BOOM.....McCarthy Positive.

[admin]

[QUOTE=Messenger;17269]

oops I never get as far as the 2nd paragraph - that is why I am reading a forum not books

ps And what was the answer on why I our Mods are not clearly identified?

I've been meaning to get around to this, will have something up about that soon. Not everything's perfect and we never claimed it was. We're doing our best, for example both TC and myself are in NZ, it's currently past 1am and we are answering your questions.

[Greg Hando]

On face value as 2 colt's tested pos on the same night and not either side make me suspicious of the test finding's so far.

[The Form Student]

What does he need to produce images of.
He says they should get their heads out....... making a suggestion
He does not say they have their heads in......they are in a pose..
to suggest an actioneven inappropriate to the event is not the same as stating a "Fact" without concrete evidence to back up the claim.
Consideration of his view in this case because he is a moderator is not relevant.

How can you say that "He says they should get their heads out......." is making a suggestion? He must believe they have them up there in the first place, whether that be factually or rhetorically! Your play on words is only a vehicle to direct criticism away when it suits! Nobody has made slanderous comments, they may be considered derogatory, that's all. Their opinion is being expressed, and as you say you might not like it, but really all you should do is gives your in return without playing the power game! The forum exists to hear what others have to say, yes we not all Rhode Scholars or QC's, so you are taking the correct denunciations too far!!!

What is happening here is that there is a wide spectrum of views about this one topic, some are taking the hard line, that is if a positive swab is announced, therefore guilt has been proven. There is the other view that they are innocent until proven guilty. Most would have an in between view. A mix-up with the swabs would be a terrible result.

Jamie, mentioned the "Colonel" (his suggestion not mine) knows more than he is able mention at present. Innuendo does not help matters either. What this does is fuel the various opinions that are being "spilled" on this forum. You have criticised some of the posters as not providing "factual" statements, but really all they are doing is expressing what they feel and think about the information provided to date. They are angry, because this great sport is being denigrated to it's core. They don't want that, a level playing field is what everyone wants. Every additional bit of bad publicity is hurting everyone, whether eventually found to be true or otherwise. Mud sticks, it is time to draw a line in the sand!

Yes, they should have their day in court, and yes the story will unfold to it's conclusion, and yes everybody is entitled to their opinion! There are also a lot of people sitting on the fence, not sure what to think or feel, just waiting for the next episode!

You don't have to be so heavy handed! Keep control.....but in a nice way!!!

[broncobrad]

Hey Greg, these are the scenarios I have come up with:-

1/ The horses have come into contact with a food product/feed additive. Possible
2/ The entires are naturally producing higher levels of boldenone greater than the allowable threshold. Almost impossible.
3/ The testing of the horses is flawed when collecting samples. Unlikely.
4/ The samples have somehow been contaminated. Likely
5/ The testing equipment is faulty. Highly likely.
6/ The animals have been administered boldenone. Unpalatable

Any other ideas

[The Form Student]

Yes, They are both entered in the Mr Australia Body Building Titles!!!!!

[The Form Student]

Just heard, they are both late acceptors for the Lightning Stakes on saturday, to take on Black Caviar.

[teecee]

How can you say that "He says they should get their heads out......." is making a suggestion? He must believe they have them up there in the first place, whether that be factually or rhetorically! Your play on words is only a vehicle to direct criticism away when it suits!
I am not here to make decisions about what the writer believes nor for that matter are you. I am only interested in what he writes here.

Nobody has made slanderous comments, they may be considered derogatory, that's all.
There is no legal difference in the two terms you choose. A derogatory statement is slanderous and sanctionable under the law.

Their opinion is being expressed, and as you say you might not like it, but really all you should do is gives your in return without playing the power game! The forum exists to hear what others have to say, yes we not all Rhode Scholars or QC's, so you are taking the correct denunciations too far!!!
This is a public forum owned by a private company. It is my position to ensure that the views expressed on here are not legally sanctionable nor endanger the forum, its members nor the company who own it Simply put, yes they are allowed to express a view but not in a way which is offensive to nor denigrating the character of other persons.

What is happening here is that there is a wide spectrum of views about this one topic, some are taking the hard line, that is if a positive swab is announced, therefore guilt has been proven. There is the other view that they are innocent until proven guilty. Most would have an in between view. A mix-up with the swabs would be a terrible result.

