Reply With QuoteI stand corrected about the Ranitidine but I think you may find that lines were blurred in the early in the process where both Ranitidine and DMSO were mentioned.Originally Posted by teecee
Oh dear teecee, it appears you got it wrong here. The panel were very interested in the pre race blood and they did question in detail the sampling process via Thomas Tobin . You better check reports from Wellington press who were present during the entire hearing and heard all the evidence.
I stand corrected about the Ranitidine but I think you may find that lines were blurred in the early in the process where both Ranitidine and DMSO were mentioned.
Excerts sec 6.17 and 6.18 from Panel's decision
6.17 The final matter we need to refer to is the submission by Ms Thomas that the Informant has failed to prove its case because it should have directed the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Service to test the blood sample taken from "Smoken Up" at 8:48 pm on 8 April 2011 for DMSO in order to confirm the results that had been obtained from the analysis of the urine sample taken at 10:10 pm the same evening. As recorded previously the blood sample taken at 8:48 pm was for the purpose of TCO2 testing. Ms Thomas' submission is based on the evidence of Professor Tobin that blood is a superior forensic sample over urine for the purpose of testing DMSO levels and that given what she described as the various flaws established in relation to the taking of the urine sample and its analysis the blood sample should have been tested.
6.18 We do not accept the submission. In the first place the blood sample taken at 8:48 pm was taken sometime prior to "Smoken Up" being presented for the Pacers Grand Final which started at 9:43 pm and therefore may not have been indicative of the DMSO level of the horse at the time of presentation for the race. Secondly the blood sample, in all probability was discarded after it had been tested for TCO2 and there was no clear evidence it was available to be tested for DMSO after the results of the analysis of the urine sample became available. Thirdly there is no requirement in the Rules or Regulations for the results of analyses of urine samples to be checked against blood samples. The Prohibited Substance Regulations are clear that a urine sample containing DMSO at a mass concentration in excess of 15 mg/L is a Prohibited Substance under the Rules and there is no further requirement for confirmation of that DMSO level by way of a blood sample.
I just hope your blood temp is down as I wouldn't want that ego to have u following the ppath of one Rob McAnulty eh!!
Thanks teecee, there is some interesting comments there.
What were the various flaws in taking the urine?
Is blood a superior test for DMSO?
Surely the pre race blood at 8.48 was "taken prior" to race at 9.43...seems a funny comment
Are they saying that "presented to race" is the race start time?
Why do horses have to be there an hour before their race or earlier, if that is not "presented to race" ?
No requirement for blood to be tested under the Rules ........In the overall scheme of things maybe the Rules should be revisited. Forget this particular case but shouldn't all trainers have available to them every means to clear their name. There must be plenty of cases where the trainers are not guilty but are not permitted under the rules to present their case.
All trainers must be on egg shells for their future.
Its a bit like saying in Rugby..." I've got the ball and will score a try because under the rules you are not allowed to tackle me"
Love to hear trainers comments on this.
Hey Teecee - I won't leave voicemail or send emails like Robstop me if I do
[QUOTE=p plater;12583]Thanks teecee, there is some interesting comments there.
What were the various flaws in taking the urine?
I will try to answer these with direct quote fm panels findings.......
6.13 We have already recorded we were satisfied from the evidence that the urine sample taken from "Smoken Up" by Dr Grierson and the fashion in which it was packaged for despatch to the laboratory for analysis conformed with the requirements of the Swabbing Instructions in the Regulations. In her submissions Ms Thomas has submitted there was what she called a fundamental error in the entire sampling procedure in that there was a failure to have two control samples taken. This submission was based on the opinion of Professor Tobin that the analysis of the reserve sample by the QRSC was incomplete because there was no analysis of the control sample. Professor Tobin said the referee analysis was incomplete because it did not "replicate" the original analysis. Ironically Dr Lauren in his evidence was critical of the analysis of the reserve sample by the QRSC for precisely the opposite reason, namely because he regarded it as "…just a third replicate of the duplicate results already produced in Auckland". As an alternative submission Ms Thomas contended the untested part of the control sample remaining after the New Zealand Racing Laboratory Services Laboratory had completed its analysis should have been sent to the QRSC for analysis along with the reserve sample. Both that failure and the failure to take two control samples she submitted were fatal to the Informant's case. We do not accept that submission. The Swabbing Instructions in the Regulations allow only for the taking of one control sample and the sending of the reserve sample only for analysis at the request of the owner or trainer of the horse concerned. In any event as Dr Grierson explained in his evidence once the seals on the control sample have been broken for the purpose of the analysis carried out in his laboratory, the forensic integrity of the residue of the control sample could not be guaranteed within the process of transporting it to Australia. We do not accept these failures, as Ms Thomas characterised them, were in fact failures in the sense she sought to portray them, or that they were fatal to the Informant's case as she submitted.
