Roll With Joe
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: brendan's issue with moderating

  1. #1
    Senior Member Stallion aussiebreno is just really nice aussiebreno is just really nice
    Real Name
    Brendan Bryce
    Posts
    2,798

    brendan's issue with moderating

    While you ask for emotion to be left out of it I find it very humiliating, belittling and condescending that you toy with the idea of rubbing it in people's faces that they ate humble pie and even had to offer a retraction when 'common sense' prevailed.
    With Boldenone there was in fact a positive swab for Barry Lew that he served 6 months for.
    It is also concerning that you are quick to condemn those who offer resistance to the usage of prohibited and possibly harmful substances, yet when there is a defence of prohibited substances you turn a blind eye. I point to this thread where HRNZ and Mightymo have said Boldenone is naturally occuring with no basis to back those words up. (HRNZ and mighty I could well be correct in what they say, I only bring it up to point out no science was linked to support it, which is Teecees gripe) http://www.harnessracingforum.com/sh...denone&p=30309

    Now back to the common sense comment of yours. As per the above hyperlink, you will see a post of mine that links to a article that talks about one of your beloved scientific studies. (You now have to register to the site to view the article.) That study says boldenone is not naturally occuring. So as for boldenone being found in Mach Wipers sample...there was not one iota of 'common sense' behind that. The consensus at the conclusion of the saga was that nobody anywhere in the whole world has any idea what was happening with that sample. Yes McCarthy was correctly found not guilty, because to condemn on the basis of that weird sample wouldn't have been fair to McCarthy, it wasn't a normal sample and couldn't be determined McCarthy presented a horse to race with a prohibited substance. Innocent, nobody knows how the boldenone got in that sample. So to call it common sense and rub it up the noses of people is a fair dinkum insult to some people on this forum.

    It is also disappointing with your legal knowledge and hush hush persona that you mention a retraction in your post, yet bait Danno into possibly sharing information that could get him in the shit.
    Last edited by teecee; 03-23-2014 at 09:07 AM. Reason: quote deleted

  2. #2
    Senior Member Stallion aussiebreno is just really nice aussiebreno is just really nice
    Real Name
    Brendan Bryce
    Posts
    2,798
    You talk about a common sense conclusion. There was another common sense conclusion, that Mach Wiper was indeed presented to race with a prohibited substance. There was a period of time Luke McCarthy was found guilty. I for one, and others on and outside this forum held back on criticism of McCarthy until the guilty verdict was handed down. This was a common sense conclusion before possibly the worlds weirdest and non sensical sample became public knowledge. So, there was a time when both common sense and the law said McCarthy was guilty, where I and others said stuff that at the time made perfect sense. For you to catch us out for not foreseeing such a strange sample and infer me and others lacked common sense is, as I said before, humiliating, belittling and condescending.
    Not a defence of prohibited substances in the legal definition, but rather the laymans definition of protection. I view what mightmo posted as making a point as to why boldenone had been found in some samples (is this right Harvey, you were asked in the thread but offered up no answer). This is a protection and in support/defence of those who have had boldenone positives come back from the lab. You let a pretty big possibly gamechanging statement that was made as absolute fact slip through to the keeper. You can't dispute that. It's a bit rough that you allow unsourced inaccuracies that favour one side of the argument but come down with the fury of a Barry Hall uppercut on the other side of the argument. It has nothing to do with your personal view, rather the moderating you do to others opinions on each side of the argument does not appear to be balanced as you say. We are only human so I understand you can't catch everything but please don't deny.

    Yes Danno baited and I guess you were entitled a right of reply, but the consequences of baiting him are much more severe and two wrongs don't make a right. I don't think the spirit of this thread or forum is to see other members in trouble with the law. As for claiming knowledge vs publishing knowledge. If he just claims it, who is going to be offended to start civil action and then make it stick, and why are any cops going to waste time on a petty charge that probably wouldn't stick criminally? If he publishes it it is another story, there is a victim who can take offence. I am sure Danno can stick up for himself though without my help!
    Last edited by teecee; 03-23-2014 at 09:00 AM. Reason: quote deleted

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Horse Of The Year mightymo will become famous soon enough
    Real Name
    Harvey Kaplan
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    647
    Horses
    Bling It On, Nike Franco, Cruz Bromac
    Aussiebreno

    I really do not want to rehash the whole Boldenone/McCarthy argument again. However, the one thing that is certain and scientifically proven(and there are plenty references regarding this) is that BOLDENONE IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING SUBSTANCE IN STALLIONS(that's why there is a threshold for it)

    http://www.afsca.be/comitescientifiq...rsuspected.pdf

    Please read top of page 6 in particular

  4. #4
    Senior Member Stallion aussiebreno is just really nice aussiebreno is just really nice
    Real Name
    Brendan Bryce
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by mightymo View Post
    Aussiebreno