Jamie, mentioned the "Colonel" (his suggestion not mine) knows more than he is able mention at present. Innuendo does not help matters either. What this does is fuel the various opinions that are being "spilled" on this forum. You have criticised some of the posters as not providing "factual" statements, but really all they are doing is expressing what they feel and think about the information provided to date. They are angry, because this great sport is being denigrated to it's core. They don't want that, a level playing field is what everyone wants. Every additional bit of bad publicity is hurting everyone, whether eventually found to be true or otherwise. Mud sticks, it is time to draw a line in the sand!

Yes, they should have their day in court, and yes the story will unfold to it's conclusion, and yes everybody is entitled to their opinion! There are also a lot of people sitting on the fence, not sure what to think or feel, just waiting for the next episode!

You don't have to be so heavy handed! Keep control.....but in a nice way!!!

The remainder of this post has no relevance to my postwhich you have chosen to comment against.

[racefair]

[QUOTE=Triple V;17218]G'day all,

As we all know, a couple of days ago an announcement was made that Luke McCarthy had scored a Boldenone positive...and then somewhat predictably, all Hell broke loose here on this Forum.

Earlier today it came to pass that Barry Lew also has a positive, scored on same night at the same track for the same substance and yet, just as I predicted on the day that the announcement about Luke was made, so far not so much as a peep from those who a couple of days ago rather publicly & en masse sought to damn Luke to Hell for his alleged transgression.

Now I'm not wanting the roof to similarly fall in on Barry in the way it did on Luke, not at all. Far from it. Anything like that would be just as big a disgrace as this very thread has periodically been since it was started by the now banned 'Stonie' aka (fill in multiple ID's here).

Rather what I am endeavouring to highlight here is the absolutely disgraceful, duplicitous nature of the way in which positives for various/respective Trainers are apparently being met by some sections of the Industry here in NSW.

If it's Luke McCarthy, clearly the Peanut Gallery has been lying in wait for him and they're all over him like starving seagulls swooping on a bucket of hot chips, the due process of it all be damned. Now that Barry has also been mentioned in dispatches and..........well, you could hear a pin drop.

Apparently in the Court of Public Opinion....some get hung, some get a pass ?.

Apparently the reaction depends wholly and solely on who you are, how often you're beating your opposition and where you sit on the Premiership Table.

Apparently...it has/there is a HUGE jealousy component to it as well.

SCALE & COMPLEXITY
Hi Jamie, I'm unsure why you don't understand the mixed reaction. LM is winning around 60% of the races that he enters. So any trainer has less than 50% chance of winning a race when they see LM as trainer in their race. Now that's no reason to be jealous or upset, however LM couples this with extraordinary improvements in record time. This radical improvement has a lot thinking that it's unnatural and has to be due to the use of performance enhancing drugs, whether they be legal, illegal or undetectable. The crowd has gone crazy because the positive for LM on Boldenene proves to them that he's treating his horses and in a way or form that is beating the system. Barry Lew doesn't win as many races and his wins aren't in the same extraordinary fashion.
People are emotional for a few reasons; they have been slandered on this forum and elsewhere as jealous and poor trainers with names like peanut gallery and this positive would seem to open the door on confirming their thoughts around the reasons why LM gets horses to fly.

[David Summers]

[QUOTE=Messenger;17269]

And what was the answer on why I our Mods are not clearly identified?

It's hardly a secret. Make sure you are logged on , then click on the Quick Links dropdown at the top of the page and select View Forum Leaders.

[Triple V]

So, forgive me if I'm wrong does that mean when triple says our game's administrators should get their heads out of their arses ( see yearling sales threrad) should he include digital images of people with their heads up their arse? or would a "stat dec" suffice? or alternatively, can we take triples word for it because he's a moderator?

Just trying to clear up the rules TC

Cheers,
Dan

[VVV] G'day Dan,

That's a fair question.
The fact is that you, I and everyone else is free to bag the Hell out of the administration of Harness Racing in this or any other Country in the same way as we can line up on Federal Labor, the Australian Soccer Federation, Coal Seam Gass Miners etc etc etc. I've bagged the Hell out of the JCA in NZ for example.
In that fashion no one person is named/singled out/ identified and so no one person can be deemed as having been defamed. In the same fashion you also cannot defame a Company nor someone who is now dead. (Harold Holt was a Russian Spy etc etc.) Here's a rather helpful link. I like reading such things anyway. Hope it's of interest.

http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/...n.html#defpubl