Is blood a superior test for DMSO?
5.6 Professor Tobin also noted in his evidence that in North America it was standard procedure to have blood samples taken to test for DMSO as blood was considered to be a superior forensic sample over urine. He said this was due to the fact pH levels in urine and the volume of urine taken could influence concentrations of detected substances in the urine.
Surely the pre race blood at 8.48 was "taken prior" to race at 9.43...seems a funny comment
Are they saying that "presented to race" is the race start time?
3.24 The next issue raised by Ms Thomas relates to the interpretation of R.1004 (1) and specifically when, for the purposes of that Rule, a horse is presented for a race.
3.25 In her initial submissions, after noting the word "presented" is not defined in the Rules, for a range of reasons we do not need to detail here, Ms Thomas submitted that a horse was presented for a race when it "…came to the racecourse or at the very latest when (it) raced". However in her later submissions of 8 September 2011 Ms Thomas took a different position and submitted by reference to Regulation 15 (1) of that part of the Harness Racing Regulations dealing with Programming Conditions – General under the heading Race Meeting Attendance, that a horse was presented for racing when it came to a racecourse in terms of the requirements of that Regulation. Subject to specified variations, Regulation 15 requires the trainer of a horse engaged in a race at a totalisator race meeting to ensure the horse is available in the official stabling complex or its allocated stall at least 1 hour prior to the advertised starting time of the first race of the meeting where it is entered in that race or where it is entered in a subsequent race, at least 90 minutes prior to the advertised starting time of that race. Accordingly in Ms Thomas' submission, when a horse is presented for a race under R.1004 (1) will depend on which race it is entered in. No later than 1 hour before the first race if entered to race in that race, otherwise no later than 90 minutes before the start of any other race for which the horse is entered. Later in her submissions by reference to the particular facts of this case, Ms Thomas appeared to take a third position namely that a horse is presented for a race when it comes to the racecourse.
3.26 We do not accept those interpretations of R.1004 (1). Given the purpose of the Rule is to ensure that horses race free of Prohibited Substances the logical point of presentation for a race which best achieves that objective is when the horse lines up for the start and begins to run in the race in which it is entered. In our view such an interpretation is consistent with the natural and ordinary meaning of "presenting" a horse for a race and is contextually consistent with the objectives of R.1004 (1). Adopting the interpretations advanced by Ms Thomas would lead to the result that any ingestion or administration of a Prohibited Substance to a horse after it came onto the racecourse, or within the period of 1 hour before it was to run in the first race or 90 minutes before it was to run in any other race, would not amount to a breach of R.1004 (1). Such a result would undermine entirely the clear purpose and intent of R.1004 (1) and we do not think the Rule should be interpreted that way.
Why do horses have to be there an hour before their race or earlier, if that is not "presented to race" ?
I think this is for the purposes of pre race testing IMO.
No requirement for blood to be tested under the Rules ........In the overall scheme of things maybe the Rules should be revisited.
Pre race blood testing is not carried out for all runner at a meeting.All runners in randomly selected races only are blood tested. Usually all winners and some others with indifferent performance are swabbed but many of these will not necessarily have a blood sample to go with post race urine sample.
Forget this particular case but shouldn't all trainers have available to them every means to clear their name. There must be plenty of cases where the trainers are not guilty but are not permitted under the rules to present their case.
All trainers must be on egg shells for their future.
Its a bit like saying in Rugby..." I've got the ball and will score a try because under the rules you are not allowed to tackle me"
Love to hear trainers comments on this.
This case for me is sensational only in the fact that Lance has chosen to plead innocent which of course is his choice. But what sort of defence can he put up to a charge that essentially has no defence IMO
The problem is he has not been charged with any complicity in this like administering.
that would bring a more serious charge.
What the charges are saying is the horse turned up at the start of the race with DMSO on or in it.
That shouldn't have happened and someone is responsible.
Ultimately the trainer or in his absence the person in charge is responsible for the horse and they must take the responsibility. The rule is written in such a way to say. You are the trainer you are ultimately responsible.
As in the FLY LIKE N EAGLE case If an employee broke the rule then u kick there butt later.I
Charges are laid in NZ under this rule ad nauseum and as I say it's very rare to have a not guilty plea.
Exert from panel findings..
6.1 We have two issues to determine. The first is whether the charge against Mr Justice is proved and the second related issue is whether "Smoken Up" was connected with a breach of sub-rule (1) or (2) within R.1004 (8) so as to disqualify it from the Pacing Grand Final it won and make it liable to the further period of disqualification not exceeding five years provided for in R.1004 (8). Because breach of R.1004 (2) is what Panckhurst J referred to in the McInerney case as a status offence proof of a breach of R.1004 (2) by Mr Justice will necessarily carry with it a finding that "Smoken Up" was connected with a breach of sub-rules (1) and (2) for the purpose of R.1004 (8).
6.2 Proof of the charge against Mr Justice requires proof of the following elements:
(i) that "Smoken Up" was taken to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race on 8 April 2011;
(ii) that the horse was presented for a race at the racecourse that day when it was not free of the Prohibited Substance DMSO;
(iii) that Mr Justice was the trainer of the horse when it was taken to the racecourse and presented for the race.
The evidence is clear, and there is no dispute, that "Smoken Up" was taken to Alexandra Park on 8 April 2011 and there at 9:43 pm that evening ran in the Pacing Grand Final which it won. The evidence is equally clear, and again there is no dispute, that at the time of those events Mr Justice was the trainer of "Smoken Up". For the reasons outlined earlier in this Decision we are satisfied when "Smoken Up" was taken on to the track and lined up for the start of the Pacing Grand Final and began to run in the race it was presented for the race for the purposes of R.1004 (1
Yeah it seems the RIU have all the bases covered to stop argument from trainers. With so many individuals involved to get to swab testing, no one could have made a mistake except the trainer and even then no proof or evidence against him but bad luck he's guilty. It appears any evidence put forward by experts is simply waved off as we "don't accept" unless its a RIU expert, 2 contaminated control tests but don't worry it was a machine fault.
No wonder the industry is in the decline. Maybe the RIU should be renamed the "God Squad" trainers futures are at their pleasure.
How can you have a rule that states
"(4) A breach of these Rules under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3) is committed REGARDLESS of the circumstances in which the prohibited substance came to be present in or on the horse"
I guess that why trainers don't bother to fight as you say " it's very rare to have a not guilty plea" Not worth the cost
Very interesting conversation and many good comments/points made,however,why,oh why, has it taken six months to get here?
Would expect an appeal and if the time taken to get to this point was, IMO (unacceptably) so long,we will know the winner of ID13 before this is all over.
That's the thing. I disagree with any rule that is written to be almost defenceless. That is flat out not fair. And while I don't profess to be an expert by any stretch of the means in regards to the JCA/NZ Rules - no matter how I look at this - and this includes your comments - what I gather about this whole scenario is that a trainer isn't just responsible for their own actions, they are responsible for matters/people out of their own control. To me, that's not fair.
Tee Cee I have another question - I believe you told me once before that the NZ Court system doesn't normally entertain appeals from the JCA. Is this a hard and fast rule? I could have sworn that Lisa Cropp had something go through the courts a few years ago??
Posting Permissions