That does not still explain the stark comparisons in fines, suspensions and disqualifications between the gallopers / greyhounds and the harness code.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Ortensia got a GP1 taken off her last year. I believe she is still with the same trainer. Imagine running 2nd to her in a GP 1 a week after the lack of suspension was handed out despite a guilty verdict.
I completely disagree, and I think its a harness racing mentality. It doesn't even make the newspaper when a greyhound trainer gets a positive most times neither will it with the gallopers. But we have articles and articles, newspaper time, radio time etc even for Joe Blow who trains 5 horses and got a high TC02 or a positive to bute. THAT is what tarnishes out sport, the ridiculous media coverage on positive swabs and our completely unfair and far too lengthy suspensions and disqualifications that are so easily given at a drop of a hat. I think the gallopers are particularly professional in dealing with positives and I wish our code would follow their suit. Our sport comes off worse because our guys get a disqualification where the galloping and greyhound folk get a fine or perhaps a suspension not to mention when a harness trainer gets a positive it is headline news. If a galloping guy gets a positive it does not tarnish the whole galloping code - why should it with the harness code?
Two wrongs don't a make a right. Just because gallops sweep it under the carpet doesn't make it right.
Suspensions and disqualifications given so easily at a drop of a hat???? Heck Geoff Small is still fighting charges laid in 1994 (exageration)
My comments were also in regards to the fact that chemists can tell when a substance no longer has ANY affect on a horse, despite still be present, in some form or another, in their system. Why should someone potentially loose their livelihood when they were gaining no advantage in the race in anyway shape or form? How is that cheating the system, the punters, the other trainers, whoever else you mentioned, if no advantage is actually received? The idiot who decides to use bute the day of a race, well now that is another story - he's a fool and deserves some sort of disqualification. I would regard that as cheating the punters, owners, other trainers etc as you have outlined. If Australian harness racing wants a drug free policy - fair enough, I respect that. But don't hand out the same punishment when the substance in question had no affect on one horse, due to a longer withdrawal, than the other, who was administered a substance (the same or another, doesn't matter etc) close enough that an unfair disadvantage will be obtained in a race. Further, another thing for thought. For years vets have told trainers the withdrawal in Australia for Banamine/Flunixin is 72 hours. They now say 96. Why? Because it took a few people getting positives, who THOUGHT they were playing by the rules, following withdrawal times, to get positives. Testing is getting more advanced which means substances can be detected for a lot longer in a horse's system than they use to be. I do not have a problem with that, I 100% support advances in testing. What I have a problem with is these very people now have a tarnished record yet they have tried to play by the rules - and in some cases loose their licence. Several years ago now, but injectable bute was a 5 day withdrawal - now its 6 and some vets will even say 7. Do you know why? As above! Advances in testing that gave a handful of people positives which inturn increases withdrawal times.
I said at the start of my post I am being general, shouldnt have used DMSO as the example as it wasnt talking about one drug in particular.. The rules are in place, like it or lump it, a trainer must play by those rules and if he/she doesn't trainers, punters, owners will feel ripped off. Also, hypothetical here. What if a drug to get rid of a virus stops working after 12 hours yet stays in the system for 3 days. You mistake your calculations and give it to the horse 2 days beforehand. You might not be gaining the advantage of the drug at race time....but had that drug not been given would your horse have been able to compete or would it have been in back in its stable sick???
Another thing I also disagree with is the presumption of GUILT with positive swabs. You say a trainer who gets a positive must have been negligent. In our criminal justice system, there is a presumption of innocence until one is proven guilty and one must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (99.9%). The prosecutor must prove guilt and the defendant can raise defences on the balance of probabilities (51%) that the prosecutor must then negate beyond a reasonable doubt (99.9%). This onus is reversed in the racing industry. Why? Why cannot we have the same standard we hold so important in our CJS? Further, the second or horseman's swab - if that comes back clear, I believe that whole matter should be dropped. But I personally know that that has not been the case for a number of people. Sure, their disqualification/suspension/fines may be reduced but they are still punished. Why is that? If one swab is positive and one is negative - why can't the trainer get the benefit of the doubt? Or must everyone be punished "just in case" they really did do something? There is a saying I learnt earlier on in my degree that better 10 guilty men go free than an innocent man go to gaol. Obviously the scenario is slightly different here, no-one is being locked up - but their training record is tarnished.
I meant been found guilty.
Positive swab = evidence just like DNA, fingerprints to me anyway (You have to remember not everyone in the Harness Racing industry has a law degree). And if the 2nd swab came back negative I thought Lance was in the clear anyway? :s
I disagree with your saying. Individuals in the scope of the whole world are very unimportant. One individual sacraficed for 10 individuals plus the people their crimes impacted on is worth that sacrafice of one individual. It happens in the animal kingdom, one of the herd often sacrafices themself for the good of the herd.
I am 1000000% in support of pre race and post race testing of every single horse in every race if money was no option. I think 1-2 random
disagree; why randomly pick out a horse who ran 30m 7th etc? Only reason I can think of is to compare swabs of the same horse from prior/future races but specifics of this would be worthless eg time, money, technology post race swabs should be taken from every race in every meeting in Australia. I think guards should be placed on all horses in Group 1 races. I just think we need a better system overall. Since the testing labs can distinguish when substances no longer have an affect on a horse, I think that anyone returning a positive should get a fine - not loose their license like they may very well now for certain substances (personally I don't think anything should happen at all, no advantage was received, but I respect this country's drug free racing policy). I think if second samples come back clear, matters should be dropped immediately.
I'm putting a simley face on now
in case I came across too strong.
I dunno, I guess I look at this whole topic personally: I feel, what if I have tried to abide by the rules of Australian Harness Racing and heaven forbid return a swab for something? I could not think of a more devastating blow. A tarnished record, hurt pride, criticism from all and sundry - being labelled a drug cheat. And it might be something as silly as withdrawal times needing to be extended and me being the scapegoat for it
I felt I had a "near miss" in America - you can give bute up to 24 hours before a race over there. So at 28 - 30 hours out (I always gave myself a buffer to be sure) I gave the horse some bute paste. Now, my vet did not tell me to allow an extra 24 hours for paste as it is metabolised a little slower. Bear in mind, I had only every bought bute past off my vet - I didn't even have a bottle of the injectable stuff. What if I had gone over the allowable threshold and got a positive? The horse ended up winning and was tested - someone commented later on that day "hope that bute past is OK" and I was mortified of their answer when I asked why. I got my vet to ring her boss (the head vet who owned the practice) and he thought because I gave a little less than the normal amount (another 'safety' precaution because I was paranoid) I should be OK. I was, but I woke up sick every morning for 2 weeks worrying about it. It would have only been a fine, I'm not sure if I would have lost the race or not, but that's besides the point. I would have officially had a positive swab - I couldn't think of anything worse!