Teecee I don't know where you live- sounds like your a kiwi -but Lance Justice stated in an interview on sky last night and his exact words were and i'll quote " an appeal has already been lodged and action will take place in the N.Z high court"" now I don't know your occupation and whether you are in a position to challenge this statement but I would assume that Lance Justice knows a little bit more about this subject than you. If you have any clue to this whole saga you would be aware that the issue is not what happened BEFORE the race but what persons came into contact with the horse AFTER the race. I'll let you into a little secret there is footage of the presentation that show several people ( NOT CONNECTED TO THE JUSTICE CAMP) making contact with the horse and there is very good legal advice to say that the chance of contamination occurring after the race are very strong ,and if this is proven then the charge of presenting a horse to race free of banned substance is dead.
TC, firstly I am happy to acknowledge I do not have all the ins and outs of Harness Racing in NZ. (apart from Auckland airport traveling thru to USA, never been there...)
And yes there are no 3 meter tall fences around any tracks in Australia that I have seen in 40 years of attending tracks here.
And yes I agree it is the Trainers job to protect the horse.
My point about it being easy to access a horse while even on the track (the streaker) accentuates the fact of how easy it is for a member of general public or another trainer, strapper, driver, owner to "pat" a horse before a race, it's not too likely, but it's undeniably possible.*
The last couple of years in Australia with Grand Circuit races security had been provided in many races and I see it as a good thing...
A good thing to see that no illegal happenings occur, it's good for the owners, the sport, the punters , the trainers , the horses.
That's really my point, when something like this is clearly a good thing why the hell isn't it done in NZ and more to the point the Inter bloody Dominion???
After all it is the ID, the NZ Cup, the Miracle Mile etc that gets media attention more than a maiden race in the country racing for $5,000, that's why these horses "at the expense of the maidens..." should have security.
If security was provided, this whole Smoken Up NZ ID issue and the damage it will have done throughout NZ and Australia to the sport would not have happened.
Denny, love your last post!
Denny... As far as what Lance Justice said on television, I am unaware but I standby my comment. I also have no doubt that an appeal will be lodged and good on him.
Some may say more for the lawyers and the NZ taxpayer as well as the industry coffers but I try to be more objective. But as a betting man, I like the chances of his pockets being lightened by much more than the $35,000 so far tallied judging by where others before him have ended up.
As for responding to the rest of your post, I simply refer you to the findings issued by the JCA and published at www.jca.org.nz and the statement of penalty published at www.hrnz.co.nz. Read these and find out what really happened.Then go and read Rules 1001, 1002 and 1004.
These are the rules allegedly breached. No Secrets there for you to let me into and the rest of us into.
I guess if the coverage shows a presentation then you will also notice in that coverage one L Justice while not in the coverage, one Smoken Up. Where is he?
Why is he not with his horse? Who is with his horse? What are they doing with his horse?
For the answers to these and any other questions and secrets you may have read the facts as presented, not only by the stewards but also those representing the accused and party.
If after this feel free to ask further questions and I shall try my very best as always to answer them to the best of my truthful and intellectual ability.
I noticed the amount of money the runners must pay to compete in these big races, I recall last nights Victoria Cup was about $ 2,500 acceptance fee and the ID final was about $10,000 acceptance fee. You would think these amounts should pay the security costs for the top graders
Teecee I am fully aware of the J.C.A findings and under their guidelines this was always going to be the result. My post was in reply to a thread that was crowing that it was all over , to which I knew it was far from being over . Once this all enters the court system it becomes a whole new ball game , the onus will go back to PROOF or LACK OFF not "well we know you didn't do but we're going to find you guilty anyway" As I pointed out in an earlier post if it is shown ( and it is) that people come into contact with the horse between the time the race finished and the time the swab was taken then there is a " reasonable doubt " that the horse was free off the substance prior to racing.
Denny..
I go back to a point made previously..
The rule under which Mr Justice was charged and found guilty was created at the creation of the Racing Act 2003. This Act came with the introduction of NZ Bill of Rights which meant that Racing had to have a separate and independent Judiciary as do other sports.
The charge is one of absolute liability. The prosecution only has to prove the presence of a substance in the horses system. For this the only evidence they need to produce is an analyst finding of the prohibited substance at or above the threshhold level.
This they have provided.
How it got there is no critical to their case.
Who put it there is not critical to their case.
When it got there is not critical to their case.
The rule is quite specific...it just has to be there.
If they thought that Mr Justice had any knowlwdge it is likely that he would have been charged with a much more serious offence.
The legality of the rule relating to the charge has been through the courts previously.
The High Court previously examined the rule as part of a previous appeal.
The High Court dismissed all appeals to it in regard to the absolute liability rules and their decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The High Court in NZ will not reconsider the evidence as already presented.
They will only consider a Judicial Review looking at the prcesses and procedures under which the original hearing was held.
Under the rules evidential appeals can only be referred to the Racing Appeals Tribunal.
If he wants to have the case reheard he will need to appeal to them. Not the High Court.
Also No appeal to a higher court is possible on the findings of the Racing Appeals Tribunal.
as per Racing Act 2003
Merry Xmas harness racing !! Long may you survive as the only truly honest form of racing hahahahahahahaha xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx