Originally Posted by
lethal
jamie,
yes it does, but i guess it shows what has been known for ages, that with the right backing (money/knowledge) then the rules, as (were/are) applicable at that (whenever) time can be easily manipulated.
[vvv] as i said, either the time frames or the testing regime or both are crap.
however, drenching and injecting rules have had non compliance and the result, just like presenting a horse to race with a detectable drug must, under these regulations have the trainer found guilty.
[vvv] true, however the point i am trying to make is that line of thinking would see the top 10-15-20 trainers in the us & can standing in line for the very same thing old mate lou charged with. there will of course be vet to vet variations in timeframes & substances used but they will all be doing the same sort of thing.
old mate may well have been way more blatant than most, in fact when you look at it he was nothing short of in your face in many instances, but he was/is by no means robinson crusoe. If he is the only trainer in all of ny state & nj that has timeframe violations in the vet records then i'll drop my pants in the pitt st. Mall at lunchtime of a friday and sing 'hey big spender' by shirley bassey.
to represent australian vets as only mirror images of james & siegfried (acg&s) would suggest that they really don't have a clue, when a bit of research might show most racing oriented ones just don't leave a paper trail.
[vvv] we're honestly not dealing with anything even approaching the same species of vet though lee.
by and large i've found that both australian and new zealand vets are infinitely more ethical, infinitely more heavily scrutinised by the respective national bodies/peers and so infinitely less willing to take a walk on the wild side than are their state side & canadian bretheren.
i could count the questionable/dodgy vets that i have met or that i know of or have heard about...on the fingers of 1 hand and have a finger or two left over.
Reply With Quote