Epo positive

[broncobrad]

Still Triple, why would you try to stop the B sample being tested. Its way above me.

[teecee]

[QUOTE=broncobrad;19266]Can only assume my last comment was removed because I didn't show the source. Harnesslink website posted 7.47am

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=96370
Correct...thanks for that.

[broncobrad]

[QUOTE=teecee;19272]

Can only assume my last comment was removed because I didn't show the source. Harnesslink website posted 7.47am

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=96370
Correct...thanks for that.

Teecee, I should have known it was you. You would think I would have learnt by now.

Cheers

[Triple V]

Still Triple, why would you try to stop the B sample being tested. Its way above me.

[VVV] No idea. I don't know very much about the current state of equine EPO testing.
Followed it closely for a fair while when they were first developing it in Canada but I suspect things have moved on a very long way since then.
Whatever the line of thinking, everyone is of course entitled to use any & all legal means at their disposal to defend themselves against charges made in any arena...be it criminal, civil or public.

[Thevoiceofreason]

Still Triple, why would you try to stop the B sample being tested. Its way above me.

Brad

The way the rules are worded I think provides the answer, the first finding provides is only prima facie evidence where as the second test provides conclusive evidence, so if you are successful in not having the second test carried out there is no conclusive evidence. With a case involving EPO this is a significant difference.

There is a current case in Victoria( not harness) where one lab has found a substance no other lab has the technology to find it and therefore confirm it, with no confirmation in that case there are significant doubts it will proceed.

191. (1) A certificate from a person or drug testing laboratory approved by the Controlling Body which certifies the presence of a prohibited substance in or on a horse at, or approximately at, a particular time, or in blood, urine, saliva, or other matter or sample or specimen tested, or that a prohibited substance had at some time been administered to a horse is prima facie evidence of the matters certified.

(2) If another person or drug testing laboratory approved by the controlling body analyses a portion of the sample or specimen referred to in sub rule (1) and certifies the presence of a prohibited substance in the sample or specimen that certification together with the certification referred to in sub rule (1) is conclusive evidence of the presence of a prohibited substance.

I hope this helps

[broncobrad]

Thanks Bill, it certainly does help. Like Triple said the defendants are certainly entitled to take what ever legal avenue to protect their own interests and they sought to do so. I know NOTHING about the law, but if the defendants can create enough doubt about the first samples validity by what ever means possible and could have excluded the B sample as a measuring stick, it certainly would have placed them at a distinct advantage. To have the second sample confirmed, places their case in a very weak position now.

In my post which was removed (but has now re-appeared this afternoon after work), I touched on reasons that I thought may have been valid points that could be argued in a court of law, as to not accepting the findings of the B sample from another independant laboratory. The one thing I did not say was, if the B sample was not legally admissable for what ever reason their legal defence team argued, it would have left HRNSW looking pretty amateurish and not much ammunition.

But to their credit they have been extremely professional in their actions to present as water-tight as possible, a case that will be very hard to toss out.

Takes balls, maybe HRNSW are starting to grow some. (Apologies to the females within the organisation).

HRNSW integrity mob have stated how seriously they view this situation, in the issuing and wording of the charges.. I think the Sherriff has ridden into town...

[Thevoiceofreason]

Thanks Bill, it certainly does help. Like Triple said the defendants are certainly entitled to take what ever legal avenue to protect their own interests and they sought to do so. I know NOTHING about the law, but if the defendants can create enough doubt about the first samples validity by what ever means possible and could have excluded the B sample as a measuring stick, it certainly would have placed them at a distinct advantage. To have the second sample confirmed, places their case in a very weak position now.

In my post which was removed (but has now re-appeared this afternoon after work), I touched on reasons that I thought may have been valid points that could be argued in a court of law, as to not accepting the findings of the B sample from another independant laboratory. The one thing I did not say was, if the B sample was not legally admissable for what ever reason their legal defence team argued, it would have left HRNSW looking pretty amateurish and not much ammunition.

But to their credit they have been extremely professional in their actions to present as water-tight as possible, a case that will be very hard to toss out.

Takes balls, maybe HRNSW are starting to grow some. (Apologies to the females within the organisation).

HRNSW integrity mob have stated how seriously they view this situation, in the issuing and wording of the charges.. I think the Sherriff has ridden into town...

In all honesty both HRNSW and the GHRRA before them have been doing that for a long time, really tackling integrity issues head on.

People make remarks about lost appeals ect but in the end you have to remember that only a very small number of the stewards findings go to appeal so that even if 50% of these are altered in some way in real terms there are so many findings that actually stand unchanged.

HRNSW stewards for example gave Geoff Small 2 years for a positive swab the biggest penalty ever imposed on him when Changeover won the Len Smith, he appealed, found a deficiency in the wording of the rule, well that is how one judge found it in NSW, other states had different findings over a similar drug, regardless the rule wording was then changed, so a win for all in some way because the same defense can now not be run again.

[Triple V]

POINT OF ORDER MR. SPEAKER!!!!!