    I really do not want to rehash the whole Boldenone/McCarthy argument again. However, the one thing that is certain and scientifically proven(and there are plenty references regarding this) is that BOLDENONE IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING SUBSTANCE IN STALLIONS(that's why there is a threshold for it)

    http://www.afsca.be/comitescientifiq...rsuspected.pdf

    Please read top of page 6 in particular
    Thanks Harvey. Just to be clear my issue wasn't with your post, but rather how it was moderated in comparison to other posts. I am grateful for the link though and echo thoughts re not wanting to discuss boldenone. I just want a balanced judgement and fair go for what people have to say.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator Horse Of The Year teecee has a spectacular aura about teecee's Avatar
    Real Name
    Tony Cahill
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    821
    This thread is about the issue of Cobalt chloride. It is not for a rehash of the Boldenone issue. That was used solely for comparative purposes but seems to have used to take the thread away on a tangent.
    That tangent has seen posts here that are not related to the issue and in some cases are directed solely to personalities. (Reason to delete Stick to the issues).
    As this has happened due to Brendan posting an objection to what I wrote and his views of me rather than the issue (No mention of the term Cobalt Chloride at all) I will delete my posts and and associated reference quotes and hope that this thread can be returned to the issue.
    Last edited by teecee; 03-23-2014 at 09:14 AM.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator Horse Of The Year teecee has a spectacular aura about teecee's Avatar
    Real Name
    Tony Cahill
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    821

    Brendan's issue with Moderating

    It is also concerning that you are quick to condemn those who offer resistance to the usage of prohibited and possibly harmful substances, yet when there is a defence of prohibited substances you turn a blind eye. I point to this thread where HRNZ and Mightymo have said Boldenone is naturally occuring with no basis to back those words up. (HRNZ and mighty I could well be correct in what they say, I only bring it up to point out no science was linked to support it, which is Teecees gripe) http://www.harnessracingforum.com/sh...denone&p=30309




    Thanks Harvey. Just to be clear my issue wasn't with your post, but rather how it was moderated in comparison to other posts. I am grateful for the link though and echo thoughts re not wanting to discuss boldenone. I just want a balanced judgement and fair go for what people have to say.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator Horse Of The Year teecee has a spectacular aura about teecee's Avatar
    Real Name
    Tony Cahill
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    821
    Brendan it has taken me a while to get my head around why you have concerns with how this was moderated. Specifically with respect to providing Scientific proof or for that matter any supporting evidence. I hope I can clear it up in relation to this post anyway.


    Firstly......
    Harvey has presented an article copied from the website of the NZ Harness Racing trainers and drivers association. The article expresses the personal views of a third party writer..(NZHRTD secretary). Harvey has simply presented the article seeking comment with providing an opinion either way. He is not barracking for one position nor the other. He doesn't need to provide evidence to back up someone else's views. They are not expressed as his. The article is posted for discussion.


    Secondly......
    The article produced by Harvey was written by somebody else not related to this forum. He did not produce the article primarily or otherwise for this forum, rather for members of his own organisation. He is not therefore expected to provide any supporting evidence to back up his views on that forum (NZHRTDA). This is akin to a member copying an article from a newspaper to the forum. The copied article would be supporting evidence of the poster's opinion. (as in required by the forum's rules). The author of the original article nor the poster doesn't need to produce backup evidence of their backup evidence.

  8. #8
    Super Moderator Horse Of The Year teecee has a spectacular aura about teecee's Avatar
    Real Name
    Tony Cahill
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    821
    The above is a response to the concerned expressed by Aussiebrenno with regard to how a post was moderator relative to others.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Stallion aussiebreno is just really nice aussiebreno is just really nice
    Real Name
    Brendan Bryce
    Posts
    2,798
    From the cobalt thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by teecee View Post
    It seems that this thread is full from start to end with numerous "inaccuracies" even despite the official releases on the subject by governing bodies.
    Cobalt Chloride exists in several feed preparations. It is also to occur naturally as a trace element. Hence those governing bodies with real concerns and given some thought to the initial concerns and pending further substantive studies have placed a threshold level on its presence in test samples.
    The presence of cobalt chloride in a test sample is not a positive swab.


    As HRNSW have been at pains to state their has been no "Positive" detections by them. They have actively refuted the claims of others of 6 positive tests within their jurisdiction.
    They are the only body currently testing for excesses in Cobalt Chloride.


    The claims being made by others in the media and on this forum are not, therefore substantiated.
    This thread remains open in the interim pending some substantiation of the claims made. If that is not possible then move on
    .
    Why the need for this then. Harveys didn't need substantiation, yet articles posted by Barney, trish & Danno did?

  10. #10
    Senior Member Stallion aussiebreno is just really nice aussiebreno is just really nice
    Real Name
    Brendan Bryce
    Posts
    2,798
    Deary me I've just had a lightbulb. Harveys comments aren't potentially threatening to the website owners, yet the other opinions and linked articles are. Nothing wrong with that of course.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts