Can I add one little snippet to the "COBALT PROBLEM"
since the substance's use/abuse has become more widely "known" and some folks have been put in the paddock for a while, ( all of whom assumed a "not guilty" stance) there has been any number of self proclaimed experts claiming "it" is in everything......well it almost is....problem for some people is its not in high enough concentrations to make a difference to a bees knee in the products that are commonly used in horse welfare/health.
If some one gets a reading near the levels that have been put in place, in "normal circumstances" ie; not the one in a million horse. it can be reasonably deduced that the average, run of he mill treatment program that horses subjected to high stress racing and training programs has been tweeked in a way that is not just abnormal, but is actually cheating the other participants in the game.....breeders, owners, trainers, drivers, punters, the overall welfare of harness racing and people who are just avid spectators all get DUDDED!
AND....there seems to be fewer high cobalt readings due to " mistakes" lately....?????? wonder what would happen if the current VERY easy to manage limits were tightened???
I have been silent on this issue for a long period of time as frankly I am disillusioned with the whole process, but Danno today finally I cannot contain my silence as what you have said today is totally incorrect in all cases and I only have intimate details of one case.
Firstly, not everyone has plead "Not Guilty" so that statement is totally incorrect. In the case I know the trainer never tried to plead guilty as he understood that he had presented the horse over the limit but what were the circumstances leading up to the horse racing.
The horse was received from another trainer two days before the race. The trainers first mistake was to nominate horse when he was not in possession of the horse. Naive, silly and perhaps even reckless but nothing in comparison to a drug conviction.
Something that really bothers me, is people believe that the line of HRNSW that 10mls for three consecutive days is an outrageous amount of supplements as per their Case Study is excessive. The horse that produced a positive swab received 600ml of supplements (Combined VAM, Hemoplex, Hemo-15 (200ml each)) over a 21 day period as testified by the previous trainer yet HRNSW maintained this was consistent with their testing regime.
Also HRNSW has done some testing on a horse that was with a previous cobalt convicted trainer and HRNSW actually tested this horse 2 time post it being given to a another trainer. The trainer requested the tests from HRNSW. Both times more than 3 weeks after receiving the horse the horse still tested over or around the 200ug/L. I spoke to that trainer and we prepared a stat dec for them to sign that the horse had not been treated with any more supplements but unfortunately to my dismay due to "personal reasons" he bailed out on signing and returning it.
From what I have seen there is way more to this issue than you think. I was shocked and disgusted by the attitude and cooperation of some people within the industry.
Finally I would like to add the trainer in question had about 10 swabs done previously and one other on the same day. The highest previously from memory was 17 and the other horse on the day 13. The only difference where the horse had been for the last month.
Adam, if you are going to tell me I'm incorrect you wanna start reading my posts, not what you want to read INTO it.
e.g. "Firstly, not everyone has plead "Not Guilty" so that statement is totally incorrect" please read " all of whom assumed a "not guilty" stance"....can you spot the difference now mate?
you state I'm "totally incorrect in all cases and I (meaning yourself) only have intimate details of one case" Adam if you are gunna have a shot at me you better get your ducks all in a row mate because you have massive holes and some incomprehensible "stuff" in your post.
Adam, I am aware of the case you mention and it is sad that this bloke got busted, I would like to consider the bloke a friend and I'm certain he has been a victim of circumstances, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is the rule says "present a horse" and for that he was guilty.
you seem to think HRNSW is getting all of this Cobalt issue wrong off a tiny bit of information, if that is the case I would encourage you to extend your reading on the subject, I am not a chemist however I have done considerable research on the subject, hence the comments I have made have not been rash and unmeasured.
I have heard on the grapevine that there is a "mystery horse" that keeps getting high Cobalt readings just standing around in the paddock, and this IS possible, just not in every second horse like some people would have us all believe, trust me Adam, there are no "fairies at the bottom of the garden"
Danno, you state
"since the substance's use/abuse has become more widely "known" and some folks have been put in the paddock for a while, ( all of whom assumed a "not guilty" stance)"
Seems pretty clear to me that you are suggesting that everyone has pleaded "Not Guilty" or are you just talking about the folks that pleaded "Not Guilty" Either way you have got your facts wrong or you have just written a comments that is ridiculously deceiving??
