Karloo kix ok to race, pending enquiry

[The Form Student]

Next question.......as the 2 positives were on the same night....is this a coincidence or is there a common denominator between the stables?

[teecee]

One question can be answered.
He was not charged and therefore not convicted of administering it himself.
The charge is "Presenting the horse to race with a prohibited substance at a level exceeding the threshold....".
I agree the information they give out after inquiries is minimal.

[aussiebreno]

One question can be answered.
He was not charged and therefore not convicted of administering it himself.
The charge is "Presenting the horse to race with a prohibited substance at a level exceeding the threshold....".
I agree the information they give out after inquiries is minimal.

The charge is only that because in the great majority of cases that can stick but actually proving the trainer administered it themselves would be nigh on impossible.

[broncobrad]

One question can be answered.
He was not charged and therefore not convicted of administering it himself.
The charge is "Presenting the horse to race with a prohibited substance at a level exceeding the threshold....".
I agree the information they give out after inquiries is minimal.

Yes, thats true Teecee, but the inquiry should atleast address how the levels may have been exceeded, what the likely causes were, even if this could be used as a future reference for trainers that may find themselves in a similar situation. I am just hopeful more information is disseminated in the not too distant future.

These guys want integrity back in the sport...well be professional and give more quantifying reports, not just little press releases that tell us bugger all. This finding does nothing more than find Barry guilty of a charge and paints him in a bad light in full glare of the public, regardless of how the levels were exceeded, whether knowing or unknowingly.

[teecee]

That is so true. And guess what, that rule is one of "strict liability"..!!!!
Gosh I didn't think they had rules like that there.
Gosh, lots of people told me Oz dont have rules like that and we shouldn't have them either.
Well it seems that NSW does>>!!

190. (1)A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.
(2) If a horse is presented for a race otherwise than in accordance with sub rule (1) the trainer of the horse is guilty of an offence.
(4) An offence 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.
!!!

[Thevoiceofreason]

Yes, thats true Teecee, but the inquiry should atleast address how the levels may have been exceeded, what the likely causes were, even if this could be used as a future reference for trainers that may find themselves in a similar situation. I am just hopeful more information is disseminated in the not too distant future.

These guys want integrity back in the sport...well be professional and give more quantifying reports, not just little press releases that tell us bugger all. This finding does nothing more than find Barry guilty of a charge and paints him in a bad light in full glare of the public, regardless of how the levels were exceeded, whether knowing or unknowingly.

Brad the main reason that more information is not provided in positive swab case is simple. Trainers or at least 99.9% of them go in with the same defence, that is I have no idea how it got there sir, no idea at all.

The simple facts are that short of an admission of administration the only rule that can be used is presenting a horse to race, as has already been quoted.

This is not confined to Harness Racing nor is it confined to NSW and it is the reason the rules are written in the way they are now worded. throughout most horse racing jurisdictions, proving administration is nigh on impossible.

Prohibited substance breaches are as already pointed out ones of strict liability so you present the horse with a prohibited substance in its system you are guilty of an offence regardless of how the horse got the substance, it is as simple as that.

You are asking the stewards to provide you with information they simply in most cases do not have, because most trainers will not fess up.

[The Form Student]

Brad the main reason that more information is not provided in positive swab case is simple. Trainers or at least 99.9% of them go in with the same defence that is I have no idea how it got there sir no idea at all.

The simple facts are this short of an admission of administration the only rule that is used is presenting a horse to race as has already been quoted.

This is not confined to Harness Racing nor is it confined to NSW and it is the reason the rules are written in the way they are now worded.

Prohibited substance breaches are as already pointed out one of strict liability so you present the horse with a prohibited substance in its system you are guilty of an offence regardless of how the horse got the substance it is as simple as that.

You are asking the stewards to provide you with information they simply in most cases do not have because most trainers will not fess up.

I think that the least they can advise is the actual level of substance measured in both the A & B samples as per the respective laboratories! Therefore, the level will be above the threshold, and therefore the case is proven........in every enquiry the trainer/owner etc. would be advised of the actual laboratory measurement!

[Ardvark]

Brad the main reason that more information is not provided in positive swab case is simple. Trainers or at least 99.9% of them go in with the same defence, that is I have no idea how it got there sir, no idea at all.

There will definitely be an appeal out of this one would think.

VOR....how could you possible know what defence trainers use? Aren't swab inquiries closed court til they go to appeal??

[Thevoiceofreason]

There will definitely be an appeal out of this one would think.

VOR....how could you possible know what defence trainers use? Aren't swab inquiries closed court til they go to appeal??

As I said in 99.9% of cases that is the defence I did not say or even hint it was the defence used in this case.

Read the appeal findings ... The judge will usually review the evidence " the trainer does not know how it got there".

[Thevoiceofreason]

I think that the least they can advise is the actual level of substance measured in both the A & B samples as per the respective laboratories! Therefore, the level will be above the threshold, and therefore the case is proven........in every enquiry the trainer/owner etc. would be advised of the actual laboratory measurement!

Unfortunately Steve you may be wrong there, I am far from being an analyst however what they will tell you is that swab findings provide what is refereed to a Qualitative Analysis not a Quantitative.

TCO2 cases are different because there is an allowable threshold and perhaps Boldenone also fits into this category because it too has a threshold as I understand it, but in general terms there is not a level provided.