Kevin, you obviously totally miss the point I am trying to make with regards treatment of horses. The facts are one of HRNSW platforms for introducing a limit is animal welfare. The facts are, and HRNSW own research shows it that a horse treated with an approved supplement if tested close to treatment will get over 200 so the animal welfare line added to examples like Luda, the animal welfare angle is just a big furfee, used to justify ones argument.
Quite frankly I have no time for any of Patrick Bartley's articles. I personally do not think he even likes racing. To start with why would Racing NSW appoint a judge to the hearing. I will give you the tip, its because of the current Supreme Court case with McDowell and Day, not as he states the seriousness of the charges. Who would have thought that Racing NSW would want to make sure their decisions were legally binding.
Rick I am not sure how you maintain that performance is not relevant?? I suggest you read HRNSW penalty guidelines.
http://www.harness.org.au/news-artic...?news_id=18370
Their penalty guidelines even state that it is relevant!!
I think it is important that the stewards understand their role. Their job is to enforce the rules as they stand. When stewards step outside and there have been plenty of cases in the past of stewards doing this, normally for the wrong reason but they are also responsible to enforce the rules for the perceived reason. If one innocent person is punished because of the lack of research and evidence I am sorry that is too much for me.
Notwithstanding the issue of improved performance etc. the penalty simply doesn't fit the crime. US trainer got a number of days, Kevin Moses pleaded not guilty - 12 months, Harness Racing in NSW, plead guilty and get 2.5 to 3 years, why the big difference?? If you read the penalty guidelines and tell me how Cobalt given as a vitamin supplement is a Class 1 then, ask yourself why??