[QUOTE=Danno;20872]Fully respect your opinion Tony but I dont think the standard of proof has changed at all. Phil Coulson, a multi award winning trainer, ( a record some of our current "celebrity trainers" could only wish to emulate, never, ever, said , or confessed to the administartion of ANYTHING to Juniors Image.

The point I am making is that back in 1971 if you were charged with a drugs offence then it was one of administering a banned substance to a horse. The prosecutors had to prove to the required standard (balance of probability) that the defendant was the person responsible. In this case it was caffeine which was found in the horse's system. At that time the penalty carried disqualification for upto life. While this case was found proven to the required standard, many others were getting off as officials were unable to prove culpability. To counter this a new rule was invoked, (one of absolute liability where officials did not have to prove culpability, just that the horse raced with a prohibited substance). They couldn't prove where the horse got it from cos the horse couldn't tell them. But it was there.
As a trade off where culpability can't be proven the presenting to race rule is used carrying lighter penalties. (most jurisdictions have fines except NSW .
Where culpability can be proven the original administration charge is used carrying heavier penalties. Most jurisdictions use disqualification as a mandatory penalty here.