Reply With QuoteI am really glad that the truth has prevailed. I just hope all those who were so
quick to judge and condemn will now be as quick to apologise, but somehow I doubt it...
Luke McCarthy Appeal
For those who may now be feeling some level of shame over their comments about Luke on this & other Forums, no doubt he will be out at Menangle this afternoon should any of you have the cajones to man up & apologise.
For those that are not experiencing any such feelings...print out that which appears directly below, roll it into a cone shape and for the sake of ease of insertion may I suggest that you start with the pointy end?...as you go shove it up your backside.
Luke McCarthy Appeal
13 November 2012
Acting on the advice from its legal representatives, and based on the evidence of experts at a joint experts conference on 12 November 2012, Harness Racing NSW (HRNSW) did not contest today’s appeal of Mr Luke McCarthy.
Background:
On 1 February 2012 HRNSW was advised by the Australian Racing Forensic Laboratory (ARFL) that a urine sample taken from MACH WIPER on 9 December 2011 had recorded a level of boldenone in excess of the threshold prescribed by the Australian Harness Racing Rules.
Accordingly, on 10 February 2012, the "B" sample was sent to the Racing Laboratory of the Hong Kong Jockey Club (HKJC) whereby it was confirmed that the urine sample associated with MACH WIPER had a boldenone level in excess of the prescribed threshold.
HRNSW commenced an inquiry into these results based on the two (2) certificates provided by the individual laboratories and conducted hearings on 19 March, 26 April, 21 and 22 May 2012.
At the completion of the inquiry Mr Luke McCarthy was found guilty of an offence pursuant to Australian Harness Racing Rule 190. Mr McCarthy was issued with a penalty of nine (9) months disqualification.
On 30 May 2012, Mr McCarthy lodged an appeal against the decision of HRNSW. On 7 June 2012 Mr McCarthy was granted a stay of proceeding by the Racing Appeals Tribunal.
Facts:
Since the lodging of the appeal, Mr McCarthy's representatives tendered further evidence in relation to the defence of the charge. This included evidence from experts not only from within Australia but also overseas.
HRNSW also engaged the services of numerous experts during the appeal including those from both the ARFL and HKJC.
Mr McCarthy's experts submitted that there could be an increase in the level of boldenone in urine after collection due to a number of factors. As a result of these submissions, HKJC conducted a further re-analysis of the MACH WIPER "B" sample in late October 2012. The result of this test showed that for whatever reason there had been an increase in the level of boldenone detected.
The results of the re-analysis were in direct contrast with all the previously published scientific literature and previous experiments conducted. As such the HKJC conducted a number of further controlled analytical studies, which determined that for whatever reason there was on the evidence of their experiments a conversion of testosterone sulphate to boldenone sulphate.
As MACH WIPER is an entire it is expected that the urine sample would contain a high level of testosterone.
Given this evidence, HRNSW in its role as a prosecutor in the appeal sought a further re-analysis of the MACH WIPER "A" sample by the ARFL. ARFL subsequently reported that upon re-quantification the level of boldenone had increased.
Despite this evidence, and the many variables which could have contributed to these results a conference of experts was held on Monday 12 October 2012.
There were eight (8) experts present during the conference, four representing HRNSW and four representing Mr McCarthy. At the conclusion of this conference the experts signed a document outlining the agreed facts and the areas of agreement included:
(1)
The re-testing of both the A and B samples has demonstrated that Boldenone and/or its metabolites have been generated ex vivo within the A and B urine samples. The most likely explanation is enzymatic activity by microbial contamination.
(4)
The original readings of Boldenone from both samples can in no way be indicative of the Boldenone level in the urine sample from MACH WIPER at the time of collection after the race at Newcastle on 9 December 2011.
Given this expert report and acting on the advice from its legal counsel Dr Clifford Pannam QC, the Board of HRNSW constituted an immediate meeting at 5.30pm on Monday 12 November 2012.
It was resolved at that meeting, given the balance of the evidence; in particular the recent joint expert report, procedural fairness to Mr Luke McCarthy and the prospects of success at the appeal despite the Rules and the onus placed upon Mr McCarthy by them, HRNSW would not contest the appeal.
HRNSW acknowledges that this has been an extremely long process for both Mr Luke McCarthy and HRNSW, but for whatever reason the sample and associated level of boldenone increased outside of the horses system, which has not been seen in any other sample, including other samples taken from this horse.
It should be noted that the peculiarity of the science involving this particular sample is unique to this case and remains the first and only one of its kind Worldwide.
HRNSW will undertake a review of the analytical protocols and procedures from any laboratory that carries out anabolic analysis on its behalf in the future.
Harness Racing NSW (HRNSW) is the controlling body for harness racing in New South Wales with responsibility for commercial and regulatory management of the industry including 31 racing clubs across the State. HRNSW is headed by an industry-appointed Board of Directors and is independent of Government.
To arrange an interview or for further information please contact:
Name: Sam Nati
Position: Chief Executive
Phone: (02) 97226600
Email: snati@hrnsw.com.au
I am really glad that the truth has prevailed. I just hope all those who were so
quick to judge and condemn will now be as quick to apologise, but somehow I doubt it...
Ok so Luke McCarthy is innocent on the boldenone charge, well done Innocent Luke. I might (might not have either) said something after the guilty charge was given so I apologise, but was only going off what had happened.
But, I don't think this is the time for shoving it in peoples faces.
It just re-enforces testing is not 100% accurate and re-enforces that (maybe) some trainers are getting away with stuff day in out because the sad reality is testing is a step behind.
I have been reading this forum for a long time but have only just registered.
I have to say this is exactly why we ALL have the right of appeal - because not everyone gets it right the first time. And everyone should - instead of bagging people for taking up their right of appeal - be thankful that we have it because there may come a point in time where you will need to rely on it.
It was so unfortunate to see people label Luke McCarthy a cheat before the process had been finished - yes he may have been found guilty of presenting a horse to race with boldenone in its system (in the first instance), however cheat is such a harsh word, to me it denotes some kind of deliberate act and unless you knew of Luke administering boldenone - then what kind of right do you have to label him as a cheat? (Just my thoughts only though)
aussiebreno - what exactly do you mean by "well done Innocent Luke"? Good on him for standing up for what he knew was right and not laying down and taking the punishment they were trying to hand to him when he knew he had done nothing wrong?
Will they retest Barry Lews samples that were positive to same thing on same night at the same track? And if result the same as this, issue an apology?
Just pointing out he is innocent.Originally Posted by Toni
I read a little sarcasm in there and I do apologise if that wasnt the case.
Toohard - I doubt they would open up testing on a settled case, however, it might be a good idea if Barry Lew could get his samples re-tested himself and then hopefully clear his name. I dont know how costly this would be though?
I wonder if anyone knows the rules on re-opening a case? He might need some good evidence that wasnt readily available to him when his case was heard - in which case he might need to pay for the testing himself. And I dont suppose it would be cheap to apply to have the case re-opened.
What would be sufficient compensation do you think, considering he has already served his suspension? What would you want if that were you? Im not a trainer so I dont really know what I would expect to be fair.
Nope, innocent until proven guilty as I said before the boldenone positive, after the boldenone positive and up until he was found guilty. Which is now innocent!
I just hope this doesnt lead to people thinking they can now use it freely and then run the excuse that got Luke off.Im sure the other person who got done same time wont be happy but didnt he plead guilty.
Maybe its justice for those that can afford it and not for the rest.
Posting Permissions