Concurrent OR Cumulative

[teecee]

Below is a partial transcript of a hearing of a breach of the prohibited substance rules.
The defendant pleads GUILTY
From what I have read here and in other related threads the defendant is a CHEAT.
Facts are facts we are told.
But are they? Can it be that not all people convicted under the drugs rules are in fact CHEATS?
IMO, some definitely are, some possibly are, some probably not, others definitely not.
IMO the rules are not catching the definitely ares. You and the general public are only hearing of the others.

Rules:

4004(1), (2) and (4)


Information Number:

63982 Informant

Mr NNNN - Racecourse Inspector


Repondent(s)/Other parties:

Mr AAAA


Decision:

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
UNDER THE RACING ACT 2003
AND IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Rules of Harness Racing
BETWEEN HARNESS RACING NEW ZEALAND
Informant
AND MR HHHH, Public Trainer
Defendant

Information: No. 63982
Judicial Committee: Prof (Chairman), (Member)
Appearing: Mr NNNN, Racecourse Inspector (for the informant)
Defendant: in person
Venue: RRRR Racecourse
Date of Hearing:
Date of Decision:
__________________________________________________ ___________________
DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE
__________________________________________________ ___________________
[1] Mr HHHH appears before this Judicial Committee on a charge of presenting a horse to race with a prohibited substance in its system in breach of Rule 1004(1), (2) and (4).
[2] These Rules, which are preceded by the heading “Prohibited Substance Rules”, read relevantly:
(1) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances.
(2) Where a horse is taken, or is to be taken, to a racecourse for the purpose of engaging in a race otherwise than in accordance with sub-rule (1) the trainer of the horse commits a breach of these Rules.
(4) A breach of these rules under sub-rule (2) … is committed regardless of the circumstances in which the prohibited substance came to be present in or on the horse.
[3] The penalties for a breach of these rules are set out in Rule 1004 which provides in subss (7) and (8):
(7) Every person who commits a breach of sub-rule (2) … shall be liable to:
(a) a fine not exceeding $10,000 and /or
(b) be disqualified or suspended from holding or obtaining a licence for any specific period not exceeding five years.
(8) Any horse connected with a breach of sub-rule (1) [or] (2) shall be disqualified from any race entered and/or liable to a period of disqualification not exceeding five years.
Mr HHHH has admitted the breach. We thus find the charge proved.
Penalty:



Decision as to penalty
[25] We fine Mr HHHH the sum of $450.
[26] In addition, we order pursuant to Rule 1004(8) that F***** L***** be disqualified from Race 10 at the T****** Harness Racing Club’s meeting on.
We further order that the placings be amended and that the stakes money be paid out accordingly.
[27] The matter has been heard on a raceday. There is no order for costs.


Okay Mr HHHH has admitted breaching the drugs rules. To many here is just another drugs cheat. He should be banned for life. He is the reason Harness racing is on its last legs.
OR IS there another reason.


Having read this post I have left a link to the full hearing and the full circumstances of his case.
You decide if he and EVERY Other person charged under the prohibited substance laws in either NZ or Australia is really infact a CHEAT.

[teecee]

A Cheat or not...the full story


http://www.jca.org.nz/non-race-day-h.../?searchterm=A Hunter*


PS..
The drug at the centre of this case has subsequently been removed from the list of prohibited substances!!

[trish]

Trish we are undoubtedly in challenging times but as Tony points out - we have always had cheats. We have lived with the nickname the Red Hots for decades. Whether we come out stronger or weaker I am unsure but I liken it to the sharemarket where for every expert predicting boom there is an expert predicting bust

Hi Kev .That is correct but not like it is now . The share market at least has good days . We predict doom if nothing is done and the figures support this . We're not saying that it is beyond help , but we see the grass roots people walking away . We see people dogging their mares , gear being sold off , tracks overgrowing , owners getting out . We hear the absolute disgust and hate that people have for the industry every time you talk to them . Once they're gone that's it .

[trish]

Having read this post I have left a link to the full hearing and the full circumstances of his case.
You decide if he and EVERY Other person charged under the prohibited substance laws in either NZ or Australia is really infact a CHEAT.