With regards to the case in general and the overall stance on prohibited substances, I say that every case should be assessed on its merits. For example a NSW harness racing trainer presented a horse in NSW in the last 18 months that tested positive to morphine. The test showed that the trainer in question has fed the horse with contaminated feed that he produced himself and got 0 months penalty. Surely as a fair and reasonable person you would concede that as being the person who fed and produced the feed he is more liable than a person that received a horse from another trainer that had administered a ridiculous amount (twice as much per day on average over 700% longer than HRNSW tests) of cobalt containing substances to the horse in the corresponding 21 days. The trainer in question had a 25 year unblemished record with regard controlled substances.
I am sorry I do not subscribe that theory that a few innocent men (Stupid but not a drug cheat) or at least one should pay the price to persecute the truly guilty.
Wow boydy easy to know what your insinuating by using that above example.
I think anyone who isn't clutching at straws can tell you the difference there, the first is a contaminated feed product which many a trainer has had positives for and gotten off on as what is picked up in a baler is far from most farmers control, unless you have the ole plough horse out and doing it by hand lol.
The other is a simple matter of an adminstered substance that the trainer has presented the horse to race with in its system, had the trainer given the horse a little more time in his barn than maybe he might not find himself in the position he is currently in but he didn't and bingo.
Dont think it takes much imagination to find a large difference in the 2 cases
Monique there is obviously a difference in the 2 cases but the comparison I am using is did the trainer know that the horse was being presented prohibited substance free? I may be cynic but if I cut my feed out of a paddock and if I do not go and inspect the paddock prior to the processing or even further I know there is a heap of poppies in my field and cut it anyway and I not liable. Apparently the rule is absolute so if I present my horse with a prohibited substance how can I attract zero penalty. I personally agree with this if it is an accident or not intentional. Therefore I use the comparison if you receive a horse from another trainer and it has an elevated prohibited substance reading from a substance that the substance has never been comprehensively tested even close to the manner admitted by the previous trainer than surely this must be considered. I reiterate 600ml of cobalt containing substance over 21 days vs 30ml over 3 days. Even a reasonable person must understand that the testing has been totally inadequate. The facts are that harness racing trainers do not have hundreds of thousands of dollars to test the horses (Need at least 5) to prove their innocence. I know you are involved in the industry and I would suggest to any trainer never race a horse until at least 3 weeks after receiving the horse no matter how credible.
Totally agree with the last 3 lines Adam and maybe the Authority's should implement that with a change of trainer and make it 28 days, Certainly have to be feeling for young friend and yes he is a victim of circumstances and getting back to the wording of some of your exchanges with Dan and I'm not taking sides but isn't a person or persons Innocent or Not Guilty until proven otherwise???
Last edited by Richard prior; 10-21-2015 at 09:40 PM.
Cant agree with you sorry as ive certainly checked paddocks before harvest and missed pockets of weeds that have popped up close to cut especially if that plant isn't one that grows as high as the crop your in, so yes I can easily see it as an unknown honest mistake.
I also cant see how either case is similar, it is still heresay that the horse came into the stable with the already elevated cobalt level, 2x very different cases and because I know the first case well I know why its mentioned and why your using it as an example but I really dont think its anything similar, why not use the cases such as those where thornapple have been found round stables and the trainers have got off exact same thing, one would argue if you had your horse out to graze you would clean your weeds up.
As for making it a 28day gap between getting a horse and racing it I feel thats ridiculous, thats a months training fees for sitting around, the majority of substances used tend to have a 7 day clearance (bute etc) at best and you dont often see trainers nominating new horses before that I presume for that very reason and if it were a substance like hormones etc that takes a long amount of time to leave the horses system and is barred then I would presume this would be looked upon as such in those circumstances