A reader posted me these thoughts:
"So if a trainers log book doesn't indicate they administered an injection ( it's a flawed honour system at best, and what trainer is dumb enough to record an injection administered outside of the rules ) and the trainer and stable representative obviously say they didn't administer an injection then despite the stewards observing an apparent post injection site then the trainer and stable hands evidence overrides the stewards observations? I note the stewards report doesn't offer any other explanation for the apparent needle mark"
The emboldened is my emphasis