I never said all positive swabs were cheats , but even if you allowed for a couple of accidents in the feed barn its still over 60 in NSW and there can't be that many accidents

[teecee]

I think it is very clear even to the uninitiated that there is a clear and equivocal link by inference between people charged with breaches of the prohibited substance rules and the label of a Cheat on this forum.
Trish this is not directly related to you or your views. It is for all to consider what has been widesweeping generalised posts across the forum about Cheats and cheating.
While there may well be as you say 60 cases in NSW, I see nothing within those 60 cases to say how many are actually cheating or some other circumstance. a guilty plea is often the easiest way out when you cant prove or don't have the resources to prove circumstances. How many of these 60 show no consideration of the rules and are deserving of the heaviest sanctions applicable. How many actually are small time or hard working trainers who have the same sentiments as yourself and others on here who yearn for a level playing field,(whatever that means) but have been caught out by giving their horse too much of a prepared formula raising for example their TCO2 level.


There may be 60 positives in NSW and I agree there is most unlikely 60 or possibly even 30 (for the sake of numbers) accidents.
What is more likely is that neither you nor I anyone else contributing to this debate from either angle know how many are cheats and how many are not.
What is clear is that the majority of people contributing to this debate are of the view that the majority of people caught up in drugs charges are cheats and that is without any basis in fact. I say there is no basis in fact because the authorities have no need to prove an act of cheating even to get a conviction under the rules.
If they don't need the evidence and thus don't produce it, I ask where our contributors get their evidence of cheating from?

[Mister JayKO]

With respect the "Officer Barbrady" approach isn't going to fix the problem or the perception, if the Lance Armstrong case taught you nothing else other than you don't need a positive test to be a drug cheat then nothing will. Like many posters the industry needs to go cap in hand to the police and government authorities and ask for assistance in terms of prosecuting offenders on both levels. Too many good people are walking away because of the unfair playing field.

[Messenger]

Apart from the waste of resources that policing drugs necessitates it is the breeding angle that irks me the most - how can one know if apparent good family connections are kosher or corrupt?

Of course most sympathy has to go to honest toilers who suspect they are trailing in modified horses

I think those policing the sport have to be happy to be seen as the enemy - have it be known that we suspect everyone "so do not take offence"
We need more than retention barns before big races. We need a couple of roving stewards that attach themselves to whatever stable they wish for as long as they wish and who attach stable cameras for when they leave for the day

[trish]

I think it is very clear even to the uninitiated that there is a clear and equivocal link by inference between people charged with breaches of the prohibited substance rules and the label of a Cheat on this forum.
Trish this is not directly related to you or your views. It is for all to consider what has been widesweeping generalised posts across the forum about Cheats and cheating.
While there may well be as you say 60 cases in NSW, I see nothing within those 60 cases to say how many are actually cheating or some other circumstance. a guilty plea is often the easiest way out when you cant prove or don't have the resources to prove circumstances. How many of these 60 show no consideration of the rules and are deserving of the heaviest sanctions applicable. How many actually are small time or hard working trainers who have the same sentiments as yourself and others on here who yearn for a level playing field,(whatever that means) but have been caught out by giving their horse too much of a prepared formula raising for example their TCO2 level.


There may be 60 positives in NSW and I agree there is most unlikely 60 or possibly even 30 (for the sake of numbers) accidents.
What is more likely is that neither you nor I anyone else contributing to this debate from either angle know how many are cheats and how many are not.
What is clear is that the majority of people contributing to this debate are of the view that the majority of people caught up in drugs charges are cheats and that is without any basis in fact. I say there is no basis in fact because the authorities have no need to prove an act of cheating even to get a conviction under the rules.
If they don't need the evidence and thus don't produce it, I ask where our contributors get their evidence of cheating from?

Hi Tony . Years ago everyone gave their horses some bute after they raced to help them recover and eat . That would get them a positive today and no they are not cheats . A lot of trainers threw a handful of bi carb on their horses feed and still do but I don't consider them cheats . Most trainers give their horses something on race day whether it be vitamins or supplements. According to the rules they are breaking these rules but , still , I don't consider them cheats . We ALL know who the cheats are , even you . If it could be proved we wouldn't have these posts . Most of those 60 were just trying to keep up with the real cheats . A few nasties amongst them but generally these guys are desperate . Maybe it's just not so bad where you are

[Smoken]

And who knows what other drugs biochemists are creating that aren't traceable ATM... It never will end, not as long as there are human beings...

[2minuteman]

Great thinking Ron, I wonder weather it would be possible to come up with a maximum level for a red blood cell count, like they have with bi-card & cobalt.

Hi,Trish,this is apparently a major part of what is to be done.I can hear the reason for not doing it,"it will cost money!"as if the current situation is not.