Geeze VOR...mate, now and again you really know how to push the right button.

I'm going to have to take issue with part of the above...in particular the emboldened bit in the following...

QUOTE [In all honesty both HRNSW and the GHRRA before them have been doing that for a long time, really tackling integrity issues head on.] END QUOTE

Now VOR, if the thankfully now defunct GHRRA were indeed as keen on tackling Integrity issues & upholding same as you've suggest there, casual observers such as myself are left ponder why, upon its demise, did it see fit to not only point blank refuse to/completely fail to pass on to the incoming hierarchy of HRNSW the exact state of play re: the exact amount/s of fines/monies outstanding, in each case noting the person/s responsible and including all agreements/arrangements they'd made with said persons relating to time payment of fines etc. which had been made under their (the GHRRA's) watch...but go on to call in IT Troops and delete virtually all if not all the electronic records of same? Call it an unfortunate procedural oversight if you will, call me a dreadful cynic if you must...but whatever way anyone cares to look at it, they don't appear much like the actions of an organization with Integrity at the very core of their being.

[Thevoiceofreason]

POINT OF ORDER MR. SPEAKER!!!!!

Geeze VOR...mate, now and again you really know how to push the right button.

I'm going to have to take issue with part of the above...in particular the emboldened bit in the following...

QUOTE [In all honesty both HRNSW and the GHRRA before them have been doing that for a long time, really tackling integrity issues head on.] END QUOTE

Now VOR, if the thankfully now defunct GHRRA were indeed as keen on tackling Integrity issues & upholding same as you've suggest there, casual observers such as myself are left ponder why, upon its demise, did it see fit to not only point blank refuse to/completely fail to pass on to the incoming heirachy of HRNSW the exact state of play re: the exact amount/s of fines/monies outstanding, in each case noting the person/s responsible and including all agreements/arrangements they'd made with said persons relating to time payment of fines etc. which had been made under their (the GHRRA's) watch...but go on to call in IT Troops and delete virtually all if not all the electronic records of same? Call it an unfortunate procedural oversight if you will, call me a dreadful cynic if you must...but whatever way anyone cares to look at it, they don't appear much like the actions of an organisation with Intergity at the very core of their being.

Now triple V lets not call a spade a shovel.

If as you suggest what happened did if fact happen and I am not as fully convinced as you that it did.

One thing John Coughlan did was chase a dollar there were many added to the forfiet list in his time for unpaid fines and that list an the amount were very public knowledge, I have also been told of some people who were on the forfeit list for unpaid fines imposed under GHRRA control who had to settle the amounts before being licenced by HRNSW.so clearly some information got through,

However having said that you and I both know that the Government of the time quickly put in its own people to oversea the changeover to HRNSW the CEO of the GHRRA walked out the door in February 2009 the changeover happened on July 1 2009, so any decision to muddy the agreements/ arrangement or any information were made by a much higher body than the GHRRA officials or its board. That as you know that is a horse of an entirely different color.

We agree on many things but I have come to realise that the performance of the GHRRA as a regulatory body is not one of them, I admit they had as all police forces do their issues but I continue to think not as badly of them as some. Having said that I continue to wrap the current structure and think they are doing a sterling job, including if not limited to cleaning up the image of the sport by perusing the multiple personalities that purport to be different people on this forum, it is brilliant to see such a new approach.

[Triple V]

You know that's very close to a non-denial...denial.
The time line mentioned makes sense VOR, no doubt there either. The Fox has been flushed from the bushes.
I'm still somewhat perplexed however.
If that was the case (as in the time line) ..and I've no reason to doubt you...it would seem to suggest not only had there been initial OLGR involvement in the GHRRA's creation but moreso that their guiding hand fell even heavier upon its subsequent winding up? This of course being an organisation that was at the time, just as its successor has been, very widely & loudly touted as being Independent of Government. Surely not? How could this be? Perish the thought. Surely as an Independent entity...it would've wound itself up?
It's all getting rather unpleasant huh?
By way of henceforth showing good form and not drawing any unreasonable conclusions nor parallels with days gone by and now... let us once again choose not to make too much of a fuss over OLGR's rather shameless initial vetting of all the current Board applications prior to them being handed to the current Minister.
I can hear the exchange now...
Minister:"Ah yes, this ---- chap...a good cut of a fellow, he looks to be a very suitable candidate"
OLGR: "A courageous decision indeed Minister, a courageous decision indeed".

As we know...for Harness Racing here in NSW, it is Independent of Government all the way......(please send all Sydney Habour Bridge purchase inquiries via PM)

In closing, you may or may not have noticed that OLGR have apparently only recently re-named themselves ILGA...with the 'I' standing for...wait for it...hold onto your sides now...that's right, 'Independent'.bahahahahahaha. http://www.ilga.nsw.gov.au/
Honestly. These guys should be writing material for Jerry Seinfeld.
This is of course not to be confused with http://ilga.org/, a website offering a completely different viewpoint upon life's rich tapestry.