours. Do the rules not take these sorts of factors into account? (A serious not smart ass question)

[teecee]

That is true as is standard practice and well before results of any swabs are known.
TCO2 blood samples are not as a matter of course part of the post race swabbing protocols. and there early destruction is normal process.
To test the blood in this instance would be an extaordinary procedure and IMHO possibly subject to admissable evidence challenge. Maybe / maybe not. An issue for the panel but they were not required to rule.
It should be noted that the defence had no query or challenge to how the sampling was done and handled for processing.

teecee. Evidence was the TCO2 blood was destroyed AFTER the first urine tests

[teecee]

Muscle and Power in 2008 2-y-o Trotters Ruby

You know where the NZ/JCA precedent to this lies Tahn?
The one where G. Rogerson lost a Harness Jewels Final there a few years back. I can't remember the name of the horse nor the year but I am almost certain it also got a DMSO overage and duly lost the race.
Apparently upholding that ridiculous precedent with a similarly ridiculous finding is more important than a factual, level-headed assessment of the actual performance enhancing capabilities of the substance that is involved...with an outcome that is calibrated accordingly.
The fact that Rogerson and now Lance Justice have both lost major races as a result of DMSO positives whilst other trainers have simply been fined for substances that are actual/demonstrated/well & truly documented performance enhancers....well, it is nothing short of A-B-S-U-R-D.
If faced with something similar one would hope that the various regulatory persons here in Australia wouldn't make the same 'punishment not exactly befitting the crime' mistakes that the JCA does. The Law, in this instance, is most definitely an Ass.